Considerations for developing criteria to assess
the compatibility of fisheries and fishing with climate mitigation andresilience goals
Developed by the Climate Bonds Initiative with input from the Marine Technical Working Group
July 2020
Authors:
Katie House, Chris Moore and Anna Creed
Contributions from:Bill Karp

Executive Summary
The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) has sought to develop screening criteria for green bond investments inaquaculture and capture fishing in the marine environment. With the help of a Marine Technical Working Group(TWG), the work explored key climate and environmental issues in the sector. The TWG wrestled with identifying
usable, ambitious and scientifically grounded criteria to screen for appropriate climate mitigation and climate
adaptation and resilience performance in the sector. As a result, work has been halted because the GHG impact
of capture fishing is still relatively poorly understood, and subsequently there are few indications of what constitutes
best practice in the sector in respect of GHG emissions from which to set appropriate screening criteria. This
paper summarises the work undertaken and findings to date in order that: (1) Either when sufficient data andunderstanding is available on GHG thresholds or benchmarks in fishing operations or when bond market demand
increases for criteria, the lessons learned through this work can provide a foundation for the future developmentof screening criteria for the sector; and: (2) Existing certification schemes and other initiatives in the fisheries sector
build on this work to incorporate climate aspects into their own standards. Overall, CBI recommends a concerted
push to better understand the climate impacts of fisheries and fishing operations and where key mitigation
opportunities lie. CBI recognises that the fishery sector faces unique and complex sustainability challenges whichinteract with such climate impacts. Such work thus needs to include academia, public policy institutions and industry.

Introduction
Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) established a Marine Technical Working Group (TWG) with the purpose ofdeveloping criteria for Climate Bonds Certification of marine renewable energy, coastal ecosystem restoration andconservation and fisheries related bonds. Development of criteria for fisheries was progressed once the marine
renewable energy criteria were published.
The intention was to address all levels of fisheries – both aquaculture (specifically mariculture) and capture fisheries,
as well as the range of stakeholders that traditionally define a fishery. However, in reality the scope of discussions
focussed principally on emissions mitigation for fishing operations (i.e. fishing vessels and activities). Discussions did
not explicitly extend to fisheries as a whole, which encompass a wide range of stakeholders, inputs and associatedcomplexities. For this reason (and added to the fact that fuel use of fishing vessels is the largest source of GHG in
capture fisheries), we refer to this work as the Low Carbon Fishing Criteria (and hereafter the Fishing Criteria). For
brief discussion on the issues of addressing with fisheries as a whole, see the ‘Unresolved Issues’ section at the endof the document.
This paper acts as a summary of the work that has been done on the development of Fishing Criteria. It begins bysummarising the scope of and process for the development of criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard, and thendiscusses how the Fishing Criteria would fit into the Climate Bonds Standard and briefly summarises the relationshipbetween fishing and climate change. It outlines how far discussions progressed and highlights challenges to address
and possible pathways to support the development of Fishing Criteria for the Climate Bonds Certification scheme
in the future.

Fishing and the Climate Bonds Standard
The Climate Bonds Standard applies sector-specific criteria to assess whether bonds are eligible for Climate Bonds
Certification. These sector-specific criteria screen the bonds use-of-proceeds to ensure that: (1) the emission
performance of projects and assets is in line with requirements to limit warming to well below 2C; and (2) the
projects and assets are climate resilient themselves and contribute to the climate resilience of the system in which
they operate.
Sector criteria are generally developed by a Technical Working Group (TWG) convened by CBI with advisory
input from an Industry Working Group (IWG). For marine related activities, including fishing, a Marine TWG wasestablished and its members are shown in Table 1 below. Some IWG members with expertise in fishing wereconfirmed, but a formal fishing IWG was not established.
Table 1: Technical Working Group members

MemberAffiliation

Christine Negra

Versant Vision

Andrea Copping

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Andrew Buglass

Buglass Energy Advisory

Bill Karp
Brian Soden

Affiliate Professor, University ofWashington School of Aquatic andFishery Sciences
Coastal Risk Consulting

Carmen Lacambra

Global Climate Adaptation PartnershipMichael Adams

Ocean Assets

Louise Heaps

WWF

Lucy Holmes

WWF

Max Carcas

Caelulum

Michael Phillips

CGIAR

Roberta Anderson

Global GAP

Stuart Whitten

CSIRO

Charlie Colgan

Middlebury Institute of International
Studies at Monterey
ISEAL

Robert Lefebure

Thanks goes also to Rob Parker, of Dalhousie University, who kindly provided expert insight and advice outside of the
TWG, most specifically regarding his own academic work on Fuel Use Intensity (FUI) and low carbon fisheries.

