Briefing Paper - Seafish€¦ · BRIEFING PAPER- SEAFISH | 11 • Higher yields from processing...

BriefingPaper

CO2 emissionsCase studies in selected seafood product chains

Version 1.0Spring 2008

02 | SEAFISH - BRIEFING PAPER

CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissionsCarbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions, food miles andgreenhouse gases (GHG) are issues that arecurrently at the centre of world agendas and aregenerally perceived to be contributing to globalwarming. Over the past year, in partnership withindustry, Seafish has undertaken several case studyevaluations of GHG emissions associated withseafood, from point of capture to output asseafood products from processing factories.

This briefing note summarises those researchfindings and looks specifically at levels of GHGemissions associated with the seafoodcommodities traded. It examines some of the keyrisks and opportunities facing the seafoodindustry with regards to GHG emissions as apreliminary step in helping UK seafoodprocessors measure, reduce and/or offset GHGemissions throughout their supply chains.

Page Contents

03 The wider picture

05 GHG emissions and consequencesfor the seafood industry

06 Key research findings

08 Conclusions and next steps

10 Case study research findings

17 AnnexDr Jon Harman Angus Garrett Susan Anton Dr Peter Tyedmers

BRIEFING PAPER - SEAFISH | 03

The wider picture• Moving beyond ‘food miles’

There is currently confusion over the differencebetween transport GHG emissions and ‘foodmiles’. ‘Food miles’ are a simple measure of thedistance food travels but ignore how food travels.However, estimating transport GHG emissionstakes into consideration both distance and modeof transport.

• Measuring GHG emissions

Measurement involves expressing different GHGemissions in a common unit of CO2 equivalentunits. Generally, measurements associated withGHG emissions are poorly defined and a newindustry is emerging that aims to measure them,

undertake activities to reduce or offsetcomparable emissions elsewhere or producebasic CO2 labelling schemes. GHG emissions have even entered the world of taxation in theform of vehicle emissions and energy usageschemes.To be effective, the protocols thatgovern these schemes need to be clearly defined.Currently this is not the case.

• Economic considerations of sea freight transportation

The current practice of processing seafood in lowwage economies such as China, is a majorconsideration. Chinese factories can utilise theirlower cost to concentrate on yield rather thanspeed. For seafood, modest yield improvements cancompensate for the GHG added by transporting it

to China and back.This, of course, only relates toseafood transported by container ship, which,because of their high utilisation rates, are extremelyeffective at moving freight around the world forlittle energy cost.

• Economic considerations of air freight transportation

The use of air freight adds significant levels of GHGemissions, however, again the issues are not asstraightforward as they first appear.The air freight ofmaterial is primarily driven by the characteristics ofthe flesh, the technology available for freezing andcustomer choice. Customers are prepared to pay thepremium for the choice of having fresh, never-frozenseafood available as required. Commonly, this materialis moved in the passenger holds and contributes to

the payload utilisation of the aircraft. It is interestingto note that countries exporting fresh material by airfreight are often also those countries that enjoy thebenefits of tourism. Ceasing movements of freight byair could increase journey costs.This could potentiallyimpact tourism and degrade the local economy insensitive economic regions, where this trade hasbecome significant to the local economy. It could alsoaffect local fishing activity which provides livelihoodsfor local economies; this is especially important indeveloping countries.



GHG emissions and consequences for the seafood industryThere appears to be very limited assessment ofGHG emissions in seafood or other proteinindustries. Levels of GHG emissions will beclosely tied to the nature of individual productsupply chains.

The food and drink industry may be vulnerable onseveral fronts: adhering to regulations forgreenhouse gas emissions may prove costly, andcompanies with high emissions could experienceconsumer backlash. Alternatively, proactive effortsto reduce emissions could create majoropportunities for the industry. Lower emissionsmay reduce costs and/or protect sales (through

improved products/company image, etc), whilereducing the likelihood of severe negativeenvironmental change.

The consequences of this for seafoodcompanies include:

• potentially reduced accessto primary resources;

• increased regulation ofemitting behaviors; and

• negative perceptionsamongst consumers.

Key research findingsSome early research into the GHG emissions oftypical seafood product chains has recently beenundertaken by Seafish and researchers at DalhousieUniversity, Canada, in collaboration with selectedUK seafood processors1.

Research limitations

• Supply chains were defined as being frompoint of origin (fishery or farm) to UKprocessor and, in most instances, todistribution or retail.We did not includeemissions associated with the retailer or theconsumer in our estimates.

