Conclusion

Over the course of writing this blog, I've gained an appreciation of how complex fisheries dynamics are particularly because they face pressures that are both physical and human. We've seen in previous weeks that climate change impacts on fisheries are not straightforward and that our understanding of what the future holds is quite uncertain.

In more recent weeks, we've examined some of the possible responses to the problems faced by fisheries. While it seems there is considerable potential for reducing emissions and adopting more sustainable practices, we've seen that there is no single, universal quick fix and that different practices work best in different contexts.

So far it seems that this concluding post is quite inconclusive, raising more problems than answering questions! But in a way I think this is reflective of the approach we must take to all climate issues (including fisheries): incessantly asking new questions, critically pointing out the flaws in any answers we find.

I hope you've enjoyed following this blog as much as I've enjoyed writing it, and that you'll keep track of the rapidly expanding yet problematic world of fisheries. Thanks!

Mitigation

Previously we examined adaptation measures - steps that can be taken to prepare for a world in which the predicted consequences of climate change are a reality. You might consider this a pessimistic approach which accepts the worst, but adaptation is often implemented alongside mitigation. Mitigation involves taking action now that can limit climate change and therefore minimise damaging and unforeseen impacts.

Technical fixes play a big role in mitigation - measures to improve fuel efficiency and reduce degradation caused by existing technologies. In the context of fisheries, an important strand in mitigation has been improving the fuel efficiency of fishing vessels. IFAD (2014) suggests that this can be achieved through the adoption of lightweight materials and aerodynamic hull shapes, as well as improving the engines themselves. On the 30th October 2014, Finnish marine technology and energy company Wärtsilä announced that they had been contracted by Scottish company Lunar Fishing to provide fuel-efficient engines for two 78m vessels (see below) which will operate in the North Sea upon construction in 2016.

Figure 1 - Two trawlers with energy efficient engines, scheduled for completion 2016 (source: Wärtsilä)

Of course, on paper it sounds very easy to simply install better gears onto vessels. As demonstrated with the above example, however, this option is only really feasible on large scales and require significant financial input. Suuronen et al. (2012) point out that there are significant barriers to entry when it comes to obtaining more efficient technologies, including 'restricted access to capital; ineffective technology infrastructure support; and inflexible fisheries management systems that restrict the rapid development and uptake of alternative gears'. So while it is clear that technology will be instrumental in reducing human impact, the existing fisheries infrastructure will have to be altered to make the widespread proliferation of these gears and technological fixes more viable. One solution might be the offer of government investment and loans to small and medium scale fisheries businesses to help them buy better equipment.

Now while this is a step in the right direction, the bulk of fisheries GHG emissions stem from product transport (FAO 2014). As such, the greatest potential for reducing emissions can be found in reforming transportation practices. The 2014 report by the FAO suggests that an industry-wide shift to bulk sea freight instead of non-bulk sea freight and air freight transportation can considerably reduce the emissions per unit of product. Daw et al. (2009) go so far as to assert that even with fisheries activity forecast to intensify over the coming decades, emissions reductions still be achieved if the above measures are executed.

While this is clearly a viable option in more economically developed parts of the world, it cannot be as easily implemented in the Global South where much fishing is carried out on the localised subsistence level. In this case, where individual fishermen try to feed their families, the bulk freight approach is fundamentally incompatible. In this case, it might be worth considering local management approaches which take into consideration the livelihoods and knowledge of coastal communities.

Adaptation - Economic Mechanisms

Last time we looked at how ecosystems can be configured or even engineered so as to limit the vulnerability posed by climate change effects to fisheries and coastal communities. This is a typical adaptation response - the approach looks at how to bolster resilience in the face of climate change. Today we will examine another adaptation strategy.

One branch of mitigating fisheries decline is through implementing economic mechanisms to make sustainable business a more financially viable course of action for those who exploit fish stocks. An IFAD report (2014) suggests that promoting certification schemes can act to limit exploitation of stocks. The idea behind this is that sustainably managed fisheries are rewarded for their adaptation efforts by receiving certification which they can stamp on their products. If certification is sufficiently promoted, it can become a gold-standard for goods and products in a particular sector. In order to entice buyers, producers are then incentivised to take relevant sustainability and adaptation measures. No doubt, you're familiar with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) logo present on all certified goods, and marine fisheries have their own certification in the form of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification. Formed by a partnership between the WWF and Unilever in 1996, the MSC gained became an independent organisation when it ceased to receive funding from the aforementioned and sought investment from other sources from June 1998 onwards. As Gulbrandsen (2009) points out, the certification scheme has been a success in that it has encouraged co-management of fisheries by scientists, governments and fishers. However, many fishers who share their resource with others are unable to gain certification due to the actions of others, beyond their control. As such, a fisher could comply fully with MSC regulations and not receive certification due to unsustainable practice by others. Precisely because of this, by 2009 certification had been awarded to only three developing countries, where fishing takes the form outlined above.

Additionally, insurance services are an option to encourage adaptation measures. Quite simply, insurance products designed for fishers and fish farmers greatly improve their resilience by providing a safety net and financial stability in times of disaster, such as extreme weather events likely to result from climate change. Furthermore, clauses can be included in the insurance contract which ensures the adoption of best management practices, or BMPs (IFAD 2014). Index-based insurance policies have been offered to coastal communities in Peru, providing fishers some level of stability in the face of unpredictable climate features such as El Niño (FAO 2014).

Adaptation - Ecosystem Approaches

So far we've looked at how the world's fisheries are likely to be affected by climate change. Today we will look at adaptation measures that can be taken. Adaptation measures involve accepting as inevitable the changes that will result from global warming and subsequently adjusting practices in order to limit the threats that these changes will pose to social and environmental systems.

