Erik Skontorp Hognes

The Carbon Footprint of Norwegian Seafood Products on the Global Seafood Market

Greenhouse gas emissions caused by food production are receiving increased attention worldwide. A problem with many studies is that they only consider one product; methodological differences also make it difficult to compare results across studies. Using a consistent methodology to ensure comparability, we quantified the carbon footprint of more than 20 Norwegian seafood products, including fresh and frozen, processed and unprocessed cod, haddock, saithe, herring, mackerel, farmed salmon, and farmed blue mussels. The previous finding that fuel use in fishing and feed production in aquaculture are key inputs was confirmed. Additional key aspects identified were refrigerants used on fishing vessels, product yield, and by�?product use. Results also include that product form (fresh or frozen) only matters when freezing makes slower transportation possible. Processing before export was favorable due to the greater potential to use by�?products and the reduced need for transportation. The most efficient seafood product was herring shipped frozen in bulk to Moscow at 0.7 kilograms CO equivalents per kilogram (kg CO�?eq/kg) edible product. At the other end we found fresh gutted salmon airfreighted to Tokyo at 14 kg CO�?eq/kg edible product. This wide range points to major differences between seafood products and room for considerable improvement within supply chains and in product choices. In fisheries, we found considerable variability between fishing methods used to land the same species, which indicates the importance of fisheries management favoring the most resource�?efficient ways of fishing. Both production and consumption patterns matter, and a range of improvements could benefit the carbon performance of Norwegian seafood products.

Review and advancement of the marine biotic resource use metric in seafood LCAs: a case study of Norwegian salmon feed

PurposeSeafood life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have adopted the primary production required (PPR) indicator to account for the impact of these production systems (e.g., capture fisheries or aquaculture) on the ecosystems they harvest wild inputs from. However, there exists a large diversity in the application of methods to calculate PPR, and current practice often does not consider species- and ecosystem-specific factors. Here, we critically examine current practice and propose a refined method for applying the PPR metric in seafood LCAs.MethodsWe surveyed seafood LCAs that quantify PPR, or its derivatives, to examine the diversity of practice. We then defined and applied a refined method to a case study of the average Norwegian salmon feed in 2012. This refined method incorporates species-specific fishmeal and oil yields, source ecosystem-specific transfer efficiencies and expresses results as a percentage of total ecosystem production that PPR represents. Results were compared to those using previously applied methods based on the literature review, and the impact of uncertainty and natural variability of key input parameters was also assessed using Monte Carlo simulation.Results and discussionFrom the literature review, most studies do not incorporate species-specific fishmeal and oil yields or ecosystem-specific transfer efficiencies when calculating PPR. Our proposed method, which incorporated source species- and ecosystem-specific values for these parameters, provides far greater resolution of PPR than when employing global average values. When alternative methods to calculate PPR were applied to marine inputs to Norwegian salmon feeds, resulting PPR values were similar for some sources of fishmeal and oil. For other species, such as Atlantic herring from ecosystems with low transfer efficiencies, there was a large divergence in resulting PPR values. For combined inputs to Norwegian salmon feeds in 2012, the refined method resulted in a total PPR value that is three times higher than would result using the currently standard method signaling that previous LCA research may have substantially underestimated the marine biotic impacts of fishery products.ConclusionsWhile there exists a great diversity of practice in the application of the PPR indicator in seafood LCA, the refined method should be adopted for future LCA studies to be more specific to the context of the study.

Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emission of Korean Offshore Fisheries

This paper presents the energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission assessments of Korean offshore fisheries. The consumption of energy by fisheries is a significant concern because of its attendant environmental effect, as well as the cost of the fuel consumed in fishing industry. With the global attention of reducing GHG emission and increasing energy efficiency of fuel, the seafood industry needs to further understand its energy use and reduce its GHG emission. In the present study, the amount of energy consumed and the GHG emission of Korean offshore fisheries in a period from 2009 to 2013 were examined. Offshore fisheries accounted for 24% of Korean production in 2013 and 60% of fuel consumption related GHG emission. Whereas the total GHG emission intensity of this sector improved slightly between 2009 and 2012; as such emission decreased by approximately 1.9%, which increased again in 2013. The average amount of total GHG emission in this five years period was 1.78 × 106 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent/year (t CO2 eq. y−1). Active fishing gear was found to consume 20% more fuel than passive gear. However, the production from passive gear was 28%, lower than 72% from active gear. The reason for this is that less abundant stationary resources are harvested using passive gear. Furthermore, the consumption of fuel was significantly influenced by the fishing method. Implementation and development of new fishing technologies and methods are important for improving energy efficiency and reducing the climate impact on fisheries. To realize these purposes, the fishery management system needs to be established by centralizing on energy efficiency and climate effect.