A new report from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, found that in 2022 more fish were farmed worldwide than were harvested from the wild, an apparent first.
Last week the FAO said annual report on the state of aquaculture – which refers to the farming of both seafood and aquatic plants – and fisheries around the world. The organization found that global production of both aquaculture and fisheries reached a new high – 223.3 million metric tons of animals and plants – in 2022. Of that, 185.4 million metric tons were aquatic animals, and 37.8 million metric tons of algae. Aquaculture accounted for 51 percent of aquatic animal production in 2022, or 94.4 metric tons.
The milestone was in many ways an expected one, given the world’s insatiable appetite for seafood. Since 1961, seafood consumption has grown at twice the annual rate of the world’s population, according to the FAO. Because production levels of fisheries are not expected to change significantly in the future, an increase in aquaculture is almost certainly needed to meet the growing global demand for seafood.
Although fishery production levels fluctuate from year to year, “it’s not like there are new fisheries out there waiting to be discovered,” says Dave Martin, program director for Sustainable Fisheries Partnerships, an international organization that works to reduce the environmental impact of seafood supply chains. reduce. . “Any growth in consumption of seafood is therefore going to come from aquaculture.”
But the rise of aquaculture highlights the need to transform seafood systems to reduce their impact on the planet. Both aquaculture and fisheries—sometimes referred to as capture fisheries since they involve the capture of wild seafood—come with significant environmental and climate considerations. What’s more, the two systems are often interdependent, making it difficult to isolate their climate impacts.
Bloomberg Creative/Getty Images
“There’s a lot of overlap between fisheries and aquaculture that the average consumer might not see,” said Dave Love, a research professor at the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University.
Studies have shown that the best diet for the planet is one free of animal proteins. Still, seafood generally has much lower greenhouse gas emissions than other forms of protein from land-based animals. And given many people’s reluctance or inability to go vegan, the FAO recommends transforming, adapting and expanding sustainable seafood production to feed the world’s growing population and improve food security.
But “there are many ways to do aquaculture well, and there are many ways to do it poorly,” Martin said. Aquaculture can result nitrogen and phosphorus released into the natural environment, damaging aquatic ecosystems. Farmed fish can also spread diseases to wild populations, or escape from their boundaries and breed with other species, leading to genetic contamination that can disrupt the fitness of a wild population. Martin points to the diesel used to power equipment on certain fish farms as a major source of aquaculture’s environmental impact. According to an analysis by the climate solutions nonprofit Project Drawdown, swapping out fossil fuel-based generators on fish farms for renewable-powered hybrids prevent 500 million to 780 million metric tons of carbon emissions by 2050.
Other areas for improvement will vary depending on the specific species being farmed. In 2012, a UN study found that mangrove forests – a major carbon sink – suffered a lot due to the development of shrimp and fish farming. Stakeholders in the industry today are examining how new approaches and techniques from shrimp farmers can help restore mangroves.
Meanwhile, wild fishing operations present their own environmental problems. For example, poorly managed fisheries can harvest fish faster than wild populations can reproduce, a phenomenon known as overfishing. Sure destructive wild fishing techniques also kill many non-target species, known as bycatch, which threaten marine biodiversity.
But the line between aquaculture and fish harvested from the wild is not as clear as it might seem. For example, pink salmon raised in hatcheries and then released into the wild to feed, mature and eventually be recaptured are is often marketed as “wild caught”. Lobster, caught wild in Maine, is often bait fed by fisherman to help them put on weight. “It’s a wild fishery,” Love said — but the lobstermen’s practice of fattening their catch shows how human intervention is present even in wild-caught operations.
On the other hand, in a majority of aquaculture systems, farmers provide their fish with feed. That feed sometimes includes fishmeal, says Love, a powder that comes from two sources: seafood processing waste (think: fish guts and tails) and wild-caught fish.
All this can result in a confusing landscape for climate or environmentally conscious consumers who eat fish. But Love recommends a few ways consumers can navigate choices when shopping for seafood. Buying fresh fish locally helps shorten supply chains, which can lower the carbon impact of eating aquatic animals. “In our work, we have found that the major impact of transportation is the shipment of fresh seafood internationally by air,” he said. For example, most farmed salmon is sold in the US is flown in.
From both a climate and a nutritional standpoint, smaller fish and sea vegetables are also both good options. “Clams, clams, oysters, seaweed — they’re all loaded with macronutrients and minerals in different ways” compared to finfish, Love said.
