The Environmental Impact of Two Australian ... - Wiley Online Library

R E S E A R H A N D A N A LY S I S

The Environmental Impact of Two Australian Rock Lobster Fishery Supply Chains under a Changing Climate Ingrid E. van Putten, Anna K. Farmery, Bridget S. Green, Alistair J. Hobday, Lilly Lim-Camacho, Ana Norman-López, and Robert W. Parker

Keywords: climate adaptation Jasus edwardsii life cycle assessment (LCA) Panulirus ornatus rock lobster fisheries supply chains

Supporting information is available on the JIE Web site

Summary Understanding the potential future impacts of climate change along the supply chain for highly traded fisheries products can inform choices to enhance future global seafood security. We examine the supply chains of the Australian tropical rock lobster fishery (TRL) and southern rock lobster fishery (SRL), with similar destination markets but different catch methods and fishing communities. A boat-to-market analysis allows for comparison and illustration of the effects of single supply-chain aspects. We used life cycle assessment to provide an overview of the environmental footprint, expressed as global warming potential (GWP), eutrophication, and cumulative energy demand, for two lobster products: live animals and frozen tails. The export phase contributed 44% and 56% of GWP of live-weight lobster for SRL and TRL, respectively. The SRL fishery currently produces 68% of the combined 1,806.7 tonnes of lobster product and 78% of the combined global warming for the two fisheries over the whole supply chain. We develop climate adaptation options that: (1) reduce the overall footprint; (2) consider alternative supply-chain strategies (e.g., reduce cost); and (3) predicted impact of future climate change. Adaptation options include: more direct export routes and change in the export transport mode. Value adding and product differentiation, which can level out seasonality and thus spread risk, is likely to become increasingly important for both increases and decreases in predicted climate-induced abundance of fish species.

Introduction Changes in marine environments that are consistent with expectations under climate change have been occurring in many areas around the world (IPCC 2007; Burrows et al. 2011; Poloczanska et al. 2013). Biological impacts from climate-driven change will include variations in marine species abundance (Simpson et al. 2011), distribution (Perry et al. 2005; Nye et al. 2009; Last et al. 2011), physiology (Somero 2010; Neuheimer et al. 2011), and phenology (Dufour et al. 2010). Variations will almost certainly affect future fisheries catches and profitability (Hobday et al. 2008; Grafton 2010;

Cheung et al. 2010) and challenge sustainability and food security (Allison et al. 2009; Rice and Garcia 2011). The climate-change research focus to date has been on the fish and, to a lesser extent, the fishers (Berkes and Jolly 2001; Tompkins and Adger 2004; Arnell 2010; Hobday and Poloczanska 2010). Even when there has been a fisheries focus, it has tended to be as a result of direct impacts on biological abundance, including a change in catch limits (Frusher et al. 2014) or distribution, such as varying the fishing location (Pinsky and Fogarty 2012; Pecl et al. 2009). Climate change will also likely have impacts on the movement of seafood from fisher to consumer along the supply chain (Laderach et al. 2011; Haverkort and Verhagen

Address correspondence to: Ingrid E. van Putten, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Castray Esplanade, GPO Box 1583, Hobart Tasmania 7001 Australia. Email: [email protected] © 2015 by Yale University DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12382

Editor managing review: Michael Hauschild

Volume 00, Number 0

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie

Journal of Industrial Ecology

1


2008) as supply chains are interrupted (Plagányi et al. 2014) or government policies, such as a carbon tax, are implemented to curb emissions (Bartels 2012). Food production and distribution are responsible for 25% of greenhouse emissions (Godfray et al. 2011; Tilman and Clark 2014). Seafood is the most highly traded food internationally (Smith et al. 2010), and seafood consumption per capita is increasing alongside population growth (FAO 2012, 2014). Fossil fuel consumption is the primary source of energy for modern fishing fleets, and seafood is one of the main categories of airfreighted animal protein. The net result of the increase in seafood trade is potentially increased environmental impacts along the supply chain. Current relationships between food security and global warming potential (GWP) has focused mainly on food production from agricultural systems (Caputo et al. 2013); however, seafood production and distribution is similarly dependent on fossil fuels (Pelletier et al. 2011; Parker and Tyedmers 2012, 2014). Fuel is key to the environmental (Tyedmers et al. 2005) and economic sustainability of fisheries (Sumaila et al. 2010; Hilborn and Tellier 2012), and volatile fuel prices are a real threat to stability of fishing communities (Abernethy et al. 2010) and food production from fisheries (Pelletier et al. 2014). Ensuring future sustainability under a changing climate requires a detailed understanding of a range of issues such as reliance on natural resources, including fuel, water, and land, as well as the resulting environmental, social, and economic impacts and risks. Supply chains are quantitative and/or qualitative representations of the full range of activities involved from the point of conception of a product, through different production phases, to final consumption (Kaplinsky and Morris 2001). Whereas supply chains represent the transfer of product from conception to the final destination, value chains include information on the value added to the product at each stage, for instance, through packaging, grading, and cool storing. Through systematic management and strategic coordination of the supply chain, the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply chain as a whole can be improved (Mentzer et al. 2001). To guide environmental performance improvements, supply chains are often examined using life cycle assessment (LCA). This involves a compilation and evaluation of the environmental impact of a product using a systematic approach throughout the supply chain, from producer to consumer. LCA methods are standardized through the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 2006) to provide a structured format to compare a range of similar metrics for all stages of production, including broad analyses of resource dependency and emissions. It allows an integrated assessment of sustainability through measures of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and eutrophication, for example, thereby identifying high resourceuse elements and offering tangible pathways for emissions reduction. Following products from the producers (in our case, fishing boats) to the market allows for comparison between supply chains, illustrating the effects of single aspects such as transport mode, distance to markets, processing, and economic stability. LCA can be used to assess the impacts of seafood and 2


other food production (Hornborg et al. 2012; Ayer et al. 2007; Ziegler 2007; Harris and Narayanaswamy 2009; Thrane et al. 2009), including those impacts exacerbated by climate change and those contributing to climate change. These are an important addition to consumer-demanded fisheries metrics already measured by other means, such as health value (Gerber et al. 2012), sustainable harvest (Jacquet and Pauly 2007; Pelletier and Tyedmers 2008), and low by-catch fishing methods (Kaiser and Edward-Jones 2006). Developing future management and business options along the supply chain for fishery sectors will assist these valuable industries to minimize the impacts of a changing climate while, at the same time, mitigating the environmental impact of production and ensuring supply-chain efficiency (Fleming et al. 2014). The goal of directed adaptation in response to climate change is to reduce the risk of negative consequences and improve the opportunities, and is typically exercised by promoting new behaviors or changes in regulation (Stokes and Howden 2010; Hodgkinson et al. 2014). Here, we undertake a supply-chain analysis and LCA for two major Australian wild lobster fisheries: the southern rock lobster (SRL; Jasus edwardsii) and tropical rock lobster (TRL; Panulirus ornatus) (figure 1). The main fishery for TRL, which contributes around 2% to the Australian lobster catch, is in Torres Strait, between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The SRL fishery is in the southern part of Australia around the coasts of Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia. The Tasmanian component of the SRL fishery, on which we focus in this study, comprises 35% of the total Australian SRL catch and around 14% of the total Australian lobster catch. In this study, we first map the multiple supply chains for each fishery to determine those suitable for further assessment. Impacts from lobster production along the selected supply chains are then assessed and compared. We use these results to further analyze changes to the environmental footprint as a result of potential changes to stock biomass from climate change. We also analyze the impact of several supply-chain adaptation scenarios, motivated by the imperative to reduce economic risks and the overall environmental footprint in response to climate change. The Fisheries Two sectors within the rock lobsters fisheries, the Torres Strait TRL and the Tasmanian SRL fisheries, were selected as case studies to compare the current impacts along the supply chain and highlight future vulnerabilities to policies such as the introduction of a carbon tax or to increased prices through fuel spikes. The TRL and SRL have both have been ranked as biologically vulnerable to climate change (Pecl et al. 2009; Plagányi et al. 2011). Both fisheries are typified by a heterogeneous commercial fleet, and, in addition, the TRL fishery supports a number of indigenous communities. They make for interesting examples given that neither fishery is heavily industrialized, yet they remain highly profitable, and both depend largely on airfreighted export to China (table 1).


