Elsevier

Fisheries Research

Volume 236, April 2021, 105850
Fisheries Research

The environmental impacts of pelagic fish caught by Scottish vessels

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105850Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Over 92 % of the contribution to all impact categories is attributable to the burning of fuel when fishing.

  • Though inter vessel fluctuations were seen, fleet wide impact was seen to be stable over the study period.

  • Scottish caught pelagic fish have low carbon footprints when compared to both aquatic and terrestrial meats.

Abstract

Food production is estimated to emit between 20–30 % of global anthropogenic carbon emissions. The need to achieve net zero emissions requires a transition to low carbon, sustainable food sources. Of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for food production, only 4 % are attributed to wild capture fisheries. However, within seafood GHG studies a wide range of estimates can be found across different species, fishing methods and regions. This study assesses the environmental impact of fish capture, including the carbon footprint (CF), by the Scottish pelagic fleet, a highly modernised fleet targeting herring, mackerel and blue whiting in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was undertaken to provide a standardised comparison of pelagic fish with other seafood studies. One kg of whole round fish caught by the Scottish pelagic trawl fleet had a CF of 0.452 kg CO2 eq. Fuel burned during fishing operations was the largest contributing factor, accounting for approximately 96% of a CF. This figure was consistent with the expected results for a fishery for small pelagics, which are typically under 1 kg CO2 eq. per kg of whole fish landed. When contrasted with other seafood LCAs, the results were found to be lower than most other seafood. Our results demonstrate that Scottish-caught pelagic fish are a low carbon food source that could contribute to minimising food-related GHG emissions.

Introduction

The direct effects of climate change are already apparent, e.g. crop failures due to adverse weather conditions (Lizumi and Ramankutty, 2015), increasing sea levels (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010), species distribution shifts (Dulvy et al., 2008) and pollinator decline (Kerr et al., 2015). The need to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C has become a worldwide imperative (IPCC, 2018). This has resulted in growing scientific and political pressure to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in an effort to mitigate the adverse effects and keep the net warming of the planet below 1.5 C° (UN, 2018). Consequently, there has been international co-ordination to meet this goal, as is evident from recent large-scale international pledges and agreements to mitigate emissions, such as the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015).

Food-related GHG emissions are responsible for approximately 20–30 % of all anthropogenic global GHG emissions, with 14.5 % attributed to livestock alone (Garnett et al., 2016). As a result, there is growing interest in identifying climate smart food production (Klytchnikova et al., 2015) and a desire to quantify and reduce GHG emissions related to agriculture, fishing and aquaculture (Audsley et al., 2009; Garnett, 2011; Smith et al., 2013). GHG emissions are estimated by life cycle assessment (LCA) (Avadí and Fréon, 2013; Garnett, 2014; Nijdam et al., 2012), whereby standardised techniques are used to estimate the climate-related and environmental impacts of a system or product, and to identify the main contributing factors. This standardised approach allows for greater comparability of the environmental impacts of different food products and helps to identify strategic options for food policy and for working towards the goal of net zero carbon emissions.

An important food source worldwide, seafood from both wild capture fisheries and aquaculture accounts for approximately 17 % of the global population’s dietary animal protein intake (FAO, 2018). For over two fifths of the world’s population this figure increases to 20 % of dietary animal protein intake (FAO, 2018). Improving fishing technology, such as the use of sonar to locate fish schools as well as improvements in fishing gear and engine design, has resulted in increasing quantities of seafood being harvested with decreasing effort and reduced danger to those involved. This expansion has not come without its own problems (e.g. the collapse of commercial fisheries, Myers et al., 1997), resulting in changes in the behaviour of apex predators (Estes et al., 1998), and extreme ecosystem shifts caused by the collapse of a food web (Pandolfi, 2005). As such, there are now safeguards in many countries to minimise the negative impacts of fishing and create sustainable and well managed fish stocks and stable marine environments (for example, national and international fishing quotas, no-take zones).

