Seafood in Europe

EEA Report No 25/2016
Seafood in Europe
A food system approach for sustainability
ISSN 1977-8449
EEA Report No 25/2016
Seafood in Europe
Cover design: EEA
Cover photo: © Constança Belchior
Left photo: Adriaen van Utrecht — Fishmonger's Stall. Photo: © Hugo Maertens — Art in Flanders VZW, www.lukasweb.be
Right photo: © Gülcin Karadeniz
Layout: EEA/Pia Schmidt
Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other
institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on
behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report.
Copyright notice
© European Environment Agency, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
ISBN 978-92-9213-818-9
ISSN 1977-8449
doi:10.2800/06589
European Environment Agency

Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries
Contents
Contents
Authors and acknowledgements............................................................................................... 4
Executive summary..................................................................................................................... 5
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 9
1.1 Food connects people, the planet and prosperity............................................................... 9
1.2 About this report....................................................................................................................11
2 Sustainability in the food system....................................................................................... 12

2.1 The global and European seafood landscape....................................................................12
2.2 Taking a food system approach...........................................................................................17
2.3 Exploring sustainability in the food system........................................................................19
3 Interactions in the journey of fish to fork......................................................................... 22

3.1 The influence of international trade on seafood production ��22
3.2 Aquaculture feed connects fisheries, aquaculture and land ��25
3.3 A globalised seafood supply chain with emerging partnerships ��29
3.4 Market incentives and consumer choices for sustainability ��31
4 Transforming Europe's food system.................................................................................. 33

4.1 Building a shared understanding of the food system at the EU level.............................34
4.2 Improving the seafood knowledge base.............................................................................38
4.3 Implementing an ecosystem approach to Europe's seas ��40
5 Looking ahead — food for thought.................................................................................... 45
References.................................................................................................................................. 48
Seafood in Europe 3
Authors and acknowledgements
Authors and acknowledgements
Lead authors: of Ronan Uhel and Stéphane Isoard, and shorter

contributions from Mike Asquith, Luís Pinto and Vincent
Constança Belchior (European Environment Agency Viaud, were particularly valuable.
(EEA)) and Benjamin Boteler (European Topic Center on
Inland, Coastal and Marine Waters (ETC-ICM)/Ecologic The authors also wish to thank the many experts
Institute). providing input throughout the development of
the report, in particular: Ann Dom (Seas at Risk),
Griffin Carpenter (New Economic Foundation (NEF)),
Contributors: Wijnand Boonstra (Stockholm Resilience Center),
Michèle Mesmain (Slow Food International), Stefanie
Henrice Jansen and Gerjan Piet (ETC-ICM/Wageningen Schmidt (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies
Marine Research), Mark Dickey-Collas (ETC-ICM/ (IASS)), Catarina Grilo (Gulbenkian Foundation —
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea), Oceans Initiative), Roger Martini (Organisation for
Keighley McFarland and Lucy Olivia Smith (ETC-ICM/ Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)),
Ecologic Institute); Cathy Maguire, Eva Gelabert Tobias Webb (Innovation Forum), Henk Westhoek
and Johnny Reker (EEA); Irene Vidal (Environmental (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL))
Justice Foundation). and the colleagues from the European Commission
Fabrizio Natale, Ernesto Jardim, Dario Dubolino, Xavier
Guillou, Friderike Oehler, Anna Karasszon, Anna
Acknowledgements Cheilari, Johanna Trieb and Tine Van‑Criekinge.
The authors would like to thank the colleagues at EEA

whose critical comments and observations contributed
to the final version of the report. The guidance
4 Seafood in Europe
Executive summary
Executive summary
Towards sustainability in the food system EU policy and knowledge development, by identifying
three complementary pathways in the current EU policy
By 2050, the world's population is projected to grow to framework related to food, seafood and healthy seas,
9.6 billion and demand for food will increase accordingly. and its knowledge base, which can help support a more
The resulting rise in food production and consumption functional system.
will arguably originate from a position of vulnerability:
today, the global food system is responsible for 60 % of
terrestrial biodiversity loss, around 24 % of greenhouse Sustainability in food requires a policy
gas emissions, 33 % of degraded soils, full exploitation framework that embraces a food system
or overexploitation of around 90 % of commercial fish approach, and that allows a shared
stocks, and overexploitation of 20 % of the world's understanding of the food system to be built
aquifers. Worldwide, a number of striking effects on
people's health and well-being can also be observed, The EU has developed, in an implicit way, a broad
associated with some modern diets that are rich in fat, policy framework for food — including policies related
sugar, salt and meat. Nearly 800 million people are to environmental protection, agriculture, fisheries
hungry and over 2 billion suffer from micronutrient and aquaculture, research and innovation, trade
deficiencies, which affect their growth and development. and development — which is now embedded in
On the other hand, almost 2 billion people are long‑term sustainability objectives (Figure ES.1). These
overweight and over 600 million of those are obese. policies influence how activities and actors in the food
supply‑chain interact with each other and use natural
The challenges raised by our food pose major questions resources from land and sea. However, this EU policy
for our societies. How can we feed the world in an framework is not currently implemented according to a
equitable and nutritious way, while sustaining the food system approach. Such an approach recognises the
natural capacity of land and marine ecosystems to food system as a complex, adaptive system, comprised
provide food, among other equally important primary by multiple interacting actors with diverse interests and
services? And how can Europe adapt and transform its values.
food system to support such objectives?
Policies help shape the food system. They establish a
This European Environment Agency report, Seafood in common framework for governance and action, define
Europe, is a first contribution to the collective endeavour incentives, and direct research and innovation. Adopting
of rethinking Europe's food system for sustainability a food system approach to EU policy would allow for
goals, as recently articulated globally in the Sustainable complexity to be better embraced, and policy coherence
Development Goals (aimed at 'Transforming our and coordination to be strenghtened. It would also
world') and in Europe with the implementation of the provide opportunities to build a shared understanding of
7th Environment Action Programme (aimed at 'Living the food system among policymakers and other actors
well, within the limits of our planet'). The report's in Europe's food system, such as producers, businesses
intended readership includes policy actors, practitioners in the food industry and civil society groups.
and researchers who are thinking about sustainability in
food, and who are in a position to act strategically. It is Adopting a food system approach requires a shift in
also aimed at professionals in the fields of food security the thinking about the food system and its outcomes.
and marine environmental sustainability. Initiatives at the EU level are already underway and have
the potential to support such a shift in thinking and
With a focus on seafood, the analysis builds on a food build a shared understanding of the food system among
system approach from which it explores the knowledge food system actors. These include a first EU Research
base on food systems and on the seafood that the EU and Innovation Agenda for Food and Nutrition Security
produces, trades and consumes. It then further assesses and cross-policy foresight studies by the European
the implications of such a food system analysis for Commission related to the implementation of several
Seafood in Europe 5
Executive summary
of the EU policies related to food (such as agriculture, Solutions for sustainability in the food system will also
fisheries, the bioeconomy and the sustainable require a deeper understanding of the interactions
development goals). These initiatives could provide between ecosystem functioning and the ways in which
an important stepping-stone to design governance food is produced. Mapping and assessing ecosystem
processes and research initiatives that could bring services is key to understanding how natural capital
together EU institutions, Member States, food system is generated, and how people benefit from it. In
actors, experts from a multidisciplinary background this respect, the EU has begun a process under the
and other stakeholders to build a deeper and shared Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 to apply a common
understanding of why and how food is produced, ecosystem services approach that can lead to a
obtained and consumed. The design of such governance common language at the EU level that will define and
mechanisms could allow these stakeholders to open up assess interactions between ecosystems and people.
to a wider array of solutions. Although it is still early days for this process, especially
Figure ES.1 An illustration of relevant EU policies for food and sustainability until 2050
Com Sus Lon

Land pre t g-t
, co he aina erm
as ns b vis
Common ta iv led io
Fisheries
Common e e ns
la
Policy Agricultural
po
nd
ve
Policy
an
lic
lo
ma
d
ies
pm
ob
Marine
rine p
Thematic
en
jec
Strategy Nature
Strategy
ta
Framework
tiv
directives
Directive on Soil
gen
es
olicies
wit
das
Water Circular
ha
Framework Nitrates Economy
and fr
Integrated Directive Package
soci
Maritime Directive
Policy
etal
Water
ameworks
2 02
Industry Bioeconomy
Maritime Strategy
transiti
directives
Spatial Planning
Directive
0
203
on perspective
Resource
Efficiency
Roadmap 7th Environment
0
Europe Action Programme

2 05
2020 (7th EAP) tra Res

Biodiversity de ea
Strategy an rch
d d an
ev d i
elo nn
0
pm ova
en tio
t p n,
ies
oli
cie
s
o li c
United Nations
Climate and Energy Sustainable
gp
Framework Development
tin
Goals
or
Low-carbon
pp
economy Safeguard Europe’s

Su
(Roadmap) Water Resources

(Blueprint)
Natural capital
protected, valued,
Living well,
and restored within the limits
(Biodiversity strategy) of our planet
(7th EAP)
Source: EEA.
6 Seafood in Europe
Executive summary
for marine ecosystems, such a common language market data that enables the outcomes of the EU's
across the EU can be instrumental in building a shared need for seafood to be traced. International trade
understanding of the food system outcomes on allows for sourcing across the world but it does not
ecosystem health, and how best to manage them. carry with it ecosystem signals, such as the state of fish
stocks, that reflect local conditions and could act as a
Finally, adopting a food system approach requires sustainable production boundary. Data that provide
a policy implementation process that departs a better place‑based understanding of the outcomes
from the classical problem-solving and planning of the food system are limited. The contribution
paradigm. Instead it will increasingly need to build on of fisheries and aquaculture to outcomes such as
systems learning and experimentation via iterative, community integrity, food security and ecosystem
adaptive and participatory processes, and embrace stewardship are not visible in highly aggregated
human factors that influence decision-making and global, EU or national level statistics. These statistics
behaviour more fully. A great wealth of information were not designed to capture local dynamics but they
is already available on how to complement policy may carry more weight when it comes to influencing
implementation with behavioural insights. Working decision‑making in policy. Other interactions remain
with human behaviour is especially important in the under-investigated, such as those in the aquaculture
context of food, since food is related to many other production of marine fed-species. The production
interweaving aspects of our lives such as education of species such as salmon and shrimp have broader
and culture. marine and land interactions — such as dependencies
on wild fish stocks or land-based crops for the
production of aquaculture feed — but the current
There is a need to improve the knowledge information flows on seafood provides limited capacity
base related to seafood in order to better to understand such interactions.
understand interactions in Europe's food
system and beyond An integrated assessment of the production and
consumption of seafood for Europe is therefore
Data and information flows related to food system currently hindered by a lack of information that
activities and their environmental and socio-economic facilitates understanding of the means by which the
interactions and outcomes allow us to monitor change different activities of the supply-chain shape the
and assess it against EU sustainability objectives, demand and supply of seafood and its outcomes over
namely by monitoring aspects related to food local-to-global scales. The new types of knowledge
security, ecosystem health and social well-being. This required for a switch to a sustainable food system do
information acts as feedback that can validate how not necessarily imply more data and information. The
we think about the food system, or signal the need wealth of existing data and information from EU policy
to revise it. Additionally, this feedback from the food implementation processes — such as those from the
system allows us to make sense of change and forms new Common Fisheries Policy, which deals with both
the basis for action, such as policy interventions. the production of fisheries and aquaculture and the
organisation of the common market for seafood —
The assessment of the knowledge base that underpins could be further explored to better capture the multiple
the production, trade, distribution and consumption interactions of the food system.
of seafood for the EU indicates that these different
activities are still mostly monitored in isolation, and
miss out important interactions on the journey of fish Implementing an ecosystem approach to
to fork. Currently, assessments tend to focus on the Europe's seas — a key principle in several EU
environmental impact of fisheries and aquaculture policies — is critical to securing the long-term
on Europe's marine ecosystems, or the economic availability of seafood, but further efforts are
performance of the sectors, both of which are critical needed to support its operationalisation
knowledge for ensuring the long-term availability of
seafood. However, information that allows for an The ecosystem approach to management — also
understanding of what is happening at sea — both in known as ecosystem based management (EBM) — is
Europe and from where Europe sources seafood — by a central principle in EU marine and maritime policy
connecting it to what and who is driving the production for ensuring the sustainable use of Europe's seas
of seafood is scarcer. and the long term provision of ecosystem services,
including the provision of seafood. Essentially, EBM is
In this context, although more than half (55 %) of the a policy-driven process that aims to strike a balance
seafood consumed by EU citizens comes from outside between ecological and social 'wants and needs' for
EU borders, there is little information available beyond the use of ecosystem services and natural resources.
Seafood in Europe 7
Executive summary
The implementation of EBM in Europe and elsewhere, seas. However, the different policies involved bring
however, has been slow. different actors together in different processes that
do not necessarily encourage broader reflection and
A major barrier to EBM implementation is the joint action. As such, a broader strategic approach to
reconciliation of the often incompatible environmental, implementing EBM in Europe's seas is in order.
social and economic objectives of different actors and
policies related to the use of marine ecosystems. Even Finally, EBM is a learning and adaptive process that
with a unifying policy such as the Common Fisheries can take time to deliver tangible effects in ecosystem
Policy (CFP), conflicting objectives and values, such health. A resilient food system requires the stable
as those related to securing short-term social and production of food in the long-term. As such, measures
economic benefits from fisheries or optimising fisheries to protect, restore and conserve the natural capital
for broader social and environmental benefits in the that underpins the very existence of a food system are
long-term, hamper the effective implementation of core essential for its sustainability. A key measure in the
EBM measures for fisheries. This is illustrated by the EBM tool box for Europe's seas and the availability of
difficulty faced in fishing at maximum sustainable yield seafood is the development of an adequate network
in Europe's seas and the influence of political processes of marine protected areas (MPAs). Implementing
that go beyond the capacity of science to set this coherent and representative MPA networks is a no-
boundary for sustainability in fisheries management. regret option for the safeguarding of biodiversity and
the services that marine ecosystems provide, such
Another key impediment to successful EBM is the as seafood. The ecosystem approach introduced by
complex European marine governance system the MSFD and the CFP provides an opportunity to
currently in place. A plethora of governance forums, employ a holistic approach to designing, managing and
including those stemming from the CFP, the Marine evaluating MPA networks in Europe's seas. MPAs are
Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the recently also essential tools for ensuring the long-term viability
adopted Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (part of of fisheries and the availability of resources on which
the Integrated Maritime Policy), are discussing parts the whole food supply-chain depends, ending with the
of the problem and parts of the solutions concerning 505 million citizens of Europe who want to be able to
the sustainable use and conservation of Europe's eat fish today and in the future.
8 Seafood in Europe
Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Food connects people, the planet