• In the case of some product chains, key datawere not available through processors.

Our findings from this work suggest the following:

• As with published emissions research inseafood, primary production (ie fishing orfarming) is typically the dominant contributorto greenhouse gas emissions associated withseafood products.

• The direct fuel intensity and resulting emissionsof various fisheries for human consumptionmay differ by orders of magnitude, dependingon the abundance of the targeted stocks, thefishing technology employed, and the distanceto fishing grounds.

• GHG emissions associated with fresh productforms sourced from abroad and consequentlyrequiring air freighting far exceeded emissionsfor non air-freighted products, regardless of the



energy inputs and resulting emissions associatedwith primary production.This situation is madeworse when multiple air freight legs are involved.

• Processing and packaging generally make verysmall contributions to overall emissions (oftenunder 10% of total) except in instances inwhich emission-intensive materials are used (egmetals), or where cooking is involved, etc.

• For intensively cultured products (eg salmon),emissions associated with feed provision, andconsequently with primary resourceproduction generally, often dominate fullsupply chain GHG emissions.

• Reducing the GHG intensity of many importantseafood products consumed in the UK willdepend heavily on identifying and preferentiallysourcing seafood from fuel-efficient fisheries or

low input culture systems or alternatively,undertaking measures to reduce the emissionintensity of existing systems.

• Some simple strategies, including moving fromfresh air-freighted material to high quality frozenproduct forms and low carbon intensity oceanfreight transport, would significantly reducesupply chain GHG emissions. Container shipsare a highly efficient mode of transport, andalthough often result in higher food miles, theadditional GHG emissions may be offset byyield gains (see box 1). Freezing and shippingproducts via ocean container transport may bean alternative to air freight, but not in everycase. In some instances, fish meat characteristics,technology and customer requirements maymean that this is not a viable proposition.

Conclusions and next stepsThe research conducted to date is a good startingpoint; however, it is important to consider theresearch limitations when looking at results, whencomparing different species or undertaking furtherresearch. Industry needs to come up with suitablesolutions to reduce emissions whilst still supportingeconomies, especially in developing countries. It willbe important to develop a common method formeasuring emissions, and for businesses to reviewtheir products and business activities against that.

• Develop a common method formeasuring GHG emissions

A common system for measuring GHG emissionsin food needs to be developed along with a widelyagreed basis for comparison.This could reflect theweight of GHG emissions related to the foodactually consumed or converted back to astandard live weight equivalent.The protocol needsto set out and clearly define the boundaries that aGHG assessment covers. It needs to clarifywhether it covers the whole of the chain or fromwhat point it starts. For example:

o Does it cover the embodied energy of thevessel construction through to end productpackaging, consumer purchase and use?



o Should it be confined primarily to theenergy consumed during the production,wholesale and distribution process such astransport, fuel and energy costs?

o It should take account of the fact that foodsare sold in different forms, eg a wholedressed chicken or fish would have a loweremissions footprint than a fillet of the samematerial. But a GHG assessment should alsoconsider that generally, their carcasses wouldbe sent to landfill and generate greenhousegases such as methane.

• Seafood businesses should reviewtheir GHG emissions

Seafish recommends that businesses review theirGHG emissions to gain an understanding of someof the issues they face. Before undertaking a fullformal analysis, a broad overview of your productsupply chain should be gained to identify keyemission hotspots.They should clearly define theboundaries that they are going to assess (eg typesand quantities of energy consumed, non-energyrelated emissions, point of capture/production topoint of delivery to customer depot) and expressthe measurements as a quantity of CO2 equivalentper unit weight of food consumed2. Generally, anyeffort that can reduce GHG emissions by improvingutilisation, yields or reducing energy usage willtranslate into improved efficiency and profit.

Case study research findings 1. Estimating transport GHG emissions

Estimating transport GHG emissions takes intoconsideration both distance and mode of transport.

• Using GHG emissions to compare modes oftransport, emissions from transporting onetonne of fish by marine transport to Chinacan be compared with transporting the sametonne of fish from Iceland to the UK by air.

• For example, transporting one tonne of cod:

o to the UK from China by marinetransport (10,900 miles) emits around190kg CO2 equivalent3 per tonne;

o from Aberdeen to London by truck (536miles) emits around 250kg CO2 equivalent

per tonne; and

o to the UK from Iceland by air freight(1,042 miles) emits around 3,250kg CO2

equivalent/per tonne.