A report by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO 2014) identifies two forms of adaptation approaches. Autonomous approaches involve the 'spontaneous reaction to environmental change'. This would include the local-scale shift by fishermen from one time or location to another in with movement of species. By contrast, planned adaptation approaches involve taking 'planned action based on climate induced changes'. An example of this would be funding research to identify species that are resistant to salinity and temperature fluxes and adopting them in aquaculture schemes.

Clearly, what we see here is a distinction between 'local' environmental knowledge in the form of autonomous approaches and international-scale science as implemented by planned adaptation. As we will see later, perhaps a synthesis of the two is an option to consider in the future.

As we've seen in previous posts, one problem associated with global warming is the potential for extreme weather events (BBC 2014) which can have disruptive implications for coastal fisheries and aquaculture activities. A report by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD 2014) proposes disaster risk management as a way of limiting the vulnerability of local communities and ecosystems to the effects of climate change. Traditionally this has been done through 'hard' engineering techniques, such as the construction of concrete revetments to protect coastal zones. Increasingly in recent years, however, there has been a shift to an 'ecosystems approach' to risk reduction. At the core of this is improving resilience by strengthening ecosystem stability and functioning, whilst simultaneously encouraging sustainable human activity that can maintain this ecosystem stability. This is very much a developing area of adaptation, and for more information you can enroll on this free online course run by UNEP on disasters and ecosystems which will run from January.

The FAO report (2014: 25-26) points to the Gulf of Mexico as an example of ecosystem risk management. Mexican authorities have utilised coastal restoration and wetland conservation in their ambition to bolster ecosystem functioning and thereby augment local resilience.

 

Figure 1 - Mexico's rich coastal mangrove ecosystems

Next time we'll be looking at the use of financial mechanisms and instruments in mitigation strategies.

South African Marine Reserves

In the latest installment in their series of articles on global food supply, National Geographic have included an assessment of South African marine reserve efforts, designed to limit human exploitation of fish stocks. I recommend you take a look at this informative piece, as in the coming posts I will be looking at adaptation and mitigation measures that can be taken to help alleviate the pressures imposed by climate change on fisheries.

Tracking the world's fisheries

There's been quite an important development in the analysis of fisheries in the last few days. A collaboration between Oceana, Google and SkyTruth has led to the release of a prototype platform called Global Fishing Watch (more on this here). The software uses satellite data to track global commercial fisheries activity, and once the public version is released it will allow ordinary citizens the opportunity to track and view global fisheries dynamics as well as the ability to update and contribute with their own information.

We've seen in previous posts that at present, fisheries are considerably lacking in assessment and analysis. This lack of information has led to much of the uncertainty. Pereira et al. 2010 highlight that not only is this absence of information detrimental for understanding of present phenomena, it severely limits the quality of modelling that scientists construct in an effort to predict future changes.

While it is too early to say for certain, this new development might be able to remedy some of these problems. Satellite data will be able to provide large-scale views of fish migrations and stocks, and local data contributed by citizens may be able to provide more detailed, specific information. It's also a great idea to involve 'normal people' in this project, as the workload is too vast for a single governing body to do on its own. Furthermore, by getting involved local people could take an interest in issues and perhaps shift to more sustainable practices. They might also have superior knowledge and understanding of the local geography and fisheries dynamics.

I think this project is definitely something to keep an eye on and hopefully it will provide much needed data once the public version has been released.

Aquaculture

When you think about it, the global fish industry is peculiar in one aspect. Whereas the majority of food production has progressed to human controlled cultivation, or farms, over the last several thousand years, it would seem that fish catch is the last remaining example of mass-scale hunter gathering. After all, the mobile nature of fish means that the logical action is to gear up your boat, set sail and hope for a good catch. Increasingly however this seems to be changing.

Recent decades have seen expansion in aquaculture, an attempt to replicate terrestrial agricultural practice in the form of 'fish farms'. Typically, this is achieved through setting up nets in the sea not too far from the coast, populating them with a particular fish species and then providing required conditions and nutrients to raise them in much the way pastoral farmers have farmed livestock for millennia.

The figure below shows that at present, over half of seafood is still wild caught while 45% is sourced from farms. It is predicted that by 2030, aquaculture will dominate production with a 62% share. Many have hailed aquaculture as the solution to many existing problems with global fish harvesting, including overexploitation by humans.

Figure 1 - Global seafood consumption (Source: World Bank).

The extent to which aquaculture can be seen as the long desired fix to fisheries problems is highly contestable. One thing that is quite certain however is that aquacultural practices are likely to be affected by climate change.

A recent IPCC report (2014) pointed out that despite their seeming independence from the larger ocean ecosystem, fish farms will still experience difficulties. The food stocks for many farmed fish species are anchoveta. Declines in this pelagic fish stock will have the result of a reduced food source for aquaculture, leading to declines in output and possible price spikes.

However, unlike many advanced aquaculture technologies found in the global north, many poorer regions of the planet are reliant on ecosystem services to raise their stock. So any changes to the ecosystem at large, which have been mentioned in previous posts, will have an impact on their farms (IFAD).

Additionally, extreme weather events resulting from climate change are likely to inflict damage on coastal aquaculture projects, making it an increasingly infeasible business endeavour fraught with uncertainty and instability.

There have been attempts in recent years to carry out fish farming on land with the aid of vast tanks. However, in many cases this has proved to be too costly and the resulting waste can lead to severe eutrophication in nearby freshwater systems if disposed off improperly.

If you've been following the blog regularly, it might seem like quite a bleak forecast so far. Predictions of so many large scale disruptions in the future can seem a bit overwhelming, but from next week we'll be looking at what measures and actions can be taken to reverse or minimise climate impacts. So cheer up!