and prosperity
“ When we think about threats to the
environment, we tend to picture cars and
Having food to eat is a daily requirement for all of smokestacks, not dinner. But the truth is,
the 7.2 billion people currently on the planet. It is our need for food poses one of the biggest
expected that by 2050 there will be at least 2 billion dangers to the planet.
more people to feed. Ensuring food is produced,
distributed and consumed in a way that is socially,
”
Richardson (2014)
economically and environmentally sustainable is one
of the main challenges of this century (World Bank,
2008; FAO, 2009; UN, 2015).
changes — are unfolding within Europe and across
The way we eat has contributed to the development of the world (EEA, 2015a). Such changes, related to
a complex global food system, connected by diverse population growth, rising incomes, economic growth
networks of producers, business actors in the food patterns, loss of biodiversity and the intensification of
industry, governments and consumers. The evolution climate change, will alter future food production and
of this highly interconnected system has brought both consumption patterns, and influence both societies
intended and unintended consequences for the planet and the environment (GO-Science, 2011). Thus, a
and for people. Natural resources and ecosystems are transformation of the food system is increasingly
under pressure. Globally, the food system is responsible being called for to ensure a system that is resilient to
for 60 % of terrestrial biodiversity loss, around 24 % global change and capable of providing healthy and
of greenhouse gas emissions, 33 % of degraded soils, sustainable food for current and future generations.
full exploitation or overexploitation of around 90 % of
commercial fish stocks, and overexploitation of 20 % of Food is now at the top of policy agendas worldwide,
the world's aquifers (FAO, 2016; UNEP, 2016). A number through the recently adopted 2030 Agenda for
of striking effects on people's health and well-being Sustainable Development (UN, 2015). A set of
worldwide can also be observed, associated with some 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is intended
modern diets that are rich in fat, sugar, salt and meat. to stimulate action between now and 2030 to shift the
Nearly 800 million people are hungry and over 2 billion world onto a sustainable and resilient path. Two SDGs
suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, which affect their relate directly to food, but essentially food connects
growth and development. On the other hand almost 2 all of the goals (1). Consequently, it is considered
billion people are overweight and over 600 million of that, without eliminating hunger, achieving food
those are obese, with worldwide obesity having more security and improving the health and nutrition of the
than doubled since 1980 (WHO, 2016). world's population, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development cannot be implemented effectively (UNEP,
Rethinking sustainability in food 2016). Obtaining sufficient and nutritious food by 2050 is
a challenge that affects all countries, but it is one that will
The state of play in the global food landscape clearly unfold differently in each one of them. The world's main
shows that today's food system is dysfunctional. In food security challenge in the future seems to be to
addition, a variety of global megatrends — large‑scale, secure regular access to adequate food for the majority,
high-impact and often interdependent social, while addressing the persistent food insecurity of a
economic, political, environmental or technological fraction of the population (Maggio et al., 2015).
(1) The SDGs that relate directly to food are SDG 2, 'end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable
agriculture', and SDG 14, 'conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development', but approaches
are being developed showing how food connects all of the SDGs; see http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2016-06-14-
how-food-connects-all-the-sdgs.html.
Seafood in Europe 9
Introduction
Food and the choices about what we eat are tied The time is ripe for rethinking the sustainability of
to many interweaving aspects of life, including Europe's food system. The EU has framed an engaging
cultural norms and values that influence individual vision of the future until 2050, where we will be 'living
preferences, and to the economic, social and well within the limits of our planet' (Box 1.1). This
political mechanisms governing when, where and vision sets the context for exploring pathways for a
how food can be accessed. If food is increasingly transition towards the sustainability of Europe's food
seen as an essential connecting thread between system, alongside the other systems of production and
people, prosperity and the planet (UNEP, 2016), consumption that meet its needs for mobility, housing
how to transform our food system in today's hyper and energy (EEA, 2015b). The European Commission
connected world is still far from evident. Solutions (EC) is further discussing a 'European brand' for a
for ensuring healthier food for a growing population, sustainable society, in which economic growth is
while reducing its environmental impacts will require compatible with planetary boundaries and its benefits
a deeper understanding of the natural and human are fairly distributed (EPSC, 2016). In the context of food,
interactions in the food system. This understanding the EU is also actively engaging with stakeholders to
requires us to stop looking in isolation at what is develop a new EU food research area by 2020 in order to
happening at the production, processing, distribution future-proof Europe's food system to achieve food and
and consumption steps of food. As such, a systems nutrition security for all, in a global context (EC, 2015a).
analysis of the many factors governing food security
and its outcomes is key to guiding decisions for Nevertheless, the current landscape of EU policies
sustainability in a strategic and holistic manner and initiatives related to food — such as those on
(Ingram, 2011; UNEP, 2016). environmental protection, agriculture, fisheries and
aquaculture, research and innovation, trade and
Transforming Europe's food system development — is fragmented and thus not suited
to the complexity of the food system. To transform
What is happening on the global food landscape Europe's food system and make it sustainable in the
matters for Europe's food security and its societies' 21st century requires the knowledge base on its actors,
broader well-being. Europe is embedded in a dynamic activities, relationships and outcomes for both people
global web of producers, processers and markets and the planet to be strengthened and the implications
that obtains and sells goods and services related to of this knowledge for policy and governance explored.
food. In 2014, the European Union (EU) had an 18 %
market share of global exports and a 14 % share of
global imports of agricultural commodities such as 1.2 About this report
meat, dairy, cereals and drink products (Food Drink
Europe, 2016). When it comes to seafood, the EU is This report aims to contribute knowledge to the
the largest importer of seafood and fish products in collective endavour of rethinking Europe's food
the world, with a market share of 20 % of total global system for sustainabillity. With a focus on seafood,
imports between 2013 and 2015, and was responsible the analysis builds on a complexity framework —
for about 6 % of total global exports in the same period a food system approach — from which it explores the
(FAO, 2016). knowledge base on food systems and on the seafood
Box 1.1 The EU 2050 sustainability vision from its 7th Environment Action Programme
“limits.

In 2050 we live well, within the planet's ecological
Our prosperity and healthy environment
stem from an innovative, circular economy where
nothing is wasted and where natural resources are
managed sustainably, and biodiversity is protected,
valued and restored in ways that enhance our
society's resilience. Our low-carbon growth has
long been decoupled from resource use, setting the
pace for a safe and sustainable global society.
”
10 Seafood in Europe
Introduction
that the EU produces, trades and eats. It then further environmental outcomes of these activities, to be
assesses the implications of such food system analysis connected and examined (Ericksen, 2007; Ingram,
for EU policy and knowledge development. The 2011). Such system analysis further helps to
report's intended readership includes policy actors, distinguish the relationships that shape production
practitioners and researchers who are thinking about and consumption patterns, which can support the
sustainability in marine and land-based food, and who identification of leverage points for accelerating
are in a position to act strategically. It is also aimed at the transformation of the food system towards
professionals in the fields of food security and marine sustainability (Meadows, 1999; Abson et al., 2016).
environmental sustainability.
This report is structured around three main chapters.
This report brings a sustainability perspective to the Chapter 2 sets the scene for the assessment. It
food system, exploring the environmental, social, describes the sustainability challenges related to
economic and governance dimensions around food food and to seafood in particular, both globally
and seafood in particular. It therefore departs from and in Europe, and defines the food system. It then
assessing the environmental impact of fisheries and explains the conceptual approach of the assessment.
aquaculture on Europe's marine ecosystems, which Chapter 3 takes us on a 'fish to fork' journey via a food
is assessed elsewhere (EEA, 2015c). Moreover, the system approach, by exploring the relationships and
report does not focus on natural resource use in the outcomes that are intrinsic to Europe's demand for
food system and how to address its environmental seafood. In doing so, it aims to illustrate the need for
impacts, which have recently been assessed on a a systems approach to understand the factors that are
global level (UNEP, 2016). A systems approach that governing the long-term availability, access and use
explores interactions and outcomes of the 'fish to of seafood for the EU. Chapter 4 builds on systems
fork' activities in which Europe is embedded remains thinking to identify three complimentary pathways
under‑investigated at EU level. This report aims to for sustainability in Europe's food system. It does so
address this gap. by considering opportunities that are available or
emerging in the current EU policy framework related
A food system approach allows the activities and to food, seafood and healthy seas, and its knowledge
actors in the food supply chain — from production base. Finally, Chapter 5 looks ahead and provides food
and manufacturing to supply, retail and consumption for thought on aspects relevant for a transformation
— as well as the various social, economic and towards sustainability in Europe and its food system.
Seafood in Europe 11
Sustainability in the food system
2 Sustainability in the food system
2.1 The global and European seafood Seafood is also an important source of nutritious food
landscape for the EU. The average apparent fish consumption
per capita in the EU is the second highest in the world
The role of fish as a source of food, income and (at around 22 kg/capita/year), and some individual EU
livelihood (2) Member States have among the highest rates in the
world (Figure 2.1). Europeans favour wild fish. In 2014,
The combination of population growth, urbanisation around 75 % of fisheries and aquaculture products
and rising incomes is projected to increase global food consumed in the EU (3) came from marine capture
demand compared with current needs by an estimated fisheries, which remains consistent with trends over the
50 % by 2030 and by 80–100 % by 2050 (Maggio et al., last decade (EUMOFA, 2015).
2015). Although projections vary, the world needs to
close the gap between the amount of food available In addition to providing a valuable supply of food,
today and the amount required in 2050. Part of this fisheries and aquaculture provide income and support
new demand for food will be met with fish. Caught livelihoods for many people around the world. An
or farmed fish is already an important source of food estimated 56.6 million people were engaged in capture
and provides an essential contribution to human fisheries and aquaculture in 2014, the vast majority
health given its high protein content but also a wide (87 %) being in Asia (FAO, 2016). The small-scale
range of essential micronutrients, including various fisheries sector is estimated to employ around 90 % of
vitamins, minerals, and polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty the world's fishers, producing almost half of the world's
acids. In 2013, fish accounted for about 17 % of the fish and supplying most of the fish consumed in the
global population's intake of animal protein (11.7 % in developing world (FAO, 2016). Since 1990, the number
developed countries and 20 % in developing countries) of people employed in capture fisheries has decreased
and 6.7 % of all protein consumed (FAO, 2016). by 16 % (from 83 % in 1990 to 67 % in 2014), while at
the same time employment in aquaculture increased
World fish consumption has been on the rise in recent by 16 % (from 17 to 33 %) (FAO, 2016).
decades, having almost doubled in the last 55 years
(from an average of 9.9 kg per capita in 1960 to 19.7 kg In the EU, fishing provided about 129 000 jobs in
in 2013) (FAO, 2016). More recently, this aggregated 2014 (STECF, 2015) while aquaculture accounted for
value has been mostly influenced by fish consumption about 80 000 jobs in 2012 (STECF, 2014a). Producing
in Asia, Africa and South America, where the per capita and processing fish as food in the EU is still largely
fish consumption increased by 9 %, 5 % and 15 % dependent on small and medium sized businesses;
respectively, between 2007 and 2011 (EUMOFA, 2015). most of the EU fishing fleet is considered small‑scale
The total global fish production that was used for (74 % of active vessels in 2013); the majority of
direct human consumption grew by 20 % (from 67 to aquaculture enterprises employ fewer than10 people
87 %) between 1960 and 2014, supported by significant (90 % in 2012 and with significant part-time
enhancements in efficiency, lower costs, wider choice, employment) and fish processing enterprises fewer
and safer and improved products (FAO, 2016). In 2014, than 50 (85 % in 2012) (STECF, 2014a, b and 2015). In
around 13 % of global fish production was destined several EU regions the fishing sector plays a crucial
for non-food use, 76 % of which was transformed to role for employment and economic activity — in some
fishmeal and fish oil and used for a number of purposes European coastal communities, as many as half the
including for direct feed in aquaculture (FAO, 2016). local jobs are in the fishing sector (Natale et al., 2013).
(2) The global and European statistics related to fish consumption and trade, by definition, include freshwater fish. Therefore, in this section, 'fish'
includes both freshwater and marine fish. 'Seafood' is used when referring to marine fish only.
(3) Based on own calculations from European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture (EUMOFA) data. Includes freshwater species.
Figure 2.1 The apparent consumption of fish in the EU compared with the rest of the world (food supply
quantity as kg/capita/year), 2011
Maldives 165.7
Iceland 90.0
China, Hong Kong SAR 71.0
Kiribati 70.7
Antigua and Barbuda 68.2
China, Macao SAR 59.5
Republic of Korea 58.1
Malaysia 58.1
Portugal 56.8
Myanmar 55.3
Japan 53.7
Lithuania 43.4
Spain 42.4
Finland 35.6
France 34.6
Sweden 31.1
Malta 30.6
Luxembourg 29.0
Latvia 27.5
Italy 25.4
Belgium 25.1
Netherlands 23.6
Cyprus 23.3
Denmark 23.0
EU-28 average 22.6 Oceania 26.5
Ireland 22.3 EU-28 average 22.6

Croatia 19.7
Northern America 21.7
Greece 19.6
United Kingdom 19.0 Asia 21.3
Estonia 14.7 Africa 10.9

Germany 14.2
South America 10.2
Austria 13.3
Poland 12.0 Central America 9.2
Slovenia 11.2
Caribbean 9.0
Czech Republic 9.5
Slovakia 8.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Kg/capita/year
Bulgaria 6.6
Romania 6.1
Hungary 5.3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Kg/capita/year
Note: The FAO item 'fish, seafood', which also includes freshwater fish, was used to create this figure.
Source: FAO, 2016, FAO Food Balance Sheets: Food Supply Quantity.
Seafood is also the most globally traded of all food supply. For the first time ever, aquaculture
agricultural and food commodities; around 37 % provided more fish for human consumption than
of all fisheries and aquaculture production enter capture fisheries. China has played a major role in
international markets, with developing countries achieving such shift in food supply and currently
representing a growing portion of this trade represents over 60 % of world aquaculture production
(FAO, 2016). The EU plays an important role in this (FAO, 2016). In contrast, the production of EU
global trade dynamic. It is the largest importer of aquaculture has been decreasing significantly over
seafood and fish products in the world, with a market time in terms of both volume and value (STECF, 2014a).
share of 20 % of total global imports between 2013
and 2015, and was responsible for about 6 % of By 2030 it has been projected that over 60 % of fish for
total global exports in the same period (FAO, 2016). human consumption will be supplied by aquaculture
Whereas the EU is a net exporter of meat, especially (World Bank, 2013). However, it is foreseen that
processed products, it is a net importer of fishery productivity gains in aquaculture will be affected
and aquaculture products (EUMOFA, 2015). The EU's by the availability of and accessibility to land and
self‑sufficiency in fish and aquaculture products — marine spaces, financial resources, improvements in
that is, the capacity of the EU to meet the demand technology and accessibility to feed (OECD/FAO, 2015).
for fish from its own waters — has been around 45 %
since 2008 (EUMOFA, 2015). Global capture fisheries reached their peak production
of 86.4 million tonnes in 1996 and have generally
Trends in the production of fish stabilised since then (Figure 2.2). Today, most fish
stocks are being used at or above their sustainable
Since the 1990s, the increase in fish supply has derived levels (see Figure 2.3). Global numbers since 1974
from aquaculture (4) (inland and marine), which depict an increasing trend towards overfishing (FAO,
increased from 7 % of global fish supply in 1974 to 2016). In 2013, around 89 % of the world's fisheries
44 % in 2014 (FAO, 2016) (Figure 2.2). The year 2014 were either fully fished (58 %) or overfished (31 %),
also marks an important milestone for the world's leaving only around 10.5 % underfished (FAO, 2016).
FIGURE 1
Figure 2.2 World capture fisheries and aquaculture production
WORLD CAPTURE FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION
180
160
140
120
MILLION TONNES
100
80
60
40
20
0
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014
Aquaculture production
Capture production
Source: FAO, 2016.
(4) Freshwater aquaculture is also seen to have an increasing role in food security, but its analysis is beyond the scope of this report.
FIGURE 2
WORLD FISH UTILIZATION AND SUPPLY

Fish utilization Population (billions)
FIGURE 13
Figure 2.3 Global trends in the state of world marine fish stocks
GLOBAL TRENDS IN THE STATE OF WORLD MARINE FISH STOCKS SINCE 1974
100
90
Overfished
80
70
60
PERCENTAGE
50 Fully fished
40
30
20
Underfished
10
0
1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2013
At biologically unsustainable levels Within biologically sustainable levels
Notes: Dark shading = within biologically sustainable levels; light shading = at biologically unsustainable levels. The light line divides
Note: Dark shading = within biologically sustainable levels; light shading = at biologically unsustainable levels.
the stocks within biologically sustainable levels into two subcategories: fully fished (above the line) and underfished (below the line).
The light line divides the stocks within biologically sustainable levels into two subcategories: fully fished (above the line) and underfished
(below the line).
Source: FAO, 2016.
(Scomber japonicus) stocks are fully fished in the overcapacit y of tuna fishing f leets remains. There
Eastern Pacific and overfished in the Northwest is a need for effective management to restore the
Pacific. Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) stocks overfished stocks.
Inare
Europe's
either seas,
fully overfishing levels (defined as fishing
fished or underfished. recovering since 2003, largely as a result of better
above maximum sustainable yield) remain high overall: management
World marineand significant
fisheries haveprogress towards fishing
undergone
50 %
Theintotal
the EU's
catchnorth-east
of tuna andAtlantic Ocean
tuna-like and Baltic
species was at maximumchanges
significant sustainable yield
since thein the EU's
1950s. north-east
Accordingly,
about and
waters, 7.4 million
over 90 % tonnes
in the(9 percent of the and
Mediterranean global
Black their fishing
Atlantic Oceanlevels and landings
and Baltic have alsoet al.,
waters (Cardinale varied.2013;
catch)
Seas in 2013.
in 2014 The2016a).
(STECF, principal
Manymarket
stockstuna
have been The temporal
STECF, pattern
2016a) (see of 2.4).
Figure landings differs from
species – albacore, bigeye, bluefin (three species), area to area depending on the level of urban and
skipjack and yellowfin – contributed 5.1 million economic development and changes that
tonnes in 2013, an increase of half a million countries in the surrounding area have
tonnes over the two years. About 70 percent of experienced. In general, area catches can be
these catches were from the Pacific. Skipjack was divided into three groups: (i) oscillating around a
the most productive principal market tuna, globally stable value; (ii) overall decline following
contributing about 66 percent to the 2013 catch of historical peaks; and (iii) continuously increasing
principal tunas, followed by yellowfin and bigeye trend since 1950.
(about 26 and 10 percent, respectively).
The first group comprises the Eastern Central
Among the seven principal tuna species, Atlantic, Northeast Pacific, Eastern Central
41 percent of the stocks were estimated as fished Pacific, Southwest Atlantic, Southeast Pacific,
at biologically unsustainable levels, while and Northwest Pacific. These areas provided
59 percent were fished within biologically about 47 percent of the world’s total marine catch
sustainable levels (fully fished or underfished) in in 2013. Several of them include upwelling
2013. The landings of skipjack tuna have regions characterized by high natural variabilit y.
continued to increase over time, reaching About 70 percent of fish stocks in this group are
3.0 million tonnes in 2013. Only for ver y few fished within biologically sustainable levels.
stocks of the principal tuna species is their status
unknown or ver y poorly known. Market demand The second group contributed 21 percent of the
for tuna is still high, and the significant global marine catch in 2013, and includes the
Continues on page 42 »
| 39 |
Figure 2.4 Trends in the state of European fish stocks in the north-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic waters
Number of stocks
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fished sustainably Overfished
Note: The figure shows number of assessed stocks in the north-east Atlantic Ocean, North Sea and Baltic Sea in EU waters and contiguous
shared stocks, showing numbers of stocks fished sustainably (current fishing mortality is at or below maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
or overfished (current fishing mortality is above MSY).
Source: Based on STECF, 2016b.
The broader horizon for seafood provision and access and acidifying waters. Warming waters are causing
marine species to move to colder, more northerly
The state of coastal and marine ecosystems is of concern regions. Many of these have commercial value and
globally. Despite this, increasing, multiple uses of the are targeted by fisheries (EEA, 2015c). Recognising
global ocean continue to create further pressure on the growing importance of climate change for specific
already vulnerable ecosystems (EEA, 2015c; UN, 2016). challenges, the United Nations' Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has determined that
Economic ambitions for new or increased use of food security and the world's oceans are of particular
marine spaces (e.g. offshore wind farms, mining and importance and will be giving these areas special
biotechnology) are growing, and oceans are often looked attention over the coming years. The IPCC has found
at as a means to help meet growing global demand, not that oceans require a more explicit focus than in the
just for food, but also for energy, raw materials and, past, and so governments and policymakers need to
ultimately, income and jobs (OECD, 2016). In the EU, this better understand the consequences of climate change
is demonstrated by the Blue Growth strategy, which is on marine ecosystems (CarbonBrief, 2016).
the long-term strategy to support sustainable growth in
the marine and maritime sectors (EC, 2012). This growing Finally, the increasing interconnectedness and
interest in the oceans, both globally and in the EU, is interdependency of countries through international
likely to bring further constraints on fish production trade will continue to be key in shaping the patterns
by increasing competition for the same areas and, in of production, distribution and consumption of
some cases, resources. It will be necessary to coordinate seafood. The unbalanced global distribution of fisheries
various activities taking place in a particular region, to and aquaculture production causes seafood to be
recognise their cumulative impacts and to harmonise a highly traded commodity and thus influenced by
sustainability goals and legal frameworks. This means market dynamics. In addition, global demographic
increased international ocean governance will be and socio‑economic trends such as a growing and
required for coordination across sectors, and ensuring increasingly affluent population and rising urbanisation,
sustainability goals as well as social and economic are shifting consumption and production patterns
objectives are pursued and achieved (FAO, 2016). (GO-Science, 2011; EEA, 2015a). Already seafood
consumption is on the rise in developing counties,
Climate change is bringing further uncertainty to especially in Asia, which poses new questions and
the supply of seafood by exacerbating impacts in potential challenges for the global provision and access
the marine environment, namely through warming to seafood (FAO, 2016).
2.2 Taking a food system approach Figure 2.5 Food system outcomes
The increased understanding of the complex nature of