Figure 1 Approximate geographic study areas for the tropical rock lobster and southern rock lobster.

There are some important differences between the TRL and SRL fisheries which were considered in the LCA and supply chain analyses, not least the heterogeneous nature of the fleets in both fisheries (table 1). Rock lobster is Australia’s most valuable wild fishery in terms of gross value of production (GVP) and export value. It has a production value of AUD$384 million (2011–2012 figures), and the majority of production is exported (76%) (ABARES 2013). These focal fisheries are considered sustainably fished (Flood et al. 2012). The Tasmanian fishery for SRL lands approximately 1,200 tonnes (t) annually, making up 12% of total rock lobster landings and 6% of Australia’s rock lobster export value (Skirtun et al. 2013). Annual catch in the Torres Strait TRL fishery averaged 530 t in recent years, making up 6% of total Australian rock lobster landings and 7% of exported rock lobster product, but less than 1% of rock lobster export value owing to lower prices (Skirtun et al. 2013). The SRL is one of Tasmania’s most valuable fisheries. Lobsters are caught with pots baited with Pacific jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), Australian salmon (Arripis trutta), and

barracuda (Sphyraena novaehollandiae), set up to 50 meters (m) deep. In 2011–2012, there were 312 active licenses in the fishery. In the SRL fishery, 80% of trap lifts are made in shallow waters, and there is very little by-catch. Fishing trips in the SRL fishery range from 1 to 10 days. Vessels range generally from 10 to 18 m in length, with inboard diesel engines averaging 400 horsepower (HP), and operating 50 pots each. Fishing from smaller vessels is generally closer inshore whereas larger vessels fish in more exposed and remote areas, particularly on the west coast of Tasmania. After landing, lobsters are briefly stored in a local aquarium facility before being packed in styrofoam boxes with ice and wood chips to be shipped by air first to an exporter in Sydney and on to the destination market in Hong Kong. Total distance from Tasmania to Hong Kong, China is approximately 8,330 kilometers (km). A small proportion of the landed lobsters are frozen as whole fish for export. The TRL is the most valuable local fishery in the Torres Strait and is comprised of 470 indigenous fisher licenses, as well as 12 nonindigenous “mother boats.” In this highly selective dive fishery, there is no by-catch. In the TRL fishery, the

Van Putten et al., Environmental Impact of Lobster Supply Chains

3


Table 1 Summary of the characteristics of the Tasmanian southern rock lobster and tropical rock lobster fisheries Fishery characteristics and traits Number of fishing licenses Annual catch Fishing method

Tasmania—southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii)

Torres Strait—tropical rock lobster (Panulirus ornatus)

Fishing vessel types

Commercial fishing vessels (mostly between 10 and 18 m)

Over 470 indigenous 12 nonindigenous 586 tonnes (2013) Free-diving (spear, snare, or net) Hookah gear (snare or net) Indigenous—mostly fishing from dinghy Nonindigenous—mothership with tenders

Individual tradeable quotas (ITQs) Indigenous sector Aquaculture Average fishing depth

Yes

No

Special licenses issued for significant cultural events Not commercially cultured Approximately 88% of commercial pot fishing occurs in depths of less than 50 m Average whole-lobster weight between 600 g to 2.5 kg

Special rights exist in fishery Developing aquaculture sector in Asia Free dive fishery—down to approximately 4 m Hookah—down to 20 m Whole-lobster weight between 600 g and 2.5 kg

Supply peaks from November to March AUD$6.6 million (ABARES 2011) up to AUD$100/kg

Supply peaks from March to October AUS$6.5 million (ABARES 2011) up to AUD$48/kg live around AUD$30/kg tails Less than 5%

Weight of harvested lobster Availability Total GVP Beach price Australian domestic market share Fish export Export market

Around 312 1,220.7 tonnes (2014–2015) Pots (baited traps)

Around 20% Live whole fish (80%) Frozen whole fish (20%) Mostly to China

Live whole fish (70%) Frozen tails (30%) Mostly to China (live lobsters) United States (frozen tails)

Sources: Green and colleagues (2009) and Hartmann and colleagues (2012). Note: GVP = gross value of production; m = meters; g = grams; kg = kilograms.

fishing method is directly related to product type. Lobsters destined for live export are captured by both indigenous and nonindigenous divers using hookah gear (a petrol-driven surface-supplied breathing apparatus) and snares whereas lobsters destined to be processed for their “tail” (abdomen only) are mostly caught by indigenous free diving fishers using spears. Indigenous fishers operate from small dinghies whereas the mother boats mostly used by the nonindigenous sectors are larger displacement hull vessels with inboard diesel engines, each operating several dinghies. Dinghies are either fiberglass or aluminium with two-stroke outboard petrol motors averaging 40 HP. Nonindigenous vessels are typically set up with hookah gear, connecting divers to an oxygen supply by hoses, and divers use snares or nets to catch lobsters. Indigenous fishers typically dive without connected air supply and use spear guns to catch lobsters, but indigenous divers increasingly use hookah gear and thus contribute to the live trade. Live lobsters are stored locally before being packed in wood chips and ice to be flown from Cairns to Hong Kong through Sydney, a distance of 8,890 km. Indigenous fishers also produce lobster tails, which are frozen and shipped by vessel to the United States, a distance of 12,000 km. The remaining portion of lobster after the tail has been removed may be used locally or discarded. 4


In the SRL fishery, the average price obtained in 2011 was around AUD$100 per kilogram (kg). Processors allocated prices on size and color of mainly live product in proportion to the Chinese market prices. The TRL has a single per kg price for live product. Live lobsters are higher priced per kg of product than frozen tails (around AUD$48/kg compared to AUD$30/kg tails). Annual export quantities for both SRL and TRL are highly variable and depend on unpredictable external factors, such as the value of the Australian dollar, global disease outbreaks including severe acute respiratory syndrome, and the legality of market access. When exported quantities were low, as was the case in 2011–2012, a higher proportion of product was generally sold locally, particularly in the SRL. An unknown quantity of TRL is caught for private consumption, making it difficult to predict how a limited access to the export market might redirect supply for private consumption or sale in the domestic market.

