If we replaced the protein we got from fish with land based agriculture, we’d need extra grazing land equal to the entire world’s rainforest 22 times over, says eminent fisheries scientist Professor Ray Hilborn.
Professor Hilborn, from Washington University, USA, has evaluated published research into the effects on the environment of protein production (including farming animals on land and catching wild fish). He found that on average, commercial fishing had a lesser impact on the environment than land-based animal farming.
Seafood industries are held to “higher environmental standards generally” when compared with other food producers, he says.
“Protein production is always going to have some effect on the environment. But it is important that we are aware of the trade off required to feed the world. It wouldn’t be smart to suggest we stop producing any single category of food, especially without thinking about how and with what we’re going to replace it.
“Commercial fishing in particular is held to higher environmental standards. If green groups were consistent and applied those same standards to other forms of food production we wouldn’t have anything to eat.”
Professor Hilborn examined existing published and peer reviewed research from a wide range of scientific sources into the environmental effects of food production.
“When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense that fishing has a relatively small environmental impact. In terms of water use, water pollution, pesticides, fertiliser, antibiotics and soil erosion, fishing barely figures. Then when you compare energy use and CO2 footprint, fishing in general comes out on top again.”
Fishing also compared favourably in terms of biodiversity, Professor Hilborn said. “This is interesting because biodiversity is an area where fishing has been strongly criticised.”
He said the other scientists’ work shows that fishing typically reduces measured biodiversity by 30 per cent and reduces abundance of fish by one half to three quarters.
“Land based agriculture has a far greater effect on biodiversity. For every acre that’s ploughed you lose 100 per cent of the biodiversity.”
ENDS
Email Professor Hilborn rayh@u.washington.edu to arrange an interview time.
Background
Professor Hilborn’s review was of the following research:
Energy efficiency of fishing vs agriculture
Tyedmers, P. 2004. Fisheries and Energy Use. Encyclopedia of Energy. 2:
683-693.
Impacts of fishing on biodiversity
Halpern, B. S., and Warner, R. R. 2002. Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects. Ecol. Lett. 5: 361-366.
Impacts of Trawling on biodiversity
Collie, J. S., Hall, S. J., Kaiser, M. J., and Poiner, I. R. 2000. A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. J. Anim.
Ecol. 69: 785-798.
Impacts of livestock
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., and de Haan, C. 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Notes
Professor Hilborn recently visited New Zealand as part of the science seminar where he spoke to this and other fisheries research.
His presentation to that seminar, as well as those of fisheries scientists Adam Langley and Pamela Mace, is here http://www.seafoodindustry.co.nz/
He was interviewed for the documentary The End of the Line. Since that documentary was released, Professor Hilborn and Dr Boris Worm of Dalhousie University, along with 19 other fisheries scientists from around the world released a new study of into the state of the world’s developed fisheries.
You can see a clip of highlights of that research here http://www.youtube.com/
A summary of the research, which was published in the journal Science is
here http://www.sciencemag.org/