our patterns of finding, processing and eating food has
called for the examination of food from a much broader
and integrated perspective, based on a food system
approach (Ericksen, 2007; Ingram, 2011; UNEP, 2016). FOOD SECURITY
Stability in:
FOOD
A food system can be defined as 'all the elements UTILISATION
Nutritional value
(environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, Social value
institutions etc.) and activities that relate to the Food safety
FOOD FOOD
production, processing, distribution, preparation AVAILABILITY ACCESS
and consumption of food, and the outputs of these Production Affordability
Distribution Allocation
activities, including socio-economic and environmental Exchange Preference
outcomes' (HPLE, 2014). The food system is thus defined
by both the human activities that link the production
to the consumption of food (i.e. along the length of the ECOSYSTEM SOCIAL
HEALTH WELL-BEING
food supply chain) and the outcomes of these activities.
INCOME
RESILIENCE EMPLOYMENT
Food system outcomes BIODIVERSITY WEALTH
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS EQUITY
Food security is a core purpose of the food system (see ECOSYSTEM SERVICES HEALTH
Box 2.1 for a definition) but it has long been considered CULTURE
ETHICS
almost exclusively with respect to hunger, malnutrition
and humanitarian questions (Maggio et al., 2015). This
association has generated a conceptual divide between
undernourished and nourished people, hiding the
interplay of the problems affecting both. Food security
Source: EEA based on Ingram, 2011 and UNEP, 2016.
is now increasingly seen from the perspective of
access to food and of its nutritional value, whichmoves
away from the previous paradigm of focusing on the
production of food (Ericksen, 2007; Gustafson et al., represent the largest group of natural resource
2016). managers in the world, and as such they are critical
in both creating the problems and implementing
The activities involved in the food system affect a solutions to them (UNEP, 2016). In addition to the
number of outcomes beyond food security, relating to actors that are directly involved in food chain activities,
ecosystem health and social well-being (see Figure 2.5). governments and civil society are also part of the food
These food system outcomes all have important system as they set the wider policy and societal context
environmental and socio-economic feedback dynamics for food chain activities. Acknowledging the roles of
that influence how the food system is operating the actors in the food system is an important factor in
(Ingram, 2011; Maggio et al., 2015; UNEP, 2016). identifying opportunities and pathways for enhanced
food security, ecosystem health and social well-being.
Food system actors and activities
The activities and actors involved in the food system
The food system is made of activities across the can have different arrangements. Current food systems
food supply-chain, from producing to processing, vary across the globe, from modern food systems in
distributing and consuming food. Food system actors industrialised regions to more traditional food systems
Box 2.1 Definition of food security
One of the most widely accepted definitions of food security is the conditions whereby 'all people, at all times, have physical,
social and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life' (UNEP, 2016; after the definition of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) — FAO, 2009).
in rural areas in developing countries (Figure 2.6). pathways to a sustainable food system and the logic
While Europe's food system mostly has a modern food of interventions, as the characteristics of the system
chain there is also diversity, with different value chains and the drivers of change can differ. However, the
coexisting that pursue different objectives at different main model of a modern food supply-chain sets the
scales but with multiple interactions and feedback landscape and influences much of the policy discussion
loops. The differences between them influence the around sustainability in Europe's food system.
Figure 2.6 Main configurations of the actors and activities of the food system
TRADITIONAL VALUE CHAIN
PRODUCING PROCESSING AND SUPPLY, RETAIL CONSUMING

FOOD MANUFACTURING AND SERVICES FOOD
WHOLESALE
AND SUPPLIERS;
CONSUMERS
RETAIL AND
FARMERS, SERVICES
HORTICULTURALISTS,
FISHERS,
AQUAFARMERS
INTERMEDIATE VALUE CHAIN

WHOLESALE
FOOD AND
AND SUPPLIERS;
DRINK CONSUMERS
INPUT INDUSTRY RETAIL AND
MANUFACTURERS
SERVICES
FARMERS,
HORTICULTURALISTS,
FISHERS, WHOLESALE
AQUAFARMERS AND SUPPLIERS;
RETAIL AND
SERVICES
MODERN VALUE CHAIN