The TWG covered a variety of topics in their discussions including the scope of the Fishing Criteria. This included
identifying the most material contributions to climate change from this sector, how to set thresholds that indicate
a fishing activity or operator is low GHG emissions and what credentials a climate resilient fishing activity or
operator has. Over the course of these discussions it has become apparent that fisheries, fishing and theircontribution to climate change is an emerging area of research. The sustainability of fisheries has been researchedin quite some detail, particularly when it comes to fish stock status, but data and research about whether a fisheryor fishing operator is low GHG emissions or not is still nascent.
For this reason, and because there is comparatively low existing demand for the Fishing Criteria in the green bondmarket at this time, this summary of discussions is being published as an interim thought piece to the market andthereafter a starting tool for any recommencement of criteria development in the future. Development of the fullcriteria may be resumed when:o Information and data are sufficiently available and geographically representative as to provide reliable androbust GHG thresholds in the sector;o Criteria development for fishing is a priority to provide guidance to the market.
The TWG approached criteria development with both mariculture (the rearing of aquatic animals or the cultivationof aquatic plants for food in marine water environments) and capture fisheries and fishing operations as part ofscope. The TWG considered the possibility that the distinctions between mariculture and capture fisheries could
be significant enough to necessitate separate criteria and technical expertise. This is because mariculture has specificsystem boundaries, inputs and emissions largely differing from capture fisheries and fishing operations. Notably,
GHG emissions associated with mariculture activities come from a more diverse set of inputs such as the feedstock,fertiliser and other inputs. However, the consensus amongst the TWG was to first aim for broad requirements
and definitions that would cover both sub-sectors.
With that said, the main focus of this paper is on marine capture fishing (the harvesting of naturally occurring living
resources in marine environments) as the challenges encountered in accessing reliable and robust data to assess
these operations is the reason for halting the development of the Fishing Criteria.
Note: CBI has also advised on criteria for agriculture in China developed by ADBC and CECEP, which contains
stipulations on pollution prevention and fisheries resources and ecological conservation1.

Fishing and climate change
Food production accounts for approximately 25% of global GHG emissions.2 Typically, marine fisheries are
excluded from global GHG assessments but recent work estimates that, in 2011, fisheries generated at least 179
million tonnes of CO2e GHG emissions, or 4% of emissions associated with global food production.3 The largest
contributor of GHG emissions from capture fisheries is fuel use of the fishing vessels4. Refrigeration, waste andtransport (particularly when by air) can also be significant contributors depending on how the processing of catchand supply chain is managed.
Data that can be used to analyse the GHG emissions of capture fishing are beginning to emerge and hopefully will
become globally representative in the near future. Potential data sources identified during the TWG process are
discussed in the later section on setting mitigation thresholds for fishing operations. However, for context, Figures
1, 2 and 3 below present the emissions associated with producing different types of animal-based protein. This
provides a basis for what might be viewed as relatively below average/ low emission animal-based protein
production and has informed one of the methods for establishing a threshold for ‘low emissions’ capture fishing,as discussed in greater detail later in the document.

1 This document is currently under expert review and will be shared here upon publication.

2 The forgotten 10%: climate mitigation in agricultural supply chains, CDP (2015), accessible at: https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/000/829/original/climate-mitigation-in-agriculturalsupply-chains.pdf?1471970747. Data referenced is from IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC
3 Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries, Parker, R., Blanchard, J., Gardner, C., Green, B., Hartmann, K., Tyedmers, P. andWatson, R. (2018).
4 Also from Parker et al. (2018), this study provides an excellent general overview of many of the issues discussed in this paper.

Capture Fisheries

Figure 1: GHG emissions in CO2e of production of different types of animal-based protein Source: Hilborn et al (2018).
Units are CO2-eq per 40g protein

Figure 2: Median expected greenhouse gas emissions of different forms of fisheries, aquaculture, pork and chicken, showing
median and range of results. Presented in Parker and Tyedmers (2015). Sources of data for aquaculture and agriculture:
Sonesson et al. (2010), Pelletier et al. (2009), Ayer and Tyedmers (2009), Boissy et al. (2011), Aubin et al. (2009), Baruthio
et al. (2008), Cao et al. (2011), Papatryphon et al. (2004), Sun (2009), Nijdam et al. (2012).

Figure 3: Global emissions intensity by commodity. All commodities expressed in per protein basis. Source: FAO. 2017.
Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) [online]. Rome. [Cited 18 May 2017].
www.fao.org/gleam/en/

Fishing and the bond market
Fishing related assets and projects have not typically appeared as use of proceeds in the green bond market.
However, towards the end of 2018 the Republic of Seychelles issued the first sovereign blue bond to support
sustainable marine and fisheries projects5 and others are starting to investigate how they can bring these types ofprojects and use of proceeds into green bonds. Moreover, in early 2020, Norwegian salmon fishing farming
corporate Mowi ASA (“Mowi”), the world’s largest salmon producer, issued a green bond to finance primarily its
sustainable aquaculture activities, and to a lesser degree its water and wastewater management activities6.
These are believed to be the first examples of bonds being issued to finance sustainable fish production and could
signal early signs of movement towards green bond financing in the sector.
Looking ahead to future potential bond issuances in the sector, the TWG determined that criteria should be
developed to screen the types of assets and projects described in Table 2.

