Scale and nature of emissions from fisheries · 005 28 and above Conventional 29 692 660 2 416 281...

1

Institutt for marin teknikk

Scale and nature of emissions from fisheries

Seas at RiskClimate and the OceanImpact and Mitigation Challenges for Fishing

and ShippingBrussels, 5th November 2008

Harald EllingsenDepartment of Marine TechnologyNorwegian University of Science and

Technology

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

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.

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

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.

• 2001 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

6


Energy cost in percent of income various fleet groups (2006)

18,33 068 32116 769 098Pelagic trawlers27,5 and above018

11,74 882 00741 894 922Purse seining/pelagic trawling including blue whiting

27,5 and above017

10,32 538 44024 658 991Purse seining/pelagic trawling27,5 and above016

7,5919 04212 261 003Coastal seining21,36 – 27,49015

6,6455 0316 895 394Coastal seining13 – 21,35014

5,668 7731 220 515Coastal seining8 - 12,9013

Pelagic fisheries

38,915 797 23140 610 860Shrimp trawlers28 and above011

17,0464 6612 726 232Coastal shrimp trawlers11 – 20,9010

12,6110 556874 081Coastal shrimp trawlers8 – 10,9009

17,57 265 63341 609 744Cod trawlersLarger008

17,67 684 92643 584 519Cod/shrimp trawlersLarger007

14,09 359 44366 871 595Cod/shrimp trawlers (Processing)Larger006

8,12 416 28129 692 660Conventional28 and above005

7,3520 7057 123 458Conventional21 – 27,9004

5,8186 4203 230 266Conventional15 – 20,9003

5,176 5951 493 736Conventional10 - 14,9002

4,934 370695 120Conventional8 - 9,9001

Demersal fisheries

% Energy [NOK]Income [NOK]Main fishing toolLength [m]Group

Ice and bait production outside vessel are not includedCalculations based on figures from the Directorate of the Fisheries

7


Specific energy use Norwegian fisheries 1980 - 2005

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Year

Fuel

use

coe

ffici

ent [

kg fu

el/k

g fis

h]

A: Coastal gillnetting, jiggingand Danish seining

Linear (A)

B: Coastal longlining Linear (B)

C: Autolining Linear (C)

D: Wet fish trawling Linear (D)

E: Factory trawling Linear (E)

F: Purse seining Linear (F)

8


Catch rate and fuel use coefficient, factory trawling

11

13

15

17

19

21

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Year

Catch ra

te [1

000 kg fish/day

s at sea

]

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

Fuel use

coe

fficien

t [kg fuel/kg fish]

Catch rate Fuel use coefficient

9


Specific fuel consumption versus fuel price development (1998 NOK).Trend lines are plotted.

0,75

1,25

1,75

2,25

2,75

3,25

3,75

198

0

198

5

199

0

199

5

200

0

200

5

Year

Fuel

pric

e [N

OK

/

litre

]

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

0,5

0,55

0,6

0,65

0,7

Fuel

use

coe

ffici

ent

[kg

fuel

/kg

fish]

Fuel pricesFuel use coefficientLinear (Fuel prices)Linear (Fuel use coefficient)

Source: Schaug et. al. (2008)

10


Calculated fuel use coefficients for selected fishing gears used in Norway for the years 2001-2004 aggregated

0.13282Trap (for various fish and crustaceans)

0.11343Danish seine/round-fish trawl/Flat fish trawl

0.09726Purse seine/ring seine

1.04356Shrimp trawl

0.31694Longline (floating longline and autoline)

0.15708Hook (hand line and trolling line)

0.191152Gillnet

0.09307Pelagic trawl

1.0126Double trawl b0.28449Bottom trawl a

Average[kg fuel/kg fish]

Number of vesselsGear type

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 snurreva d

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

jan mar mai jul sep

nov jan mar mai jul sep




1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Vek

t [to

nn]

Trål

Garn

Snurrevad

12


Cod - Norwegian catches (2004)

13


North Sea Herring – Norwegian catches (2004)