INPUT INDUSTRY WHOLESALE

FOOD AND
AND SUPPLIERS;
DRINK CONSUMERS
FARMERS, RETAIL AND
MANUFACTURERS
HORTICULTURALISTS, SERVICES
FISHERS,
AQUAFARMERS
Source: EEA based on UNEP, 2016.
2.3 Exploring sustainability in the food main function may be as a source of employment
system and income. For rural and coastal communities,
the system may play a key role in social cohesion,
The journey of food from where it is produced until land and marine space use and traditions. For an
it reaches our forks can touch upon many realms, environmental manager, the food system might be
from the environment and politics to demographics seen as a threat to ecosystem health whose pressures
and the economy. Actors in the food system are on natural resources need to be minimised. It is vital to
diverse and involve the private and public sphere, and attempt to articulate what a sustainable food system
their activities take place at different geographical is to understand where and how to act to change its
scales. Figure 2.7 illustrates the complexity of today's outcomes.
food system, by pointing to the multiple two-way
interactions between food-system activities and their A sustainable food system has been defined as a
outcomes, and the range of external drivers affecting system that delivers food security and nutrition
the system. This illustration also shows that inevitably, for all in such a way that the economic, social and
there are many ways to look at food system problems environmental bases to generate food security and
and many potential solutions. nutrition for future generations are not compromised
(HLPE, 2014).
Whether one considers the food system to be
successful, depends on the desired outcomes. From The EU and its Member States have articulated a
the consumer perspective, the primary function of sustainability vision 'to live well within the limits of our
the food system may be to supply food of the desired planet' by 2050 and to do so by transforming into a
type, quantity, quality and price. From the perspective green economy, which addresses the multidimensional
of the farmer or food processor, the food system's challenges of resource efficiency, ecosystem resilience,
Figure 2.7 An illustration of the complexity of the global food system and its multiple interactions
Source: shiftN.
Sustainability in the food system FOOD SYSTEM
E
TR S
AD
D KET
human well-being, equity and good governance across food system activities, from the production of
ENVIRONMENTAL
AN AR
(Box 2.2). Such vision and strategic direction for the food to its consumption,PRESSURES
in order to identify options
AC
M
EU's sustainable development entails change in current that support
CESSING AN the
TO transformation to a green economy.
PRO &M
ways of producing and consuming products andD — AN D RS
O
services. In relation to the food system, transforming it
SO a conceptual framework through
Figure 2.8 provides
UF
FO
CI
AC
ET explore sustainability in
ING
to optimise the outcomes of food security, ecosystem which this report will
TU
Y
PRODUC
health and social well-being for sustainability involves Europe's food system and its demand for seafood,
RING
changing the way activities are undertaken (Ingram, and pathways for systemic change. Based on the EU's
—
AN
2011). Changing the activities in the food supply-chain 2050 vision for sustainability and the green economy
IC E S
D KN
CON
IN O
entails examining values, motivations and methods dimensions, the proposed framework identifies key
RV
N W
SU
O
VA LED
SE
N
M
&
G L
TI GE AI
I
FO
O OD ET
N — S U P P L Y, R
EN CE
Box 2.2 Sustainability dimensions of the green economy
TS
M N
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES,
ST NA
NATURAL RESOURCES
The concept of a green economy is seen by the EU and other international organisations as a strategic approach to the
VE ER
IN OV
systemic challenges of global environmental degradation, natural resource security, employment and competitiveness
G
(EEA, 2015b). Europe's 7th Environment Action Programme aims to stimulate the transition to a green economy and strives
towards an absolute decoupling of economic growth and environmental degradation (EC, 2013a). The green economy
D
AN
approach emphasises economic development that is resource efficient, within environmental limits and equitable
across society. It requires economic, environmental and social goals to be pursued simultaneously. This is a long-term,
multidimensional and fundamental process of change that will necessitate profound changes in dominant institutions,
practices, technologies, policies, lifestyles and thinking.
Figure 2.8 Conceptualising Europe's food system from a sustainability perspective
ECOSYSTEMS
FOOD SYSTEM
E
TR S
AD
D KET
ENVIRONMENTAL
AN AR
PRESSURES
A
M
OD
| PROCESSING
&M AN CTO
FO A D RS
SO
G
NU
CI
IN
FOOD SECURITY
FA
ET
UC
CTU
ECOSYSTEM HEALTH Y
PROD
SOCIAL WELL-BEING
RING |
AN
CON
D K
IN NO
S
IC E
N W
SU
O LE
RV
M
VA D G
SE
IN
TI GE FO &
O OD AI L
N | S U P P L Y, R E T
EN CE
TS
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES,
M N
ST NA
NATURAL RESOURCES
VE ER
IN OV
D G
AN
Source: EEA.
areas that can influence systemic change in the food boundaries between these different areas for inducing
system i.e. that can affect the food system activities systemic change and between the ways in which they
and actors, their interactions and ultimately outcomes influence the activities and outcomes of the food
in terms of food security, social well-being and system. Hence, the proposed framework should be
ecosystem health. The four areas are 'Knowledge and seen as a compass that steered and informed the
innovation', 'Markets and trade', 'Actors and society', analysis in Chapters 3 and 4 rather than a linear
and 'Governance and investments'. There are porous cause-effect blueprint.
Interactions in the journey of fish to fork
3 Interactions in the journey of fish to fork
This chapter aims to show that long-term seafood around 55 % of its seafood in 2013 from all continents
security for the EU requires a fuller understanding of of the world (see Figure 3.1).
different factors underpinning seafood production,
distribution and consumption. Its objective is not The role of international markets and trade in
to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the food influencing the social, environmental and economic
system. Instead, it examines the relationships that outcomes of seafood production and consumption
make seafood available to European citizens today is increasingly being recognised (Asche et al., 2015;
and which are important for ensuring future access to Crona et al., 2016). Technological developments,
and availability of this healthy source of food in a way such as in information technology and the transport
that matches Europe's vision of a sustainable society. systems that underpin today's global market for
Since the EU is a net importer of seafood, the analysis seafood, have made it possible to connect consumption
brings particular focus to interactions between and production systems worldwide. However, the
the EU and the rest of the world, and the multiple increasing complexity of markets for seafood has led
interactions in the global food system that enable the to significant information and knowledge gaps about
journey of fish to fork. The assessment also explores these markets. For example, the flow of fish from
the influence of EU policies and initiatives related where it is caught or produced to where it is consumed
to seafood in bringing greater sustainability to its is still not well understood (Watson et al., 2015). Poor
production and consumption patterns. traceability within current global seafood supply chains
has implications for ethical and sustainable production
The sustainability aspects examined include practices, as local ecologically and socially relevant
(1) the influence of international trade in seafood feedbacks are mostly missing in the present system
production, in particular how it hides local ecosystem and cannot be inferred from trade data and economic
constraints and its unintended consequences for illicit indicators such as national supply balance (Asche et al.,
fishing; (2) aquaculture feed as a key link between 2015; Béné et al., 2016).
fisheries, aquaculture and land ecosystems; (3) the
sustainability challenges and opportunities posed International trade enables the development of
by a globalised seafood supply chain; and (4) the different exploitation patterns to meet the ever-
role of market incentives and consumer choices for growing demand for seafood, namely through
sustainability in seafood. substitution or the sequential exploitation of
resources (Deutsch et al., 2011; Eriksson et al., 2015).
Today, seafood can be harnessed from different
3.1 The influence of international trade fish stocks, species and ecosystems so that global
on seafood production consumers can meet their demand for preferences on
a regular basis, while generally being oblivious to local
International trade hides local ecosystem constraints environmental or social constraints (Crona et al., 2015,
for seafood production 2016). These dynamics of global trade are particularly
harmful for fisheries, whose productivity is greatly
A large proportion of seafood is consumed far from influenced by the natural capacity of fish stocks to
where it was produced thanks to today's globalised replenish themselves and the capability of ecosystems
economies and their sophisticated networks of to withstand fishing pressure (and other human
trade relationships and complex supply chains. pressures) and remain in a healthy state.
Global markets and international trade are essential
components of today's food system and in particular Cod, one of the most consumed fish species in the
in the supply of the world's major seafood markets EU, is one species for which the role of market and
such as the EU, Japan and the United States, which are trade dynamics has been investigated. Crona at al.
largely dependent on seafood sources far beyond their (2015) investigated how weak signals about the state
domestic waters (Swartz et al., 2010). The EU imported of local cod fisheries and ecosystems are hidden by
market dynamics. The study showed how UK imports The EU's exposure to illicit fishing through international
of Atlantic cod from Iceland and the Faroe Islands have trade
helped to keep the supply of cod in the United Kingdom
steady while the regional stocks in the North Sea were The existence of illegal, unreported and unregulated
declining and on the brink of collapse. The research also (IUU) fisheries is enabled by a lack of traceability
showed this weak signal of declining stocks of North in the supply chain and markets (Flothmann et al.,
Sea cod was further enhanced by substitution with 2010). An unintended consequence of the expansion
other whitefish, with only moderate effects on cod's of international trade is that it has created a complex
retail price. More importantly, consumers' abilities to environment that facilitates IUU fishing. Although
perceive price changes resulting from these complex difficult to quantify, IUU fishing is estimated to
market mechanisms and interpret them as a reflection represent more than 15 % of world catches and its
of the ecological status of cod were considered limited impact can be seen across the world (Agnew et al.,
(Crona et al., 2015). 2009; FAO, 2016). IUU fishing is a major threat to
marine ecosystems, food security and livelihoods
The study on North Sea cod illustrates how the current in many countries, and undermines the efforts of
functioning of the market and trade disconnects local legitimate fishing operators.
ecosystems from consumers. This disconnect makes
it difficult for consumers, as well as other actors The EU is the world's largest seafood importer, which
in the supply chain, to make responsible choices, makes it a valuable destination market for illegal
both environmentally and socially. The impacts of fishing operators (EJF, 2013). Around 50 % of the global
international trade on individual fisheries go beyond seafood trade (by value) comes from developing
effects on fish stocks and affect the activities and countries, where IUU fishing is more difficult to track
local communities that depend on them especially in and control (FAO, 2016). IUU fishing is most common
small‑scale fisheries, which constitute a major element in the waters of developing countries that lack
of today's food system (Crona et al., 2016). As such, either the capacity or the political will to apply good
there is a need to better understand the distributional governance to fish resources and put in place a robust
impacts and benefits of the increasing globalisation fisheries management regime and proper control and
of the seafood trade, namely in terms of equity surveillance of their waters (EJF, 2013).
(Asche et al., 2015).
Being the world's most valuable seafood market
also puts the EU in a powerful position to foster
Figure 3.1 Top 10 regions exporting to the EU-28 sustainability and equity outside its borders. The EU
(tonnes), 2013 has been taking an active role against IUU fishing since
2010. The EU IUU Regulation provides a framework
Northern Europe that allows illegal fish to be seized in European ports,
South America
encourages flag states (i.e. where fishing vessels are
registered) to improve their monitoring and control,
South-eastern Asia and encourages the engagement of coastal states in
Eastern Asia protecting their marine resources.
Northern America
In spite of difficulties in the implementation of this EU
Northern Africa regulation, improved control measures are in place
in both importing Member States and third countries
Southern Asia
that export to the EU (European Parliament, 2013).
Western Africa Illegal operators are also being deterred through
its 'carding system' (see Box 3.1 for a testimonial
Eastern Europe
from the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF)).
Central America The IUU Regulation is considered to have placed the
Other
EU at the forefront of global efforts to address illicit
fishing (European Parliament, 2013; IUUWatch, 2016).
0 500 1 000 1 500 However, flag states without adequate controls over
Million tonnes
their fishing fleets, and whose vessels are engaged
Note: The specified 10 regions represented around 90 % of the in IUU fishing, are continuing to export fish that can
total exports to the EU in 2013, but the EU trades with all of enter the EU (EJF', 2014); therefore, addressing IUU
the regions of the world (the imports from the remaining
regions are under 'other'). fishing requires a sustained and coordinated effort
Source: Based on FAO, 2016; FAO Food Balance Sheets: Food Supply
that includes governments, civil society, the seafood
Quantity. industry and other stakeholders.
Box 3.1 The EU IUU Regulation as a catalyst of sustainability and equity in external waters: an Environmental
Justice Foundation testimonial
The EU IUU Regulation has become, in the EJF's view, the single most effective and important tool employed today in the
global effort to combat IUU fishing. Among the many features of this regulation, the EU has put in place a 'carding system'
that not only is proving very effective in eradicating the scourge of IUU, but is also acting as a driver for change towards the
environmental, social and economic sustainability of fisheries around the world, decreasing the conduct of IUU activities
and in turn the number of illegal products in the world's largest single market for seafood, the EU (EJF, 2012).
One example of the effectiveness and positive impact of the EU Regulation to combat IUU and drive better fisheries
management is the case of South Korea. South Korea is one of the main long-distance fishing fleets in the world, with
vessels operating in every region of the world, including West Africa. For many years, South Korean industrial vessels
operated illegally and without control in the inshore exclusion zones off the coast of Liberia and Sierra Leone, depleting
marine biodiversity in these rich fishing grounds and damaging food security and the livelihoods of artisanal fisher
communities dependent on these resources. A key factor in the ability of the South Korean distant water fleet to operate
in this way was the complete lack of any meaningful governance applied by South Korea as the flag state. Distance and
disinterest on the part of political authorities in Seoul had left South Korean vessels free from restrictions on their activities.
Having been made aware of the considerable abuses taking place in West African waters and knowledgeable of the
vulnerability of the region to IUU fishing, the European Commission initiated investigations into these abuses and South
Korea's role as a flag state (EJF et al., 2015). A dialogue was established with the country's competent authorities, initially
resulting in the imposition of a 'yellow card' by the Commission in 2013 (EC, 2013b). This yellow card is an official warning
that the country may be considered as 'non-cooperating' in the fight against IUU and therefore calls for ambitious reforms
of its fisheries governance and management system. The European Commission helps the country in the process of change,
by jointly drafting an action plan and advising the country on how to implement it. If the yellow-carded country refuses to
establish the necessary policies and legislation, the EU issues a 'red card', which carries with it several sanctions, among
them a trade ban on fishery products exported to the EU and the prohibition for EU vessels to fish in the waters of the
country that has been carded.
Photo: © Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF)
Box 3.1 The EU IUU Regulation as a catalyst of sustainability and equity in external waters: an Environmental
Justice Foundation testimonial (cont.)
However, the key aim of this process is not punitive, but is rather for the EU to be a constructive, powerful driver for change.
Hence, the 'red card' is always a last resort and used only in the most extreme circumstances. Conversely, if the carded
country collaborates and implements reforms, it is delisted and supported in this process.
South Korea was willing to undertake essential changes. Within a year and a half of being yellow carded, Seoul amended
its outdated fisheries law, including the aim to achieve greater control as a flag state and provisions against South Korean
individuals and companies involved in IUU activities, even if flying foreign flags. The amended law also forbade long-distance
fishing in countries in which control of the waters could not be properly ensured by their governments (such as Somalia).
South Korea also put in place a state of the art vessel monitoring system by satellite and a fisheries monitoring centre that
allowed it to monitor each of its vessels in real time, no matter where and when they were fishing. The country launched a
decommissioning programme to buy back vessels operating in West Africa.
For a country for which long-distance fishing is an important economic sector and part of its history, such a fundamental
change proved difficult and took time, but the political will of South Korea and the assistance of the EU eventually led to the
accomplishment of the action plan, and the country was successfully delisted in April 2015 (EC, 2015b). As a result, West
African waters have seen a huge reduction in South Korean pirate fishing, and the number of IUU products in the supply
chains of both the South Korean and the EU markets has shrunk. A fundamental improvement of South Korean fisheries
governance is now in place and the country is ready to become a new leader in a part of the world, East Asia, where many
countries also play an important role in long-distance fishing, thus having the potential to create a multiplying positive
effect.
Many other countries have undergone this process within the scheme of the EU IUU cards, and most of them have
successfully implemented the much-needed reforms: Belize, Fiji, Ghana, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka,
Togo and Vanuatu and have been either yellow or red carded and eventually managed to get delisted, all with the technical
assistance of the EU. In the case of developing countries, EU aid was also provided. In general, after the process, these
now 'green-carded' countries are often grateful to the European Commission, as the card was the means to implement
major improvements in their fisheries governance, which in many cases would not have happened otherwise. The new
policies allow developing coastal countries to preserve and conserve healthy fishing grounds and to increase the revenue
stemming from legal and controlled fishing in their waters. However, there is still some work to do with other countries that
remain yellow or red carded at the moment; both Cambodia and Guinea are currently holding a red card, and the following
countries are currently holding yellow cards: Curaçao, Kiribati, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Comoros, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago and Tuvalu.
3.2 Aquaculture feed connects fisheries, marine feed ingredients, which are mostly produced
aquaculture and land from wild fish (75 %), in combination with by-catch or
fish trimmings (25 %) (IFFO, 2014). Therefore current
Globally and within Europe, aquaculture is looked aquaculture production from carnivorous fish species
towards as an answer to meeting the growing such as salmon, seabass, seabream and shrimp still
consumer demand for fish. If aquaculture is to relies significantly on already limited capture fisheries
support the increased demand for food in a way that for feed input.
adds resilience to the global food system it needs to
adequately capture and monitor the interactions with The dependency of aquaculture on wild fish stocks for
the marine ecosystem beyond what happens at the feed has triggered changes in the sector, in particular
farm level (Troell, 2014). One such interaction is the use in the production of carnivorous fish species, such
of feed resources in aquaculture. as salmon and most other marine species produced
in aquaculture, which require significant amounts of
Shellfish species such as mussels, oysters and clams fishmeal and fish oil in their diet (Purchase and Dom,
that filter water for their nutrition do not need 2015). Forced by increasing prices and the limited
manufactured feed. On the other hand, farmed availability of raw material, linked to the fast growth
fish and shrimp can require significant amounts of of aquaculture at the global level, the use of marine
fishmeal and fish oil in their diet (Tacon and Metian, ingredients in aquaculture feed has been decreasing
2015). Fishmeal and fish oil are manufactured from and progress in developing feed alternatives has
been made (e.g. plants, insects, microbes, algae, of the targeted stocks for fishmeal and fish oil. This is
by‑products) (Rana et al., 2009; Tacon and Metian, essential knowledge for the sustainable management
2015; Ytrestøyl et al., 2015). The dependency on feed of fisheries and for food security.
for salmon production, one of the most consumed
species in the EU, is explored in Box 3.2. At the same The assessment of the interactions between
time, the fish meal industry is working towards greater aquaculture feed and land ecosystems is also
responsibility with regard to sustainable sourcing insufficient at present. Production innovations may be
of feed ingredients, with over one third of the world reducing reliance on wild fish caught for aquaculture
production coming from 'The Marine Ingredients feed, but this in turn will likely increase dependency
Organisation' (IFFO) responsible supply standard' on land-based ingredients. As shown in Figure 3.2,
certified factories (Jackson, 2012). The IFFO standard currently land-based ingredients are a big part of
is an independently audited certification standard that different types of aquaculture feed. As aquaculture
is based on the Food and Agriculture Organization of production continues to grow worldwide, competition
the United Nations (FAO) Code of Responsible Fishing with land-based production can be expected. Already
(Pike and Jackson, 2010). the most commonly used alternative to fishmeal is soya
meal (see also Figure 3.3 in Box 3.2), which is produced
Research and innovation are accelerating progress in large quantities in China, as well as in North and
towards reducing fishmeal and fish oil use in South America. In addition, inclusion of terrestrial
aquaculture feeds, while maintaining the important ingredients in aquaculture feed has implications for
human health benefits of seafood consumption. land and freshwater requirements, with consequential
Nonetheless, aquaculture is likely to continue to issues for biodiversity, soil erosion and deforestation,
rely on the inclusion of some marine ingredients, and will have other potential environmental impacts
which, for the foreseeable future, will remain (Lane et al., 2014).
highly in-demand ingredients in aquaculture feed
(FAO, 2016). As such, monitoring the influence of The dependency on terrestrial ingredients in
aquaculture of fed-species on wild stocks is and will aquaculture feed has led the FAO to state that
remain paramount for the sustainable development 'Although the discussion on the availability and use
of aquaculture. Our present knowledge on the of aquafeed ingredients often focuses on fishmeal
interaction between aquaculture and fisheries is and fish-oil resource, considering the past trends
however limited by the lack of traceability between and current predictions, the sustainability of the
these activities and their management. aquaculture sector will probably be closely linked
with the sustained supply of terrestrial animal and
Traceability between the fish stocks targeted for plant proteins, oils and carbohydrates for aquafeeds'
non-food use and the fishing fleets catching them is (FAO, 2012). Nevertheless, the dependencies on the
limited at present, with data partly available through land required for aquaculture feed production, and
national statistics or IFFO (5) communications. how changes in the global food landscape can affect
Publically available statistics on fish for the EU the availability and price of both marine and terrestrial
(EUMOFA, 2016) and at the global level (FAO FishStat, ingredients used in this type of feed remain under-
2016) only allow the last point of sale for imports investigated.
of fish at the species level to be identified or for
the fish to be categorised as non-food use. The link In summary, given the global food landscape, the
between the fish stocks targeted for feed, the actors critical role of aquaculture in supplying food for
processing the fish for fishmeal and fish oil, and the Europe and beyond is undeniable. In addition, while
aquaculture companies buying the feed for their all animals need to eat and most farmed animals need
production is thus not monitored at present. This lack to be fed, aquaculture represents the most efficient
of traceability hinders an adequate assessment of the method by which to convert feed to edible protein
fishing pressure exerted on fish stocks for non-food (Welch et al., 2010; Brummett, 2013; Waite and Kaushik,
purposes. Therefore, there is limited understanding 2014). Nevertheless, the development of aquaculture
of how much pressure fed aquaculture is putting on needs to better capture less visible interactions with
wild fish stocks, where the targeted stocks are — and marine and land ecosystems, such as those with wild
who is responsible for their management — as well as fish and terrestrial plant production, if it is to develop
how to balance fishing pressure according to the state sustainably.
(5) IFFO is the international 'not for profit' organisation that represents and promotes the fishmeal, fish oil and
wider marine ingredients industry worldwide.
Figure 3.2 Typical levels of major categories of feed ingredients within compound aquaculture feeds
Aquaculture feeds
4%
24 % Aquaculture protein meals and oils
24 %
Terrestrial animal proteins and oils
Terrestrial plant proteins and oils
Other plant meals and fillers
24 % Feed additives
24 %
Herbivorous and omnivorous fish Marine and carnivorous fish Penaeid shrimp species
4 %4 % 5% 4%
14 % 15 % 19 %
30 %
29 %
9%
49 %
29 %
30 %
20 %
29 %
Source: Based on Tacon and Metian, 2015.
These are important considerations for the in the relationship between fisheries and aquaculture,
development of aquaculture in Europe, which is a such as those related in this section to aquaculture
strategic priority for the development of its blue feed production. However, to this day, most efforts
economy (EC, 2012). In addition, food security is a core have focused on ensuring the adequate environmental
objective of the new EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). management of aquaculture operations (EC, 2016b).
Balancing the fishing capacity of the fleets with fishing Although this is a critical requirement for the
opportunities is currently a management objective of sustainable growth of the sector, the current policy and
the CFP (EC, 2016a). This policy has also included the research debate around the sustainable development
management of aquaculture since 2014, making it of aquaculture in Europe still lacks an integrated
possible to address important 'blind spots' that exist approach to aquaculture and fisheries.
Box 3.2 Salmon production and the demand on marine feed ingredients
With a production of 217 000 tonnes, Denmark is the largest producer of marine ingredients in the EU and is ranked
seventh globally (IFFO, 2014). The majority of fishmeal and fish oil produced in Denmark is used in the region Europe
(> 60 %), in particular for salmon production in Norway (> 30 %), while a fraction (> 15 %) is exported outside the boundaries
of Europe (e.g. to China). Salmon consumption is high in the EU (1.97 kg/capita/year), but most salmon production takes
place outside EU borders. Of the 1.4 million tonnes of Atlantic salmon produced in the region Europe in 2013, only 12 %
is produced in the EU (in the United Kingdom and Ireland), with 81 % produced in Norway and 6 % in other European
countries (e.g. Faroe Islands and Iceland) (FAO Fishstat, 2016). Hence, Norwegian salmonid culture puts significant pressure
on the total demand for marine ingredients (Figure 3.3).
Between 2010 and 2013, Norwegian salmonid production increased by 30 %, but because of a lower inclusion of marine
ingredients in the diet, the total amount of marine ingredients used for salmon feed production decreased from 544 000
to 466 000 tonnes (Ytrestøyl et al., 2015). Of the total fishmeal and fish oil used, around 60 % was imported (IFFO, 2014),
which makes Norway the second largest importer of marine ingredients worldwide. In total, 74 % of marine ingredients
used in salmonid culture originated from fisheries, of which 30–35 % was of North Atlantic origin (mainly capelin and sprat),
whereas 37 % came from anchovy fisheries in South America (Ytrestøyl et al., 2015). The dependency on wild fish to produce
salmon has decreased significantly over the last two decades and salmon aquaculture is now a net producer of marine
proteins (although not yet for fish oil), measured using the Forage Fish Dependency Ratio (FFDR) for fishmeal and fish oil
(FFDRmeal and FFDRoil, respectively) (FFDRmeal < 1; FFDRoil > 1; Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3 Feed resources, aquafeed utilisation, production and trade of Atlantic salmon in Norway
Resource Utilisation of feed resources for production of Atlantic salmon in Norway in 2013 Trade
Marine ingredients
466 362 tonnes
Marine dependency ratio
0.5 (oil)
Production 0.7 (meal)
Norway
42 % 29 %
74 % wild fish
Net import Forage fish dependency ratio
58 % 1.5 (oil)
0.7 (meal) Export
outside
EU-28
26 % by-catch and trimmings
Plant ingredients Export