Methods We conducted an LCA of three supply chains in Australia’s rock lobster export industry: Tasmanian SR, shipped live to Hong Kong (supply chain D, figure 2a), TRL shipped live to Hong Kong (supply chain G, figure 2b), and TRL tails frozen and


Figure 2 Supply chain for rock lobster caught in two Australian fisheries. (a) Tasmanian southern rock lobster fishery and (b) Torres Strait tropical rock lobster fishery.


5


shipped to the United States (supply chain F, figure 2b). The two live products reflect common rock lobster exports, which interact in the same market in China. The frozen tail product reflects a previously important export component, which has diminished in recent years, as live exports to China have increased. Case Study Supply Chains Supply chains for both the TRL and SRL fisheries were mapped, identifying the steps in the chains in relation to product flows from fishers to consumers (figure 2). Data used to generate supply chains were derived from surveys from previous studies (Van Putten and Gardner 2010; Hamon et al. 2009; Van Putten et al. 2012; Farmery et al. 2014), supplemented with additional data collected for this study. Supply-chain information was gathered for both fisheries through interviews with key representatives along the chain (representing approximately 60% of product for the combined fisheries), supplemented by government-collected fisheries-dependent data. Contributions to a suite of environmental impacts were quantified and characterized in each supply chain, following the commonly applied impact categories in previous seafood LCA (Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2012). These include GWP (kg carbon dioxide equivalent [CO2 -eq]) based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conversions (www.ipcc.ch), acidification potential (AP; kg sulfur dioxide [SO2 ]-eq) (Huijbregts et al. 2003), eutrophication potential (EP; kg phosphate [PO4 ]-eq) (Heijungs et al. 1992), ozone depletion potential (ODP; grams [g] trichlorofluoromethane [CFC-11]-eq) based on World Meteorological Organization models (www.wmo.int), and cumulative energy demand (megajoules [MJ] renewable and nonrenewable energy combined) (Frischknecht et al. 2007). The LCA had five central objectives:

r r r r r

quantify the GWP and other life cycle environmental impacts associated with Australian rock lobster products; identify relative environmental impact along the supply chain; compare the relative environmental implications of different product pathways originating from the same source fisheries or interacting in the same export market; compare impact of different fishing gears operating in similar fisheries; and assess the potential changes to life cycle environmental performance associated with several scenario analyses, relating to catch rate and transport methods.

Functional Units and System Boundaries Two distinct functional units were considered to reflect the multiple potential supply-chain pathways that a lobster product may take after landing, and to reflect the typical portion of lobster at the point of consumption. In both the SRL and TRL fisheries, whole live lobsters are exported to 6


Hong Kong, China. In addition, in the TRL, frozen tails are exported to the United States. Unlike the clawed lobsters (family Nephropidae), which have edible quantities of flesh in their front claws, the spiny lobsters (family Palinuridae) have most edible flesh in their tails. The lobster tail contains the vast majority of calories/protein and the “edible yield” of the lobster is more or less the same when comparing a tail to a live lobster. Direct comparison between live lobster (1 kg live lobster upon arrival in Hong Kong) and frozen tails (350 g frozen tail upon arrival in the USA) in the TRL fishery does reflect comparable portion sizes. The heads of the live product are generally not wasted in China, even though the gross energy contents of the heads are low. For tail exports, heads are removed after the product is landed at the processing facility. As well as assessing the fishery from the point of departure, impact was also assessed on the basis of 1 kg total product at destination (=2.9 tails). In addition, impacts associated with a live 1 kg lobster at the point of landing were quantified to compare fishing methods before processing and transportation. Material and energy inputs, product outputs, and emissions to air, water, and soil were quantified from fishery to the point of final distribution for each supply chain (figure 2). Sale, preparation, and composting/disposal were excluded from analysis because they take place after the departure of the product from the export chain. Inputs to the fishing stage included fuel, fishing gear (dive equipment and pots), and provision of bait (for pots only). Other inputs included energy requirements for storage and processing, material inputs to packaging, and transportation both between production stages and to the final destination. Data Sources Inventory data pertaining to gear and bait use in the SRL fishery were collected from semistructured interviews with Tasmanian fishing companies. Fuel consumption was estimated based on fuel expenditure data collected by a resource economics firm EconSearch 2012, coupled with landings data collected by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. Off-road diesel prices (excluding subsidies) were taken from the website www.motormouth.com.au and used to convert fuel expenditures to liters (L). Inputs to storage, processing, and packaging, as well as intermediate transport routes, were averaged from questionnaires sent to three Tasmanian seafood processors. Fuel consumption (per day) data for the indigenous and nonindigenous TRL fisheries were obtained from semistructured interviews undertaken in 2011 and 2012 (Plagányi et al. 2012). Catch and effort data were sourced from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority voluntary logbook database. Fuel consumption estimates were cross-checked with cost expenditure data. Material inputs to diving gear, and expected lifetime of gear, were solicited from commercial divers. Detailed life cycle inventory (LCI) inputs to rock lobster supply chains and associated data sources and assumptions are shown in table S1 in the supporting information available on the Journal’s website.


Allocation of Fishing Impacts Allocation is an important methodological challenge often encountered in LCAs, including many seafood LCAs, when a single production stage or process produces multiple products (Ayer et al. 2007). In these cases, environmental impact must be divided between co-products. Whereas the SRL supply chain assessed here produces only a single export product, impact from the TRL fishery was necessarily divided between whole lobsters, tails, and nontail product (heads). It was assumed here that the nontail portion of lobster after processing was not used and is considered waste. Impact from the fishery was allocated on the basis of mass between live lobster product and tail product, thereby placing a larger portion of the environmental burden on live lobsters than on tails. Two alternative methods of allocation were also modeled: allocation by mass between live lobsters, tails, and nontails, assuming nontail products to be used locally; allocation by nutritional value (total MJ of edible product) between tails and live lobsters; and economic allocation between tails and live lobsters on the basis of ex-vessel price. Software Inventory data were entered into the SimaPro 8.2 LCA package from PRe Consultants. Upstream inputs were extracted from the ecoInvent 3.0 LCI database from the Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories; sole use of ecoInvent rather than other inventory databases facilitated the analysis of all impact categories and also allowed for consistency between models. Impact assessment was carried out using CML characterization models. Scenario Analyses In addition to the functional unit and allocation method scenarios outlined above, four scenario analyses were conducted. These were selected to assess the potential effects of future climate-change–related challenges on the environmental performance of rock lobster fisheries, including changes to biomass and transport costs. The first two scenarios were projected changes in the available biomass of each fishery (+20% and –20%). We compare the adaptation scenarios to the evaluated impact of maintaining the status quo under predicted climate-change effects. Given that climate-change predictions are uncertain and vary regionally, we evaluate the impact of a 20% biomass increase and decrease on the environmental footprint of both fisheries. The impact scenarios were chosen based on modeled changes to the SRL (Pecl et al. 2009) based on future IPCC climate scenarios (IPCC 2007), which predict an increase in growth of individual SRL and a decline in recruitment (thus there is first an increase then a decrease in population biomass in the future depending on the time period and scenario). Similarly, for the TRL, both positive and negative abundance scenarios have also been predicted (Plagányi et al. 2012; Norman-Lopez et al. 2011). The third scenario was

a transition to transporting whole live lobster by seagoing vessels rather than by air, in response to higher transport costs. In this scenario, only the mode of transport was changed. The packaging methods for lobsters remained the same (styrofoam boxes). The fourth scenario involved a direct freighting route to the export market from the TRL fishing grounds. There may be logistical issues associated with more direct freighting, but we are only considering mode of transport, not profitability, infrastructure, or business models. The “new” export route is direct from Horn Island to Hong Kong, China, rather than the existing route in which product is flown south to Cairns and then north to China (through Sydney), which effectively repeats 1,700 km of the journey. For each scenario, the change in environmental performance for each impact category from the base case was estimated.