However, as the population continues to increase there is growing pressure on fisheries and all other food systems to continue to meet demand (Garcia and Rosenberg, 2010; Godfray et al., 2010). Given the projected population growth by 2050 and the commitment to meeting the UN sustainable development goals (UN, 2019), strategies for climate smart food systems need to be identified and developed. Climate smart food systems are those which meet the following criteria: they are either carbon neutral or relatively low in GHG emissions, they are resilient against climate change and extreme weather events and they have the ability to be sustainably increased to meet growing demand (World Bank Group, 2015).

The contribution of marine and freshwater food production systems to a nation’s carbon footprint (CF) has been historically overlooked in global and national estimates. However, aquatic systems are now the focus of interest for many studies seeking to quantify the CF and other environmental impacts of various seafood products worldwide (Hilborn et al., 2018). A recent review by Parker et al. (2018) concluded that only 4 % of emissions from global food production can be attributed to fisheries. This is in sharp contrast to approximately 60 % of emissions from livestock (Garnett et al., 2016) though it should also be noted that considerably more terrestrial meat is eaten than fish worldwide. These comparisons highlight the importance of wild capture fisheries for contributing to climate smart food production. Considerable variation is observed between different fisheries, with fish species, fishing method, and region all known to have an effect on the CF of a particular species (Hilborn et al., 2018; Parker et al., 2018). Currently, there is a basic need for region-specific CF data for the most commercial fisheries.

LCA is the widely accepted methodology used to quantify the full environmental effects of seafood production from cradle (beginning of life cycle) to grave (disposal or recycling), or any subset within. Interest in LCA and carbon profiling in the seafood industry began in the late 1990s and early 2000s (e.g. Thrane, 2004; Ziegler et al., 2003). In the early years a lack of standardisation resulted in considerable variation in methodologies which made cross-comparison between studies difficult. Since then, the publication of the International Standard series 14000, e.g. 14,040 and 14044, (International Organisation for Standardisation, 2006a, b), specific guidelines (BSI, 2012), as well as general agreement within the scientific community has helped to Improve the issue of comparability. Two components of comparability are those of consistent system boundaries (the aspects of the product life cycle included in the assessment) and allocation (the term used for the partitioning of environmental impacts between products and co-products). Current approaches in LCA allow specific comparisons to be facilitated by using consistent system boundaries and offering guidelines towards details such as the issue of allocating emissions between co-products. There are two general types of LCA: attributional LCA (ALCA) and consequential LCA (CLCA). ALCAs are the most common and report a system’s impacts at a given point in time, whereas CLCA explores possible changes in a system which may potentially alter impacts.

LCAs that have previously been undertaken for modern fisheries generally indicate that the capture process is the single most significant factor contributing to emissions over a product’s entire lifespan (Avadí and Fréon, 2013; Hilborn et al., 2018), though its significance varies from fishery to fishery (Ziegler and Valentinsson, 2008). This variation is strongly related to the use of fuel during fishing (Hospido and Tyedmers, 2005; Parker et al., 2018) and general fishing efficiency (Ziegler and Valentinsson, 2008). Because of the importance of fuel economy on the GHG emission rate, influencing factors (such as the fishing method) can also have a large effect on a fishery’s CF and other environmental impacts (Thrane, 2004; Tyedmers, 2000; Tyedmers et al., 2005; Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2010). Other studies have identified refrigeration leakage as also being of significance, particularly in the category of CF or Global Warming Potential (GWP) as it is often referred to in LCA papers (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2010; Ziegler et al., 2011). The link between fuel usage and fishing efficiency also can be credited with the connection between environmental impacts and fishing method. Several studies have highlighted that efficiencies in catch rate vary across fisheries and gear types (Madin, 2015; Parker and Tyedmers, 2014). In some cases these can vary markedly even between geographically close regions (Iribarren et al., 2011; Ramos et al., 2011).

Small pelagic fisheries are generally considered to be one of the lowest impact fisheries, with purse seining often highlighted as being the most fuel efficient fishing method (Hilborn et al., 2018; Parker et al., 2018; Parker and Tyedmers, 2014). The pelagic mid-water trawl fishing method is more variable with some studies estimating it to be twice as high in terms of fuel burned per tonne of fish landed compared to purse seining (Parker and Tyedmers, 2014) although other studies having found it to be comparable (Jafarzadeh et al., 2016; Schau et al., 2009). Bottom trawling is found to be one of the most fuel intensive fishing methods (Schau et al., 2009; Winther et al., 2009), up to five times less efficient than purse seining in some instances. Crustacean fisheries are reported to have the highest GHG emissions documented to date (Parker et al., 2018).