1.1 million tonnes to EU-28
Feed consumed Salmon produced Edible yield
Unknown, 1.63 million tonnes 820 000 tonnes
mostly 32 % soya protein 1.26 million tonnes
National
from 28 % rapeseed oil Consumption
global 40 % other oil, Norway
protein, starch 67 %
resources
Micronutrients 4%
Note: The FFDR is the amount of wild caught fish used in the production of fishmeal and fish oil for the production of 1 kg of salmon;
the marine dependency ratio (MDR) expresses the amount of marine oil and protein required to produce 1 kg of salmon oil and
protein.
Source: Based on IFFO, 2014 and Ytrestøyl et al., 2015.
3.3 A globalised seafood supply chain of Fish, 2015). As such, certification schemes are a
with emerging partnerships common tool that retailers and other supply chain
actors use to identify the sustainability of products
The global increase in demand for seafood has (UNEP, 2009). However, critics of such approaches
supported globalisation in the industry, often point out a number of shortcomings. For example,
reducing the number and diversity of market actors certification schemes usually do not assess the
through industry consolidation of large and vertically sustainability of fisheries based on a systems view,
integrated transnational corporations, connected and can end up certifying fisheries with unsustainable
by global networks of subsidiaries (Österblom et al., features, such as overfished stocks or practices that
2015). In the global seafood industry, a small number disadvantage the needs of local populations (Cressey,
of such transnational corporations involved in all 2012; Micheli et al., 2014). The costs of certification
segments of seafood production dominate trade or participation in certification schemes also make
in terms of both volume and profit. Of the top 160 them currently more suited for production practices
companies in the seafood trade, 10 account for 38 % with high-volume, which raises questions about the
of total revenues and a significant portion of the suitability of such schemes for small-scale fisheries,
world's most valuable capture fisheries (Österblom in particular in developing countries (Blackmore et al.,
et al., 2015). Overall, they handle some 208 species 2015).
and operate in over 102 countries and territories,
effectively linking consumers to distant producers and Some supply chain partnerships go beyond simply
ecosystems. increasing the number of certified products.
Several initiatives exist, run by non-governmental
Corporate consolidation of such transnational organisations and supply chain actors, to bring
companies can raise equity and sustainability retailers and other stakeholders together in fishery
concerns. The concentration of economic power and improvement projects (FIPs) (for examples see SFP,
control over several nodes in the food supply chain 2016 and WWF, 2016a). FIPs are concrete projects
enhances the ability of such companies to define that are set up to realise more sustainable practices
production terms and set prices, while bringing them at the source of seafood supplies. Some such projects
a disproportionate ability to influence the dynamics are initiated directly by retailers (UNEP, 2009). In
of marine ecosystems worldwide (Österblom et al., FIPs, stakeholders in a given fishery commit to
2015). However, the existence of globally networked advocating better policies and management while
and vertically integrated companies also means voluntarily changing practices. This includes improving
that the collective action by a few key entities could monitoring and reporting, changing harvesting
transform the industry substantially. techniques or equipment, encouraging dialogue
among stakeholders, and sharing best practices,
Globalised food supply chains offer opportunities for among other interventions.
sustainability leadership and partnerships that can
prove critical for food security. Recent years have Partnerships between retailers and producers such as
seen a notable increase in partnerships between in FIPs offer an opportunity to catalyse the transition
supply chain actors — including retailers, food to sustainable seafood systems by leveraging retailers'
services and restaurants, processors and distributors market power and creating market-based incentives for
— and fisheries associations, non-governmental implementing new sustainable fishery and aquaculture
organisations and government bodies to increase practices. However, the current lack of transparency,
the sustainability of their supply chains (Innovation insufficient traceability and perverse incentives that
Forum, 2015). The goal of partnerships is to recognise encourage unsustainable fishing practices hinder
and introduce improvements into the supply chain the potential of the seafood supply‑chain to act with
where possible. greater awareness and responsibility in order to shift
the food system as a whole (Future of Fish, 2015). Given
Traceability along the supply chain is a key factor for the current structure of the EU's food supply-chain
effective sustainable seafood sourcing partnerships and where actors concentrate (Figure 3.4), it is clear
(Bailey et al., 2016). However, it is still difficult that these actors need to be involved in the design
to ensure full traceability along seafood supply and implementation of solutions for sustainability in
chains because of a lack of financial and technical the food system. This involvement however requires
resources, the complexity of value chains and seafood a better understanding of practices and behaviours
governance, and unlawful fishing practices and within food supply-chains and how they influence
inconsistencies in legislation (UNEP, 2009; Future change in the food system.
Figure 3.4 Europe's food supply chain by the number of enterprises in each food system activity
Enterprises
INPUT INDUSTRY 47 000
PRODUCING FARMERS AND 11 989 000

FOOD
HORTICULTURALISTS
FISHERS AND 98 000

AQUAFARMERS
PROCESSING AND FOOD AND DRINK 289 000

MANUFACTURING MANUFACTURERS
WHOLESALE AND 208 000

SUPPLIERS
SUPPLY, RETAIL
AND SERVICES
RETAIL AND 2 550 000
FOOD SERVICES
CONSUMING CONSUMERS 505 572 000

FOOD
Source: EEA.
3.4 Market incentives and consumer sustainability of seafood, requiring a deeper investigation
choices for sustainability of their use (Ward and Phillips 2008; McClenachan et al.,
2016; Jacquet et al., 2010).
Consumers are increasingly looking to promote
improvements in sustainable seafood production Environmental certification schemes such as the Marine
by aligning their buying choices with sustainability Stewardship Council (MSC) and consumer awareness
criteria. Production exists because of consumers. programmes are designed to create market incentives
However, consumers come at the end of a long chain for implementing fishery and aquaculture practices
of actors across markets within the food system. Over that are deemed sustainable. However, there are
recent decades, there has been a growing amount recognised limits to such initiatives. Typically, they tend
of information available to consumers through to be focused on particular species and activities, and
various types of initiative, especially labelling (TNS, such programmes have so far triggered concerns, even
2014). Significant efforts have been made to provide if some improvements are visible (Gulbrandsen, 2009).
consumers with more and better information (e.g. labels, For example, a study of 31 northern European stocks
certification schemes, information campaigns and buying targeted by fisheries certified by the MSC as sustainable
guides) to inform them about the sustainability of their and well managed found that 11 stocks (52 %) were
fish and seafood purchases (see Box 3.3 for examples exploited above the maximum sustainable yield and
at the EU level). However, there is insufficient evidence four stocks (16 %) were outside safe biological limits.
that these efforts have led to major gains in the overall After 1 to 10 years (4 years on average), no significant
changes in fishing pressure or stock size were observed that there are limitations to the amount of information
(Opitz et al., 2016). that consumers process when making choices, leading
them to use mental shortcuts and rules of thumb to
Such schemes also come under scrutiny as operations allow for quick decision-making, particularly in habitual
can be certified despite degradation of marine behaviour such as food consumption (O'Rourke and
ecosystems, loss of income among local communities Ringer, 2016).
and negative social impacts from the non-certified
operations that overlap with certified production Consumer choices are difficult to understand and
systems. Furthermore, the high financial costs and data therefore influence, because they are often embedded
requirements associated with meeting certification and in deeper social and institutional contexts. Consumer
recommendation-listing standards often discourage or selection of fish and seafood is influenced by a number
prevent small-scale operations from participating (Ward of factors, including freshness, taste, personal health
and Phillips, 2008). Moreover, certification initiatives beliefs, traditional and cultural reasons (e.g. local
such as the MSC have been designed to be globally customs, eating fish when on holiday, trends), and
applicable. This means that place-specific attributes knowledge about preparing fish (Almeida, 2014). Price is
and regional or local considerations may not be taken often indicated as the largest factor influencing fish and
into consideration when certifying fisheries, with favour seafood purchase, as it is often more expensive than
given to transnational governance norms (Blackmore meat. Other consumer barriers for the consumption
et al., 2015; Foley and Havice, 2016). In regard to of fish are the presence of bones, contamination risks,
aquaculture specifically, initiatives also tend to target variation in quality, the perceived time-consuming
species that are consumed mostly within the EU and the character of purchasing, preparing and cooking fish, the
United States, with limited coverage of what is sold in limited product availability, and the perceived difficulty in
Asia (Jonell et al., 2013). But there seems to be a rise in the evaluation of its quality (Vanhonacker et al., 2013).
new fishery eco-certification initiatives that are tied to
political boundaries and therefore better represent local Technological innovations in food systems since the
territorial and social norms in certification and within the 1960s have enabled an increasing quantity and variety
global framework (Foley and Havice, 2016). of foods to be produced, and at lower prices (Cutler et
al., 2003). Ready-prepared food could be more attractive
New concepts for system-wide fishery and aquaculture to consumers than fresh products, despite the latter
certification programmes designed to recognise and usually being related to healthier food choices (Cheng
promote change towards sustainable and resilient et al., 2007; Hartmann et al., 2013). Overall, this suggests
seafood production systems are being discussed (Micheli a trend towards convenience rather than other selection
et al., 2014). Such programmes would consider all fishery criteria such as health, sustainability or taste. This
and aquaculture activities within a system or region, as raises doubt as to how important sustainably sourced
well as their possible interactions with — and cumulative seafood may be to consumers, and whether or not such
impacts on — ecosystems or marine users; management information would steer consumers' decision‑making.
actions that promote ecological, social and economic
resilience; and the capacity of human communities to Consumers are important as political actors, whose
implement these actions and to equitably share costs voice can drive the political will to address seafood
and benefits. These could support the restoration and production sustainability and responsibility, particularly
maintenance of healthy ecosystem states and of thriving at system level. However, the complexity of the web
human communities as a socio‑ecological system of dynamic factors influencing seafood consumption
(Micheli et al., 2014). choices in any particular setting suggests that an
effective intervention to change consumer behaviour
Information- and incentive-based solutions that explore — be it initiated by policy, business or civil society,
consumer demand through eco-certifications and or an alliance of actors — will be a considerable
consumer awareness programmes reward producers challenge. Shifting the sustainability of production
for sustainable practices through increased prices through consumer preferences will remain difficult
or market access by increasing the differentiation of without a better understanding of how the approaches
products on the market. They offer great promise to displaying information affect consumers, their
for aligning economic and conservation objectives, preferences and the choices they make. Even with the
because they create incentives for producing fish and right information, consumer choices are also dependent
seafood sustainably. However, even if consumers on many different factors beyond the information they
are properly informed regarding the sustainability receive (Umpfenbach, 2014). Human factors such as the
of their options, this may not be enough to change above need to be taken into account if sustainability
their behaviour, especially at a large scale. Research transformations at system level are to be achieved
on real-world consumer behaviour has clearly shown through consumer power.
Box 3.3 Examples of EU approaches to provide better information on seafood and raise awareness
Recently the EU has run a Europe-wide information campaign — Inseparable

— to promote sustainable fishing and build on the momentum of the CFP
reform. The campaign is built around key areas of information: know, eat, buy,
sell and find. It promotes the following overarching message to EU consumers:
'Make a difference by eating, buying, or selling sustainable seafood and help
ensure future generations have the same love story we have with our fish today'
(EC, 2016c).
The new EU seafood labelling rules are also key for providing consumers with
detailed information about their choices. Fishery and aquaculture products
sold and bought in the EU are now required to have information about the
commercial and scientific name of the species, whether it was caught at sea or in
freshwater or was farmed, the catch or production area and the type of fishing
gear used to catch the product, and whether the product has been defrosted and
the date of minimum durability (see Figure 3.5). The new rules aim to make the
information to consumers more transparent, helping them understand where
their seafood has come from and when it was caught or farmed. Ultimately, the
request for such information improves greater transparency and traceability all
along the seafood supply chain and can thus also support more informed choices
Source: European Commission,
by those actors as well.
Directorate-General for Maritime
Affairs and Fisheries
© European Union, 2015
Figure 3.5 The new EU fish label
Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries © European Union, 2015.
Transforming Europe's food system
4 Transforming Europe's food system
Solutions for addressing the sustainability issues of but using a system's approach to understand it
today, such as those exemplified by the disparities of can lead to leverage points for transformations
the food system in terms of environmental and human towards sustainability. Leverage points are places to
health outcomes, are needed. Such solutions need to intervene in a system, in which a small shift can lead
go beyond incremental efficiency gains, and aim to to fundamental changes in the system as a whole
transform the core of our production and consumption (Meadows, 1999; Abson et al., 2016).
systems (EEA, 2015b). The challenges we now face
regarding sustainability are no longer compatible with With such an understanding of complexity, this
responses solely based on the classical paradigms of chapter identifies three complementary pathways
science and engineering — built on industrial models within the current EU policy framework related to food
of problem-solving and planning approaches (Rittel and and sustainability that can help transform Europe's
Webber, 1973). Their complexity and scale make them food system. This analysis explored, in particular,
different from the challenges of previous decades and the opportunities and challenges arising from the
call for more substantive transformations (Box 4.1). implementation of the EU marine and maritime policy
How, then, to approach change in the food system so framework.
that its outcomes reflect a sustainable society such as
that envisaged by the EU? The pathways for change are (1) building a shared
understanding of the food system and its outcomes at
Recognising the food system as a complex, adaptive the EU level, namely by adopting a systems approach
system, which comprises multiple actors with EU policies related to food and sustainability, and
diverse interests and values, certainly provides building on the EU efforts to develop the ecosystem
a richer understanding of the system and the services approach as a common language between
associated sustainability challenges (Clancy, 2014; ecosystems and human benefits; (2) improving the
IOM and NRC, 2015). Complexity arises whenever a knowledge base related to seafood in order to improve
system — technical, social or natural — has multiple sustainability assessments of seafood in Europe from
interdependent parts, whose interactions give rise to a food system approach; and (3) boosting efforts to
unpredictable outcomes. Complicated solutions to implement the ecosystem approach to Europe's seas
address complex problems are common, but evidence for securing the long-term availability of seafood.
shows that simple rules tame complexity better than
complicated solutions (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2015; These pathways are linked to how people make sense
Sull and Eisenhardt, 2015). Identifying the simple of the world through mental models and take action.
rules operating in the food system is challenging Knowledge on mental models and their influence
Box 4.1 Defining sustainability transformations
Within the context of climate change, O'Brien and Sygna (2013) propose that transformation can be defined as 'physical
and/or qualitative changes in form, structure or meaning-making, or as the altering of fundamental attributes of a system
(including value systems; regulatory, legislative, or bureaucratic regimes; financial institutions; and technological or
biological systems). According to Patterson et al. (2015), the notion of transformation is increasingly used in the context of
global sustainability to refer to 'fundamental changes in structure, function and relations within socio-technical-ecological
systems, that leads to new patterns of interactions (e.g. among actors, institutions, and dynamics between human and
biophysical systems) and outcomes'. The same authors add that transformation is also used to characterise aspirations to
shift from current conditions into more desirable system outcomes (e.g. in terms of sustainability and equity).
on human decision-making is important because 4.1 Building a shared understanding of

shared mental models are persistent and can exert a the food system at the EU level
major influence on individual choices and aggregate
social outcomes (World Bank, 2015). Figure 4.1 aims Adopting a food system approach to EU policies for food
to illustrate in a simple manner the complex human and sustainability
process of making sense of the food system and its
change. Mental models are individual or collective At the EU level, a variety of policy instruments relate
approximations of reality (e.g. by actors in the food to the production and consumption of food and
system) that describe, summarise and predict the seafood, as well as to the protection and sustainable
world (in this case the food system) and lead to actions use of ecosystems (for an illustration of this policy
therein. framework, see Figure 4.2). In addition, these land,
marine and coastal policies related to food are
Mental models are malleable to a certain extent. increasingly embedded in longer-term comprehensive
Through information, actors in the food system receive policies and agendas for sustainable development.
feedback about the consequences of their actions and However, the implementation of this policy framework
can adapt their mental models accordingly, through does not currently follow a food system approach,
what is necessarily a continuous learning and adaptive and interactions between policies still have the
process (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2015). A mental model potential to cause conflict or synergies. In addition,
can be considered adequate if the expected outcomes governance mechanisms associated with a specific
of actions in the food system occur. The type of policy are usually bound to the related policy sphere
feedback (enabled by information flows) received from (e.g. fisheries and aquaculture is governed by the
the food system is critical to indicate if the mental Common Fisheries Policy, agriculture by the Common
model is still valid. In addition to information, a body Agricultural Policy, the protection of biodiversity
of work shows that context is also key for human by the Nature directives i.e. Habitats and Birds
decision-making and adapting mental models. People directives), and thus mostly to the motivations and
have several different and competing individual mental knowledge of the actors in the related policy sphere.
models and context will determine which one is
activated (World Bank, 2015). Governments play an essential role in systemic
change because of their unique capacities in, for
example, defining policies with long-term societal
goals, establishing a common framework for
Figure 4.1 Making sense of the food system governance and action, shaping incentives and
through mental models and feedback
supporting research and innovation. There is growing
agreement in academic literature that governments
Actions in lack the required knowledge, tools and incentives
to achieve effective top-down management of
complex societal systems (Rotmans and Loorbach,
2010). In this context, it is widely accepted that the
governance of transformations hinges on promoting
Mental model Food system experimentation and learning, via iterative, adaptive,
participatory processes. For example, approaches
such as 'integrated sustainability assessment' and
'transitions management' propose that actors across
society be engaged in cyclical processes of problem
Feedback on
structuring, envisaging, experimenting and learning,
as a means to steer systemic change (Kemp et al.,
Source: Based on Cabrera and Cabrera, 2015. 2007; SERI, 2008).
Figure 4.2 An illustration of relevant EU policies for food and sustainability up to 2050
Com Sus Lon

Land pre tai g-t
, co he n erm
as ns abl vis
Common ta iv e io
Fisheries
Common e de ns
la
Policy Agricultural
po
nd
ve
Policy
an
lic
lo
ma
d
ies
pm
ob
Marine
rine p
Thematic
en
jec
Strategy Nature
Strategy
ta
Framework
tiv
directives
Directive on Soil
gen
es
olicies
wit
das
Water Circular
ha
Framework Nitrates Economy
and fr
Integrated Directive Package
soci
Maritime Directive
Policy
etal
Water
ameworks
2 02
Industry Bioeconomy
Maritime Strategy
transiti
directives
Spatial Planning
Directive
0
203
on perspective
Resource
Efficiency
Roadmap 7th Environment
0
Europe Action Programme

2 05
2020 (7th EAP) tra Res

Biodiversity de ea
Strategy an rch
d d an
ev d i
elo nn
0
pm ova
en tio
t p n,
ies
oli
cie
s
o li c
United Nations
Climate and Energy Sustainable
gp
Framework Development
tin
Goals
Low-carbon or
pp
economy Safeguard Europe’s
Su
(Roadmap) Water Resources