5 https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/29/seychelles-launches-worlds-first-sovereign-blue-bond

6 A useful analysis by FAIRR of the MOWI green bond can be found here: https://www.fairr.org/article/mowis-greenbond/#:~:text=Bond%20Analysis-,Summary,Coller%20FAIRR%20Protein%20Producer%20Index.

Table 2: Assets and projects in scope
Category

Offshore operations

Example eligible assets and projects

Vessels for catching and processing catch
Equipment on vessels – for catching, for processing, for storage
Measures designed to improve fish stock sustainability

Onshore operations

Fish processing facilities
Fish storage facilities (including refrigeration facilities)
Vessel manufacturing facilities

Supporting infrastructure

Monitoring and reporting systems

Options for mitigation criteria
The TWG focussed on setting criteria for fishing operators (or ‘fishers’) rather than fishery management at a
broader level. More specifically, this focus on the emissions of fishing operators (i.e. vessels) centred around fueluse intensity (FUI). This essentially concerns the fuel used to propel a vessel in order to catch a certain amountof fish. As such, the subsequent options for mitigation criteria that were discussed by the TWG do not explicitly
address all possible emissions that might be associated with a fishery.
FUI was discussed as a potential proxy for emissions, assuming emissions of 3.3 kg CO2-eq GHG per litre of fuelused7. However, it is recognised that between 10 and 40% of fishery emissions come from non-fuel sources suchas refrigerant loss. In other words, fuel use can account for as little as 60% of emissions from capture fishing.
Whether or not such a level of materiality would be acceptable in criteria was not discussed by the TWG, nor
whether requirements on refrigerant loss could account for this.
Improved fish stocks as a result of good management can result in shorter trips needed by vessels to locate andfish the stocks, leading to a lower fuel use and hence GHG emissions8. Acknowledging therefore that improvementsin the sector generally come at fishery level, rather than individual fishing operator level, this could create amismatch between operators that will issue the bond and those that can effectively alter the GHG emissions
associated with fishing operation.
Even focussing just on emissions associated directly with fish harvesting, the TWG noted that there are also otheractivities in the seafood production process that might need to be considered as part of developing sector criteriasuch as use of refrigerators, processing on board a vessel, and transport. Table 3 summarises these activities andtheir implications for determining criteria.
Any fishing criteria will require fishing operator and vessel emissions to be directly addressed, but this is not to saythat fisheries management and other aspects of fisheries are out of scope for such criteria. However, the TWG
did not explicitly discuss whether or not the following options could extend to cover mitigation requirements for
7 Average fuel density was assumed to be 0.9 kg/L with average carbon content of 860g/kg. Total direct emissions from burning fuel were
calculated to be 2.8 kg CO2-eq/kg GHGs based on chemical content of marine fuels and using IPCC 2013 characterization factors. Upstream
emissions associated with mining, refining, and distributing diesel fuel were extracted from the ecoinvent 3.0 life cycle inventory database,resulting in a total rate of 3.3 kg CO2-eq GHG emissions per litre of fuel.
8 According to MSC: https://www.msc.org/uk/what-we-are-doing/oceans-at-risk/climate-change-and-fishingthese other issues. Therefore, the remainder of this document considers more specifically setting criteria for fishingvessels. Assessment criteria would nonetheless have likely been partially derived from these options.
Table 3: Aspects of fish production and implications for criteria development
Issue

Consideration

Processing

Vessels that have processing facilities on board will have higher fuel usage thanthose that don’t. There is therefore a need to ensure that thresholds for vessels
adjust/take this into account, so that the criteria are comparing like to like.
Further, Criteria need to include a broad, inclusive definition for mitigation inprocessing that can account for all types of processing, including at-sea andonshore processing, while distinguishing these emissions from capture activities
or aquaculture.

Refrigerators – Useof HFCs.

Although Kigali Amendment for the phase-down of HFCs under the Montreal
Protocol enters into force in 2019, different countries have different phasedown schedules. An option is to not issue Certification if any of the HFCs listedin ‘Annex F: controlled substances’ of the Montreal Protocol are being used.
Annex F lists the HFC controlled substances and their global warming potential.

Waste

There is a need to consider whether/how the criteria need to address bycatch
and wastage of catch. For example, MSC has requirements around minimising
bycatch.

Transport of product

Although transport of fish is not seen as a significant GHG contribution overall,there are cases in which fish are flown either to be processed or to their finaldestination. There is a need to consider whether the Criteria will exclude fish
being transported by air.