Scottish vessels catch approximately 65 % of total fish caught in the UK (MMO, 2017). The largest and most valuable industry sector is the pelagic sector, making up 64 % of all Scottish landed fish, with a value of £202 million in 2018 (Scottish Government, 2019b). The Scottish pelagic fleet is comprised of modern, large, refrigerated seawater pelagic trawl vessels and purse seiners. These vessels target primarily Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) and blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou). These are landed at processing plants in Scotland, Norway, Denmark and Ireland and the products are sold worldwide almost exclusively for human consumption. Of the four major fisheries targeted by the Scottish pelagic fleet (North East Atlantic mackerel, North Sea herring, Atlanto-Scandian herring and North East Atlantic blue whiting) all but Atlantic mackerel currently have MSC certification (MSC, 2020a, b; MSC, 2020c, d), and are harvested at or below maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level as per ICES guidance (European Comission, 2019). The mackerel fishery, however, had its MSC status suspended in March 2019 (along with all other fisheries for the North East Atlantic mackerel stock), due to reputed overharvesting (Ramsden, 2019).

Despite the importance of Scottish pelagic fisheries to the UK and their role as a worldwide producer of pelagic fish, there is little region-specific data describing the contributions of Scottish-caught pelagic fish towards country-specific and global GHG emissions, or other climate related environmental impacts. Furthermore, given the government’s commitment to reaching net zero carbon emissions (Scottish Government, 2019a) there is strong incentive for the industry to quantify the environmental impacts of Scottish caught pelagic fish and how it can contribute to achieving the goal of net zero carbon.

This study aims to quantify the environmental impacts of Scottish caught pelagic fish using ALCA. In order to do this it will: i) identify the main contributing factors causing the impacts; ii) estimate temporal and inter-vessel variability; and iii) determine how the environmental impacts compare to other seafood LCA studies.

Section snippets

Methods

The Scottish pelagic fleet is made up of 22 vessels, predominantly pelagic trawl vessels ranging from 44 to 79.8 m in length. Three vessels use both the pelagic trawl and purse seining method to target different fisheries. Of the 22 fleet vessels, 50 % of the fleet participated in this study (n = 11). This sample contained vessels from two out of three home ports (72 % Shetland and 27 % Peterhead). As Fraserburgh vessels are geographically close to Peterhead and known to follow similar fishing

Results

The results of each of the selected impact categories used in the LCA analysis for the study fleet are shown in Table 2. Each impact category is displayed in its own units relative to a kilogram of whole fish landed. The accumulative CF (here the GWP) was 0.452 kg CO2 eq. per kilogram of whole fish landed for the Scottish pelagic fleet.

The LCA component analysis (Fig. 2) indicates that the single biggest contributing factor to GWP, and all other impact categories investigated, is the use of

LCA component analysis

Fuel usage was the largest contributing factor in all impact categories, consistent with other studies (Avadí and Fréon, 2013; Parker, 2012; Parker et al., 2018). Fuel was consistently >92 % of the contribution to any impact category. In GWP it contributed ∼96 % of the overall impact. Earlier studies have found refrigeration to be a large contributor to environmental impacts (Iribarren et al., 2011; Winther et al., 2009), particularly GWP. However, our study found the assumed leakage rate to

Conclusion

Using standardised methodology for quantifying impacts (ACLA) this study has found Scottish-caught pelagic fish (herring, mackerel and blue whiting) to have a low CF and environmental impact when compared to other similar seafood including farmed salmon, demersal fish and shellfish. Given that seafood products generally have a low CF in comparison to other animal proteins (Garnett et al., 2016; Parker et al., 2018), Scottish-caught pelagic fish can be considered a climate smart, low carbon food

Funding

This research was undertaken as part of PhD studies and funded by the following institutions: Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group, Shetland Islands Council, University of Aberdeen, University of the Highlands and Islands, Shetland Fish Producers’ Organisation.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Frances Sandison: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Project administration. Jon Hillier: Conceptualization. Astley Hastings: Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Paul Macdonald: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition. Beth Mouat: Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition. C. Tara Marshall: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition,

Declaration of Competing Interest

This work was undertaken as part of PhD studies and funded by the following institutions: Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group, Shetland Islands Council, University of Aberdeen, University of the Highlands and Islands, Shetland Fish Producers’ Organisation.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all industry stakeholders that provided information for this study, and give special thanks to Steve Mackinson and Ian Gatt (Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association) for their advice and support. We are grateful to Dr. F. Ziegler and another anonymous reviewer for their detailed and constructive critiques.

