significantly to the negative climate externalities imposed by fisheries (due to their fuel-intensive nature) and to excessive high-seas resource exploitation. Furthermore, they receive the bulk of fishery subsidies globally. Given the above, there is an opportunity to move to a more sustainable model for the future, through an approach as in Indonesia, in which coastal waters are reserved for SSF. In this approach, industrial fleets are used only to catch fish that are beyond the reach of the SSF, and then only if such fishing is profitable from a full-cost accounting perspective (i.e., including the negative externalities resulting from such activity).
Greening aquaculture According to FAO (2009), aquaculture supplies around 50 per cent of the world’s seafood. However, a close look at the total world fish supply from aquaculture reveals two disturbing issues. Firstly, as the supply from aquaculture increases, the supply from capture fisheries decreases. In fact, there is an almost one to one change in opposite directions. This means that aquaculture is not adding to the world supply of fish; rather it is displacing wild fish supplies. Secondly, aquatic plants account for about 23 per cent of the reported increase in aquaculture supply. Even in Japan, where aquatic plants are commonly eaten, these plants do not replace the need for real fish; they are used mainly as supplements. Deducting the 23 per cent of aquaculture supply that is aquatic plants reveals that the total supply of real fish from both the wild and farms is declining.
There are many challenges to aquaculture as a source of animal protein in a green economy. Many farms still rely
on wild caught fish as feedmeal and oil. The potential for disease from fish farms impacting wild populations is also an issue. Finally, there is the potential that fish farms can pollute the environment because of the waste they produce. Given these challenges, it is clear that current aquaculture practices need to be modified to make fish farming green.
The sector needs to 1) be organised to ensure minimal environmental degradation (Naylor et al. 1998); 2) stop the farming of carnivorous fish such as salmon, bluefin tuna and seabass until non-wild fish sources of fish meal are developed; 3) adopt integrated technologies that would make fish farming as self-contained as possible; and 4) develop reliable management systems for green aquaculture practices.
Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions in fisheries Climate change has begun to alter marine conditions, particularly water temperature, ocean currents, upwelling
and biogeochemistry, leading to
productivity shocks for fisheries (Diaz and Rosenberg 2008). Shifts in species distribution that appear to be caused by changes in sea temperature are well documented (Cheung et al. 2009; Dulvy et al. 2008; Perry et al. 2005), as are variations in growth rates (Thresher et al. 2007). Climate change may also alter the phonology of marine organisms, creating mismatches between the availability of prey and predator requirements and leading to coral bleaching and habitat loss for reef-associated fish species. These changes would affect the distribution and volume of
Box 2: Subsidies and small-scale fisheries
Moves to shift to a green economy can provide opportunities to invest in SSF in a manner that enhances sustainability of the resource base as well as the coastal economy and society. The key lies in using the investments to build institutional strength and suitable incentives at a local scale. Measures such as subsidies and investment strategies can be used as incentives to change human behaviour positively, supporting long-term objectives in moving the fishery toward sustainability, without serious negative impacts. For example, this could involve providing funds to encourage certain actions such as conversion of fishing gear to less damaging choices, or a shift from fuel-intensive to more labour-intensive fishing methods.
In the context of SSF, this implies a careful examination of which subsidies are truly sustainable, equitable
and moving in the direction of conservation. For example, a fuel subsidy is common in fisheries, but this tends to promote more fuel-intensive and capital-intensive fleets, which leads not only to over- fishing, but also to inequitable expansion of catching power for some (those who can take advantage of the subsidy) at the expense of others (with less capital). On the other hand, a subsidy that is used to provide more secure livelihoods for coastal fishers, and one that leads to a shift of SSF, where necessary, to more ecologically suitable methods, may be very helpful. The subsidy issue also relates to the balance of small- scale and industrial fishing. Past subsidies on vessel construction and on fuel led to a favouring of industrial fleets that are too capital- and fuel-intensive. A better policy would be to orient subsidies as incentives to balance industrial and small-scale fisheries, thereby generating both human and ecological benefits.