Climate change implications

Food production plays an unequivocal role in global GHG emissions (Garnett, 2008; Smith et al., 2014; Steinfeld et al., 2006), and dietary choices have a clear influence on the environmental impact of the food sector (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998; Sonesson

different food systems and products be identified and communicated clearly to consumers and other stakeholders. Emissions from agriculture and livestock production receive much attention in the literature, while seafood is often excluded from assessments beyond individual LCAs, or is grossly generalized. Foley et al. (2011), for example, assessed the environmental impacts of global food production to feed a growing population, but did not consider fisheries. Similarly, a recent report on dietary influences on emissions by Wellesley et al. (2015) examined the GHG

implications of increased meat production and meat-heavy diets, but did not discuss the relative impact of seafood or present any indication of emissions from fisheries. Even the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include very little consideration of the fishing industry, providing a small amount of general information within a larger discussion of agriculture (Smith et al., 2014). By synthesizing the large breadth of data from energy use studies and LCAs and producing scaled up global estimates of GHG emissions from the fishing industry, this thesis allows for accessible estimates to informs assessments of the industry relative to wider food production systems, alternative animal protein sources, and emission reduction goals.

When weighted by global volume of landings, landed fish in 2011 had a carbon footprint of 2.1 kg CO2-eq per kg. Emissions from fisheries at the point of landing are similar to reported emissions from production of farmed salmonids and chicken, and lower than those from production of beef and pork (Figure 2.2, page 40). Fisheries have previously been reported as low-impact in terms of both GHG emissions (Sonesson et al., 2010) and relative energy return on investment (Tyedmers and Parker, 2012; Tyedmers et al., 2005). In Chapter Three, I demonstrated that fisheries

contributed relatively little towards the total emissions of global food production. This does not equate to an insignificant finding, but rather it indicates that the industry as a whole is a relatively low-carbon source of animal protein, and that large sectors of the industry have the potential to produce protein far more efficiently than other sources and should be recognized for their low impact. While fisheries on average contribute relatively little to climate change, the variation in fuel use and GHG emissions between fleets means that certain fisheries and their resulting products are as carbon- intensive as beef and lamb production. This is particularly evident in Australia, where a relatively large portion of GVP comes from crustacean fisheries (Parker et al., 2015a).

I tracked trends in global GHG emissions over two decades in Chapter Three, and found an increase in total emissions by just under 30% between 1990 and 2011. While this still accounts for a small percentage of global emissions, it is important in the context that fisheries—like all food production systems—need to reduce their GHG intensity, and clearly any efforts to achieve this have not been successful on a global scale. The modest decreases observed in some fleets in recent years have been outweighed by higher production from carbon-intensive fisheries. Failures of the industry to contribute to national and global emission reduction efforts could

overshadow the low-carbon image that many fish products achieve when compared to other sources of animal protein.

Importantly, the research here only followed fisheries to the point of landing. This was done because of the recognized importance of the fishing stage in terms of energy

complete assessments of GHG emissions from individual fisheries and their products are achieved using LCA, and are particularly important for those circumstances where fuel is not the primary driver of GHGs: when products are sourced from low-input fisheries (Buchspies et al., 2011), include high-impact added ingredients (Svanes et al., 2011), are packaged in intensive materials such as aluminum cans (Hospido et al., 2006), or are transported by air (van Putten et al., in press). There is particular need for LCA work to be carried out in seafood supply chains in developing countries, where both fuel use and emissions data are lacking, and where a large portion of global production occurs. In addition, further exploration of waste along seafood supply chains as a driver of inefficiency (Gustavsson et al., 2011), as well as variable impacts from cooking and preparation of fish, is needed. Broad-scale data on seafood waste and product transport, combined with emissions from fuel use presented here, could produce reasonable estimates of fishery product GHGs up to the point of sale, and thus provide a useful indicator of environmental impact to consumers.

The contribution of this thesis to the understanding of GHG emissions from global food production pertains only to wild-capture fisheries. Aquaculture was excluded from all analyses. Aquaculture production systems are expected to be the source of any substantial increase in global seafood production, as most commercially viable capture fisheries are fully exploited and global output has not grown in the past two decades (FAO, 2013). Similar to fisheries, a large volume of work has been

undertaken to measure and characterize the GHG emissions of culture systems (Henriksson et al., 2013). The focus of this work has largely been on production of Atlantic salmon and Rainbow trout, and—as with fisheries—has been undertaken largely in Europe and North America (Ayer and Tyedmers, 2009; Aubin et al., 2009;

Grönroos et al., 2006; Pelletier et al., 2009). There is a need for future research to scale this work up to the global industry and come to conclusions as to the role the aquaculture industry plays in feeding a growing global population sustainably. In particular, what are the GHG implications of the doubling of aquaculture production suggested by Waite et al. (2014) to meet the global demand for fish in 2050? With the established understanding of GHG emissions from livestock production, research on emissions from global aquaculture production combined with the research undertaken here on fisheries would together produce a much more complete picture of the

contribution of animal protein production to climate change.