Sustainability
A question of definition What does sustainable investment in the Blue Economy mean for fish farming? BY DR ADAM HUGHES
I
f the marine economy were a country, its GDP would rank about 7th globally in line with France or California. Es�mates of its global value (not including the value of the ecosystem services it provides) range between $1.5trn-2.5trn (£1.1trn-1.8trn), employing 20.5 million people and with a farm gate value of $0.263trn (£0.19trn). Aquaculture is, or course, a major component of the marine economy. There has been significant debate, however, as to whether all sectors of the marine economy are sustainable – and ques�ons over what “sustainability” actually means in the context of the Blue Economy. The term “Blue Economy” emerged from the Rio+20 talks and was defined as recognising the ocean space and resources as an essen�al component of global economic growth and prosperity; although it makes the dis�nc�on that the Blue Economy is a conscious de-coupling of socio-economic development from environmental degrada�on. The phrase, as synonymous with sustainable development, has been adopted by a wide range of governments and non-governmental organisa�ons including the United Na�ons, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and WWF. However, there are large ques�ons over the meaning of sustainability in the context of the marine environment and what sectors or ac�vi�es can be included within the Blue Economy. It is becoming increasingly important to provide an opera�onal defini�on, or a framework that allows for transparent appraisal of ac�vi�es or sectors of marine industries that can be included within the Blue Economy. This need for an opera�onal defini�on or appraisal framework is being felt not only by policy makers and regulators, but crucially by the financial and investment community. Despite the size of the marine economy there is a recognised lack of capital flowing towards the Blue Economy, and there is also a lack of marine focus to the rapidly increasing environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment that is taking place. One of the barriers to investment in the Blue Economy, cited by 39% of asset managers, was a lack of defini�on. Financial ins�tu�ons are already highly engaged in the seafood sector but cite climate risk and ecosystem service loss as principal risks for investment. Notably, many financial ins�tu�ons predict their investment in aquaculture will grow in the future, while investments in wild capture fisheries are expected to decrease. A parallel can be drawn between investors looking for sustainable businesses and sectors in which to invest and consumers looking for sustainable seafood products to buy. Demand from consumers led to a number of sustainability frameworks that went beyond regulatory compliance and that could be a�ached to specific products to be developed. This sustainability was signalled to the consumer by the addi�on of a logo or label to the product that provides assurance to the consumer and market differen�al to the producer. In terms of the financial sector there are also a number of emerging frameworks that propose to provide an opera�onalised defini�on of “sustainability” against which specific sectors or ac�vi�es within the Blue Economy can be assessed. Some of these frameworks are specific to the Blue Economy, whilst others are more generic but may directly apply to sectors such as aquaculture. Outlined below are three which
44
Blue Economy.indd 44
“
There is significant interest in investment in the sustainable economy
”
are directly applicable to aquaculture or have the poten�al to significantly impact aquaculture in the future. 1) The UN Environment Programme’s Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Ini�a�ve (UNEPFI SBE) creates a pla�orm that is focused on banks, insurers and investors to help them develop lending, insurance and investment which supports the sustainable blue economy. The UNEPFI SBE was founded in 2019 and in its first itera�on it concentrated on five marine sectors including seafood and within this, aquaculture. For each of the sectors, the platform lays out a series of indicators and criteria. In the case of aquaculture the criteria are based around loca�on and si�ng, pollu�on and water quality, invasive species and escapes, disease, feed, and interac�ons with wildlife. Depending on how a business’ opera�ons are assessed against the criteria, banks, insurers and investors have recommenda�ons to avoid, challenge or seek out these businesses for investment. 2) The Interna�onal Union for Conserva�on of Nature (IUCN) Global Standard for Naturebased Solu�ons. Nature-based Solu�ons (NbS) are defined by the IUCN as the sustainable management, and restora�on of natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effec�vely and adap�vely, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits. In our recent paper (www.fron�ersin.org/ar�cles/10.3389/ fmars.2021.711443/full) I and my fellow authors demonstrate how this principle, and the criteria that the IUCN set out as defining NbS, can be applied to aquaculture. Aquaculture is now globally and na�onally an important contributor to food security, so it is clearly addressing a fundamental societal challenge. If a par�cular aquaculture opera�on can demonstrate that it is designed to provide, and is delivering, human wellbeing and biodiversity benefits, then there is the poten�al for it to be classified as a NbS. It has been demonstrated that aquaculture can be designed to deliver conserva�on goals, increase biodiversity and sequester carbon and as such would fit into the defini�on of NbS. It is clear some types of aquaculture are be�er suited to mee�ng these criteria, predominately low trophic
www.fishfarmermagazine.com
12/10/2021 15:22:08