Results Supply-Chain Overview The TRL fishery has more direct supply chains to market than the SRL fishery, with fewer stages; however, there are several different individual product supply chains from the capture sector to the fish receivers for indigenous and nonindigenous fishers in the TRL (figure 2a, E–G) as well as several product types. In the SRL, several interim transport—primary and secondary—wholesale stages occur before the product gets to either the domestic or the international market. The TRL supply chain, on the other hand, converges at processors based in Cairns, who market products directly to both domestic and international markets. Processing of TRL in Cairns is currently dominated by a large processor with significant market shares. Both fisheries are characterized by multiple supply chains and dominance of export markets (figure 2). In particular, the majority of the product is exported live to the lucrative Chinese market. Of the four supply chains identified in the SRL fishery (figure 2a, A–D) export to China accounted for over 70% of the market for live lobsters. The TRL fishery also exports frozen tails to the United States, with export to the United States and China accounting for approximately 95% of the market (figure 2b, F and G). The TRL has a very limited domestic market (and a small amount is consumed directly by indigenous fishers and does not go to market), whereas the SRL has a more established domestic market. The export supply chains, which accounted for the majority of lobsters, were selected for further analysis here. Impact Assessments The environmental impacts associated with Australian rock lobster products varied substantially according to both the method of fishing and the type of product (table 2). Tasmanian SRL, shipped live to Hong Kong, China had higher impacts in all categories when compared to equivalent products from the


7


Table 2 Life cycle impact assessment results of rock lobster products

Product Southern rock lobster, live to Hong Kong, 1 kg Tropical rock lobster, live to Hong Kong, 1 kg Tropical rock lobster, frozen tail to USA, 1 kg Tropical rock lobster, frozen tail to USA, 1 kg

Global warming potential (kg CO2 -eq)

Acidification potential (g SO2 -eq)

Eutrophication potential (g PO4 -eq)

Ozone depletion potential (mg CFC-11-eq)

Cumulative energy demand (MJ)

23.9

221.4

41.8

1.64

366

17.0

67.8

19.7

0.98

248

6.9

21.9

4.4

0.48

93

19.9

62.5

12.6

1.36

266

Note: kg = kilogram; kg CO2 -eq = kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent; g SO2 -eq = grams sulfur dioxide equivalent; g PO4 -eq = grams phosphate equivalent; mg CFC-11-eq = milligrams trichlorofluoromethane equivalent; MJ = megajoules.

TRL fishery. Primary drivers of the higher impact associated with SRL products include higher fuel consumption, the use of diesel oil as opposed to more refined petrol, and the longer distance to Hong Kong. Fuel consumption (per kg of live lobster), which drives emissions at the fishing stage, was highest in the SRL fishery at 3.3 L/kg and lowest in the nonindigenous TRL fishery at 1.0 L/kg. Indigenous fisheries for TRL employing hookah gear consume 2.9 L/kg whereas indigenous free dive fisheries use 2.1 L/kg. Combined with the additional fuel underpinning bait fisheries necessary for potting, the higher fuel consumption in the SRL fishery leads to a higher emissions profile for SRL products, up to the point of landing (figure 3). Bait fishing, which here includes the use of a spotter plane, accounted for 6% of the SRL fishery’s GHG emissions, whereas manufacture of gear contributed negligibly to all fisheries. The nonindigenous hookah sector of the TRL fishery was the most efficient subsector in terms of fuel use and GHG emissions. Two thirds of the GHG emissions from the nonindigenous sector are associated with petrol consumed by fishing dinghies whereas the remaining third comes from diesel burned by mother boats. In contrast, the indigenous sectors use only petrol in dinghies for fishing, but consume substantially more fuel per kg lobster. Hookah and free dive methods in the indigenous fishery had similar rates of fuel consumption and emissions, and impacts associated with the actual gear were too little to make a substantial difference between the subsectors. For live lobster products, fishing and transport both contributed heavily to life cycle GHG emissions, each accounting for approximately half of the GWP of both live SRL and live TRL shipped to Hong Kong (figure 4). Transport emissions associated with frozen TRL tails shipped to the United States were much lower, contributing to a markedly lower impact, per unit, than live TRL, despite a similar emissions profile during the fishing stage. On a per kg basis, the GHG emissions of TRL tails are slightly higher than those of live lobster (table 1), despite the still negligible impact from transport, owing to the requirement for three live lobsters from the fishery and the assumption that heads are wasted.

8


Characterization results for other impact categories follow similar patterns as those for GWP (figure 5). For frozen tail products, the fishing stage dominates all impacts, with fuel consumption alone accounting for 90% or more across all categories except ODP, to which it contributed 76%. Fishing also accounted for >50% of all impacts assessed for live SRL products, with particularly high contributions to AP and EP associated with contents of marine diesel. Live lobsters from the less fuel-intensive TRL fishery derived more of their impact from transport, as well as substantial eutrophication emissions associated with electricity consumption during storage. Typically, the EP contributes 10% or less to impact categories for each of the products except in the case of TRL live lobster, where processing and packaging contributes significantly to overall impacts. Allocation Scenarios An important driver of results for TRL products, both live and frozen, is the allocation method to divide impacts from the fishery between whole lobsters, tails, and (potentially discarded) heads. Allocation scenarios shifted the impacts attributed to the different products (see tables S3 to S5 in the supporting information on the Web). In the production of frozen tails for the U.S. market, the head is discarded (table 3). The choice of whether a head is considered a co-product and thus deserves a share of environmental burden, or a waste and therefore all burden is placed on the tail, changed the results for per kg of tail (table S3 in the supporting information on the Web) and per tail by around 50% (table S5 in the supporting information on the Web). The impact on the results for live product is less, given that the majority of live lobsters come from the nonindigenous sector, which does not produce frozen tails. Economic allocation of fishery impacts would place a slightly greater burden on live lobsters, but would not change results substantially. Allocation scenarios enabled us to compare the impacts of the products in their different markets by the mass of the product presented to consumers. Ultimately, allocation is most relevant for tail products and the choice of allocation depends on whether the heads are considered wastes or usable residues, and


Figure 3 Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel, gear, and bait, associated with 1 kg of landed lobster in the southern rock lobster (SRL) fishery and three subsectors of the tropical rock lobster (TRL) fishery. kg = kilogram.

what sort of value is placed upon them. In the case of the lobster tail sector, the heads are presently not used.