(Blueprint)
Natural capital
protected, valued,
Living well,
and restored within the limits
(Biodiversity strategy) of our planet
(7th EAP)
Source: EEA.
As such, the governance mechanisms underpinning array of solutions, namely by building a shared mental
the EU policy framework related to food can offer an model of the food system and agreeing on what
arena for the design of implementation processes sustainability means in the EU policy context related
built on a food system approach, which could, in turn to food.
allow for greater experimentation and learning. These
governance mechanisms could bring together EU Some targeted actions are already underway at EU
institutions, Member States, food system actors and level that can promote the building of such a shared
other stakeholders to develop processes by which mental model of the food system and design possible
these actors could become more open to a wider pathways for sustainability transformations (Box 4.2).
Box 4.2 EU-level initiatives for building a shared understanding of the food system
The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC) recently published a foresight report entitled 'Global Food
Security 2030', which highlights the need to overcome the conventional approach to food security, with much more
attention paid to food availability than to food access, nutrition and sustainability (Maggio et al., 2015). This report also
calls for the adoption of a food system approach to food security, which captures the variety of food systems that exist
throughout the world, identifies the interactions with other human systems (e.g. energy, urban systems, etc.) and policies
(e.g. trade, security, etc.), and addresses more efficiently the 'systems-oriented' issues of vulnerability, resilience and
governance. Another of the report's main recommendations was to design a common food systems policy to ensure better
policy coherence for food security.
More initiatives on food systems with a broader and longer term perspective are currently under way within the European
Commission. The JRC and the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO) are starting
a vision-building exercise to provide a holistic and future-proof EU position on sustainable food systems in the context
of the Sustainable Development Goals. The Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD) is increasingly
using a systems-oriented approach to design research and innovation strategies for the food system. In particular,
it has been steering the work of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) since 2005 to promote an
integrated European Research Area with a common agricultural and wider bioeconomy research agenda. The need for
a strategic research agenda for fisheries and aquaculture within the agricultural and bioeconomy context mandated the
establishment of a specific working group in 2012 (SCAR-Fish, 2013). SCAR's foresight work has provided the building
blocks for longer‑term perspectives on the development of the food system in a world of growing resource constraints
and environmental limits (EC, 2011), while under competition from other emerging uses of natural resources such as the
bioeconomy (EC, 2015c).
Finally, in 2015, the EU initiated a year-long dialogue with stakeholders that will result in a 'Research and Innovation Agenda
for Food and Nutrition Security', which will mobilise the EU, international actors and invited funders (EC, 2015a). A key
objective of this process is to understand how to best pool and organise EU Research & Innovation resources in order to
future-proof European food systems to achieve food and nutrition security for all, in a global context. A 'Food Research
Area', with both EU and international partners, will be created by 2020 and will focus on the four priorities of nutrition,
climate, circularity, and innovation and empowerment of communities.
Understanding the interactions between ecosystems and activities such as nature watching, or regulation and
people through the common language of ecosystems maintenance services such as climate regulation).
services
Developing a shared understanding of natural capital
Assessing natural capital using a common language and enables human-environment relationships to be
approach between its different users and managers considered in a common way. This thinking can then
is also critical for building a shared understanding be used across human systems of consumption
of the food system and its outcomes. The EU has and production such as the food system. The MAES
embodied the concept of natural capital in several process has already provided an overarching analytical
key policies (namely the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 framework and the building blocks that should allow
and the 7th Environment Action Programme), and has EU Member States, the science community and food
set forth a process under the Biodiversity Strategy to system actors to map and assess ecosystems and
support the development of a common assessment their services in a comparable way (Maes et al., 2013).
approach for natural capital, based on the concept of However, it is still early days in terms of assessing
ecosystem services (the Mapping and Assessment of ecosystems as natural capital, especially in the case of
Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) process). MAES marine ecosystems. Despite several national, regional
aims to improve the existing knowledge of ecosystems and EU-level initiatives for mapping and assessing
and their services in the EU, and to make explicit the marine ecosystems and services, these analyses face
range of human goods and benefits derived from several specific challenges compared with terrestrial
natural capital for a particular human activity (such ecosystems, where the ecosystem services concept and
as fisheries or agriculture) or for society at large (e.g. assessment approach originated (see EEA, 2015c for a
through cultural services, like recreation and leisure detailed analysis of these initiatives).
The ocean is a fluid environment. Given the structures, processes and functions. In addition,
interconnected nature of the marine environment, obtaining the benefits from the services requires
marine ecosystem interactions are particularly intricate human inputs such as labour, capital or energy
when compared with those in terrestrial ecosystems. investments. Often, however, there is insufficient
The generation of marine ecosystem services from awareness of how marine natural capital, and
which human benefits such as seafood are derived is ecosystems services in particular, is generated among
a complex process (see Figure 4.3 for an illustration its users and managers. This hinders decision-making
of the process and EEA, 2015c for details on marine aimed at maintaining the resilience of ecosystems and
ecosystem service generation). Ecosystem services their self-renewing capacity for providing ecosystems
are the final outputs or products from ecosystems services in the long-term (EEA, 2015c).
that are directly consumed, used (actively or passively)
or enjoyed by people. They result from a range of Nevertheless, ecosystem services assessment is a
interactions at the ecosystem level, between its systems methodology that allows the complexity of
Figure 4.3 Ecosystem services as a common language to illustrate how people benefit from healthy
marine ecosystems
MARINE ECOSYSTEM EXAMPLES OF

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES HUMAN BENEFITS
PROVISIONING
Wild fish and shellfish Nutrition (food)
Wild plants and algae Aquafeed (fish food)
Fish and shellfish from Fertiliser
marine aquaculture Cosmetics
Plants and algae from Medicines
marine aquaculture Ornaments
Materials for agriculture and aquafeed Fibres
Structures: Raw materials Aquaculture seed
Species and habitats Genetic materials
(living elements)
Nutrients, light
(non-living elements) REGULATION AND MAINTENANCE
Waste treatment/detoxification
Processes: Natural hazard and erosion regulation
Nutrient uptake Oxygen production Clean water
Photosynthesis Mediation of nuisances (smell, visual impacts) Erosion prevention
Respiration Seed and reproductive cell dispersal Sea defence (floods)
Excretion Maintenance of nursery populations and habitats Breathable air
Decomposition Gene pool protection Clean sediments
Biological/ecological interactions Pest and disease control Habitable ambient climate
Food web dynamics Sediment nutrient cycling
Water quality regulation
Functions (examples): Climate regulation
Primary production
Nutrient cycling
Carbon sequestration CULTURAL *
Enhanced physical or mental
Resilience Recreation and leisure health
Knowledge development (science, education) Relaxation
Cultural heritage Knowledge gains
Aesthetic experience Art and design pieces
Inspiration for culture, art, design Cultural/spiritual/religious
Sacred and/or religious experience fulfilment
Existence Solace/comfort
Bequest
Note: * These are underpinned, to any degree, by marine organisms, ecosystems and/or land/seascapes.
Source: EEA based on O'Higgins, 2015 and EEA, 2015c.
environmental management decisions to be broken enabled aspects of fish production, processing

down so that the dependencies between human and trade to be understood. These data come
well-being and ecosystem health are considered in from national reporting obligations under the
tandem. Having an EU-common approach for assessing Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) or were mobilised
interactions between ecosystems and people paves the under this policy, for example, through market
way for food system actors and regulators to see and analysis. The background analysis also used public
value not only the ecosystems services available to be expert assessments (and the data underpinning
harvested or captured, but also the dependencies at these assessments) related to the CFP governance
ecosystem level that support the delivery of services mechanisms (i.e. from the Scientific, Technical and
that underpin food provisioning. The ecosystem Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)) that
services approach should also allow for a better analyse, on a regular basis, how fish production and
understanding of how the food system interacts with processing is performing in the EU using biological
ecosystems and to enable us to see if they are pushing and socio-economic indicators.
ecological boundaries.
The STECF expert assessments aim to support the
conservation and management of living marine
4.2 Improving the seafood knowledge resources — including biological, economic,
base environmental, social and technical considerations —
that can inform, among others, the evolution of policy
The feedback from data and information flows in the objectives such as those of the CFP. These assessments
food system is essential for monitoring change in the further provide an entry point to understanding
system, as well as for adapting the mental models that national data in context for both national realities
allow us to make sense of the observed change and (e.g. conditions for economic growth) and the wider
take action (as illustrated in Figure 4.1). Determining trends and outlook for the fishing, aquaculture and
whether or not Europe's food system is developing in processing sectors (STECF, 2014a, 2014b, 2015). In
line with the EU 2050 vision of 'living well, within the addition, these expert analyses should increasingly
limits of our planet' will require data and information have a broader analytical approach, rather than be
that allows the EU to better track its outcomes in a descriptive analysis of the fisheries sectors. This
terms of food security, ecosystem health and social broader analysis includes aspects such as drivers and
well-being and across scales — from local to global. barriers to economic growth in the sectors. It also
Moreover, such feedback should also allow for an includes an expert assessment on possible future
integrated assessment of the food system and its directions of the present assessments, on information
dynamics, i.e. one that makes it possible to understand needs such as additional variables to be included in
how the different activities of the supply-chain shape the calls for data, and requests for specific studies
the demand and supply of food. The assessment of and other data sources to be used. Box 4.3 provides
the knowledge base for exploring the dynamics and an example of such expert requests by presenting key
outcomes of the fish to fork activities (an illustration messages for improving the analysis of the processing
of which is given in Chapter 3) revealed opportunities sector from the latest STECF assessments of the
and gaps that are shared below, for enhancing future economic performance of this sector.
sustainability assessments of seafood in Europe from a
food system approach. The messages in Box 4.3 highlight knowledge gaps
or knowledge enhancement opportunities that could
Harnessing knowledge from seafood-related EU policy support a better understanding of fish production
implementation and consumption from a food system approach. If
implemented, these and other improvements would
There is a great wealth of data and information be important steps towards an integrated assessment
already available from EU policy implementation of the consumption and production of seafood,
processes that can be used in an integrated and towards getting feedback on change from key
assessment of fish consumption and production in interactions in the food system. In addition, further
and for the EU. Chapter 3 of this report emerged questions could be brought to these expert groups to
partially from the exploration of publically available enable future sustainability assessments of seafood in
environmental and socio-economic data, which Europe.
Box 4.3 Key messages from expert assessments to improve a food system approach to the analysis of
the EU fisheries sectors (6)
Making the link between the fishing fleet and the processing sector
It is obvious that the performance of the fishing fleet and the behavior of fishermen influence the exploitation rate and, therefore, it
makes sense to analyse the socio-economic performance of the fleet. The link from the fish processing industries to the 'sustainable
exploitation of marine living resources' is less obvious. […] STECF has several times recommended that the EC should issue a study
to elaborate how the link between the activities of the fishing fleet and the processing sector can be assessed and make this link
more transparent. The study shall include an elaboration of how data on raw material [e.g. the purchase of fish by species and
origin] can be collected by the Member States and how this additional data can be linked to the already collected data.
(STECF, 2014b, p. 333)
Discussing drivers and trends along the whole value chain
The fish processing sector is not acting in isolation. The industry is purchasing raw material from the fisheries and aquaculture
sector and on the other hand, the processed or semi-processed products go up in the value chain to supermarkets. Therefore,
looking at the value chain as a whole may give a better indication of which drivers and trends are influencing on the processing
industry, in contrast to just analyzing the DCF or EUMAP data [i.e. reported under the EU framework for the collection and
management of fisheries data] on the status of the industry.
(STECF, 2014b, p. 334)
An important development of the fish processing industry is the outsourcing of activities. However, many of these activities
are outsourced to countries outside Europe (like filleting of Cod in China) and it will be necessary to broaden the analyses and
perspective looking outside of the EU. However, for this kind of analysis it is not yet clear what data is needed and what data is
available for such an analysis.
(STECF, 2014b, p. 334)
Harnessing market information for greater insights
Even without the data on raw material […] the inclusion of market information is seen as a step forward and it is very useful to
get more insights and understanding on the processing industry. The market information [available from the EUMOFA website]
provides knowledge on origin, species and degree of processing. The trade statistics are publicly available […]. However, without the
more detailed information on raw material the market data still only provides limited additional information on how dependent
local/regional industries are on local/regional stock in the EU.
(STECF, 2014b, p. 334)
Improving food system traceability and assessment are produced and consumed by the EU. Beyond the new
through seafood market information rules for seafood labelling (referred to in Section 3.4),
the revised Common Market Organisation under the
The recent evolution of market traceability systems in new CFP brought with it dedicated market intelligence
the seafood sector offers opportunities to track the tools (i.e. provided by the European Market Observatory
sustainability characteristics of a given fish product for Fisheries and Aquaculture — EUMOFA (7)). These
during its journey through the value chain (Bailey et al., public tools allow for a better understanding of how the
2016). Important changes in the EU fisheries policies are EU market functions and can support better tracking of
also increasing the traceability of fisheries products that what happens on the markets after fish is caught.
(6) The paragraphs in this box were extracted from STECF (2014b) for illustration purposes. Text in square brackets has been added for
explanatory purposes.
(7) http://www.eumofa.eu.
EUMOFA was officially launched in 2013 as a European communities and the wider economy at national or EU
Commission initiative to increase market efficiency level.
and support business decisions and policymaking.
Currently, EUMOFA focuses on information on general Highly aggregated estimates such as those at global, EU
market trends for increasing the economic viability of or national level may carry more weight when it comes
the market for fishery and aquaculture products. By to influencing policy decision-making, but they hide
doing so, it contributes to the promotion and presence socio-ecological diversity and outcomes. Such estimates
of EU fishery products on the market (both the internal do not fully capture the contribution of fisheries
and external markets), which can translate into and aquaculture to food system outcomes such as
increased income and work opportunities in the sector. community integrity, food security and ecosystem
stewardship, which are particularly relevant at the
In addition, specific requests can now be designed, local level (Béne et al., 2016). Understanding these
as the EUMOFA market intelligence tool is fully dynamics and outcomes at the local level is key for
operational. For instance, ways for this market tool balancing trade-offs and exploring synergies in the food
to better serve the small-scale fisheries sector have system. Approaches already exist showing that diverse
already been identified, which could help fishers qualitative and quantitative datasets can be integrated
from this sector to better understand the market in a robust and spatially explicit manner to describe
environment in which they are operating and thus and evaluate spatial variability in the actual interactions
generate greater economic benefits from their and outcomes associated with, for example, small-scale
products (Josupeit, 2016). Other requests could also fisheries (Leslie et al., 2015). Assessment frameworks
be designed for the dedicated tracking, measuring and that enable the integration of data from diverse natural
assessment of food system outcomes of food security, and social science disciplines are key, given that
ecosystem health and social well-being from an assessments based on biophysical, economic or social
integrated perspective. For example, at present, linking data may lead to quite divergent conclusions and mask
production and trade data at the Member State or inherent trade-offs.
species level is still methodologically difficult. This more
refined understanding of where, how and which fish
are caught or farmed is key to empowering retailers, 4.3 Implementing an ecosystem
consumers and importers by allowing them to make approach to Europe's seas
informed choices.
The Ecosystem Approach (EA) to management is a
Improving place-based understanding holistic way of understanding the socio-ecological
interplay involved in managing the resource base for
New research and methods that capture the complex the long-term availability of seafood. Also known as
and multidimensional nature of the food system and its Ecosystem-based Management (EBM), the ecosystem
outcomes require an adequate level of disaggregated approach has been incorporated as a key principle
data and/or an appropriate methodology to reach in EU marine and maritime policies for securing the
consistent and robust conclusions, in particular for sustainable use of Europe's seas i.e. the Integrated
informing the implementation of ecosystem-based Maritime Policy and its Marine Strategy Framework
management. For example, work is under way to Directive (MSFD), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)
develop a deeper understanding of fishery-dependent and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (see EEA,
communities in EU coastal areas. A recent exploratory 2015c for a more detailed review of EBM in the EU
study was able to better estimate the contribution of marine policy context).
fisheries to local economies across the EU, showing
that this contribution was higher than previously Although many definitions of EBM exist (see Long et al.,
estimated (Natale et al., 2013). Coastal fishing 2015 for an extensive review of the literature), it is
communities are usually supported by small-scale essentially a policy-driven process that aims to strike
fisheries, but this sector is mostly unaccounted for the balance between ecological and social 'wants and
in nationally or EU aggregated statistics in spite of its needs' for the use of ecosystem services and natural
recognised importance (Guyader et al., 2013; Natale resources. It is a place-based management approach
et al., 2013). By using spatial methods and by taking a to activities that use the ecosystem that explicitly
geographical, rather than administrative, perspective, recognises the connections and feedbacks linking
this study also showed the shortcomings of operating human systems and ecosystems. EBM is also meant
with EU or regionally aggregated statistics. Highly to be a science- and local knowledge-based process
aggregated statistics fail to capture local dynamics that involves stakeholders in an adaptive management
and dependencies between the ecosystem and process to identify the policy objectives at stake and to
fishing communities, but also between the fishing balance trade-offs to meet those objectives.
Source: WWF, 2016b (left), 2010 (right). Illustrations: Erik Lieberman.
The implementation of an ecosystem approach to the managers, politicians, non-governmental organisations,