Focussing on setting GHG criteria for fishing vessels
To establish appropriate GHG criteria for fishing vessels it is necessary to understand what would represent ‘low
GHG emissions fishing’. This seemingly has not been a priority issue in the fishing industry and research and data
are thus limited. After considerable research and gathering input from the TWG, several options (including different
options for data usage) were developed for setting mitigation requirements for fishing vessels. To reflect properly
the TWG discussions surrounding each option, pros and cons are listed for each option.
Option 1. Distinct emissions thresholds according to different types of fish species groups fished/gear types
used, based on FUI data
Option 2. One single emissions threshold across all fish types fished based on FUI data to be applied to alltypes of fish species groups/ gear types
Option 3. One single emissions threshold based on FUI across all fish types fished measured against low
GHG protein production across meat and fish
Option 4. One single emissions threshold based on FUI with a set % emissions improvement compared to
BAU (Business As Usual)
Option 5. Good management as a proxy for low emissions

Option 1: Distinct species/gear-specific emissions thresholds based on FUI
Several thresholds would be developed based on groups of fish species (e.g. small pelagics, other finfish, crustaceans,etc.). To comply, an issuer would select the relevant threshold depending on the species of fish being caught andthen demonstrate compliance with this threshold.

The thresholds could be set in either litres of fuel per tonne of catch (L/t) or CO2 equivalent per tonne of catch(CO2/t). If the issuers L/t or CO2/t falls below the threshold relevant to the species that they are fishing, this would
indicate compliance with the mitigation component. To work out their CO2/t or L/t an issuer must know their fueluse (in volume) and their tonnage of fish caught.
Vessels catching fish species across multiple groups and which hence have multiple emissions thresholds that could
apply to them should scale the threshold based on relative catch. For example, if the threshold for finfish was
500L/t and the threshold for crustaceans was 1000L/t, then a boat with 50% finfish and 50% crustaceans would
have their threshold set at 750 L/t.
TWG discussions also addressed how to characterise capture fisheries (for the purposes of setting emissions
thresholds) based on species, species group, or gear type. Gear type was considered an important metric alongsidespecies group, as catches are frequently difficult to characterise based solely off species group, vessels often bringing
in a wide variety of species due to the type of gear used to catch fish (e.g. longlines; purse seine). The TWG
considered which of these metrics had a greater effect on a vessel’s emissions, acknowledging that the complex
interconnections between them makes separation of the two’s effects difficult. However, the purpose of thisexercise was principally to explore the option of differentiated thresholds based off sub-groups, versus options
which would have one overarching threshold. As such, for simplicity, this option hereafter refers only to species
groups rather than gear type. Nonetheless, the TWG acknowledged that the issue of interlinkages between species
group and gear type was an important one, which would need properly addressing if this option was ultimately
selected.
TWG discussions identified the Fisheries & Energy Use Database (FEUD)9 as the most viable potential source ofthe necessary FUI data from which to determine these thresholds. More information on this database and otherpotential data sources identified is given in Box 1.
Some suggestions from TWG members advocated exploring the use of definitions somehow aligned with thoseof the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC)10. This would leverage the considerable research they have carried out
on characterising fishery activities. For example, MSC define the full scope of what is being assessed (i.e. the target
stock combined with gear type and other information) as the Unit of Assessment. Definitions such as these cancapture a more representative suite of information for evaluating a fishery’s management practices.
The Pros:This option gives flexibility to the different categories of fish species caught, meaning each category would be
incentivised to improve rather than excluding whole species groups that are inherently more emissions-intensive.
Since the Climate Bonds Standard generally aims to be technology-neutral in its criteria, in this case that could
extend to species groups so as not to give unfair treatment to certain operators or geographical locations.
The Cons:
While there is data available in the datasets mentioned in Box 1, it was decided that the data coverage in terms ofglobal catch is not comprehensive enough currently to be able to set globally applicable and robust thresholds forwhat constitutes low emissions fishing. The pool of data available is growing, however, so it is hoped that eventually
there will be enough data to set thresholds.
Broadly speaking, it is not fully understood what proportion of the global catch the data used to set these thresholds
represents. This makes it difficult to judge whether it is representative enough to be used to set emissions
thresholds.
9 Compiled by Robert Parker & Peter Tyedmers, the Fisheries & Energy Use Database (FEUD) has data on the fuel use intensity (FUI) for
different global fisheries. FUI can be used as a proxy for carbon emissions.
10 Definitions can be found here: https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/for-business/programdocuments/chain-of-custody-supporting-documents/msc-msci_vocabulary_v1-2.pdf?sfvrsn=cef284dd_14