Future Scenarios Scenarios relating to both biomass levels and transportation routes reveal potential for substantial changes, positive and negative, in the environmental performance of all rock lobster supply chains in the future. Detailed scenario analysis results are provided in the Supporting Information on the Web. The use of seagoing vessels rather than airfreight to Hong Kong, considered to be a potential avenue of energy and cost savings in the case of higher future flight costs, could see substantial decreases in impact associated with live lobsters from both the SRL and TRL fisheries. This scenario would not affect the frozen tail products. A transition to vessels would decrease the GHG emissions associated with live lobsters by 40% and 56% for products from the SRL and TRL fisheries, respectively. Decreases in other impact categories of between 12% and 39% for the SRL fishery and 29% and 62% for the TRL fishery could be expected. However, it remains to be seen whether transporting live lobster by sea would be effective, despite the potential energy and cost savings. Maintaining airfreight by a more direct route for live TRL product to the Chinese market (bypassing Cairns airport) would decrease the GHG emissions associated with live lobsters by 21%. A 20% increase or 20% decrease in biomass in these fisheries would result in a change in life cycle emissions and energy use of –6% to 9% for TRL live lobster, respectively, –15% to 23% for TRL frozen tails, and –10% to 10% for SRL live lobster. Changes in biomass, affecting only the fishing stage, have a more dramatic effect on tail products, given that >90% of the impact occurs at the fishing stage and is directly related to catch efficiency.

Discussion Airfreight currently represents approximately half of the GWP in both rock lobster fisheries, as reported in other studies for seafood supply chains (Ziegler et al. 2013). The impact of product type and capture method, driven by fuel efficiency and catch rate in other research (Ziegler and Valentinsson 2008; Driscoll and Tyedmers 2010; Ziegler et al. 2013), is smaller than the impact of the transport mode in the export phase in the present study. Even though the impact of the distance to markets on the environmental footprint is currently not a barrier to trading of seafood in these fisheries, or other artisanal fisheries for that matter (Ziegler et al. 2011), carbon quotas may influence future supply chains (Tang and Wang 2011). There is a notable difference in the impact of the catch sector between the two fisheries and between capture methods within the TRL fishery. The SRL, in which large vessels with traps are used, contributes three times as much to GWP per kg of lobster at capture than for the nonindigenous TRL, in which product is captured in dinghies using a hookah. Within the TRL, indigenous fishing using a hookah had the highest GWP, but this was still 20% less than SRL with traps. Low catch rates, at an average of less than 1 kg of lobster per trap/pot, directly reduce the efficiency in the SRL fishery (Farmery et al. 2014). There are a number of factors in the SRL fishery that result in low catch rates, including a large fleet, declining recruitment (Linnane) and biomass (Hartmann et al. 2012), and climate-change–induced shifts in ecosystem carrying capacity (Ling et al. 2009). The SRL fishery currently produces 68% of the combined 1,806.7 t of lobster product and 78% of the combined global warming for the two fisheries over the whole supply chain (37 t CO2 -eq). Eutrophication levels were much higher in the SRL as a result of the type of motor used and volume of fuel used. The main source of nitrogen oxides (grams of NO3 /NOx -eq) in the eutrophication category is from diesel combustion, which


9


Figure 4 Relative contribution (%) of fishing, processing/packaging, and transport to the overall environmental impacts of three rock lobster products: (a) southern rock lobster fished with pots in Tasmania and shipped live by air to Hong Kong; (b) tropical rock lobster fished with multiple dive methods in Torres Strait and shipped live to Hong Kong; (c) tropical rock lobster fished with multiple dive methods in Torres Strait, processed into frozen tail product and shipped to the United States. The processing and packaging component in (c) is too small to be visible.

10



Figure 5 Greenhouse gas emissions from fishing, processing and packaging, and transport associated with a single unit (one live lobster or one lobster tail) of rock lobster at the point of final distribution. Table 3 Allocation scenario results for tropical rock lobster products. Values in parentheses are % change from base case scenario. Global warming potential (kg CO2 -eq)

Acidification potential (g SO2 -eq)

Eutrophication potential (g PO4 -eq)

Ozone depletion potential (mg CFC-11-eq)

Cumulative energy demand (MJ)

Live tropical rock lobster (1 kg), shipped to Hong Kong 17.0 67.8 Mass, w/o headsa 15.9 63.8 Mass, with headsb (−6.5%) (−6.0%) 17.5 69.6 Economicc (+3.0%) (+2.6%)

19.7 18.8 (−4.3%) 20.0 (+1.8%)

0.99 0.92 (−6.4%) 1.02 (+2.9%)

248 233 (−6.0%) 255 (+2.8%)

Frozen tropical rock lobster tails (1 kg), shipped to USA 6.94 21.9 Mass, w/o headsa 3.24 10.8 Mass, with headsb (−53.2%) (−50.5%) 6.32 19.7 Economicc (−8.9%) (−9.8%)

4.41 2.08 (−52.8%) 3.97 (−10.0%)

0.48 0.27 (−43.9%) 0.44 (−7.5%)

93.2 43.8 (−53.0%) 84.8 (−9.0%)

Note: Values in brackets are % change from base case scenario. a Mass, w/o heads—mass allocation of fishing impact, allocating inputs to live lobsters and tails, based on the relative mass produced within each fishery sector (indigenous, nonindigenous, casual indigenous). Heads considered waste. This is the base-case allocation method used. b Mass, with heads—mass allocation of fishing impact, allocating inputs to live lobsters, tails, and heads based on the relative mass produced within each fishery sector (indigenous, nonindigenous, casual indigenous). Heads considered usable co-product. c Economic—economic allocation of fishing impact, allocating inputs to live lobsters and tails, based on the relative gross value of production within each fishery sector (indigenous, nonindigenous, casual indigenous). Heads were given no economic value, given that they are not typically sold. w/o = without; kg = kilogram; kg CO2 -eq = kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent; g SO2 -eq = grams sulfur dioxide equivalent; g PO4 -eq = grams phosphate equivalent; mg CFC-11-eq = milligrams trichlorofluoromethane equivalent; MJ = megajoules.

is the sole fuel used in the SRL. Crustaceans fisheries are the most fuel intensive of any kind of wild fishery (Parker and Tyedmers 2014; Farmery et al. et al. 2013 2014), and the SRL fishery is no exception. At 13.8 kg CO2 -eq kg−1 , lobster at capture emissions per kg exceed large-scale industrial fishing methods, such as trawling for small pelagic fishes, by 35 times (Driscoll and Tyedmers 2010; Ziegler et al. 2013). At 25 kg CO2 -eq kg−1 , emissions from the capture of southern rock lob-

ster in Tasmania (airfreighted 9,600 km to China) was lower than the emissions from the export of trawled Southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis) shipped from Senegal to Spain and trawled Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) eaten locally (38 and 32 kg CO2 -eq kg−1 lobster, respectively) (Ziegler et al. 2011; Ziegler and Valentinsson 2008), but was far greater than European seafood airfreighted to Asia (salmon, 14 kg CO2 -eq kg−1 ) (Ziegler et al. 2013).