• Around 60% of what we consume in the UKis imported and large distances are involved.

• A large quantity of frozen seafood istransported efficiently on container shipsaround the world.

• Fresh product forms sourced from abroadcan have significant transport-related GHGemissions to ensure timely delivery.

• The principle driver of GHG emissions is theactual fishing or farming activity (60-80%) –unless products are air freighted.



• Higher yields from processingmaterial by hand in developingcountries could in someinstances offset the emissionsof additional transportation(see box 1).

Box 1. What do yield improvements mean in terms of GHG emissions?

With an abundance of labour, raw material processing in China typicallygenerates a superior yield. Here we will look at shipping frozen cod (headed andgutted at 61% yield from live weight) to China for processing into skinless codfillets.We are estimating GHG emissions to the point of leaving the Chineseproduction facility, and comparing emissions in two scenarios.The first wherethe Chinese processor generates a yield of 60% (as is the norm), the secondwhere the processor has a yield equivalent to that in the UK - around 55%. Inboth scenarios, no credit is given for the potential utilisation of processing co-products (eg wastes):

• Scenario 1 Chinese processor with a yield of 60% gives around 6,840kgCO2 eq/per tonne.

• Scenario 2 Chinese processor with a yield of 55% gives around 7,450kgCO2 eq/per tonne.

The difference in yield accounts for around 600kg CO2 eq/per tonne finalproduct. For comparison, transporting back to the UK by marine transportgenerates emissions of under 200kg CO2 eq/per tonne.

2. Case study approach

All product supply chains are complex, and theseafood industry is no exception. Quantifying andunderstanding the impacts of GHG emissions in anyindustry require boundaries around estimates.

Our research took a case study approach.Thisfocused on several supply chains considered to besufficiently important and representative of thediverse character of the UK seafood industry activity.The energy consumption associated with activities(acquiring raw materials, mode of transport, etc)along each of the supply chains was estimated; thisallowed us to estimate GHG emissions.We definedthe supply chain as being from point of origin (fisheryor farm) to UK processor and in most instances todistribution or retail.We did not include activity of

the retailer or the consumer in our estimates.Weincluded UK chicken as a specific product chain toallow comparison with another major protein.

In each case, a life-cycle approach was adopted toestimate the associated GHG emissions. Furtherdetails of the methodology can be found in theannex at the end of this document.The followingprovides an overview of our research findings.

The following four figures show the GHGemissions associated with primary production,transport and refrigeration in the case study supplychains. In order to show the differences betweenthe chains under each emission source, we havenot used a consistent scale for the GHG emissionaxis across all three figures. This must beremembered when comparing emission source.



• Primary production

Figure 1 shows GHG emissionsassociated with primary production.The majority of emissions result fromthe primary resource productionphase of the chain, either from directfuel inputs to fisheries, or from theprovision of feed in the case offarmed salmon production.

Canadia

n wild

cooked

prawn

s

Iceland

ic wild

cooked

prawn

s

UK farm

ed salm

on

UK chic

ken

UK fres

h seab

ass

Russian

frozen

cod

Iceland

ic fresh

cod

UK fres

h sard

ines

UK IQF

sardin

es

Maldive

fresh

tuna

Spanish

canne

d tuna

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0GHG

Emiss

ions (to

nnes C

O 2 eq./

tonn

e prod

uct)

Figure 1. GHG emissions associated with primary production


• Transport in the supplychain

Figure 2 shows the GHG emissionsassociated with transport in thesupply chain. In the two supply chainsreliant on air freight (fresh tuna filletsfrom the Maldives and fresh Icelandiccod fillets), transportation-relatedGHG emissions dominate total supplychain emissions.

Canadia

n wild

cooked

prawn

s

Iceland

ic wild

cooked

prawn

s

UK farm

ed salm

on

UK chic

ken

UK fres

h seab

ass

Russian

frozen

cod

Iceland

ic fresh

cod

UK fres

h sard

ines

UK IQF

sardin

es

Maldive

fresh

tuna

Spanish

canne

d tuna

109876543210GH

G Em

ission

s (to

nnes C

O 2 eq./

tonn

e prod

uct)

Figure 2. GHG emissions associated with transport


• Refrigeration in the supply chain

Figure 3 shows GHG emissionsassociated with refrigeration in thesupply chain.We can see that thefrozen cod chain has the highest levelsof refrigeration-related GHGemissions, as would be expected.Those chains with fresh fish have veryminimal refrigeration-related GHGemissions, however, these may beoffset by higher transport-relatedemissions to ensure the product isdelivered to the consumer fresh.