There are no other compiled datasets on global fisheries emissions that have published information on FUI or
GHG emissions of fisheries. However, there are some good data sources for individual countries and regions. For
example, Peter Tyedmers has an overview paper for North Atlantic, Rob Parker has one for Australia, Schau et al.
2009 for Norway, Thrane 2004 for Denmark, Boopendranath et al for India and Port et al for Brazil11. The datafrom these studies are in FEUD and help to inform these estimates, but ultimately still represent a potentially small
sample size.
This lack of validity and representativeness increases when added to the fact that each threshold based off a species
group will then be comprised of a smaller subset of these data.
Box 1: Potential data sources for setting emissions thresholds
The Fisheries and Energy Use Database (FEUD)
The database was compiled in a 2014 study by Robert Parker and Peter Tyedmers. It encompasses all available
published and unpublished fuel use data for fisheries targeting all species, employing all gears and fishing in all regionsof the world available at that time. This includes records going back to 1990 and would provide an analysis of therelative energy performance of fisheries.
The main aim of FEUD is to collect and synthesise primary and secondary records of Fuel Use Intensity (FUI) of fishingvessels or fleets. Database records include, where available, fleet and vessel characteristics, target species, locale offishing, primary and secondary gears employed, effort and FUI. FEUD currently includes roughly 1800 fisheries
records, ranging from individual vessel audits to fishery-wide assessments to national or global fleet statistics.
Other analyses of interest
Other analyses that are of relevance to this discussion includes work presented in Olmer et al. (2017)1 which useddata from Global Fishing Watch, IHS, and AIS satellite data to calculate the GHG emissions from commercial fishingvessels. This was against a context of emissions from global shipping and does not distinguish emissions according to
species caught or gear type, for example. As such it was not considered appropriate for setting thresholds in thisprocess. See also Parker et al. (2018) for global fisheries emissions data, which uses FEUD data to expand analysis ofemissions trends within the fisheries sector.1
A more recent analysis by Greer et al., 20191 used the Sea Around Us global catch and effort databases1 to calculate
total CO2 emissions of the industrial fishing sector. They have provided estimates of FUI and emission intensity offishing activities in different parts of the world, though a paper by Ziegler et al. (2019)1 questioned the reliability of
the analysis.
Outside of these examples provided, there are few other sources that provide representative coverage of global
fisheries fuel consumption and FUI. Since 2018 the shipping industry has benefited from the introduction of two
mandatory regulations for the collection of vessel fuel consumption, the EU Data Collection System (DCS) – which
covers the EU – and the IMO Monitoring, Reporting and Verification – which covers international shipping. However,no such standards exist for the fishing industry. Any policy developments of this nature would represent a significant
step in understanding best practice in terms of fishing vessel FUI and will be followed in such an instance.

Option 2: One single emissions threshold based on FUI
Set one overarching emissions threshold that applies to all fishing activities regardless of gear or fish species, as
above, utilising the FEUD database to set that threshold.

11 See the Appendix for a list of these studies.

The Pros:
From an emissions standpoint, setting one single threshold sends a clear signal that anything below that thresholdis considered aligned with a low GHG trajectory and anything above that threshold is considered not aligned witha low GHG trajectory. From a data standpoint, setting one threshold means all the data identified as usable forsetting GHG thresholds (described later in the document) can be used in determining what this threshold shouldbe, hence meaning there is the greatest possible number of observations included in its determination. Lastly, it issimple to understand and communicate to the market.
The Cons:
If we certified best performers across all species with one threshold, we would create a situation where the fishingof pelagic fish is generally compliant, while the fishing of more GHG intensive species, such as crustaceans, are notcompliant. There would be little or no incentive for those fishing either pelagics or crustaceans to improve emissions
performance because the threshold would either be easily achievable or completely unachievable. From a market
perspective, different fish might not be substitutes for each other in the market (for example, crabs vs sardines)
and so it would not make sense to make them aim for the same threshold.

Option 3: One single emissions threshold based on low carbon animal-based protein production
Set one overarching emissions threshold that applies to all fishing activities regardless of gear or fish species, but inthis case the threshold is set in the context of the relative emissions from fish production compared to animal
production (e.g. pork, beef and chicken). That way the threshold can be set to reflect levels of GHG emissions perunit of protein. Box 2 describes potential datasets that could be used to inform such a threshold.
The Pros:
In terms of practicalities, this option would provide an easily understandable, overarching idea of low emission
protein production against the context of feeding a growing population within planetary boundaries. Equally, it
would automatically recognise fish as a typically less GHG intensive source of protein. In this way it could set a
precedent for consistent criteria across other sector criteria that deal with food production, for example agriculture
and especially livestock production.
With this in mind, this option may allow for a sizeable number of fishing operations to meet this threshold, thusincreasing the Criteria applicability (see Figure 2 for a visual comparison of various fish and livestock carbon
footprints).
The Cons:
The drawbacks of this option are similar to those of option 2. Having one threshold based on low emission protein(which may be even higher than for option 2 due to the addition of livestock emissions data) would provide no
incentive for many fishing operators (or livestock producers) to improve their practices as they would be either
automatically compliant or too far off meeting the threshold for improvements to help (for example those fishingfor crustaceans). And again, different fish species may not be directly interchangeable substitutes for other protein
sources in the market (for example, pork vs tuna). In fact, this would be even more relevant to this option as fishprotein often comprises the only source of protein or income in certain geographies that could be unsuited tolivestock production.
The issue of data reliability is still pertinent here, though there is a considerable number of studies for the carbon
footprint of animal protein and those shown in Figure 3 provide adequate estimates, albeit not for fish protein.
Lastly, but importantly, the Criteria under development for livestock production are not based on an emissions
threshold per unit of production, so would be out of step with such an approach.