marine environment and the production of seafood the general public, certification organisations and
can thus help to identify trade-offs across the multiple scientists prioritise the outcomes of fisheries differently.
objectives of food security, ecosystem health and social While all of these come under one unifying policy in
well-being. In addition, an ecosystem approach to the EU (the CFP), their objectives and value systems
management allows decisions to be made in context, could be considered conflicting. Even among fishers —
while at the same time it reflects broader long-term whether commercial, recreational or artisanal — there
societal goals. It is therefore a key process in making are differing objectives that need to be balanced (Trenkel
the EU 2050 vision of 'living well, within the limits of et al., 2015). Once the fisheries policy is considered
our planet' a local reality across the diversity of the alongside environmental policies (i.e. the MSFD and the
food production activities and communities in the EU. nature directives), a further challenge is introduced as
However the implementation of EBM in Europe and the two fields operated in a compartmentalised manner
elsewhere has been slow. An emerging message from until recently (Garcia et al., 2014).
practitioners and researchers who are looking to make
the ecosystem approach operational is that the central Studies also suggest that a broader strategic approach
challenge today lies in understanding the impediments to the implementation of EBM in Europe's seas is
to the implementation of the ecosystem approach, missing (Jennings and Rice, 2011; Ramirez‑Monsalve
rather than, for example, obtaining more information et al., 2016a). The foundation of EBM is in the
(ICES, 2016). objectives of the new CFP, which addresses fisheries
and aquaculture, and in the MSFD, which addresses
Barriers to the ecosystem approach in Europe's seas all uses of the sea. However, the EU and its Member
States have not yet formalised an explicit strategy for
For fisheries, it has been suggested that the major implementing EBM in an integrated way across the
impediments to adopting EBM as part of the CFP are two policies. In addition, the strategic development of
the broad nature and incompatibility of environmental, aquaculture is mostly adopting a sectoral approach,
social and economic objectives and the lack of agreed which aims to increase the sector's production and
guidance on the priority to be given to objectives when competiveness while addressing environmental
trade-offs have to be made (Jennings and Rice, 2011). constraints for the supply of raw material or the
Box 4.4 illustrates the underlying tension between operations of the production sites (EC, 2013c, 2016b;
concurrent objectives for the sustainable management STECF, 2014a). As such, the development of aquaculture
of fish stocks in EU waters. Different stakeholders in the EU is likely to underplay key systemic interactions
including fishers, company owners, processors, retailers, and dependencies of the food system (e.g. those
Box 4.4 Achieving maximum sustainable yield in EU fisheries
The concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) holds that, over the long term, there is a maximum amount of fish that
can be harvested by a fishery from a stock. As part of the most recent reform of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP),
a legal obligation was introduced to manage fisheries with the objective of achieving MSY by 2015, where possible, and by
2020 at the latest for all stocks. Achieving MSY in fisheries can support the rebuilding of exploited fish populations and can
increase landings, but would also bring a variety of social and economic benefits from increased landings (World Bank and
FAO, 2009; Colloca et al., 2013). For example, direct job creation from achieving MSY in northeast Atlantic waters has been
estimated to range from about 20 300 to over 64 000 on- and offshore jobs (Carpenter and Esteban, 2015). Achieving MSY
could also deliver up to EUR 1.5 billion more in annual revenue in this area (Carpenter and Esteban, 2015).
Making MSY a reality across Europe's seas is a complex process. The EU and its Member States have often set annual
total allowable catches at a different level from scientific recommendations for MSY at the annual EU Council of Ministers
(Carpenter and Kleinjans, 2015; Veitch et al., 2015). This track record of decision-making at the level of the EU Council
reveals the political dimension of fisheries management, compared with a science-only dimension. Greater transparency
in the decision-making process of the EU Council would help improve the public debate about this crucial step for
implementing MSY across Europe's seas (Transparency International, 2016).
Obtaining MSY in practice is also challenging at the operational management level, given the multiple interactions of species
and ecosystem dynamics, and characteristics of individual fisheries. For example, achieving MSY for an individual stock
can hamper the achievement of MSY for other stocks, as it is a stock-specific property. Given that the majority of European
fisheries can be considered mixed, i.e. they catch a range of species even when targeting specific species, implementing
MSY inevitably generates compromises in fishing practices and outcomes (Rindorf et al., 2016). Studies also suggest that it is
difficult to achieve MSY with little impact on other marine populations and on the structure and function of the ecosystem
(Worm et al., 2009). The refinement and redefinition of the MSY concept, taking into consideration ecological, economic
and social concerns, was the focus of the EU 7th Framework Programme MyFish project (8) that, among other outcomes,
developed decision support tools to reflect the effects and trade-offs of implementing different MSY options.
A core aspect of implementing MSY is therefore acknowledging the trade-offs between ecosystem health, the production
of fish, and other economic and social outcomes at the appropriate level. In addition, understanding overfishing (i.e. fishing
above MSY levels) should be seen from a systems perspective, focusing on more than just recognised primary causes such
as profit maximisation or non-compliant behaviour from fishers. Implementing MSY requires the acknowledgement of and
adaptation to complex temporal and cross-scale interactions between social, economic, political and ecological factors,
which are still mostly not distinguished in fisheries or environmental management (Boonstra and Österblom, 2014).
Photo: © Stephen McGowan, 2006/Marine Photobank
(8) www.myfishproject.eu.
related with marine and land‑based feed ingredients as Marine protected areas: a safety net for ecosystem
explored in Section 3.2). Such interactions also include health and long-term provision of seafood
those with other policy measures such as the landing
obligation in the new CFP. The potential creation of an Fisheries and aquaculture rely on healthy ecosystems
aquaculture market for discards of species in fisheries for the stable production of key ecosystems services
subject to this measure can deter the adoption of low such as fish provision, either for direct consumption
impact practices aimed at reducing discards. Such or as a raw material for the feed industry. Marine
unintended outcomes of the new landing obligation are Protected Areas (MPAs) are a key policy measure
mostly unknown and will require careful monitoring. and management tool that form part of the EBM tool
box for safeguarding biodiversity and the services
The complex European marine governance system that marine ecosystems provide. As such, MPAs are
that is currently in place is considered another key essential to ensuring the long-term viability of fisheries,
impediment to EBM in Europe's seas. This system but also the resources on which the food supply-chain
is fragmented and considered to be insufficiently depends. The ecosystem approach introduced by the
coordinated to deliver EBM across marine and maritime MSFD and the CFP provides an opportunity to employ
policies, although the regional frameworks emerging a holistic approach for designing, managing and
from the new CFP and MSFD offer opportunities for evaluating MPA networks in Europe's seas. Although
change (Ramirez-Monsalve et al., 2016a, 2016b). EBM the designation of MPAs can bring conflict to the
is a transformation from the traditional approaches users of the areas, such area-based measures can be
to resource management, which are mostly based designed as part of the solution for achieving the dual
on sectoral objectives such as those of fisheries or EU policy objectives of marine food security and halting
aquaculture, to a systems approach that aims to the loss of biodiversity in Europe's seas (see Box 4.5
optimise social, environmental and economic objectives for an overview of the implementation of the current
for the use of the ecosystem. network of marine protected areas in Europe's seas).
Transformations are a step-wise social learning In particular, the MSFD brings provisions for the
process (Olsson et al., 2010). Changing institutional establishment of compatible monitoring programmes,
arrangements, such as the emphasis of the new CFP coherent and representative networks of MPAs and
and MSFD, might not be sufficient to promote EBM, as the requirement to cooperate with a marine region. It
this involves a different approach for most stakeholders provides a key opportunity to build on current efforts
to collaborate with each other and engage with the under the nature directives and to advance further
sea. To build transformative capacity for ecosystem to achieve well-managed MPA networks in the EU.
stewardship and implement EBM, a broader set of Achieving such MPA networks is critical to safeguarding
issues needs to be addressed, such as power and the supply of fish as food for now and for future
social relations, political and economic dynamics, generations, but is also critical for the capacity of self-
worldviews and cultural differences (Olsson et al., 2010; renewal of the ecosystem by enhancing the resilience
Schultz et al., 2015). It is thus suggested that practical of marine ecosystems. This self-renewal capacity is
experimentation may currently be a more realistic all the more important given that marine ecosystems
way to make progress and develop the capacity of the in Europe and elsewhere are under pressure from
regional forums to support EBM, including the ability of an increasingly complex set of interactions between
science, policy, industry and civil society stakeholders to human activities and global environmental change
'co-create' (Ramirez‑Monsalve et al., 2016b). (EEA, 2015c; UN, 2016).
Box 4.5 Implementing a coherent, representative and well-managed network of marine protected areas in
Europe's seas
An EU policy framework for designating MPAs is in place in Europe's seas, which includes provisions from the nature
directives (the Habitats and Birds Directives) and the MSFD. The main component of the MPA network in Europe's seas is
the Natura 2000 network, which in 2012, covered over 300 000 km2 (4.0 %) of Europe's seas. Nationally designated areas
added an additional 1.9 % to this EU coverage (EEA, 2015d). Most of the Natura 2000 sites are considered multiple‑use
MPAs. However, this MPA network cannot yet be considered well-managed, given that gaps still exist in terms of
representativeness, coherence and adequacy, as well as the uncertainty that exists in terms of management effectiveness
(EEA, 2015d). This might partly be because the original drivers of the Natura 2000 network do not reflect a holistic
understanding of marine ecosystems. The Natura 2000 network does not embody the principle of an EBM approach, and
was not designed to build resilience for the system as a whole.
A key shortcoming of this network appears to be the small proportion of 'no take' MPAs, i.e. marine reserves, which could
be an important measure to support the restoration of exploited fish populations. The existing marine reserves in Europe's
seas have shown significant increases in biomass, density, species richness and average size of organisms (Fenberg et al.,
2012). Currently, the reserves cover less than 0.5 % of Europe's seas. Inside a marine reserve, individual fish may grow older
and larger, increasing their reproductive potential. This is highly relevant, as larger and older specimens tend to produce
more eggs and larvae, with higher survival rates than young fish. Older specimens also add to the genetic resilience of the
population (Russi et al., 2016). Marine reserves can thus be especially important for rebuilding stocks in cases where fishing
practices are leading to populations dominated by juveniles, such as with cod in the North Sea. The International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has shown that 93 % of cod, one of the main species consumed in the EU, is caught
in the North Sea before it is able to reproduce (EC, 2009). In 2014, this situation appeared to have improved. It is also well
documented that marine reserves can have positive effects on fish populations both inside and outside the area, with clear
benefits for fisheries output (Birkeland and Dayton, 2005; Halpern, 2014).
Another challenge associated with the marine Natura 2000 network is that it focuses on a few, albeit rare or vulnerable,
habitats and species, and thus does not reflect the diversity of European habitats and species. Similarly, the Natura
2000 network was not designed with the purpose of protecting commercially exploited fish species or habitats of special
importance for fish species, e.g. forage or spawning areas. This leaves significant marine ecological features outside EU
conservation requirements and, as such, the potential benefits of the EU MPA network are not optimised for securing
healthy and productive ecosystems. A final hindrance of the marine Natura 2000 network is that some of the sites still
lack management plans. As such, few details on conservation objectives and relevant site-based measures to achieve
these objectives are available. This indicates that insufficient management measures have been put in place to enable the
conservation benefits of these areas to both halt the loss of marine biodiversity and improve the state of commercial fish
species (Russi et al., 2016).
Photo: EUO © OCEANA Carlos Suárez
Looking ahead — food for thought
5 Looking ahead — food for thought
long-term interventions, whose results tend to surface

