Environmental assessment of sardine (Sardina pilchardus) purse seine fishery in Portugal with LCA methodology including biological impact categories

Almeida, Cheila; Vaz, Sofia Guedes; Cabral, Henrique N.; Ziegler, Friederike

doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0646-5

Cited by 46 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such homogeneity within the observed range of variability regarding FUI and individual vessel sizes could be associated with tuna catchability being similar in the respective segments' preferred fishing areas, with the Bskipper effect( Vázquez-Rowe and Tyedmers 2013), or simply due to uncertainty given the few data points available (25 landing-fuel use data pairs). Other fisheries' FUI studies have also shown relative performances per segment which are not dominated by the efficiency gains expected from economies of scale, but by other factors such as legal constraints, catchability associated with stock condition, and distances travelled (Almeida et al 2013;Avadí et al 2014b;Fréon et al 2014b;Ziegler and Hornborg 2014). Calculated FUI figures were also considerably higher than 2009 mean values reported for tuna fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (354 L/t), tuna-targeting purse seiners in all oceans (368 L/t), as well as all tuna catches by all types of fishing gear (375 L/t) (Parker et al 2014) and all large pelagics landings caught with surrounding nets (434 L/t) (Parker and Tyedmers 2014).…”

Section: Life Cycle Inventoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A carbon footprint analysis of Thai tuna canning, based on a fuel-intensive tuna fishery, also identified the provision of raw materials, tinplate cans and process energy as the main drivers of global warming potential (climate change) (Mungkung et al 2012). A recent study of canned sardine from Portugal (Almeida et al 2015), supplied by a fishery with a FUI of 111-113 L/t (Almeida et al 2013), also identified the provision of (aluminium) cans as the main contributor to most impact categories. Another recent study on Peruvian anchoveta processing ) confirms this trend and, moreover, identifies potentials for reducing impacts of fish packaging by favouring pouches or at least larger cans.…”

Section: Life Cycle Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life cycle assessment of Ecuadorian processed tuna

Avadí

Bolaños²,

Sandoval³

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Ecuador is an important player in the global tuna fishing and processing industry: The Ecuadorian industrial tuna fleet represents 17 % of the global tuna purse seiner fleet, and it is the second largest tuna processing country after Thailand. The fishing and processing operations of one of the largest vertically integrated tuna processing firms in Ecuador were evaluated regarding their environmental impacts and assumed representative of the Ecuadorian tuna processing industry. Results were compared with those of other international fish processing and other sources of animal protein for human consumption. Directions are finally identified toward reducing environmental impacts of both the tuna fishery and processing industry. Methods Detailed operational fishery and processing data was collected from a representative Ecuadorian tuna processing firm, and the life cycle assessment framework applied to it for hotspot identification. Two functional units were used: 1 t of final product (for canned, pouched, vacuum bagged and mean products) and 1 t of Bfish in product^, which includes all process losses and normalises the final product/raw fish ratios among the different processing routes analysed. The ReCiPe impact assessment method was used. Results and discussion In the period 2012-2013, the studied sub-fleet featured a fuel use intensity of 835 L per landed tonne, which was 235 % higher than reported values for all tuna landings in the Pacific Ocean in 2009. Reasons for such underperformance may include inter-annual variations in tuna catchability and the fact that fuels are generally subsidised in Ecuador, and thus skippers perhaps do not apply sufficient fuel-saving strategies. The main contributors to impacts associated with tuna processing were the provision of tinplate cans (58.0 % of the ReCiPe single score) and fuel use by the fishery (22.6 %). Ecuadorian tuna products feature environmental impacts generally higher than those of other fish processing industries worldwide, yet lower than those of many alternative sources of fish and land animal protein.Conclusions Efforts to reduce environmental impacts of Ecuadorian tuna processing should focus on the fuel performance of the providing fleet, and on the container technology. Increased use of larger tinplate cans, aluminium cans, or other non-metal container technologies (e.g. pouches and retort cups) would decrease environmental impacts of tuna processing. The sources of relative inefficiency observed for the Ecuadorian tuna fleet should be thoroughly investigated. Possible solutions could involve applying fuel-saving strategies.

show abstract

Section: Life Cycle Inventoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Life Cycle Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle assessment of Ecuadorian processed tuna

Avadí

Bolaños²,

Sandoval³

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Concerning the fish, system boundaries included all fishery activities up to the sardine landing process for sale at Portuguese fish auctions (Almeida et al, 2013;Belo et al, 2013). Reckman et al (2012) reported a GWP of 3.6 kg CO 2 eq per kg of pork carcass weight, which is slightly higher than our result for chicken (2.46 kg CO 2 eq, Table 6).…”

Section: Comparison With Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life Cycle Assessment of broiler chicken production: a Portuguese case study

González‐García

Gomez-Fernández

Dias

et al. 2014

Journal of Cleaner Production

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This catch rate varies with many aspects: fishing area, season, type of fishing vessel and fishing gear, technology used, individual skills, and weather conditions. Temporal variability in resource use of fisheries has been found to be substantial in some cases (Ramos et al 2011) and less pronounced in others (Almeida et al 2014). Both of these studies focused on variability between years, while temporal variability within a year has only recently been studied, with indications that it can be considerable (Almeida et al 2014).…”

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

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

Environmental assessment of sardine (Sardina pilchardus) purse seine fishery in Portugal with LCA methodology including biological impact categories

Cited by 46 publications

References 29 publications

Life cycle assessment of Ecuadorian processed tuna

Life cycle assessment of Ecuadorian processed tuna

Life Cycle Assessment of broiler chicken production: a Portuguese case study

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About