Box 2: Potential data sources for setting emissions thresholds per protein units
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations’ (FAO) Global Livestock
Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM)
GLEAM is a Geographic Information System (GIS) framework that simulates the biophysical processes and activities
along livestock supply chains under a lifecycle assessment approach. It is designed to analyse multiple environmental
dimensions, such as feed use, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and land degradation, nutrient and water use andinteraction with biodiversity. It has systematic, global coverage of six livestock species and their edible products: meatand milk from cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats; meat from pigs and meat and eggs from chicken (as shown in Figure 3
above). It could be used to understand a value for low carbon animal-based protein, but it currently does not haveany estimates for fish-based protein. While the FAO may be less active in the research of fisheries fuel use, the dataset
nonetheless provides a useful comparison with other types of animal protein.
Other analyses of interest
A further dataset highlighted by the TWG was the one compiled by Ray Hilborn et al.1 It contains 148 assessments ofanimal source food production for livestock, aquaculture and capture fisheries that measured four metrics ofenvironmental impact (energy use, greenhouse-gas emissions, release of nutrients and acidifying compound) andstandardised these by CO2 equivalent per units of protein production.

Option 4: One upper limit emission threshold and % improvement in carbon emissions
The next option would be to require production to fall below an upper limit FUI threshold and also achieve a %improvement in FUI. This approach would exclude certifying extremely high emissions fishing operations, while stillcreating an incentive to improve across all species groups.
The Pros:This option would appropriately exclude the highest emitting fishing operations that are not aligned with a low
emissions economy, while being inclusive for operations that are higher emitting but have the capacity to improvetheir practices. At the same time, operations that are already low carbon enough will still have an incentive toimprove.
As with option 3, this upper limit threshold gives a clear indication as to what high emission fishing looks like andthus a minimum benchmark which fishing operations should improve past.
The Cons:
Deciding the level to set the percentage improvement part of this option was problematic. From the TWG
discussions, it seems that while individual fishing operators may be able to improve their FUI to an extent, it’sdifficult for them to achieve big fuel savings as that is more dictated by the condition and stocks of the fish they
are harvesting. Further work would be needed in understanding the extent to which any fishing operator could
make improvements. Equally, there is the question of whether the same percentage improvement would be
required of the best performing fishing operators. If already extremely low emitting, it might be unfair to require
substantial further improvements and improvements in such operations may be extremely difficult to achieve.
The same issue goes for setting the upper limit emission threshold – in other words, what is the lowest level of
performance of a fishing operation that can be accepted before the percentage improvement is taken into account.
Failure to do so in a scientifically robust manner could result in the unfair exclusion of certain operations.

Option 5: Rely on a management argument for mitigation component
Option 5 provides an alternative to a threshold approach by using good management practices as a proxy for low
emissions. This is based on an assumption that well-managed fisheries are likely to result in improved fish stocks or
improved knowledge of fish stocks, which are subsequently easier to locate and catch and therefore result in lower
fuel usage by vessels.

The TWG decided that good management practices would be determined by whether or not a fishery is certified
by a best practice certification body. CBI explored the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Global
Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) as the principal options. At the time of criteria development being halted,
MSC certification was being discussed as a requirement for anyone seeking certification under the Fishing Criteria.
From the perspective of a fishing operator or vessel, this might mean seeking certification from MSC (for example)
as such, with the fishery to be certified being defined simply as the vessel within a larger fishery. Being certified
would thus meet the mitigation requirement for that fishing operator or vessel. This flexibility in defining a fisheryfor the purposes of MSC certification may also mean that this option could be flexible for fisheries in general, notjust fishing operators as has been discussed thus far. However, the costs of certifying under MSC was identified asa potentially significant barrier to this, especially in the case of an individual vessel.
The Pros:
Good management practice in the form of best practice certification can circumvent the issues of lack of data seenin the other options listed. These certification schemes leverage expert stakeholder and industry knowledge andoften draw on criteria and metrics far more established in the fisheries industry such as by-catch and ecologicallimits. As such, these schemes can be widely applicable within the industry and theoretically cover a wide range of
operators.
An overarching principle across all CBI sector criteria stipulates that, where possible, best practice certification
schemes are leveraged to support issuers in meeting criteria (for the reasons given above), making this option
consistent with this principle.
One particular benefit this option brings as opposed to the previous options is that of wider sustainability benefits.
Despite not dealing directly with emissions reductions in fisheries, MSC and GSSI incorporate significant
requirements on ensuring a fishery operates in an ecologically sustainable manner. As Climate Bonds Standard
sector criteria contain a component for adaptation and resilience (A&R) as well as one for climate mitigation,
fisheries managed to be ecologically sensitive (and subsequently be best practice certified) are likely to havemanagement processes in place that would enable A&R to be adopted relatively easily. Secondly, MSC incorporates
an improvement aspect into its certification requirements which means all fisheries are encouraged to improve.
The Cons:
When exploring the options of using best practice certification schemes as good management proxies, it is crucial
that they themselves adequately cover important issues that the TWG identify. Both MSC and GSSI had certain
issues associated with their requirements that could make them problematic in their use. For example, MSC hascome under criticism for potential unreliability in the way certification is awarded by third-party verifiers.
A significant concern raised with this option is that better management may not in fact be a reliable indicator oflower GHG emissions. A vessel may operate in a more sustainable manner yet use greater amounts of fuel in theiroperations. The TWG did mention studies that link better management to lower emissions, but ultimately this is
an assumption made in the absence of more reliable emissions data.
Lastly, there was the question of what would happen if a bond certified under the Climate Bonds Standard loses
certification from either MSC or GSSI. In this situation, certification would likely be revoked as is seen in the Forestry
Criteria of the Climate Bonds Standard, where similar best practice schemes are leveraged.