Canadia

n wild

cooked

prawn

s

Iceland

ic wild

cooked

prawn

s

UK farm

ed salm

on

UK chic

ken

UK fres

h seab

ass

Russian

frozen

cod

Iceland

ic fresh

cod

UK fres

h sard

ines

UK IQF

sardin

es

Maldive

fresh

tuna

Spanish

canne

d tuna

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0GHG

Emiss

ions (to

nnes C

O 2 eq./

tonn

e prod

uct)

Figure 3. GHG emissions associated with refrigeration

• Catching, transport and refrigeration

Figure 4 shows the relative importanceof catching, transport and refrigerationfor each case study supply chain.Interestingly, and rather unexpectedly,transport-related emissions were alsoimportant in three products (fresh seabass and fresh and frozen sardines)derived from local UK fisheries, not justfor those chains involving air freight.Therelative importance of thesetransportation emissions in these chains,however, is more a function of theunusually small emissions that result fromthe associated fisheries than of inherentlylarge transport emissions.


Canadia

n wild

cooked

prawn

s

Iceland

ic wild

cooked

prawn

s

UK farm

ed salm

on

UK chic

ken

UK fres

h seab

ass

Russian

frozen

cod

Iceland

ic fresh

cod

UK fres

h sard

ines

UK IQF

sardin

es

Maldive

fresh

tuna

Spanish

canne

d tuna

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Relat

ive im

porta

nce of

GHG

emiss

ions

Figure 4. Relative importance of catching, transport andrefrigeration emissions

■ Refrigeration ■ Transport ■ Primary production


AnnexStudy methods

1. Product supply chains

Table 1 provides an overview of the productsupply chains covered by this research.Emissions associated with other productchains not considered in this report may beaddressed in future studies (either byprocessing companies or by Seafish).

Table 1. Overview of all case study

Main species Source waters Capture method/process/form

Whitefish – sea bass Local (UK) Handline caught, fresh whole fish.

Whitefish – cod Barents Sea (Russia) Freezer trawler caught, frozen filletsprocessed in China.

Whitefish – cod Icelandic Longline caught, fresh fillets airfreighted from Iceland.

Pelagic – sardine Local (UK) Ring net caught, fresh.

Pelagic – sardine Local (UK) Ring net caught, IQF.

Exotic – tuna Indian Ocean Line caught, fresh loins air freightedfrom Maldives.

Exotic – tuna Various Purse seine caught, canned in Spain.

Coldwater prawn Atlantic Canadian Trawl caught, cooked, double frozen,processed in Iceland.

Coldwater prawn Icelandic Trawl caught, cooked, single frozen,processed in Iceland.

Salmon Local (UK) Farmed, fresh fillets.


Seafood processing companies were approached as the mainindustry contacts because of their ability to leverage data alongproduct supply chains.

A simple flow chart was designed to assist processors in providinga broad overview of the product supply chains.

For most product chains of interest, companies were asked, eitherby telephone interview or email, to provide data regarding theirproduct supply chains using the simple flow charts as a startingpoint.These data were used to populate product chain-specificGHG emission calculators. Companies were then re-contacted foradditional information or clarification where gaps or contradictionswere identified.

In the case of some product chains, key data were not availablethrough processors.

2. Production chain calculator

An Excel spreadsheet-based ‘calculator’ was developed to organisedata and facilitate the estimation of GHG emissions associatedwith various steps in each product chain.

Elements common to all product chain calculators included:

• fields describing basic product characteristics including:

o sources;

o modes of production and transport;

o yield rates of intermediate and final products, anddestinations of associated processing co-products; and

o intermediate and final product forms.

• fields for quantifying GHG emissions associated with keysteps in the production chain, including those associated with:

o capture or culture of raw materials;

o pre and post processing transport of materials byvarious modes (eg truck, ship, air freight);

o refrigeration throughout the product chain; and

o non-refrigeration related processing and packaging activities.


3. ‘Life-cycle GHG’ emissions

In order to best reflect total ‘life-cycle’ GHG emissions andstandardise activity-specific emissions throughout the productcalculators, emission intensities for various generic activities including:

• production and combustion of diesel, gasoline, natural gas, etc;

• transport via three sizes of truck (3.6 tonne delivery vans, 16tonne lorries and tractor trailers), ocean freighter, and airfreight (both short haul and long haul);

• freezing (via both plate and blast freezing technologies); and

• refrigeration in storage/buildings, on trucks and in containers.

were derived from various sources and applied, as appropriate, ineach calculator.Where possible/appropriate, data reflectingcontemporary European conditions were used.

