Green Economy in a Blue World-Full Report

3.2 Aquaculture growth and development

areas of reform and could provide opportunities for fisherfolk though participation in ecosystem services markets (including carbon markets) as well as benefitting from ‘green technology’ efficiency gains. In fishing in general, energy use and carbon emissions are closely related because of the common use of fossil fuels. The fishing gear and its design, which is related to the biology of the target species, is the main factor determining energy consumption per kilogram of fish landed. Active demersal fishing gears (dredging and bottom trawling) are energy-intensive fishing methods, while passive fishing gears, such as hook and line, gill nets, or traps, require less energy. Mid-water pelagic fishing also tends to be less fuel consuming than fishing the sea bed (Ziegler, 2009; World Bank, FAO & WorldFish Centre, 2010). Carbon emissions are also generated from onboard and onshore cooling systems and from transportation of fish (Ziegler, 2009). The distance travelled between fishing grounds and ports also influence the amount of fuel used and as many fish stocks have declined due to overfishing, fishing vessels often travel further and search longer for the same amount of fish (Tyedmers, 2004; World Bank, FAO & WorldFish Centre, 2010; Suuronen, et al., 2012). The fuel consumption of fishing fleets also increased due to the growing number of powerful fishing vessels, introduced from the 1950s to the millennium (Tyedmers, et al., 2005). Construction of large vessels has since slowed (Cochrane & Garcia, 2009) but overall fleet capacity remains too high (see above). Coupled with rising fuel prices, fuel hence continues to be a major cost and this has triggered research on and development of various energy saving technologies contained in the concept of Low Impact and Fuel Efficient (LIFE) Fishing. “LIFE fishing addresses the complex dynamic of energy consumption and environmental impacts with the objective of improving the economic viability and environmental sustainability of fishing operations.” (Suuronen, et al., 2012) Small-scale fisheries more often use passive gear and would hence be likely to be more fuel efficient than the large-scale sector. However, due to the great diversity of the subsector, this is not a firm rule. Non-motorized vessels continue to be an important part of the sector (see box on page 17), particularly though in inland fisheries. Still, also in small-scale fisheries of developing countries, fuel tends to constitute an important part of overall operational costs and the volatility of fuel prices is of particular concern in this respect (World Bank, FAO & WorldFish Centre, 2010). Reducing fuel consumption would hence be doubly beneficial – contributing to both environmental and socioeconomic sustainability.

in a Blue World

The productionof food fish fromthe aquaculture sector as a whole has grown by an average of 8.3 per cent during the period 1970-2008. Aquaculture using seawater – in ponds and in the sea – accounts for close to a third of the total production quantity and value. Many high- value finfish, crustaceans and mollusc species (abalone, oysters, mussels, clams, cockles and scallops) are produced in marine aquaculture. With markets for seafood and other marine products expanding, well-managed coastal aquaculture and mariculture continue to offer significant scope for green growth and production of animal-source foods produced at lower levels of CO 2 emissions in comparison to mostmeat andpoultry production systems (Hall, et al ., 2011). Aquaculture can also contribute positively to environmental rehabilitation and mitigating negative impacts of other industries and activities at the same time as offering alternative and supplementary employment opportunities for coastal communities but careful planning and good management are required (FAO, 2010; FAO, 2011b). Innovative aquaculture production systems, including greater use of environmentally friendly feeds and reduced energy use, are also needed. At the same time as responsible aquaculture can generate important environmental benefits, such as “recovery of depleted wild stocks, preservation of wetlands, desalinization of sodic lands, pest control, weed control, and agricultural and human waste treatment” (p. 33, FAO, 2011c), some forms of aquaculture add environmental pressures on already suffering ecosystems. These negative environmental effects include habitat destruction, effluent discharge, disease and escapes, and high use of fishmeal and oil in feeds (FAO, 2011c). Feed is key in aquaculture production and development and the growth of carnivorous-high value fish aquaculture has an explicit impact on wild fisheries. In 2006, the shares of fishmeal and fish oil that were utilized in aquaculture production were 57 per cent and 87 per cent, respectively (FAO, 2011c). If the dependency on fishmeal and fish oil were reduced, important gains could be made with regard to profitability, environmental impact as well as food and nutrition security. This will require innovations both in technologies and management. The already high costs and increasing supply limits associated with fishmeal and fish oil are likely to continue driving the trend of using crops (in particular soybean meal) as a substitute. There are also concerns that increased use of trash fish as feed in aquaculture may divert food fish from poor population groups. The situation is

25