Wild Fish Supply Risks Global Aquaculture’s Future Stability – BIOENGINEER.ORG

Report on the Sustainability of Global Aquaculture Feed Supplies

Introduction: Aquaculture’s Role in Achieving SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

The global aquaculture industry is a critical component in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (Zero Hunger) by providing a significant source of protein for a growing world population. However, the industry’s current production model faces substantial sustainability challenges that threaten its long-term contribution to global food security.

Core Challenge: Feed Dependency and its Conflict with SDG 14 (Life Below Water)

A primary vulnerability within the aquaculture sector is its heavy reliance on fishmeal and fish oil derived from wild-caught forage fish. This dependency creates a direct conflict with the objectives of SDG 14 (Life Below Water), which aims to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources.

Systemic Risks to Marine Ecosystems and Production Chains

• Overfishing: The demand for forage fish contributes to the depletion of wild fish stocks, disrupting marine food webs.
• Climate Change: Altered ocean temperatures and ecosystems, a key concern of SDG 13 (Climate Action), negatively impact the availability and stability of forage fish populations.
• Habitat Degradation: Pressures on marine environments further threaten the viability of these critical fish populations.
• Market Volatility: Fluctuations in the availability and cost of forage fish introduce significant economic risks to aquaculture operations, impacting SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Research Findings: Quantifying Threats to Production and Food Security

A recent modeling study highlights the severe risks associated with the current feed supply chain. The findings project a significant shortfall in forage fish supplies, which would directly undermine progress towards multiple SDGs.

Projected Production Declines

• A potential shortfall in forage fish supply ranging from 4.5% to 19.4%.
• A corresponding decline in fed aquaculture production of 8% to 35.2%.

Such declines would have catastrophic consequences for global food supply chains and the economic stability of leading aquaculture nations like China, jeopardizing livelihoods and progress on SDG 8.

Strategic Pathways Towards Sustainable Aquaculture

To mitigate these risks and align the industry with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a multi-faceted approach is required, focusing on innovation, responsible management, and collaboration.

1. Advancing SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) through Alternative Feeds

A fundamental shift towards alternative feed ingredients is necessary to reduce pressure on wild fish stocks and build a resilient, sustainable industry. This directly supports SDG 9 by fostering innovation.

1. Develop Alternative Protein Sources: An estimated 1.8 million tonnes of alternative ingredients are needed annually. Key areas for investment and research include plant-based proteins, insect meal, and microbial proteins.
2. Leverage Biotechnology: Advances in biotechnology are crucial for creating cost-effective and nutritionally complete feeds that do not compromise the health of farmed species or the quality of the final product.

2. Reinforcing SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 14 (Life Below Water)

Achieving sustainable production patterns requires a dual approach of innovating within aquaculture and reforming the management of wild fisheries.

• Implement Sustainable Fisheries Management: Governments and industry must enforce policies that protect marine ecosystems and ensure the long-term viability of forage fish populations.
• Promote Climate Resilience: In line with SDG 13 (Climate Action), strategic planning must incorporate measures to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change on feed supply chains.

Conclusion: A Call for Collaborative Action under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

The future of global aquaculture and its ability to contribute to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) depends on a paradigm shift towards sustainable and resilient practices. The challenges posed by forage fish shortfalls demand concerted action. In accordance with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), collaboration among scientists, aquaculture producers, policymakers, and consumers is essential to drive the necessary innovations and policy changes. This collective effort will ensure the industry can transition to a model of responsible production (SDG 12) and continue its vital role in global food security.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article on the sustainability of global aquaculture connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by addressing interconnected issues of food security, environmental sustainability, responsible production, and climate action.

   • SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The article establishes aquaculture as a “cornerstone of food production” and a “viable source of protein for billions of people worldwide.” The potential decline in aquaculture production directly threatens global food security, linking the issue to the goal of ending hunger and ensuring access to nutritious food.
   • SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The core theme of the article is the unsustainable production pattern within the aquaculture industry, specifically its “reliance on fishmeal and fish oil derived from wild forage fish.” The call for “alternative protein sources” and more sustainable practices aligns directly with the goal of achieving sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
   • SDG 13: Climate Action: The article explicitly states that “Climate change further complicates the already precarious situation of forage fish supplies.” It highlights how altered ocean temperatures impact fish populations and calls for incorporating “climate resilience into strategic planning for sustainable aquaculture,” connecting the industry’s challenges to climate action.
   • SDG 14: Life Below Water: This is a central SDG in the article. The pressure on “wild fish populations” due to “overfishing, habitat degradation, and climate change” is the primary problem discussed. The text advocates for “sustainable fisheries management practices” and the protection of “critical marine ecosystems” to support the “overall health of ocean fisheries and biodiversity.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   The article’s discussion allows for the identification of several specific SDG targets that are directly relevant to the problems and solutions presented.

   • Target 2.4 (under SDG 2): “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices…” The article’s entire focus on addressing the “systemic vulnerabilities within the aquaculture supply chain” and pivoting towards “sustainable practices” to ensure aquaculture remains a “viable source of protein” directly supports this target.
   • Target 12.2 (under SDG 12): “By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.” The article critiques the inefficient and unsustainable use of wild forage fish as a natural resource for feed. The proposed shift to “alternative feed ingredients” like plant-based proteins and insect meal is a direct strategy to achieve this target.
   • Target 14.2 (under SDG 14): “By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems…” The article’s call to “protect critical marine ecosystems” and maintain the “overall health of ocean fisheries” is a direct reflection of this target’s objective.
   • Target 14.4 (under SDG 14): “By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing…” The text identifies “overfishing” as a key pressure on forage fish populations and urges governments and industry to “implement policies that promote responsible fishing practices” to ensure the “long-term viability of forage fish populations.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article provides both quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to track progress towards the identified targets.

   • Indicator for Target 14.4: The article provides a direct, measurable indicator of the problem: a potential “shortfall ranging from 4.5% to 19.4%” in forage fish supplies. Progress towards Target 14.4 could be measured by a reduction in this shortfall, indicating more sustainable fish stock levels.
   • Indicator for Target 2.4: A consequential indicator mentioned is the potential “dramatic decline in aquaculture production by 8% to 35.2%.” Stabilizing or increasing production levels through sustainable means would be a key indicator of progress towards ensuring sustainable food production systems.
   • Indicator for Target 12.2: The article quantifies the need for sustainable alternatives, stating that “approximately 1.8 million tonnes of alternative feed ingredients will be necessary annually.” An indicator for this target would be the volume of alternative feeds produced and integrated into aquaculture, tracking progress towards this 1.8 million-tonne figure and reducing reliance on wild fish.
   • Implied Indicator for Target 14.2: While not providing a specific number, the article implies that the health and biodiversity of marine ecosystems where forage fish are sourced is a key indicator. Monitoring the status of these ecosystems would be a way to measure progress toward protecting them.

Summary of Findings

Source: bioengineer.org