4. Boats and gear

Due to the challenges inherent in acquiring real-world dataregarding material and energy inputs and resulting emissionsassociated with building and maintaining fishing boats and providingfishing gear, etc, a simplifying assumption was employed in eachproduct chain calculator that models a fishery derived product. Inthese cases, it was assumed that energy inputs to provide boats andgear would amount to 10% of the direct fuel energy inputs to thefishery. Furthermore, resulting emissions were conservativelyestimated to be based entirely on the combustion of natural gas.


5. Calculating total GHG emissions associated witheach product chain

To facilitate the calculation and comparison of total GHGemissions associated with each product chain, all emissions werequantified in terms of their CO2 equivalents on the basis of theirrelative radiative forcing potential over a 100-year time horizon.Similarly, all inputs and resulting GHG emissions were quantifiedbased on an output of one metric tonne of consumer-readyproduct, excluding the mass of any associated packaging materials,ice, etc. Consequently, for each product chain, results wereexpressed as kilograms of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions pertonne of finished seafood product.

Currently, there is no set procedure for how we should report thefinal CO2 equivalent emissions figures.The possible expressions are:

• per tonne of final product;

• per tonne liveweight;

• allocating emissions to all utilised co-products; and

• allocating emissions entirely to primary seafood products.

Here, we have expressed CO2 equivalent emissions per tonne offinal products excluding the emissions that can be attributed toutilised co-products.

6. Emission burdens assigned to co-products

The method by which emissions are assigned to co-products ofprocessing activities (eg fillets vs. processing trimmings renderedfor fishmeal and oil) can, in some cases, have an important impacton the results.The method we used was to consistently assignemission burdens up to the point of processing, to utilised co-products in proportion to the relative mass of the co-productsinvolved. Emission burdens, however, were not assigned to truewastes destined for disposal, incineration, etc.This mass-basedallocation rule is consistent with the carbon accounting practicerecommended by the Carbon Trust in their preliminary assessmentof emission accounting methods to use.


7. Carbon Footprint Measurement Methodology(CFMM)

Our methodology is largely consistent with the Carbon FootprintMeasurement Methodology (CFMM) Version 1.3 recentlypublished by the Carbon Trust (2007), including initial processmapping with key stakeholders, data collection and validation, andcarbon footprint calculation per process stage.All CO2

equivalents are calculated according to 100-year GWP using IPCCassessment methods. Our mass-based allocation approach adheresto ISO 14041 guidelines, as well as CFMM recommendations.Twodepartures from CFMM methodology that should be noted are:

1. We did not account for GHG emissions associated withpackaging for all product forms, nor disposal-related emissions.

2. We included GHG emission estimates associated with theprovision and maintenance of fishing vessels and gear.


References1 Greenhouse gas emissions for selected seafood species supplied to UKprocessors. Dr. P.Tyedmers, N. Pelletier, Dalhousie University andA. Garrett, S.Anton Seafish (2007).

2 The Carbon Trust (www.carbontrust.co.uk) and the BritishStandards Institute (www.bsi-global.com/en) are currentlyworking on a standard methodology, PAS 2050, for calculatingCO2-equivalent GHG emissions in products and services.

3 Results are expressed as kilograms of CO2-equivalent GHGemissions per tonne of finished seafood product.The data arenot based on an assumption of full loads, half loads, etc butreflect typical or average activities for all of modes of transportover a year.

Key Contacts• Angus Garrett: [email protected] Seafish: www.seafish.org

• Dr Peter Tyedmers: [email protected] DalhousieUniversity School for Resource and Environmental Studies:http://sres.management.dal.ca

• Carbon Trust: www.carbontrust.co.uk

• Fisheries Research Service: www.marlab.ac.uk

• Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science:www.sahfos.ac.uk

Sea Fish Industry Authority18 Logie MillLogie Green RoadEdinburghEH7 4HSTel: +44 (0)131 558 3331Fax: +44 (0)131 558 1442Email: [email protected]: www.seafish.org

Briefing Paper - Seafish€¦ · BRIEFING PAPER- SEAFISH | 11 • Higher yields from processing...

Documents

Transcript of Briefing Paper - Seafish€¦ · BRIEFING PAPER- SEAFISH | 11 • Higher yields from processing...