Summary of options

With pros and cons captured for each potential mitigation requirement, there was then a need to determine whatcharacteristics would be key for maximising the effectiveness of the mitigation option ultimately chosen.
Table 4 below illustrates the key pros identified across all the options. These can act as indicators to demonstrate
which option(s) might be the most suitable for setting as mitigation requirements in the Fishing Criteria.
Table 4. Performance of the mitigation requirement options perform against key indicators.
Option1

Option2

Option3

Option4

Option5

Recognise good performers

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Encourage improved
performance
Clear signal to market of low
carbon credentials

✓

❌

❌

✓

✓

❌

❌

✓

✓

❌

Doesn’t exclude entire species

✓

❌

❌

✓

✓

Based on an adequately robust
dataset

❌

❌

❌

❌

❌

‘Science based’

✓

✓

✓

✓

❌

Leverage established industry
research

❌

❌

❌

❌

✓

Wider sustainability benefits

❌

❌

❌

❌

✓

Globally applicable threshold

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Realistic and practical for use

✓

✓

✓

?

✓

Indicator

As can be clearly seen from Table 4, none of the options discussed by the TWG meet all the indicators thatwould improve its effectiveness as a mitigation requirement. This presented considerable barriers to the TWG
accepting any option as a viable option moving forward, which contributed to the criteria development process
being halted.
It was highly likely that MSC certification would have been set as one of the requirements for demonstration of
the mitigation requirements being met, as Table 4 shows Option 5 meeting the most indicators. However, thiswas not enough to take MSC certification forward as the only requirement for meeting the mitigation
component of the criteria.

Exceptions to the above
The TWG discussed whether certain assets or projects might be automatically deemed to be low emissions,
without needing to meet any mitigation criteria (though would still have to meet adaptation and resilience
requirements). For example:●●●

Electric, hydrogen fuel cell and other zero direct emission vessels
Fleet management technology
Possibly some necessary and dedicated supporting infrastructure

Taking the example of land transport, clear industry and policy trends exist which point towards vehicle
electrification. Such trends are less obvious for fishing assets and activities. TWG members noted that some newvessel construction activities are also taking place which aim for increased FUI and lower emissions. In 2015, theworld´s first commercial electric-hybrid fishing vessel, Selfa Elmax 1099, or “Karoline”, was delivered by Selfa Arctic
to operator Øra AS. In 2019, Selfa started working on their second commercial, hybrid-electric fishing vessel.
However, the substantial gap between construction of the two vessels illustrates to a degree the relative lack ofdevelopment in terms of vessel design and propulsion design (there are few other examples globally of electrichybrid vessels, let alone pure electric ones).
Therefore, at this time it is unlikely that many large-scale commercial fishing vessels are likely to automatically be
acceptable as sufficiently low-emissions vessels and would need to be subject to an assessment of theirperformance against some GHG related criteria.

Developing adaptation and resilience requirements for fisheries
There is considerable work that has been done already on resilience of fish stocks and marine ecosystems, both interms of climate resilience and resilience in general, and therefore this is a concept that is better understood than
mitigation.
As mentioned previously, there was a growing consensus among the TWG that MSC certification would be
included as a requirement for fisheries and fishing operators to be eligible. As MSC have extensive requirements
for fisheries to be managed in an ecologically sensitive manner, being certified by MSC may automatically meetsome of the A&R requirements that would likely be part of the Fishing Criteria. It may also have the co-benefit ofpromoting low-emissions fish production though this is as yet unclear as discussed previously. Linked closely to thiswas the idea of Fishery Improvement Plans (FIPs) being included as an alternative requirement for demonstratinga fishery is sustainable generally, but it was unclear in discussions whether they could act as genuine indicators of asustainable and low emissions fishery. MSC carries out evaluative work on FIPs but further work could be done toensure they result in sustainable fisheries management, particularly from an emissions standpoint.
Work to develop the adaptation and resilience component of the criteria did not progress because of the amountof work needed in defining the parameters for the mitigation component. Any future development of adaptation
and resilience requirements would be developed in line with underlying Climate Resilience Principles as seen inother Climate Bonds Standard criteria. These principles were developed by an Adaptation and Resilience Expert
Group (AREG), convened by CBI.

