Scale and nature of emissions from fisheries

Transcription

1 Scale and nature of emissions from fisheries Seas at Risk Climate and the Ocean Impact and Mitigation Challenges for Fishing and Shipping Brussels, 5th November 2008 Harald Ellingsen Department of Marine Technology Norwegian University of Science and Technology 1

2 Content of presentation Norway and fish Scale of the problem in Norway and international Fuel use for mixed fisheries with trend lines Premises for the different gear types Comparison with other food chains Some conclusions 2

3 Norway and fish 10. largest fishing nation 2. largest export nation 3.3 million tons in total (2,7 form fisheries, 0,6 from aquaculture) 95% exported 2,5 kg. per citizen per day if not exported Large potential for increased value added identified (new products, new industries, bio-technology etc.), but sustainability is a pre-requisite. 3

4 Fisheries and green house gas emissions Fisheries consumes 1,2% of the global oil consumption (Tyedmers et. al. 2005) Global energy subsidization (energy content of the fuel burned is 12,5 times the edible protein energy content of the resulting catch) (Tyedmers et. al. 2005) Fisheries consumes around 2,5% of the total oil consumption in Norway Norway struggle to meet several international agreements as Kyoto and Gothenburg Energy costs have increased strongly latest years resulting in financial challenges within several fleet segments 4

5 Fuel use calculations for various parts of the Norwegian fishing fleet 1980 to 2000: Fuel use for mixed fisheries calculated based on costs (data from the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries) and fuel price data from various sources to 2004: Fuel use based on direct data from the Directorate. Mass allocation is performed to derive specific consumption for fishing gear. LCS analyses performed to compare various food chains and find hot spots within food chains 5

6 Energy cost in percent of income various fleet groups (2006) Group Length [m] Main fishing tool Income [NOK] Energy [NOK] % Demersal fisheries ,9 Conventional , ,9 Conventional , ,9 Conventional , ,9 Conventional , Pelagic fisheries and above Larger Larger Larger 8 10, ,9 28 and above 8-12, ,35 21,36 27,49 Conventional Cod/shrimp trawlers (Processing) Cod/shrimp trawlers Cod trawlers Coastal shrimp trawlers Coastal shrimp trawlers Shrimp trawlers Coastal seining Coastal seining Coastal seining ,1 14,0 17,6 17,5 12,6 17,0 38,9 5,6 6,6 7, ,5 and above Purse seining/pelagic trawling , ,5 and above Purse seining/pelagic trawling including blue whiting , ,5 and above Pelagic trawlers Ice and bait production outside vessel are not included Calculations based on figures from the Directorate of the Fisheries ,3

7 Specific energy use Norwegian fisheries Fuel use coefficient [kg fuel/kg fish] Year A: Coastal gillnetting, jigging Linear (A) and Danish seining B: Coastal longlining Linear (B) C: Autolining Linear (C) D: Wet fish trawling Linear (D) E: Factory trawling Linear (E) 7 F: Purse seining Linear (F)

8 Catch rate and fuel use coefficient, factory trawling Catchrate [1000 kgfish/days at sea Fuel use coefficient [kgfuel/kgfish] Year Catch rate Fuel us e coefficient 8

9 Specific fuel consumption versus fuel price development (1998 NOK). Trend lines are plotted. 3,75 0,7 0,65 Fuel price [NOK / litre] 3,25 2,75 2,25 1,75 1,25 0, Year ,6 0,55 0,5 0,45 0,4 0,35 0,3 Fuel use coefficient [kg fuel/kg fish] Fuel prices Fuel use coefficient Linear (Fuel prices) Linear (Fuel use coefficient) 9 Source: Schaug et. al. (2008)

10 Calculated fuel use coefficients for selected fishing gears used in Norway for the years aggregated Gear type Pelagic trawl Gillnet Hook (hand line and trolling line) Longline (floating longline and autoline) Shrimp trawl Purse seine/ring seine Danish seine/round-fish trawl/ Flat fish trawl Trap (for various fish and crustaceans) Number of vessels Average [kg fuel/kg fish] Bottom trawl a Double trawl b a Includes industrial fish and blue whiting b Deepwater prawn (Pandalus borealis) in the years 2003 and 2004 only.