References (70)

  • L. Ruttan et al.

    Skippers, spotters and seiners: analysis of the “skipper effect” in US menhaden (Brevoortia spp.) purse-seine fisheries

    Fish. Res.

    (2007)
  • E.M. Schau et al.

    Energy consumption in the Norwegian fisheries. The Sustainability of Seafood Production and Consumption

    J. Clean. Product.

    (2009)
  • I. Vázquez-Rowe et al.

    Life cycle assessment of horse mackerel fisheries in Galicia (NW Spain): comparative analysis of two major fishing methods

    Fish. Res.

    (2010)
  • I. Vázquez-Rowe et al.

    Best practices in life cycle assessment implementation in fisheries. Improving and broadening environmental assessment for seafood production systems. Special Section

    Food Integr. Traceab.

    (2012)
  • K.E. Abernethy et al.

    Fuelling the decline in UK fishing communities?

    Ices J. Mar. Sci.

    (2010)
  • E. Audsley et al.
  • BSI

    PAS 2050-2:2012, Assessment of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Suplimentary Requirements for the Application of PAS 2050:2011 to Seafood and Other Aquatic Food Products

    (2012)
  • N.K. Dulvy et al.

    Climate change and deepening of the North Sea fish assemblage: a biotic indicator of warming seas

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (2008)
  • J.A. Estes et al.

    Killer whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems

    Science.

    (1998)
  • EU

    Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European parliament and of the council official journal of the European Union

    On Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer

    (2000)
  • EU

    Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council Official Journal of the European Union L286

    (2009)
  • European Comission
  • FAO

    Yield and Nutritional Value of the Commercially More Important Fish Species

    (1989)
  • FAO

    The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 - Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals

    (2018)
  • S.M. Garcia et al.

    Food security and marine capture fisheries: characteristics, trends, drivers and future perspectives

    Philos. Trans. Biol. Sci.

    (2010)
  • T. Garnett et al.

    Food Systems and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Foodsource: Chapters)

    (2016)
  • H.C.J. Godfray et al.

    Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people

    Science

    (2010)
  • J.B.G. Guinée et al.

    Part III: scientific background

  • R. Hilborn et al.

    The environmental cost of animal source foods

    Front. Ecol. Environ.

    (2018)
  • International Organisation for Standardisation

    Environemental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines

    (2006)
  • International Organisation for Standardisation

    Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework

    (2006)
  • IPCC

    Summary for policymakers of ipcc special report on global warming of 1 5c approved by governments.

  • J.T. Kerr et al.

    Climate change impacts on bumblebees converge across continents

    Science.

    (2015)
  • I.I.S. Klytchnikova et al.

    Future of food: shaping a climate-smart global food system

  • T.A. Lizumi et al.

    How do weather and climate influence cropping area and intensity?

    Glob. Food Sec.

    (2015)
  • Cited by (20)

    • Environmental performance of Cantabrian (Northern Spain) pelagic fisheries: Assessment of purse seine and minor art fleets under a life cycle approach

      2023, Science of the Total Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Table 7 shows some references from literature. Jafarzadeh et al. (2016) reported a value of 0.35 kg fuel/kg small pelagic landed using trawls, in addition to a consumption of only 0.05 kg fuel/kg fish landed by coastal seine methods, in opposite with the findings of (Sandison et al., 2021) and (Furuya et al., 2011), who obtained a FUI of 0.04 and 0.08 using trawls for the capture of pelagic species. In the Avadí and Fréon (2013) review the kg fuel/kg of small pelagic fish with purse seine was equal to 0.07.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text