Unresolved issues
Definitions and fisheries applicability
As has already been mentioned extensively in the document, the complexities of fisheries management andemissions arising from them meant that criteria development focussed principally on setting requirements on fishing
operators and vessels, rather than ‘fisheries’ as a whole.
It is recognised that this presents issues of communication with the term fisheries being widely accepted as thestandard term for this area of work. However, for the purposes of criteria development this would mean theoptions for mitigation requirements must be applicable to all aspects of fisheries. As such, the TWG did not directly
address this issue, and thus any development of Fishing (and potentially Fisheries) Criteria would need to explore
this issue further. As previously mentioned, MSC takes a flexible approach to defining a ‘fishery’, but as this does
not set explicit emissions reduction requirements, it is unclear how this could influence development of CBI criteria.

Processing of catch
The TWG discussed the issue of accounting for processing within mitigation requirements, and the subsequent
complexities behind this. Processing of catch is not fully understood in the context of emissions from fisheries, andthus makes setting criteria to reflect this difficult. Processing can take place both onboard a vessel and onshore,potentially using highly varying levels of fuel and therefore leading to differing levels of emissions. Any fishing or
fisheries criteria will need to properly incorporate these sources of emissions into any thresholds that are set forfishing operations.

Conclusions
Work undertaken as part of the Fishing Criteria has already identified possible pathways for setting quantitativerequirements for the mitigation component of the criteria in respect of fishing vessels. These may also be applicableat the fishery level, though the TWG did not explicitly address this issue. However, the data coverage in terms ofglobal catch is not comprehensive enough currently to be able to set globally applicable and robust thresholds forwhat constitutes low emissions fishing, and current market trends do not show demand for criteria for fishing
related bonds. That said, the pool of data available is growing, so it is hoped that eventually there will be enoughdata to set thresholds. Development of the criteria may be resumed when more data have become available tosupport a more robust analysis.

Appendix: Where to look for further guidance
Other organisations and initiatives are taking forward work that is relevant to assessing the fishing sector. Some ofthese are listed below.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) – for aquaculture
Seafood Stewardship Index
Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative
Fish tracker
KRAV
Fisheries Improvement Projects (FIPs)
The Seas, Oceans and Public Health in Europe project (SOPHIE)

It is not clear whether relevant international organisations such as FAO, IMO and intergovernmental fisheryorganisations (ICCAT, IATTC, etc.) are planning to set standards on (or monitor) emission performance of thefishing industry. This will also influence the quality and amount of data that can support development of sector
criteria.
The following list is of relevant reading, literature and studies that may be of use in future work in this area, or
simply for added information or context:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Aubin, J., Papatryphon, E., van der Werf H. M. G. and Chatzifotis, S., 2009. Assessment of theenvironmental impact of carnivorous finfish production systems using life cycle assessment, Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 17, pp. 354 - 361.
Boopendranath, M.R. and Hameed, M.S., 2013. Gross energy requirement in fishing operations.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), also known as NOAA Fisheries have general information
on aquaculture
Parker, R.W., Hartmann, K., Green, B.S., Gardner, C. and Watson, R.A., 2015. Environmental andeconomic dimensions of fuel use in Australian fisheries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, pp.78-86.
Parker, R.W., Blanchard, J.L., Gardner, C., Green, B.S., Hartmann, K., Tyedmers, P.H. and Watson,
R.A., 2018. Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries. Nature Climate Change, 8(4),pp.333-337.
Port, D., Perez, J.A.A. and de Menezes, J.T., 2014. RETRACTED: Energy direct inputs andgreenhouse gas emissions of the main industrial trawl fishery of Brazil.
Salmon farming industry handbook by MOWI ASA
Schau, E.M., Ellingsen, H., Endal, A. and Aanondsen, S.A., 2009. Energy consumption in the
Norwegian fisheries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(3), pp.325-334.
Seafish guide to aquaculture
Singh, K., 2012. Innovation for a High-Energy Planet - Implementing Climate Pragmatism Framing
Document Two, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Temple, Arizona.
Thrane, M., 2004. Energy consumption in the Danish fishery: identification of key factors. Journal ofIndustrial Ecology, 8(1-2), pp.223-239.
Tyedmers, P., 2001. Energy consumed by North Atlantic fisheries. Fisheries impacts on North
Atlantic ecosystems: catch, effort, and national/regional data sets, 9, pp.12-34.
UN FAO, “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture; Opportunities and challenges,” Rome,2014.