Integrated environmental assessment of fisheries management: Swedish Nephrops trawl fisheries evaluated using a life cycle approach

Hornborg, Sara; Nilsson, Per; Valentinsson, Daniel; Ziegler, Friederike

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.02.017

Cited by 37 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These regulations exist at the international level (such as the EU Common Fisheries Policy) and at the national or even regional level. It has been shown that regulations (such as the size of the quota and technical gear regulations) can play an important role for the greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts caused by fisheries and seafood products (Driscoll and Tyedmers 2010;Hornborg et al 2012;Ziegler et al 2013). However, current decision support in fisheries management excludes life cycle considerations such as fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, and supply chain perspective and is entirely focused on the direct biological impacts of fishing (Hornborg 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even so, further methodological development will be needed to fully represent the ecosystem impact of fishing. In the end, broad implementation of the newly developed fisheriesspecific environmental impact categories to the standard set of LCA impact categories could visualize complementarities and tradeoffs between different types of environmental impact (Hornborg et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing broad life cycle impacts of daily onboard decision-making, annual strategic planning, and fisheries management in a northeast Atlantic trawl fishery

Ziegler¹,

Groen

Hornborg³

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Capture fisheries are the only industrial-scale harvesting of a wild resource for food. Temporal variability in environmental performance of fisheries has only recently begun to be explored, but only between years, not within a year. Our aim was to better understand the causes of temporal variability within and between years and to identify improvement options through management at a company level and in fisheries management. Methods We analyzed the variability in broad environmental impacts of a demersal freeze trawler targeting cod, haddock, saithe, and shrimp, mainly in the Norwegian Sea and in the Barents Sea. The analysis was based on daily data for fishing activities between 2011 and 2014 and the functional unit was a kilo of landing from one fishing trip. We used biological indicators in a novel hierarchic approach, depending on data availability, to quantify biotic impacts. Landings were categorized as target (having defined target reference points) or bycatch species (classified as threatened or as data-limited). Indicators for target and bycatch impacts were quantified for each fishing trip, as was the seafloor area swept. Results and discussion No significant difference in fuel use was found between years, but variability was considerable within a year, i.e., between fishing trips. Trips targeting shrimp were more fuel intensive than those targeting fish, due to a lower catch rate. Steaming to and from port was less important for fuel efficiency than steaming between fishing locations. A tradeoff was identified between biotic and abiotic impacts. Landings classified as main target species generally followed the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) framework, and proportions of threatened species were low, while proportions of data-limited bycatch were larger. This improved considerably when reference points were defined for saithe in 2014. ConclusionsThe variability between fishing trips shows that there is room for improvement through management. Fuel use per landing was strongly influenced by target species, fishing pattern, and fisheries management. Increased awareness about the importance of onboard decision-making can lead to improved performance. This approach could serve to document performance over time helping fishing companies to better understand the effect of their daily and more long-term decision-making on the environmental performance of their products.Recommendations Fishing companies should document their resource use and production on a detailed level. Fuel use should be monitored as part of the management system. Managing authorities should ensure that sufficient data is available to evaluate the sustainability of exploitation levels of all harvested species.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing broad life cycle impacts of daily onboard decision-making, annual strategic planning, and fisheries management in a northeast Atlantic trawl fishery

Ziegler¹,

Groen

Hornborg³

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A clear conclusion from our work is that PPR estimates based on data restricted to landings are inadequate and possibly misleading. Including PPR of discards is in fact essential to enable evaluations of the ecological costs from different fishing practices [20]. Nevertheless, before making detailed comparisons between regions, further refinement of appropriate values for TEs might be needed [22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trophic indicators in fisheries: a call for re-evaluation

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mean trophic level (MTL) of landings and primary production required (PPR) by fisheries are increasingly used in the assessment of sustainability in fisheries. However, in their present form, MTL and PPR are prone to misinterpretation. We show that it is important to account for actual catch data, define an appropriate historical and spatial domain, and carefully consider the effects of fisheries management, based on results from a case study of Swedish fisheries during the past century.

show abstract

“…Different options exist to account for by-catch, affecting the comparability of data (Davies et al, 2009;FAO, 2013). Furthermore, the amount of discard is dependent from the context, namely: the season, the type of fishing method, the target species and the fisherman behaviour (Hornborg et al, 2012). These aspects make it difficult to obtain detailed data (V azquez-Rowe et al, 2012).…”

Section: Food Loss At the Primary Production Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling of food loss within life cycle assessment: From current practice towards a systematisation

Corrado

Ardente

Sala

et al. 2017

Journal of Cleaner Production

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tFood loss is a major concern from both environmental and social point of view. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been largely applied to quantify the environmental impact of food and to identify pros and cons of different options for optimisation of food systems management, including the recovery of potential waste occurring along the supply chain. However, within LCA case studies, there is still a general lack of proper accounting of food losses. A discrepancy both in food loss definition and in the approaches adopted to model the environmental burden of food loss has been observed. These aspects can lead to misleading and, sometimes, contrasting results, limiting the reliability of LCA as a decision support tool for assessing food production systems. This article aims, firstly, at providing a preliminary analysis on how the modelling of food loss has been conducted so far in LCA studies. Secondly, it suggests a definition for food loss to be adopted. Finally, the article investigates the consequence of using such definition and it proposes potential paths for the development of a common methodological framework to increase the robustness and comparability of the LCA studies. It discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches adopted to account for food loss along the food supply chain: primary production, transport and storage, food processing, distribution, consumption and end of life. It is also proposed to account separately between avoidable, possibly avoidable and unavoidable food loss by means of specific indicators. Finally, some recommendations for LCA practitioners are provided on how to deal with food loss in LCA studies focused on food products. The most relevant recommendations concern: i) the systematic accounting of food loss generated along the food supply chain; ii) the modelling of waste treatments according to the specific characteristics of food; iii) the sensitivity analysis on the modelling approaches adopted to model multi-functionality; and iv) the need of transparency in describing the modelling of food loss generation and management.

show abstract

Integrated environmental assessment of fisheries management: Swedish Nephrops trawl fisheries evaluated using a life cycle approach

Cited by 37 publications

References 43 publications

Assessing broad life cycle impacts of daily onboard decision-making, annual strategic planning, and fisheries management in a northeast Atlantic trawl fishery

Assessing broad life cycle impacts of daily onboard decision-making, annual strategic planning, and fisheries management in a northeast Atlantic trawl fishery

Trophic indicators in fisheries: a call for re-evaluation

Modelling of food loss within life cycle assessment: From current practice towards a systematisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About