Rearing performances and environmental assessment of sea cage farming in Tunisia using life cycle assessment (LCA) combined with PCA and HCPC
The present study aims to understand the influence of rearing practices and the contributions of production phases of fish farming to their environmental impacts and determine which practices and technical characteristics can best improve the farms’ environmental performance. Another objective is to identify the influence of variability in farming practices on the environmental performances of sea cage aquaculture farms of sea bass and sea bream in Tunisia by using principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical clustering on principal components (HCPC) methods and then combining the classification with life cycle assessment (LCA).
The approach consisted of three major steps: (i) of the 24 aquaculture farms in Tunisia, 18 were selected which follow intensive rearing practices in sea cages of European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) and then a typology was developed to classify the studied farms into rearing practice groups using HCPC; (ii) LCA was performed on each aquaculture farm and (iii) mean impacts and contributions of production phases were calculated for each group of farms. Impact categories included acidification, eutrophication, global warming, land occupation, total cumulative energy demand and net primary production use.
Results and discussion
Results revealed high correlation between rearing practices and impacts. The feed-conversion ratio (FCR), water column depth under the cages and cage size had the greatest influence on impact intensity. Rearing practices and fish feed were the greatest contributors to the impacts studied due to the production of fish meal and oil and the low efficiency of feed use, which generated large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus emissions. It is necessary to optimise the diet formulation and to follow better feeding strategies to lower the FCR and improve farm performance. Water column depth greatly influenced the farms’ environmental performance due to the increase in waste dispersion at deeper depths, while shallow depths resulted in accumulation of organic matter and degradation of water quality. Cage size influences environmental performances of aquaculture farms. Thus, from an environmental viewpoint, decision makers should grant licences for farms in deeper water with larger cages and encourage them to improve their FCRs.
This study is the first attempt to combine the HCPC method and the LCA framework to study the environmental performance of aquacultural activity. The typology developed captures the variability among farms because it considers several farm characteristics in the classification. The LCA demonstrated that technical parameters in need of improvement are related to the technical expertise of farm managers and workers and to the location of the farm.
KeywordsEnvironmental impact Life cycle assessment (LCA) Marine aquaculture Tunisia Typology
The authors would like to acknowledge valuable financial support from the ‘Institut de Recherche pour le Développement’ (JEAI GAMBAS project). This study was also partially funded by ‘LabexMer’.
- Aubin J (2013) Life cycle assessment as applied to environmental choices regarding farmed or wild-caught fish. CAB Rev Perspect Agric Vet Sci Nutr Nat ResourGoogle Scholar
- Consultants P (1997) SimaPro 2 method. Database manual. Pré Consultants B.V, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
- DGPA (2014) Annuaire des statistiques des pêches en Tunisie. Ministère de l’Agriculture, TunisieGoogle Scholar
- European Commission (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2016) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R et al (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. Dordr Kluwer Acad Publ 704Google Scholar
- Helmes RJ, Huijbregts MA, Henderson AD, Jolliet O (2012) Spatially explicit fate factors of phosphorous emissions to freshwater at the global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:646–654Google Scholar
- Huijbregts M (1999) Life-cycle impact assessment of acidifying and eutrophying air pollutants. Calculation of equivalency factors with RAINS-LCA. Interfaculty Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental Science, University of Amsterdam, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2014) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Climate Change 2014, Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/. Accessed 10 Jan 2017Google Scholar
- ISO (The International Organization for Standardization) (2006a) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044, ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- ISO (The International Organization for Standardization) (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO 14044, ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Tacon AG (2005) State of information on salmon aquaculture feed and the environment. Rep WWF Salmon Aquac Dialogue 1–80Google Scholar