11


Although the TRL and SRL lobsters differ biologically and in market traits, such as color, taste, and size, they are sold into the same export market—Hong Kong (see also NormanLopez et al. 2014). Given that the TRL and SRL fisheries are in relatively remote areas (the Torres Strait and Tasmania), considerable challenges are posed by the large distances to lucrative export markets owing to transport costs, the inherent vulnerability to changes in fuel prices (Pelletier et al. 2014), and emissions laws (Bartels 2012). As with other agricultural produce sold into overseas markets (Woodland and Sen 2010), lobster exports are exposed to other unpredictable and uncontrollable external factors, such as the value of the Australian dollar, global disease outbreaks, competition from aquaculture product, and the legality of market access (Norman-Lopez et al. 2014). Moreover, lobsters are a luxury product, which exposes the product to many other economic drivers (Jones 2010; Blisard et al. 2002). Adaptation scenarios that reduced the environmental footprint through choosing alternative transport modes or more direct export routes were considered. The use of oceangoing ships for all or part of the transportation of rock lobster products could result in decreases of emissions and energy use of over 56% for TRL products and 40% for SRL products. However, it remains to be seen whether transporting live lobster by a means other than air would be effective, despite the potential energy and cost savings. In reality, a number of caveats apply before these alternatives can be implemented. Detailed investment and feasibility analyses need to review the cost of development of infrastructure to enable alternative transport routes and modes. For instance, Tasmania has been without direct shipping to Hong Kong since 2011, and it would need to be financially appealing for a shipping company to undertake the freight service, to which lobster would only be one contributor. The cost implications of implementing the new freight modes and routes also need to be investigated. Longer lead times for seafreight transport, compounded by the logistics of delivering live product with high vitality, may impact on profitability. Even though we suggest adaptations in the export phase of the supply chain that could reduce the environmental footprint of both fisheries, the potential differential impacts of climate change on TRL and SRL abundance will determine the best options for each fishery. Reduced TRL and SRL abundance under climate change is predicted to increase the environmental footprint of both fisheries assuming fishing behavior remains the same, but is also likely to affect the overall industry value. The markets of the two species are integrated and the products substitutable (Norman-Lopez et al. 2014); therefore, if increased SRL abundance puts downward pressure on prices, the price of TRL will also fall, even if there is reduced abundance of TRL under climate change. Moreover, within the TRL fishery, the indigenous fishery is integrated with the nonindigenous TRL fishery. Combining indigenous and nonindigenous TRL catches generates adequate product volumes to support each supply-chain link and maintain processing infrastructure and thus exports to the Chinese market. The remote indige12


nous TRL fishery is the only indigenous Australian fishery, and one of few globally (e.g., Sengalese pink shrimp) (Ziegler et al. 2011), that accesses a lucrative, but unpredictable, foreign destination market. The continued existence of the most valuable indigenous Australian fishery, upon which Torres Strait Island communities depend, is therefore intricately linked to the nonindigenous TRL fishery as well as the SRL fishery, and change could have significant social and cultural implications in the Torres Strait. Using the knowledge of the supply-chain structure for both fisheries, the robustness of the supply chain (Plagányi et al. 2014) can be increased by increasing the quantities of lobster sold on the domestic market. This will reduce exposure to the vagaries of the export market (i.e., currency fluctuations and changes in demand) and reduce the environmental footprint (e.g., reduced freighting distances). When unexpected market closures in the Chinese market were experienced in the past, the SRL diverted supply to domestic markets (Dentoni et al. 2012; Hart 2009). Although little information is available, the TRL fishery currently seems to have less well-developed domestic markets and redistribution of product to the domestic market may not have occurred to the same degree at times of export market closure. Strengthening links in the domestic market, leading to improved market access, could potentially make unexpected and unpredictable export market closures more manageable and profitable for both the SRL and TRL in the future. Stable market access is particularly important for both these relatively remote fisheries. However, unless domestic prices increase, the continued profitability of the fisheries remains highly dependent on lucrative export markets and there is little incentive for this adaptation at present. The robustness of the SRL and TRL supply chains could be further improved by reducing the opaqueness of export market access. This could potentially be achieved through the recently introduced free trade agreement between Australia and China, although tariffs will only be phased out gradually. Similar to increasing the domestic market component, exporting tails or cooked product instead of live product could reduce the environmental footprint, given that these products do not need to be airfreighted. However, in both fisheries, live product receives, on average, AUD$50 kg−1 more than tails or cooked product. Lower processed product prices are likely to reduce margins if fish are taken out of live storage facilities, even though the supply of live product is seasonal and fluctuations in lobster quantities are high. Increases in the price of processed product and adopting new ways of value-adding lobster product may be necessary to achieve supply-chain efficiencies, smooth out seasonal impacts, and spread risk. A catch sector adaptation to reduce emissions of the indigenous component of the TRL fishery could be achieved by switching to more efficient engines. Indigenous fishers mainly use two-stroke engines, which are easier and cheaper to repair, but use more fuel and oil per kg of lobster. However, the payoff between reducing the environmental footprint and the reduced ability of indigenous islanders to undertake engine repairs themselves—and thus increasing reliance on expensive


mechanical specialists that may not be available in these remote locations—is a difficult trade-off.

Acknowledgments This Marine NARP project 2011/233 was supported by funding from the FRDC–DCCEE on behalf of the Australian Government. The authors thank to their project colleagues for discussions on data collection and analysis. The authors appreciate the comments of two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on earlier drafts.

References ABARES (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences). 2013. Australian fisheries statistics 2012. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. Abernethy, K. E., P. Trebilcock, B. Kebede, E. H. Allison, and N. K. Dulvy. 2010. Fuelling the decline in UK fishing communities? ICES Journal of Marine Science 67(5): 1076–1085. Allison, E. H., A. L. Perry, M.-C. Badjeck, W. N. Adger, K. Brown, D. Conway, A. S. Halls, et al. 2009. Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10(2): 173–196. Arnell, N. W. 2010. Adapting to climate change: An evolving research program. Climatic Change 100(1): 107–111. Ayer, N., P. Tyedmers, N. Pelletier, U. Sonesson, and A. Scholz. 2007. Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: Review of problems and strategies. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12(7): 480–487. Bartels, L. 2012. The WTO legality of the application of the EU’s emission trading system to aviation. European Journal of International Law 23(2): 429–467. Berkes, F. and D. Jolly. 2001. Adapting to climate change: Socialecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 18. Blisard, N., B.-H. Lin, J. Cromartie, and N. Ballenger. 2002. America’s changing appetite: Food consumption and spending to 2020. Food Review 25(1): 1–9. Burrows, M. T., D. S. Schoeman, L. B. Buckley, P. J. Moore, E. S. Poloczanksa, K. M. Brander, C. J. Brown, et al. 2011. The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science 334(6056): 652–655. Caputo, V., R. M. Nayga, and R. Scarpa. 2013. Food miles or carbon emissions? Exploring labelling preference for food transport footprint with a stated choice study. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 57(4): 465–482. Cheung, W. W. L., V. W. Y. Lam, J. L. Sarmiento, K. Kearney, R. Watson, D. Zeller, and D. Pauly. 2010. Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology 16(1): 24–35. Dentoni, D., J. Lu, F. English, and R. McBride. 2012. Driving a fishery along the bumpy ride of today’s globalization: The case of the Australian Southern Rock Lobster Association. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 15(4): 157–176. Driscoll, J. and P. Tyedmers. 2010. Fuel use and greenhouse gas emission implications of fisheries management: The case of the New England Atlantic herring fishery. Marine Policy 34(3): 353–359.