14


Distribution of the Cod North of 62°N

33%67%Over 330 000 tons

Linear up to 33%

Linear down to 67%

130 000 – 330 000

28%72%Less than 130 000 tons

TrawlersConventional fleet

Total quota

15


Risk level in fishing, aquaculture and agriculture

Risk 98-2000

02468

10121416

Agricu

lture

Aquac

ultur

eFish

eries

in to

tal

Small

vess

elsCoa

stal v

esse

lsDee

p sea

fishin

g

Industry

Fat

alat

ies

per 1

0000

man

yea

r

Risk 98-2000

Aasjord, SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture

16


Comparison of fuel use coefficient in various international fisheries Figures refers to round fish or crustaceans converted to [kg/kg]

Schau et. al. 20080.13Trapping (Mixed fish and crustaceans) (Norway)

Tyedmers 20010.28Trapping crabs (North Atlantic)

Schau et. al. 20080.19Gillnetting for groundfish (Norway)

Tyedmers 20010.53Gillnetting for groundfish (North Atlantic)

Trane 20040.21Gillnetting for codfish (Denmark)

Schau et. al. 20080.31Longlining for groundfish (Norway)

Tyedmers 20010.41Longlining for groundfish (North Atlantic)

Tyedmers 20010.85Trawling for Norway lobster (North Atlantic)

Tyedmers 20010.76Trawling for shrimp (North Atlantic)

Eyjólfsdóttir 20030.65Trawling for groundfish (Iceland)

Thrane 20040.84Bottom trawling for flatfish (Denmark)

Thrane 20040.40Trawling for codfish (Denmark)

Tyedmers 20010.44Trawling for groundfish (North Atlantic)

Tyedmers 20010.08Trawling for small pelagics (North Atlantic)

Schau et. al. 20080.09Purse seining (Norway)

Tyedmers 20010.04Purse seining for small pelagics (North Atlantic)

Ágústsson et al.19780.02Purse seining for capelin (Iceland)

SourceFuel use coef.[kg fuel/kg fish]aFishery (home base or location)

17


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

18


The production phase is often the hot spot

Cod fillet, weighted, Eco-ind.99 (H)/ H/A

0,00E+00

1,00E-02

2,00E-02

3,00E-02

4,00E-02

5,00E-02

6,00E-02

7,00E-02

8,00E-02

9,00E-02

Gad

oid

fille

tpr

od.,

fact

ory

traw

ler

Tra

nspo

rt to

who

lesa

ler

Tra

nspo

rt to

reta

iler

Tra

nspo

rt to

cons

umer

Pt

Fossil fuels

Minerals

Acidification/ Eutrophication

Ecotoxicity

Ozone layer

Climate change

Resp. inorganics

Resp. organics

Carcinogens

Source: Elingsen and Aanondsen, 2007

19


CO2-emissions from production of 1kg salmon fillet based on various feed drying methods and transport distances

2,92,62,2Natural gas

3,02,72,4Heavy oil

CO2-ekv./kg product

CO2-ekv./kg product

CO2-ekv./kg product

Customer in Paris

Customer in South Norway

Slaughtery

Food chain from raw material to final destination

Dryingmethodfish feed

Source: Olaussen et. al. 2008

20


CO2 emissions for various food chains

Olaussen et. al. 2008

Sea farming Norway, transport to Paris included

3,0Salmon

Williams et. al. 2006

Round weight, England4,6Chicken

Jones et. al. 2008Round weight, USACa 2,0Chicken

Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2007

Fillet, Canada, sea based (adjusted based on figures for round fish)

4,2Salmon

Frozen filet in the store3,2

Fresh fillet in the store2,8Cod, wild caught

Troat flilet, Denmark, land based. Frozen in the store.

4,5

Troat flilet, Denmark, land based. Frosen from the slaughterhouse.

4,1Farmed trout

4,6Chicken

15,8Meat (cattle)

Fremtiden i vårehender, 2008LCA in Foods

Mainly methan (from rumination) and laughing gas (from feed production). CO2 from slaughtering, warehousing and transport.

6,4Meat (pig)

SourceCommentsCO2 ekv/kg

Product

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

Scale and nature of emissions from fisheries · 005 28 and above Conventional 29 692 660 2 416 281...

Documents

Transcript of Scale and nature of emissions from fisheries · 005 28 and above Conventional 29 692 660 2 416 281...