Inclusive environmental performance through ‘beyond-farm’ aquaculture governance

Bush, Simon R.; Oosterveer, Peter; Bottema, Mariska J.M.; Meuwissen, M.P.M.; Mey, Yann de; Chamsai, Sawitree; Lien, Ho Hong; Chadag, M.

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.09.013

Cited by 30 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Certification and improvement projects can help to reduce ecosystem impacts 66 , but have been criticized for passive exclusion of small-scale producers. Moving towards best practices such as state-led, national certification schemes and area-based approaches will therefore be key 67 . Finally, the finance sector can help to steer the sector towards sustainability through strategic investments 68 .…”

Section: Emissions and Biodiversity Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental performance of blue foods

Gephart

Henriksson

Parker

et al. 2021

Nature

369

177

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fish and other aquatic foods (blue foods) present an opportunity for more sustainable diets 1,2 . Yet comprehensive comparison has been limited due to sparse inclusion of blue foods in environmental impact studies 3,4 relative to the vast diversity of production 5 . Here we provide standardized estimates of greenhouse gas, nitrogen, phosphorus, freshwater and land stressors for species groups covering nearly three quarters of global production. We find that across all blue foods, farmed bivalves and seaweeds generate the lowest stressors. Capture fisheries predominantly generate greenhouse gas emissions, with small pelagic fishes generating lower emissions than all fed aquaculture, but flatfish and crustaceans generating the highest. Among farmed finfish and crustaceans, silver and bighead carps have the lowest greenhouse gas, nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, but highest water use, while farmed salmon and trout use the least land and water. Finally, we model intervention scenarios and find improving feed conversion ratios reduces stressors across all fed groups, increasing fish yield reduces land and water use by up to half, and optimizing gears reduces capture fishery emissions by more than half for some groups. Collectively, our analysis identifies high-performing blue foods, highlights opportunities to improve environmental performance, advances data-poor environmental assessments, and informs sustainable diets.The food system is a major driver of environmental change, emitting a quarter of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, occupying half of all ice-free land, and responsible for three quarters of global consumptive water use and eutrophication 3,6 . Yet, it still fails to meet global nutrition needs 7 , with 820 million people lacking sufficient food 8 and with one in three people globally overweight or obese 9 . As a critical source of nutrition 8,10 generating relatively low average environmental pressures 1,2,11,12 , blue foods present an opportunity to improve nutrition with lower environmental burdens, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals to improve nutrition (Goal 2), ensure sustainable consumption and production (Goal 12), and sustainably use marine resources (Goal 14).Blue foods, however, are underrepresented in food system environmental assessments 13 and the stressors considered are limited 4 such that we have some understanding of GHG emissions 14,15 , but less of others such as land or freshwater use 16 . Where blue foods are included, they are typically represented by only one or a few broad categories (see, for example, refs. 3,17,18), masking the vast diversity within blue food production. Finally, estimates combining results of published life cycle assessments undertaken for different purposes, and consequently using incompatible methodologies 19,20 , cannot be compared reliably. It is therefore critical to examine the environmental performance across the diversity of blue foods in a robust, methodologically consistent manner to serve as a benchmark within the rapidly evolving se...

show abstract

Section: Emissions and Biodiversity Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental performance of blue foods

Gephart

Henriksson

Parker

et al. 2021

Nature

369

177

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At a global level aquaculture exhibits a wide range of governance structures and processes. Much of this governance is based at the farm level and has a focus on environmental regulation (Bush et al, 2019). There is, however, significant opportunity within the aquaculture industry and its associated governance to address issues of human rights and gender equality (Gopal et al, 2020;Graham and D'Andrea, 2021), community well-being (Campbell et al, 2021), and stakeholder intervention (Krause et al, 2020).…”

Section: Nbs Are Based On Inclusive Transparent and Empowering Governance Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Nature-Based Solutions Within the Blue Economy: The Example of Aquaculture

Hughes

2021

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concepts of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) and the Blue Economy (BE) are two prominent sustainability frameworks at the forefront of policy dialogues. However, investment within the BE has been slowed by the lack of a sufficiently robust operational definition. This lack of definition reduces investor confidence and impacts adoption by policy makers and practitioners. By considering the overlap between the two sustainability frameworks it is possible to identify specific sectors and activities within the BE that also fit the operationalised criteria for NbS. Undertaking this process for one sector of the BE (aquaculture) has provided evidence that aquaculture activities, if planned and operated within the criteria, would qualify as NbS and as such may unlock financing for the provision of ecosystem services.

show abstract

“…Area cooperation, zone management, beyond-farm cooperation, spatial management and area-based management are just some of the terms that depict different organizational models for mitigating shared production risks in aquaculture (Bottema, 2019;Bottema et al, 2019;Bush et al, 2019;Joffre et al, 2019;Murray & Gubbins, 2016), which are alternatives to larger integrated firms (Asche et al, 2013;Oglend & Tveterås, 2009). The combined effort of multiple actors in a given area is often seen as a useful way of reducing the cumulative and combined impacts of aquaculture practices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%