Dufour, F., H. Arrizabalaga, X. Irigoien, and J. Santiago. 2010. Climate impacts on albacore and bluefin tunas migrations phenology and spatial distribution. Progress in Oceanography 86(1–2): 283–290. EconSearch. 2012. Bioeconomic decision support tools for Southern Rock Lobster. South Australia: Australian Seafood CRC Project 2009/714.20. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2012. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2012. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2014. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: Opportunities and challenges. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Farmery, A., C. Gardner, B. S. Green, and S. Jennings. 2014. Managing fisheries for environmental performance: The effects of marine resource decision-making on the footprint of seafood. Journal of Cleaner Production 64: 368–376. Fleming, A., A. J. Hobday, A. Farmery, I. van Putten, G. T. Pecl, B. S. Green, and L. Lim-Camacho. 2014. Climate change risks and adaptation options across Australian seafood supply chains—A preliminary assessment climate risk management. Climate Risk Management 1: 39–50. Flood, M., I. Stobutzki, J. Andrews, G. Begg, W. Fletcher, C. Gardner, J. Kemp, et al. 2012. Status of key Australian fish stocks reports 2012. Canberra, Australia: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Australia. Frischknecht R., N. Jungbluth, H.- J. Althaus, C. Bauer, G. Doka, R. Dones, R. Hischier, S. Hellweg, S. Humbert, T. Köllner, Y. Loerincik, M. Margni, and T. Nemecek. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. ecoinvent report No. 3, v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, 2007. Frusher, S. D., A. J. Hobday, S. M. Jennings, C. Creighton, D. D’Silva, M. Haward, N. J. Holbrook, M. Nursey-Bray, G. T. Pecl, and E. I. van Putten. 2014. The short history of a marine climate change hotspot—From anecdote to adaptation in south-east Australia. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24(2): 593–611. Gerber, L. R., R. Karimi, and T. P. Fitzgerald. 2012. Sustaining seafood for public health. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10(9): 487–493. Godfray, H. C. J., J. Pretty, S. M. Thomas, E. J. Warham, and J. R. Beddington. 2011. Linking policy on climate and food. Science 331(6020): 1013–1014. Grafton, Q. R. 2010. Adaptation to climate change in marine capture fisheries. Marine Policy 34(3): 606–615. Green, B. S., C. Gardner, and R. B. Kennedy. 2009. Generalised linear modelling of fecundity at length in southern rock lobsters, Jasus edwardsii. Marine Biology 156(9): 1941–1947. Hamon, K. G., O. Thébaud, S. Frusher, and L. R. Little. 2009. A retrospective analysis of the effects of adopting individual transferable quotas in the Tasmanian red rock lobster, Jasus edwardsii, fishery. Aquatic Living Resources 22: 549–558. Harris, S. and V. Narayanaswamy. 2009. A literature review of life cycle assessment in agriculture. Barton ACT, Canberra, Australia: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Hart, G. 2009. Assessing the South-East Asian tropical lobster supply and major market demands. Canberra, Australia: Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). Hartmann, K., C. Gardner, and D. Hobday. 2012. Tasmanian rock lobster fishery stock assessment report 2010/11. Hobart, Australia: The Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart.


13


Haverkort, A. J. and A. Verhagen. 2008. Climate change and its repercussions for the potato supply chain. Potato Research 51(3–4): 223–237. Heijungs, R., J. B. Guinée, G. Huppes, R. M. Lankreijer, H. A. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, A. M. M. Ansems, A. M. M. Eggels, R. van Duin, and H. P. de Goede. 1992. Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Guidelines and backgrounds. Leiden, the Netherlands: CML, Leiden University. Hilborn, R. and P. Tellier. 2012. The environmental cost of New Zealand food production. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd. Hobday, A. J. and E. S. Poloczanska. 2010. Adapting agriculture to climate change: Preparing Australian agriculture, forestry and fisheries for the future, pp. 205–228. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO. Hobday, A. J., E. S. Poloczanska, and R. J. Matear. 2008. Implications of climate change for Australian fisheries and aquaculture: A preliminary assessment. Canberra, Australia: Report to the Department of Climate Change, Canberra, Australia. Hodgkinson, J. H., A. J. Hobday, and E. A. Pinkard. 2014. Climate adaptation in Australia’s resource-extraction industries: Ready or not? Regional Environmental Change 14(4): 1663–1678. Hornborg, S., P. Nilsson, D. Valentinsson, and F. Ziegler. 2012. Integrated environmental assessment of fisheries management: Swedish Nephrops trawl fisheries evaluated using a life cycle approach. Marine Policy 36(6): 1193–1201. Huijbregts, M. A. J., L. Breedveld, G. Huppes, A. de Koning, L. van Oers, and S. Suh. 2003. Normalisation figures for environmental life-cycle assessment The Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995). Journal of Cleaner Production 11(7): 737–748. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, edited by M. L. Parry, et al. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2006. ISO 14044: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment— Requirements and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. Jacquet, J. L. and D. Pauly. 2007. The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. Marine Policy 31(3): 308– 313. Jones, C. M. 2010 Tropical spiny lobster aquaculture development in Vietnam, Indonesia and Australia. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India 52(2): 304–315. Kaiser, M. J. and G. Edward-Jones. 2006. The role of ecolabeling in fisheries management and conservation. Conservation Biology 20(2): 392–398. Kaplinsky, R. and M. Morris. 2001. A handbook for value chain research: IDRC. www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/pdfs/Valuechain HBRKMMNov2001.pdf. Accessed 12 December 2014. Laderach, P., M. Lundy, A. Jarvis, J. Ramirez, E. P. Portilla, K. Schepp, and A. Eitzinger. 2011. Predicted impact of climate change on coffee supply chains. In The economic, social and political elements of climate change. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer Last, P. R., W. T. White, D. C. Gledhill, A. J. Hobday, R. Brown, G. J. Edgar, and G. T. Pecl. 2011. Long-term shifts in abundance and distribution of a temperate fish fauna: A response to climate change and fishing practices. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20(1): 58–72. Ling, S. D., C. R. Johnson, S. D. Frusher, and K. R. Ridgway. 2009. Overfishing reduces resilience of kelp beds to climate-driven

