Abstract:
The climate change has been predicted in some range of time as direct or indirect issue impacts on the ocean and freshwater capture fisheries, with the involve of fisheries-dependent economies, coastal area communities and fisherfolk. These predicted impacts present and applies these concepts such the vulnerability, adaptation and adaptive capacity.
The capture fisheries are in the sense driven by fossil fuels and then contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions through fishing activities, about at 40- 130 Tg CO2. The carry of the catches is another source of emissions, which are unlikely due to modes and distances of transportation but may exceed those fishing activities. Mitigation measures may impact on fisheries by increasing the cost of fossil fuel use.
Introduction:
CLIMATE CHANGE OVERVIEW AND DEFINITIONS:
Climate is a change in the usual weather found in a place. In other words, it could be a change in how much rain a place usually gets in a year. Or a change in a place’s usual temperature for a month or season. This is also a change in Earth’s climate or a change in Earth’s usual temperature. (NASA, 2014)Or could be a change in where rain and snow usually fall on Earth. This is quite different from the weather, which is the changes we see and feel outside from day to day. Or might rain one day and be sunny the next.
According to the BBC News, it is the planet’s climate changing over geological time. In addition, it has another meaning ‘the natural greenhouse effect with gases released from industry and agriculture known as emissions, trapping more energy and increasing the temperature is commonly referred to as global warming or climate change.(BBC news, et NASA GISS).
CAPTURE FISHERIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE:
Capture fisheries refers to all kinds of harvesting of naturally occurring living resources in both marine and freshwater environments. (Source, Green Facts). In other words, it is classified as industrial, small-scale/ artisanal and recreational. Or a more specific level includes reference to the fishing area, gear and the main target species, such as the North Sea herring purse seine fishery.(source: United Nations Atlas of the Oceans.)
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND IMPACTS PATHWAYS:
Potential impacts and impacts pathways of climate variability can be expected to impact fisheries through a diverse range of ways and drivers. Figure 3 illustrates that the effects of climate change can be direct or indirect, resulting from processes in aquatic ecological systems or by political, economic and social systems. This report focuses on th0e consequences of climate change at the point at which they impact on fishing activities, fishers and their communities.
A wide range of potential indirect ecological, direct and indirect socio-economic impacts on fisheries have been identified (Table 5, Allison et al., 2005). Barange and Perry summarize impacts in terms of biophysical effects on aquatic ecosystems. These have been the focus of most studies of climate change and fisheries, perhaps because of the prominence of natural science within climate and fisheries science and the complexity of indirect socio-economic impacts. Box 3 however, presents a case in which the biophysical and ecological impacts of climate change appear to have been be overwhelmed by socio-economic impacts even in remote, subsistence fishing communities.
SMALL-SCALE AND ARTISANAL MARINE FISHERIES:
The small-scale sector is compatible to a variety of indirect environmental impacts depending on the environmental system on which the fishery is based. Coral reefs, for example, support small-scale fisheries throughout the tropical western Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans and are at risk from elevated water temperatures and acidification in addition to a range of more direct local impacts (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). The risk of severe bleaching and mortality of corals with rising sea surface temperatures may threaten the productivity of these fisheries. The distribution of coral reefs.
Many of the world’s largest fisheries (most notably the Peruvian anchoveta ‘ responsible for more than 10 percent of the world’s landings) are based on upwelling ecosystems and thus are highly vulnerable to changes in climate and currents. Annual catches of Peruvian anchoveta, for example, have fluctuated between 1.7 and 11.3 million tonnes within the past decade in response to El Ni”o climate disruptions. Large-scale changes affect the distributions of species and, hence, production systems. For example, the predicted northern movement of Pacific tuna stocks (Miller, 2007) may disrupt fish-based industries because existing infrastructure (e.g. landing facilities and processing plants) will no longer be conveniently located close to new fishing grounds. In addition, changes in the distribution of stocks and catches may occur across national boundaries.
A lack of well-defined and stable resource boundaries present particular challenges for fisheries governance in the context of climate change. Changes in fish stock distribution and fluctuations in the abundance of conventionally fished and ‘new’ species may disrupt existing allocation arrangements. For instance, changes in Pacific salmon distribution as a result of sea surface temperatures and circulation patterns have led to conflicts over management agreements between the United States and Canada (Pacific Salmon Treaty, Miller, 2000). Similarly, it is forecast that temperature changes in the Pacific Islands could lead to a spatial redistribution of tuna resources to higher latitudes within the Pacific Ocean, leading to conflicts over the stock of tuna between industrial foreign fleets and national ones restricted to their EEZ (World Bank, 2000). Such problems can also occur on subnational scales between local jurisdictions, traditionally managed areas or territorial rights systems.