11 Catch delivered by trawling, gillnetting and Danish Seine throughout the year Sammenligning av fangst med: trål, garn og snurrevad Vekt [tonn] Trål Garn Snurrevad 11 0 jan mar mai jul sep nov jan mar mai jul sep nov jan mar mai jul sep nov jan mar mai jul sep nov jan mar mai jul sep

12 Cod - Norwegian catches (2004) 12

13 North Sea Herring Norwegian catches (2004) 13

14 Distribution of the Cod North of 62 N Total quota Less than tons Over tons Conventional fleet 72% Linear down to 67% 67% Trawlers 28% Linear up to 33% 33% 14

15 Risk level in fishing, aquaculture and agriculture Risk Risk Agriculture Aquaculture Fisheries in total Small vessels Fatalaties per man year Coastal vessels Deep sea fishing Industry Aasjord, SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture 15

16 Comparison of fuel use coefficient in various international fisheries Figures refers to round fish or crustaceans converted to [kg/kg] Fishery (home base or location) Fuel use coef. [kg fuel/kg fish] a Source Purse seining for capelin (Iceland) 0.02 Ágústsson et al.1978 Purse seining for small pelagics (North Atlantic) 0.04 Tyedmers 2001 Purse seining (Norway) 0.09 Schau et. al Trawling for small pelagics (North Atlantic) Trawling for groundfish (North Atlantic) Trawling for codfish (Denmark) Bottom trawling for flatfish (Denmark) Trawling for groundfish (Iceland) Trawling for shrimp (North Atlantic) Trawling for Norway lobster (North Atlantic) Longlining for groundfish (North Atlantic) Longlining for groundfish (Norway) Gillnetting for codfish (Denmark) Tyedmers 2001 Tyedmers 2001 Thrane 2004 Thrane 2004 Eyjólfsdóttir 2003 Tyedmers 2001 Tyedmers 2001 Tyedmers 2001 Schau et. al Trane 2004 Gillnetting for groundfish (North Atlantic) 0.53 Tyedmers 2001 Gillnetting for groundfish (Norway) 0.19 Schau et. al Trapping crabs (North Atlantic) Trapping (Mixed fish and crustaceans) (Norway) Tyedmers 2001 Schau et. al. 2008

17 A cradle to grave perspective is needed in order to compare the end product 17

18 The production phase is often the hot spot Cod fillet, weighted, Eco-ind.99 (H)/ H/A 9,00E-02 Pt 8,00E-02 7,00E-02 6,00E-02 5,00E-02 4,00E-02 3,00E-02 2,00E-02 1,00E-02 0,00E+00 Gadoid fillet prod., factory trawler Transport to wholesaler Transport to retailer Transport to consumer Fossil fuels Minerals Acidification/ Eutrophication Ecotoxicity Ozone layer Climate change Resp. inorganics Resp. organics Carcinogens 18 Source: Elingsen and Aanondsen, 2007

19 CO2-emissions from production of 1kg salmon fillet based on various feed drying methods and transport distances Drying method fish feed Heavy oil Food chain from raw material to final destination Slaughtery CO 2 -ekv./ kg product 2,4 Customer in South Norway CO 2 -ekv./ kg product 2,7 Customer in Paris CO 2 -ekv./ kg product 3,0 Natural gas 2,2 2,6 2,9 19 Source: Olaussen et. al. 2008

20 CO2 emissions for various food chains Product CO2 ekv/kg Comments Source Meat (pig) Meat (cattle) Chicken Farmed trout Cod, wild caught Salmon Chicken 6,4 15,8 4,6 4,1 4,5 2,8 3,2 4,2 Ca 2,0 Mainly methan (from rumination) and laughing gas (from feed production). CO2 from slaughtering, warehousing and transport. Troat flilet, Denmark, land based. Frosen from the slaughterhouse. Troat flilet, Denmark, land based. Frozen in the store. Fresh fillet in the store Frozen filet in the store Fillet, Canada, sea based (adjusted based on figures for round fish) Round weight, USA Fremtiden i våre hender, 2008 LCA in Foods Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2007 Jones et. al Chicken 4,6 Round weight, England Williams et. al Salmon 3,0 Sea farming Norway, transport to Paris included Olaussen et. al. 2008

21 Conclusions Passive gear in general more energy efficient than active gear as bottom trawling Pelagic trawling, purse seining and Danish seine are energy efficient Small vessels are energy efficient, but dangerous working places Premises differ between the fleet groups and care should be taken when comparisons are done Cheep energy do not motivate for energy efficiency Most of the fuel is spent during the fishing phase Further work in progress with respect to compare CO2 footprints from various food chains. Other impacts as bottom effects, ghost fishing etc. should be looked into 21