14


catastrophic phase shift. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(52): 22341–22345. Linnane, A., R. McGarvey, C. Gardner, T. I. Walker, J. Matthews, B. Green, and A. E. Punt. 2013. Large-scale patterns in puerulus settlement and links to fishery recruitment in the southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii), across south-eastern Australia. ICES Journal of Marine Science. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fst176. Mentzer, J. T., W. DeWitt, J. S. Keebler, S. Min, N. W. Nix, C. D. Smith, and Z. G. Zacharia. 2001. Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics 22(3): 1–25. Neuheimer, A. B., R. E. Thresher, J. M. Lyle, and J. M. Semmens. 2011. Tolerance limit for fish growth exceeded by warming waters. Nature Climate Change 1(2): 110–113. Norman-Lopez, A., S. Pascoe, and A. J. Hobday. 2011. Potential economic impacts of climate change on Australian fisheries and the need for adaptive management. Climate Change Economics 2: 209– 235. Norman-Lopez, A., S. Pascoe, O. Thebaud, I. van Putten, J. Innes, S. Jennings, A. Hobday, B. Green, and E. Plaganyi. 2014. Price integration in the Australian rock lobster industry: Implications for management and climate change adaptation. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 58(1): 43–59. Nye, J. A., J. S. Link, J. A. Hare, and W. J. Overholtz. 2009. Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf. Marine Ecology Progress Series 393: 111–129. Parker, R. and P. Tyedmers. 2012. Life cycle environmental impacts of three products derived from wild caught Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba). Environmental Science & Technology 46(9): 4958–4965. Parker, R. and P. Tyedmers. 2014. Fuel consumption of global fishing fleets: Current understanding and knowledge gaps. Fish and Fisheries. DOI: 10.1111/faf.12087. Pecl, G. T., S. Frusher, C. Gardner, M. Haward, A. Hobday, S. Jennings, M. Nursey-Bray, A. Punt, H. Revill, and E. I. van Putten. 2009. East coast, Tasmania—An assessment of climate change impacts on east coast rock lobster productivity, interactions with fisheries management and flow-on effects to local communities. Canberra, Australia: Department of Climate Change Australia. Pelletier, N. and P. Tyedmers. 2008. Life cycle considerations for improving sustainability assessments in seafood awareness campaigns. Environmental Management 42(5): 918–931. Pelletier, N., E. Audsley, S. Brodt, T. Garnett, P. Henriksson, A. Kendall, K. J. Kramer, D. Murphy, T. Nemecek, and M. Troell. 2011. Energy intensity of agriculture and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36: 223–246. Pelletier, N., J. André, A. Charef, D. Damalas, B. S. Green, R. W. Parker, R. Sumaila, G. H. Thomas, R. Tobin, and R. Watson. 2014. Energy prices and seafood security. Global Environmental Change 24: 30–41. Perry, A. L., P. J. Low, J. R. Ellis, and J. D. Reynolds. 2005. Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science 308(5730): 1912–1915. Pinsky, M. and M. J. Fogarty. 2012 Lagged social-ecological responses to climate and range shifts in fisheries. Climatic Change 115(3): 883–891. ´ E., S. J. Weeks, T. D. Skewes, M. T. Gibbs, E. S. PoloczanPlagányi, E. ska, A. Norman-López, L. K. Blamey, M. Soares, and W. M. L. Robinson. 2011. Assessing the adequacy of current fisheries management under changing climate: A southern synopsis. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(6): 1305–1317. ´ E., R. Deng, D. Dennis, T. Hutton, S. Pascoe, E. I. van Plagányi, E. Putten, and T. Skewes. 2012. An integrated management strategy


evaluation (MSE) for the Torres Strait tropical rock lobster Panulirus ornatus fishery: Final project report AFMA project number 2009/839. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO/AFMA. ´ E., I. van Putten, O. Thébaud, A. J. Hobday, J. Innes, Plagányi, E. L. Lim-Camacho, A. Norman-López, et al. 2014. A quantitative metric to identify critical elements within seafood supply networks. PLoS One 9(3): e91833. Poloczanska, E. S., C. J. Brown, W. J. Sydeman, W. Kiessling, D. S. Schoeman, P. J. Moore, K. Brander, et al. 2013. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nature Climate Change 3(10): 919–925. Rice, J. C. and S. M. Garcia. 2011. Fisheries, food security, climate change, and biodiversity: Characteristics of the sector and perspectives on emerging issues. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(6): 1343–1353. Simpson, S. D., S. Jennings, M. P. Johnson, J. L. Blanchard, P.-J. Schon, D. W. Sims, and M. J. Genner. 2011. Continental shelfwide response of a fish assemblage to rapid warming of the sea. Current Biology 21(18): 1565–1570. Skirtun, M., M. Stephan, and K. Mazur. 2014. Australian Fisheries Economic Indicators Report 2013: Financial and Economic Performance of the Northern Prawn Fishery. Canberra: ABARES. Smith, M. D., C. A. Roheim, L. B. Crowder, B. S. Halpern, M. Turnipseed, J. L. Anderson, F. Asche, et al. 2010. Sustainability and global seafood. Science 327(5967): 784–786. Somero, G. N. 2010. The physiology of climate change: How potentials for acclimatization and genetic adaptation will determine ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. The Journal of Experimental Biology 213(6): 912–920. Stokes, C. J. and S. M. Howden. 2010. Adapting agriculture to climate change: Preparing Australian agriculture, forestry and fisheries for the future. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO. Sumaila, U. R., A. Khan, L. Teh, R. Watson, P. Tyedmers, and D. Pauly. 2010. Subsidies to high seas bottom trawl fleets and the sustainability of deep-sea demersal fish stocks. Marine Policy 34(3): 495–497. Tang, S. L. and J. W. Wang. 2011. The impacts of carbon quotas on supply chain management. In Business and economics research, edited by S. Juan. Singapore: International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology (IACSIT). Thrane, M., F. Ziegler, and U. Sonesson. 2009. Eco-labelling of wildcaught seafood products. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(3): 416– 423. Tilman, D. and M. Clark. 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515(7528): 518–522. Tompkins, E. L. and W. N. Adger. 2004. Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society 9(2): 10. Tyedmers, P. H., R. Watson, and D. Pauly. 2005. Fueling global fishing fleets. Ambio 34(8): 635–638. Van Putten, E. I. and C. Gardner. 2010. Lease quota fishing in a changing rock lobster industry. Marine Policy 34(5): 859–867.

Van Putten, E. I., A. Lalancette, P. Bayliss, D. Dennis, T. Hutton, A. Norman-López, S. Pascoe, E. Plagányi, and T. Skewes. 2012. A Bayesian model of factors influencing indigenous participation in the Torres Strait tropical rock lobster fishery. Marine Policy Special Issue. DOI 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.001. Vázquez-Rowe, I., M. T. Moreira, and G. Feijoo. 2012. Inclusion of discard assessment indicators in fisheries life cycle assessment studies. Expanding the use of fishery-specific impact categories. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17(5): 535–549. Woodland, A. and K. Sen. 2010. The volatility of Australian traded goods’ prices. Applied Economics 42(30): 3849–3869. Ziegler, F. 2007. Environmental life cycle assessment of seafood products from capture fisheries. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12(1): 61. Ziegler, F. and D. Valentinsson. 2008. Environmental life cycle assessment of Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) caught along the Swedish west coast by creels and conventional trawls—LCA methodology with case study. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13(6): 487–497. Ziegler, F., A. Emanuelsson, J. L. Eichelsheim, A. Flysjo, V. Ndiaye, and M. Thrane. 2011. Extended life cycle assessment of southern pink shrimp products originating in Senegalese artisanal and industrial fisheries for export to Europe. Journal of Industrial Ecology 15(4): 527–538. Ziegler, F., U. Winther, E. S. Hognes, A. Emanuelsson, V. Sund, and H. Ellingsen. 2013. The carbon footprint of Norwegian seafood products on the global seafood market. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17(1): 103–116.

About the Authors Ingrid van Putten is a research scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Oceans and Atmosphere, in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Anna Farmery is a Ph.D. candidate and research assistant at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Bridget Green is a senior research fellow for the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) at the University of Tasmania. Alistair Hobday is a research scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Oceans and Atmosphere. Lilly Lim-Camacho is a research scientist at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Land and Water, in Pullenvale, Queensland, Australia. Ana Norman-López was an economic researcher at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Brisbane, Australia, at the time the article was written. She is currently an economist at the European Commission, in Brussels, Belgium. Robert Parker is a Ph.D. candidate at the IMAS, University of Tasmania.

Supporting Information Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s web site: Supporting Information S1: This supporting information includes life cycle inventory inputs to the rock lobster supply chain and compares different allocation methods for rock lobsters and life cycle scenarios. Van Putten et al., Environmental Impact of Lobster Supply Chains

15