ADAPTATION OF FISHERIES TO CLIMATE CHANGE:
Adaptation to climate change is defined in the climate change literature as an adjustment in ecological, social or economic systems, in response to observed or expected changes in climatic stimuli and their effects and impacts in order to alleviate adverse impacts of change, or take advantage of new opportunities. In other words, adaptation is an active set of strategies and actions taken by people in reaction to, or in anticipation of, change in order to enhance or maintain their well-being. Adaptation can therefore involve both building adaptive capacity to increase the ability of individuals, groups or organizations to predict and adapt to changes, as well as implementing adaptation decisions, i.e. transforming that capacity into action. Both dimensions of adaptation can be implemented in preparation for, or in response to impacts generated by a changing/climate. Hence adaptation is a continuous stream of activities, actions, decisions and attitudes that informs decisions about all aspects of life and that reflects existing social norms and processes. There are many classifications of adaptation options summarized in Smit et al. (2000) based on their purpose, mode of implementation, or on the institutional form they take.
Coulthard (2009) highlights the difference between adaptations in the face of resource fluctuations that involve diversifying livelihoods in order to maintain a fishery based livelihood, and those which involve ‘hanging up our nets’, exiting fisheries for a different livelihood source. Another response often observed during the development of a fishery to cope with reduced yield is to intensify fishing by investing more resources into the fishery. This can be in terms of increasing fishing effort (by spending more time at sea), increasing fishing capacity (by increasing the number, size or efficiency of gears or technology) or fishing farther or deeper than previously. Such adaptation responses obviously have potentially negative long-term consequences if overexploitation is a concern in the fishery. The state of many of the world’s fisheries offers little opportunity for sustainable intensification of fishing as an adaptation strategy. Inevitably adaptation strategies are location and context specific. Indeed, Morton (2007) argues that both impacts of and adaptation to climate change, will be difficult to model and hence predict, for smallholder or subsistence agricultural systems. This is because of factors such as the integration of agricultural and non-agricultural livelihood strategies and exposure to various stressors, ranging from natural stressors to those related to policy change. The same conditions are likely to prevail in the subsistence fisheries sector, though this has not been researched in the same manner as marginal and subsistence agricultural systems. Faced with this complexity there have been various suggestions and typologies of how adaptation actually occurs for such livelihoods. Adaptation responses can be conceptually organized based on timing and responsibility (see Table 6). Specific adaptations of industrialized fisheries are likely to differ from those of small-scale fisheries. For example Thornton et al. (2007) suggest that intensification, diversification and increasing off farm activities are the most common adaptations in pastoralist settings, while Eriksen et al. (2005) observe, in addition, the use of greater biodiversity within cropping systems and use of wild foods. In fisheries, analogous responses can be seen as intensifying fisheries, diversifying species targeted or exiting fishing for other livelihoods. Agrawal and Perrin (2007) examine strategies for subsistence resource dependent livelihood systems and suggest all involve functions that pool and share risks through mobility, storage, diversification, communal pooling and exchange. Although most fisheries (even small-scale) are not purely subsistence (Berkes et al., 2001), this typology of adaptation may be useful for conceptualizing small scale fishery adaptations to climate change.
ADAPTATION IN FISHERIES:
Fisher folk and their communities around the world are already nearly adapting to several forms of change (Coulthard, 2009). Thus, much can be learned by studying how fishers have adapted to climate change such as El Ni”o and non-climate pressures and shocks such as lost markets or new regulations. Table 6 suggests specific adaptations to impacts identified in Table 5. Examples of adaptation in fisheries are dominated by multiplications or flexible livelihoods (see Allison, Beveridge and van Brakel, 2008) and migration (Box 9) in response to climate-mediated fluctuations in Yield. Responses to direct impacts of extreme events on fisheries infrastructure and communities are believed to be more effective if they are anticipatory as part of long-term integrated coastal and disaster risk management planning (Nicholls, 2007a). Adaptations to sea level rise and increased storm and surge damage include hard (e.g. sea walls) and soft (e.g. wetland rehabilitation or managed retreat) defences, as well as improved information systems to integrate knowledge from different coastal sectors and predict and plan for appropriate strategies. Indirect socio-economic impacts are arguably less predictable, making it more difficult to discuss specific adaptation measures. Diversified products and markets would make fisheries less prone to economic shocks, while information technologies are becoming more available to small-scale fishers and may help them to navigate international markets and achieve fair prices for their fish (FAO, 2007b).
ADAPTATION RELATED TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT:
Adaptation in much fisheries management is still exactly not based on maximum sustainable yields or similar fixed ideas of the potential productivity of a stock. For example, North Sea ground fish fisheries have previously been managed in order to recover cod to a target biomass of 150 000 tonnes. However, climatic influences on cod productivity are recognized (Anonymous, 2007), there is currently no formal strategy by which environmental processes can be incorporated into management targets and measures.
Even climatic change increases environmental variation, more fisheries managers will have to explicitly consider such variability and move beyond static management parameters for particular stocks. Such changes create an additional imperative to implement the ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF), a holistic, integrated, and participatory approach to obtain sustainable fisheries (FAO, 2006).
