We have limited our response to Section 3.4, Resource and environmental sustainability: necessary but not-sufficient conditions for food security
These comments relate to page 28.
The statement in line 7 appears to downplay the importance of seafood in the global diet by indicating that it is 1% of the total calorie intake of humans. Yet "Globally, fish provides about 3.0 billion people with almost 20 percent of their average per capita intake of animal protein, and 4.3 billion people with about 15 percent of such protein" (as stated on page 2 line 32). Animal protein is important because it is the source of the essential amino acid lysine, which plant protein cannot supply, and in addition seafood provides several micronutrients not available from other sources (as stated in the report on pages 15–18). Therefore seafood must continue to be available to satisfy these nutritional needs.
These comments relate to page 31.
The description of the impacts of aquaculture on the environment is not balanced. It infers that aquaculture operations of themselves have converted large parts of the coastal zone from other productive activity to a damaged state by destructive means. This may be indeed the case in some locations and regions. However, the studies underpinning this statement are relatively old: two from 1996 and 1999, which of necessity are retrospective, and the EJF study (2002), which draws upon older and less reliable data and refers only to areas of Vietnam. The assertion that environmental damage caused by aquaculture is mostly historical is borne out by the statement further down the page (line 32) that "the era of severe environmental problems is behind and … aquaculture is on the road to sustainability (Costa-Pierce et al. 2012)”. In common with several human endeavours, aquaculture continues to have the potential of causing environmental damage. However, with the benefit of experience and with more focus on sustainability, these consequences can be reduced significantly. In several cases aquaculture can confer environmental benefits e.g. shellfish farming can reduce the damaging effects of eutrophication (Rice, 1999).
The question is: can aquaculture proceed sustainably, so that any damage is reversible? Another question may be: how does aquaculture fare in comparison to other forms of production of animal protein?
When taking a global view of the need to alleviate hunger it may be worth looking at the potential impact of restrictions and pressures being imposed on aquaculture growth in the developed part of the globe and consider if such restrictions are displacing effort, production and consequential ‘damage’ to areas in less developed nations.
The seas around the UK and in the contiguous EU waters are under increasing pressure to provide services to a wide range of other coastal users. See here for examples of cables and oil and gas pipelines in waters around the UK http://www.seafish.org/media/1127829/cables_oilgas_owf_a0_bbord_ofc.pdf
and the Irish Sea http://www.seafish.org/media/1127826/activity_chart_i_sea_ofce_lr.pdf. The FishSAFE (Oil & Gas pipelines in UK waters, www.fishsafe.eu ) and KIS-ORCA (Cables and Renewables in UK and surrounding waters, www.kis-orca.eu ) mapping systems have accounted for >16,000 miles of pipeline, >350 safety zones, >1,000 subsea structures, >1,200 wind turbines, >600 miles of wind farm export cabling and >27,000 miles of subsea telecoms and power cables (M. Frow, Seafish, personal communication).
In the UK the aquaculture sector experiences significant difficulties in gaining space and permission to maintain operations, to expand or move offshore. Seafish and partners have investigated the potential to coexist with other users, and found, for example, that shellfish production can coexist with offshore wind farms ( Syvret et al., 2013). It may be advantageous for this report to indicate the attributes and benefits of such agreements where they are suitable.
Also the species that are suitable for northern hemisphere culture operations are not necessarily suitable for southern hemisphere production. Therefore if production of a traditional species is stifled and unable to meet regional demand could it be said that the market for seafood is trying to fulfil demand by encouraging consumption of a species easily cultivated in another part of the world. If this appears to be the case, any study and report into the role of aquaculture in meeting the needs of the global population may consider displacement of effort and the consequential reduction of production regionally.
In line 34 it is stated, appropriately, that "as in fisheries, the debate on the sustainability of aquaculture has only occasionally been framed in relation to food (or nutritional) security." More work certainly needs to be carried out to evaluate the aquaculture "footprint" in relation to the environmental cost of other methods of protein production. One rare study (Pelletier et al., 2011) indicates that some forms of fishing and aquaculture are remarkably low in terms of "cradle-to-producer life cycle energy use" when compared to livestock production. Maintenance of biodiversity in areas of fish production is much higher than in areas of livestock or agricultural production (Hilborn, 2012).
Finally, on line 12, it is stated that "aquaculture is still a relatively new industry". Whereas the intensification of aquaculture of some species is relatively new, aquaculture has been practised in various parts of the world for millennia (Rabanal 1988; Stichtenoth, 2006) http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monmag/issue17-2006/research/research-eels.html.,
References
Hilborn, R., 2012. Sustainability and environmental impacts of food from the sea. Presentation given at the World Fisheries Congress, Edinburgh 7–11 May 2012. Available from http://rayhblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/hilborn-world-fisheries-congress.pdf
Pelletier, N., Audsley, E., Brodt, S., Garnett, T., Henriksson, P., Kendall, A., Kramer, K. J., Murphy, D., Nemecek, T., & Troell, M. (2011). Energy intensity of agriculture and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36 (1), 223-246.
Rabanal, H.R., 1988. History of Aquaculture. ASEAN/SF/88/Tech. 7. ASEAN/UNDP/FAO Regional Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries Development Project, Manila.
Rice, M.A., 1999. Control of eutrophication by bivalves: Filtration of particulates and removal of nitrogen through harvest of rapidly growing stocks. Journal of Shellfish Research 18(1):275.
Stichtenosh, K., 2006. Once were eel farmers. Monash Magazine, Autumn/Winter 2006. Available from http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monmag/issue17-2006/research/research-eels.html
Syvret, M., FitzGerald, A., Wilson, J., Ashley, M., Ellis Jones, C., 2013. Aquaculture in Welsh offshore wind farms: a feasibility study into potential cultivation in offshore wind farm sites. Report for the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, 250p. Available from http://www.shellfish.org.uk/readmore.php?newsid=51
Sea Fish Industry AuthorityIvan Bartolo