MITIGATION IN CLIMATE CHANGE TO FISHERIES:
Mitigation in fisheries activities contribute to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), which are responsible for human-induced climate variability, both during capture operations and consequently during the transport, processing and storage of fish. Most work on fisheries’ contribution to climate change has concluded that the minimal contribution of the sector to climate change does not warrant much focus on mitigation (Troadec, 2000), and there is limited information specific to fisheries on contributions to emissions. However, Tyedmers et al. (2005) calculate that fishing vessels consume the same quantity of oil as the whole of the Netherlands. This section discusses some of the emission pathways, potential mitigation measures, and examples.
EMISSIONS FROM FISHERIES ACTIVITIES:
Moreover, most fisheries use fleets that are in some ways motorized and powered by fossil fuels, many different types of fisheries use different fuels. And small fishing fleets use petrol or sometimes diesel in outboard and inboard engines, while medium-sized fishing vessels use diesel because it is less flammable than petrol. Only the very largest fishing vessels (more than 1 000 tonnes) use the most polluting heavy oil which fuels large freight vessels. This is because the heavy oil requires specialized equipment to treat it before it is passed to the engines (A. Smith, personal communication).
The actual estimates suggest that aviation and the world shipping vessel, including commercial fisheries activities, contribute around the same amount of CO2 emissions. In 2001 the 90 000 or so ships over 100 tonnes in the world fleet, consumed around 280 million tonnes of fuel, with emissions of around 813 Tg CO2 and 21.4 Tg NOx (a powerful GHG) in 2000 (Eyring et al., 2005). There were about 23 000 fishing fleets and fish factory ships over 100 tonnes registered in 2001, making up 23 percent of the world’s total fleet. Eyring et al., (2005) derive emission coefficients for these classes of vehicle, from which we estimate that total emissions from large fishing vessels is about 69.2 Tg CO2 per annum, representing 8.5 percent of all shipping emissions. This estimate is midway between the higher estimate of Tyedmers, Watson and Pauly (2005), who used FAO catch statistics and typical fuel/catch efficiency for various fisheries to estimate fuel consumption of the global fishing fleet in 2000, and that of FAO (2007a) which analyzed fuel oil use by fishing vessels in 2005 (Table 2). The three estimates in Table 2 show substantial differences which, with the prospect of shipping being brought into emissions accounting systems, is an indication of the need for further research. Some of the differences may be explained by the different data sources and methodologies used. Eyring’s estimate encompasses only the 23 000 largest fleets over 100 tonnes, whereas the world fleets contained 1.3 million decked vessels in 2004 (FAO, 2007a, p. 25). The approach used by Tyedmers et al., included all fleets and is thus, as would be expected, higher. FAO’s estimate is considerably lower, perhaps reflecting reductions in the fishing fleet from 2001 to 2005. However, trends in fleet numbers would not explain the substantially lower estimate because reductions in some areas were compensated for by increases in others.
SOME CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FISHERIES TO MITIGATION:
Some initial research has been conducted into the utilization of waste products from fish processing for producing biodiesel. This may offer alternatives to fossil fuels or terrestrial biodiesels in specific instances where large quantities of fish fats are available. For example, a tilapia processing company in Honduras generates electricity and runs vehicles based on waste fish fat (Tony Piccolo, personal communication). This is based on the utilization of waste products from industrial processing of cultured fish. Given the nutritional value of fish, such uses are unlikely to be desirable in typical capture fisheries unless there are similarly large quantities of otherwise waste fish products.
SOME GLOBALS MITIGATION ACTIONS ON FISHERIES:
Aviation and shipping currently lie outside any emissions trading scheme. Distant water fishing vessels that are supplied with fuel outside territorial waters are therefore not included and can also avoid domestic taxes on fuel. In contrast, vessels fishing within their own country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are liable to pay fuel duty and be incorporated into current mechanisms. As the post-Kyoto mechanism for 2012 is negotiated, aviation and shipping may become incorporated (EEA, 2008) with implications for the emissions and fuel use of all fishing vessels. As the vast majority of fisheries operations are entirely reliant on fossil fuels, they are vulnerable to any decrease in the availability of, or increase in the price of fuel. The doubling of the diesel price during 2004 and 2005, for example, led to a doubling of the proportion of fishers’ revenue that they spent on fuel and rendered many individual fishing operations unprofitable (FAO, 2007a). With 40 percent of fish catch being internationally traded (Delgado et al., 2003) increases in transport and shipping costs (i.e. through carbon taxes or other mitigation measures) will affect markets and potentially reduce the profitability of the sector. This may also affect the food security of poorer fish-importing countries as the costs of importing fish increase.
CONCLUSION:
The fisheries vulnerability to climate change is sensitive to individuals or fisheries systems with adaptability and capacity. The main point is that the importance of the environmental effects of climate vulnerability on the livelihoods in the fishing areas. The common goals of the international bodies, governments, civil society and other institutions with regard to the climate change is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), because the long-term consequences of climate change are increasing day after day and other unlikely or unexpected consequences to come.