incrementally.
“ You never change things by fighting the

existing reality. To change something, build Interventions that target the purpose of a system
a new model that makes the existing model are those that shape the paradigm or framework
obsolete. out of which the system goals, structure, rules and
” Buckminster Fuller
dynamics arise. In Europe, the mainstream policy
narrative suggests that growth, innovation, jobs
and competitiveness help to achieve development
goals, and will deliver subsequently on well-being
The transformation of our food system in line with objectives. The transformation of Europe's food
sustainability goals is necessary, as it is for other system — to one that will flourish in the 21st century
related systems of production and consumption that society that the world and Europe envisions — would
allow us to meet our needs for energy, mobility and require a different narrative. Such a narrative would
housing. This requires a common knowledge base to fundamentally recognise the interdependencies of
be developed and adapted in such a way that it takes our social, technological and natural systems. In
the new rationale behind transitions decisions and this context, the development of a new European
pathways into account. sustainability strategy has begun, which better reflects
the international paradigm shift that considers people's
The world has already agreed to a new paradigm for well-being in tandem with ecosystem health (EPSC,
sustainability in the 21st century (UN, 2015). The new 2016). Adopting such a paradigm shift in Europe's
global sustainable development agenda is built on food system would entail moving beyond increased
people, the planet, prosperity and partnerships that production or food security alone, to a system whose
together aim to transform the world by 2030. Europe broader purpose would include enhanced nutrition and
has a vision of living well within the limits of our planet the ability to operate within environmental and social
by 2050 through a transition to a green economy, planetary boundaries.
centred on resource efficiency, ecosystem resilience
and human well-being and equity. To make these goals Beyond working to change the purpose of a system,
a reality, a new sustainability narrative is needed, which another powerful set of interventions that can lead
envisions our global society as an interacting, evolving to more desired system outcomes would target the
system that governments, markets and society can system's design. These interventions address the social
influence, but which cannot be managed by 'control structures and institutions that manage interactions
and command' instruments. The food system approach (e.g. between actors or those related to natural
allows such a narrative to be brought to Europe's food resource use) and that set standards for measures and
system. quantifiable parameters (e.g. indicators). Policies are
instrumental in shaping systems, as they establish a
A systems approach to sustainability allows us common framework for governance and action, shape
to understand how systems change and how to incentives and direct research and innovation. The
intervene at leverage points (Meadows, 1999), where current EU policy framework for food is fragmented
a small shift can lead to fundamental changes in and is not implemented according to a food system
the system as a whole. Interventions that target the approach (as explored in Chapter 4). As such, the
purpose of a system and its design are the most consequences of key interactions — such as with
powerful ones for its transformation. Yet, they are international trade, supply-chain actors, producer
also the most difficult to implement as they ask us to practices and consumer choices (as explored in
reframe the way we look at the world and act in it, and Chapter 3 and related to the journey of fish to fork)
affect the underpinning values, goals and world views — can remain hidden. The need to re-design Europe's
of people that influence the system. They are also food system through a common approach to its
policies that fully incorporates both the systemic and which people perceive information and make decisions.
global dimensions of food security has already been For example, it is well-known that people make most
recognised (Maggio et al., 2015). Likewise, a review judgments and choices automatically but the rational
of the current EU research and innovation policy view of decision-making is still often relied upon in
landscape for food security and nutrition calls for a policymaking (van Bavel et al., 2013). Also, people
broader food system approach, together with greater often use mental short-cuts to make complex choices,
policy coherence and coordination encompassing food which can lead to choice bias, so the availability of
security, public health and environmental protection more information is unlikely to change consumer
(EC, 2016d). behaviour (Umpfenbach, 2014). Paying attention to
how humans think, and how history and context shape
Transforming the food system will also require public thinking can improve the design and implementation of
policy to have a ripple effect beyond policy actors or the policies. Applying behavioural insights to policymaking
public policy sphere. The more public policy objectives could greatly improve EU policy implementation and
can be aligned with those from business and civil interventions designed to foster sustainability and
society organisations, the better the chances of success development (World Bank, 2015; Lourenço et al., 2016).
in transforming the food system to meet sustainability
goals. Emerging coalitions and partnerships of Working with human behaviour is especially important
supply‑chain actors (as explored in Chapter 3 in this in the context of food, since food is related to
report) offer policymakers an opportunity to make the many other interweaving aspects of our lives such
most of business innovation (e.g. business to business as education and culture. The issues around food
investments for increased traceability) for sustainability have gained a lot of traction in the public domain.
by engaging with these market actors. To this end, People are increasingly concerned by the social and
forward-looking discussions within the EU and with environmental implications of food, illustrated by
industry, researchers and society that are currently a range of mainstream books and documentaries
taking place in order to future-proof Europe's food that have flourished in recent years. A food system
system and achieve food and nutrition for all could approach can focus the discussion on building
prove key (EC, 2015a). communities and nurturing a food culture, where
people are more than mere consumers, or a group
The current societal momentum for the transformation of interested resource users such as fishers and
of Europe's food system also provides an important farmers, or even business-oriented actors such as
opportunity to put marine and freshwater fish in its retailers. Building community through the topic of
rightful position in EU food security and nutrition food connects consumers to producers, but also to
strategies, policies and programmes, as called for regulators and the food industry. And by doing so,
internationally (CFS, 2014). A food system approach it can also improve knowledge and interest across
allows fish to be framed as food rather than as a the board on the food we eat, with the potential
natural resource and can support the identification to co‑create more creative, inclusive and effective
of key interactions between sea, land and actors in solutions for healthy and sustainable food.
the food system (such as those related to aquaculture
feed explored in Chapter 3). In addition, there is a Working with complexity and making it tangible is
tendency to focus the debate on food in Europe around essential if we are to find solutions to the sustainability
terrestrial food production practices and outcomes. issues of our time. This report aims to show that
Building knowledge and governance bridges between the complexity framework offered by a food system
fisheries and agriculture would enhance dialogue and approach is complementary to existing policy
mutual learning between these traditionally separate frameworks, and can offer new ways for policymakers
sectors. It would also provide a source of innovation and other actors to search for effective answers to
and collaboration that would better influence or adapt the difficult problems with our food. People will still
to the supply and demand dynamics that lead to hold different views, but they will have a much richer
greater sustainability. and more constructive environment for dialogue. In
addition, the science of systems and the practice of
People are at the centre of interventions that target applying it to real-world problems in order to tackle the
both the purpose and design of a system. This report persistent social and environmental challenges of our
looked at the importance of adapting our models of societies is flourishing (for examples, see Hassan, 2014;
thinking in order to build a shared understanding of the Scharmer and Kaufer, 2013; Sinha and Draimin, 2016;
food system at the EU level (Chapter 4). Although not Narberhaus and Sheppard, 2015).
explored in depth in this report, other recent findings
on the psychological and social foundations of human Embracing complexity goes beyond research and
behaviour are bringing greater awareness of the way in policy alone. It is a process that includes analysing
how one relates to oneself and to others, and it thinker, put it best in terms of what it means to work
involves significant efforts across actors and society. with system change: 'There are no cheap tickets to
Applying this new type of knowledge in order to for mastery. You have to work hard at it, whether that
make sense of the world and support transformations means rigorously analysing a system or rigorously
will require learning and experimentation. Perhaps casting off your own paradigms and throwing yourself
the late Donnella Meadows, a pioneering system into the humility of Not Knowing' (Meadows, 1999).
References
References
Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Brummett, R., 2013, 'Growing aquaculture in sustainable
Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, H., ecosystems', The World Bank Agriculture and
Abernethy, P., Ives, C. D., Jager, N. W. and Lang Environmental Services Department Notes, Issue 5, June
D. J., 2016, 'Leverage points for sustainability 2013.
transformation', Ambio, 2016 1–10.
Cabrera, D. and Cabrera, L., 2015, Systems thinking
Agnew, D. J., Pearce, J., Pramod, G., Peatman, T., made simple: New hope for solving wicked problems,
Watson, R., Beddington, J. R. and Pitcher, T. J., 2009, Odyssean.
'Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing', PLoS
ONE, 4(2), e4570. CarbonBrief, 2016, 'The IPCC's priorities for the next six
years: 1.5C, oceans, cities, and food security 14 April
Almeida, C., 2014, Seafood consumption in Portugal: 2016' (https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-ipccs-priorities-
Patterns, drivers and sustainability, Thesis for the degree for-the-next-six-years-1-5c-oceans-cities-and-food-
in Doctor of Sea Sciences, Universidade de Lisboa, security) accessed 25 July 2016.
Faculdade de Ciências, Lisbon.
Cardinale, M., Dörner, H., Abella, A., Andersen, J.L., Casey,
Asche, F., Bellemare, M. F., Roheim, C., Smith, M. D. and J., Döring, R., Kirkegaard, E., Motova, A., Anderson, J.,
Tveteras, S., 2015, 'Fair enough? Food security and the Simmonds, E.J. and Stransky, C., 2013, 'Rebuilding EU
international trade of seafood', World Development, 67, fish stocks and fisheries, a process under way?', Marine
151–160. Policy, 39, 43–52
Bailey, M., Bush, S. R., Miller, A. and Kochen, M., 2016, Carpenter, G. and Esteban, A., 2015, Managing
'The role of traceability in transforming seafood EU fisheries in the public interest: Results from the
governance in the global South', Current Opinion Bio‑Economic Model of European Fleets, New Economics
Environmental Sustainability, 18, 25–32. Foundation, London.
Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E. H., Carpenter, G. and Kleinjans, R., 2015, Landing the blame:
Beveridge, M., Bush, S., Campling, L., Leschen, W., Little, Overfishing in EU waters 2001–2015, New Economics
D., Squires, D., Thisted, S. H., Troell, M. and Williams, M., Foundation, London.
2016, 'Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food
security and poverty reduction: Assessing the current CFS, 2014, Report of the 41st session of the Committee on
evidence', World Development, 79, 177–196. World Food Security, 13–18 October, Committee on World
Food Security, Rome.
Birkeland, C. and Dayton, P., 2005, 'The importance in
fishery management of leaving the big ones', Trends in Cheng, S. L., Olsen, W., Southerton, D. and Warde, A.,
Ecology & Evolution, 20(7), 356–358. 2007, 'The changing practice of eating: Evidence from
UK time diaries, 1975 and 2000', The British Journal of
Blackmore, E., Norbury, H., Mohammed, E.Y. Bartolini Sociology, 58(1), 39–61.
Cavicchi, S. and Wakeford, R., 2015, What’s the catch?
Lessons from and prospects for the Marine Stewardship, Clancy, K., 2014, 'A different way to approach policy
Council certification in developing countries. IIED, change', Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and
London. Community Development, 4(4), 9–11.
Boonstra, W., Österblom, H., 2014, 'A chain of fools: or, Colloca, F., Cardinale, M., Maynou, F., Giannoulaki, M.,
why it is so hard to stop overfishing', Maritime Studies, Scarcella, G., Jenko, K., Bellido, J. M. and Fiorentino,
2014 13:15. F., 2013, 'Rebuilding Mediterranean fisheries: A new
References
paradigm for ecological sustainability', Fish and Fisheries, as non-cooperating third countries pursuant to
14(1), 89–109. Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a
Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate
Cressey, D., 2012, 'Seafood labelling under fire', illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, OJ C 346,
in: Nature, 11 May 2012 (http://www.nature.com/ 27.11.2013, p. 26–49.
doifinder/10.1038/nature.2012.10626) accessed
24 February 2016. EC, 2013c, Communication from the Commission to
the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Crona, B. I., Daw, T. M., Swartz, W., Norström, A. V., Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
Nyström, M., Thyresson, M., Folke, C., Hentati-Sundberg, of the Regions 'Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable
J., Österblom, H., Deutsch, L. and Troell, M., 2015, development of EU aquaculture', COM (2013) 229 final
'Masked, diluted and drowned out: How global seafood of 29 April 2013.
trade weakens signals from marine ecosystems', Fish and
Fisheries, doi: 10.1111/faf.12109. EC, 2015a, Next steps towards a Food Research Area,
Speech by Commissioner for Research, Science and
Crona, B., Basurto, X., Squires, D., Gelcich, S., Daw, T. Innovation Carlos Moedas on 28 January 2016, Brussels,
M., Khan, A., Havice, E., Chomo, V., Troell, M., Buchary, accessed https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/
E. A. and Allison, E. H., 2016, 'Towards a typology of moedas/announcements/next-steps-towards-food-
interactions between small-scale fisheries and global research-area_en
seafood trade', Marine Policy, 65, 1–10.
EC, 2015b, Notice of information of the termination
Cutler, D., Glaeser, E. and Shapiro, J., 2003, 'Why have of the demarches with third countries notified on
Americans become more obese?', Journal of Economic 26 November 2013 of the possibility of being identified
Perspectives, 17(3), 93–118. as non-cooperating third countries pursuant to
Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a
Deutsch, L., Troell, M., Limburg, K. and Huitric, M., Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate
2011, 'Global trade of fisheries products: Implications illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, OJ C 142,
for marine ecosystems and their services', in: Köllner, 29.4.2015, p. 5–5.
T. (ed.), Ecosystem services and global trade of natural
resources: Ecology, economics and policies, Routledge, EC, 2015c, 'Sustainable agriculture, forestry and
London, 120–147. fisheries in the bioeconomy — A challenge for Europe',
The 4th SCAR Foresight Exercise, European Commission
EC, 2009, 'Green Paper: Reform of the Common Fisheries — Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR).
Policy', COM (2009) 163 final of 22 April 2009.
EC, 2016a, Report from the Commission to the
EC, 2011, 'Sustainable food consumption and production European Parliament and the Council on Member
in a resource-constrained world', The 3rd SCAR Foresight States' efforts during 2014 to achieve a sustainable
Exercise, European Commission — Standing Committee balance between fishing capacity and fishing
on Agricultural Research (SCAR). opportunities, COM(2016) 038, from p. 27.
EC, 2012, Communication from the Commission to EC, 2016b, Commission Staff Working Document on the
the European Parliament, the Council, the European application of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in
the Regions 'Blue Growth — opportunities for marine relation to aquaculture, SWD(2016) 178 final.
and maritime sustainable growth' COM(2012) 494 final
of 13 September 2012. EC, 2016c, 'European Commission, Fishing outside the
EU' (http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/
EC, 2013a, Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European index_en.htm) accessed 26 July 2016.
Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013
on a General Union Environment Action Programme EC, 2016d, 'European Research and Innovation for
to 2020 'Living well, within the limits of our planet', Food and Nutrition Security', Food 2030 high-level
OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 171–200. conference background document.
EC, 2013b, Commission Decision of 26 November EEA, 2015a, European environment — state and outlook
2013 on notifying the third countries that the 2015: assessment of global megatrends, European
Commission considers as possible of being identified Environment Agency.
References
EEA, 2015b, The European environment — state and FAO, 2012, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture
outlook 2015, European Environment Agency. 2012, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.
EEA, 2015c, State of Europe's seas, EEA Report
No 2/2015, European Environment Agency. FAO, 2016, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture.
Contributing to food security and nutrition for all, Food and
EEA, 2015d, Marine protected areas in Europe's seas — Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
An overview and perspectives for the future, EEA Report
No 3/2015, European Environment Agency. FAO FishStat, 2016, 'Marine fish + crustaceans' (http://
faostat3.fao.org/home/E) accessed 8 August 2016.
EJF, 2012, Pirate fishing exposed: The fight against illegal
fishing in West Africa and the EU, Environmental Justice Fenberg, P. B., Caselle, J. E., Claudet, J., Clemence, M.,
Foundation, London. Gaines, S. D., Antonio García-Charton, J., Gonçalves, E.
J., Grorud-Colvert, K., Guidetti, P., Jenkins, S. R., Jones, P.
EJF, 2013, Keeping illegal fish out of Europe: Ensuring J. S., Lester, S. E., McAllen, R., Moland, E., Planes, S. and
success for the IUU Regulation, Environmental Justice Sørensen, T. K., 2012, 'The science of European marine
Foundation, London. reserves: Status, efficacy, and future needs', Marine
Policy, 36(5), 1 012–1 021.
EJF, Oceana, The Pew Charitable Trusts and WWF, 2015,
EU Regulation to combat illegal fishing. Third country Flothmann, S., von Kistowski, K., Dolan, E., Lee, E., Meere,
carding process: Success for South Korea and the F. and Album, G., 2010, 'Closing loopholes: Getting illegal
Philippines, Case study 2, October 2015. fishing under control', Science, 328, 1 235–1 236.
EPSC, 2016, Sustainability now! A European vision for Foley, P. and Havice, E., 2016, 'The rise of territorial eco-
sustainability, EPSC Strategic Notes, European Political certifications: New politics of transnational sustainability
Strategy Centre. governance in the fishery sector', Geoforum, 69, 24–33.
Ericksen, P.J., 2007, 'Conceptualizing food systems Food Drink Europe, 2016, European food and drink
for global environmental change research', Global industry, Data and trends 2014–2015.
Environmental Change, 18(1), 234–245, doi: 10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2007.09.002. Future of Fish, 2015, Making Sense of Wild Seafood Supply
Chains. A report created for The Nature Conservancy,
Eriksson, H., Österblom, H., Crona, B., Troell M., accessed online at https://www.conservationgateway.
Andrew N., Wilen J. and Folke C., 2015, 'Contagious org/ConservationPractices/Marine/SustainableFisheries/
exploitation of marine resources', Frontiers in resources/Documents/SeafoodSupplyChainReport.pdf.
Ecology and the Environment, 13(8), 435–440,
doi: 10.1890/140312. GO-Science, 2011, Foresight — The Future of Food and
Farming, Final Project Report, The Government Office for
EUMOFA, 2015, The EU fish market — 2015 edition, Science, London.
European Market Observatory for Fisheries and
Aquaculture Products. Garcia., S. M., Rice, J. and Charles, A., 2014, 'Governance
of marine fisheries and biodiversity conservation:
EUMOFA, 2016, 'European Market Observatory for A history', in: Garcia., S. M., Rice, J. and Charles, A.
Fisheries and Aquaculture Products, ad-hoc queries' (eds), Governance of marine fisheries and biodiversity
(http://www.eumofa.eu/ad-hoc-queries3) accessed conservation: Interaction and co-evolution, John Wiley &
14 June 2016. Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK. doi: 10.1002/9781118392607.
ch1.
European Parliament, 2013, Compliance of imports of
fisheries and aquaculture products with EU legislation, Gulbrandsen, L.H., 2009, 'The emergence and
Study from the Directorate-General for Internal effectiveness of the Marine Stewardship Council', Marine
Policies, Policy department B: Structural and cohesion Policy, 33(4), 654–660.
policies, IP7B/PEVH/IC/2012-087.
Gustafson, D., Gutman, A., Leet, W., Drewnowski,
FAO, 2009, How to feed the world in 2050, Issue brief for A., Fanzo, J. and Ingram, J., 2016, 'Seven food
the High-level Expert Forum, 12–13 October, Food and system metrics of sustainable nutrition security',
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Sustainability, 8, 196.
References
Guyader, O., Berthou, P., Koutsikopoulos, C., Alban, Jennings, S. and Rice, J., 2011, 'Towards an ecosystem
F., Demanèche, S., Gaspar, M. B., Eschbaum, R., Fahy, approach to fisheries in Europe: A perspective on
E., Tully, O., Reynal, L., Curtil, O., Frangoudes, K. and existing progress and future directions', Fish and
Maynou, F., 2013, 'Small scale fisheries in Europe: Fisheries, 12(2), 125–137.
A comparative analysis based on a selection of case
studies', Fisheries Research, 140, 1–13. Jonell, M., Phillipps, M., Rönnbäck, P. and Troell, M.,
2013, 'Eco-certification of farmed seafood: Will it make
Halpern, B. S., 2014, 'Conservation: Making marine a difference?', Ambio, 42(6), 659–674.
protected areas work', Nature, 506(7487), 167–168.
Josupeit, H., 2016, Research for PECH Committee —
Hartmann, C., Dohle, S. and Siegrist, M., 2013, Small-scale fisheries markets: value chain, promotion
'Importance of cooking skills for balanced food choices', and labelling, Study from the Directorate-General for
Appetite, 65, 125–131. Internal Policies, Policy department B: Structural and
cohesion policies, IP/B/PECH/IC/2015_180.
Hassan, Z, 2014, The social labs revolution: A New
Approach to Solving our Most Complex Challenges, Berrett- Kemp, R., Loorbach, D. and Rotmans, J., 2007,
Koehler Publishers. 'Transition management as a model for managing
processes of co-evolution towards sustainable
HPLE, 2014, Food losses and waste in the context of development', The International Journal of Sustainable
sustainable food systems, High Level Panel of Experts on Development & World Ecology, 14(1), 78–91.
Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World
Food Security, Rome. Lane, A., Hough, C. and Bostock J., 2014, The long-term
economic and ecologic impact of larger sustainable
ICES, 2016, AORAC-SA FAO workshop: Making the aquaculture, Study from the Directorate-General for
ecosystem approach operational, 21–22 January, Internal Policies, Policy department B: Structural and
Copenhagen. cohesion policies, IP/B/PECH/IC/2013_162.
IFFO, 2014, The Marine Ingredients Organisation (http:// Leslie, H., Basurto, X., Nenadovic, M., Sievanen, L.,
www.iffo.net/), Personal communication. Cavanaugh, K. C., Cota-Nieto, J. J., Erisman, B. E.,
Finkbeiner, E., Hinojosa-Arango, G., Moreno-Báez, M.,
IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Nagavarapu, S., Reddy, S. M. W., Sánchez-Rodríguez, A.,
Council), 2015, A framework for assessing effects of the Siegel, K., Ulibarria-Valenzuela, J. J., Weaver, A. H. and
food system, The National Academies Press, Washington, Aburto-Oropeza, O., 2015, 'Operationalizing the social-
DC. ecological systems framework to assess sustainability',
PNAS, 112(19), 5 979–5 984.
Ingram, J. S. I., 2011, 'A food systems approach to
researching food security and its interactions with global Long, R.D., Charles, A., Stephenson, R.L., 2015, 'Key
environmental change', Food Security, 3(4), 417–431. principles of marine ecosystem based management',
Marine Policy, 57(2015) 53–60.
Innovation Forum, 2015, Managing seafood supply risks
and developing collaboration. http://innovation-forum. Lourenço, J.S., Ciriolo, E., Almeida, S. R. and Troussard,
co.uk/perch/resources/if-seafood-briefing.pdf X., 2016, Behavioural insights applied to policy — European
Report 2016, JRC Science and Policy Reports, European
IUUWatch, 2016, The EU IUU Regulation: Building on Commission, Joint Research Centre, Publications Office
success EU progress in the global fight against illegal of the European Union, Luxembourg.
fishing, The Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF),
Oceana, The Pew Charitable Trusts and World Wide McClanahan, T., Allison, E. H. and Cinner, J. E., 2015,
Fund for Nature (WWF). 'Managing fisheries for human and food security', Fish
and Fisheries, 16, 78–103.
Jackson, A., 2012, 'Fishmeal & fish oil and its role in
sustainable aquaculture', International aquafeed, McClenachan, L., Dissanayake, S.T.M., and Chen, X., 2016,
September–October, 19–21. 'Fair trade fish: consumer support to broader seafood
sustainability', Fish and Fisheries, 17 (3), 825–838.
Jacquet, J., Hocevar, J., Lai, S., Majluf, P., Pelletier, N.,
Pitcher, T., Sala, E., Sumaila, R. and Pauly, D., 2010, Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Liquete, C., Braat, L.,
'Conserving wild fish in a sea of market-based efforts', Berry, P., Egoh, B., Puydarrieux, P., Fiorina, C., Santos,
Oryx, 44(1), 45–56. F., Paracchini, M. L., Keune, H., Wittmer, H., Hauck, J.,
References
Fiala, I., Verburg, P. H., Condé, S., Schägner, J. P., San OECD/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Miguel, J., Estreguil C., Ostermann O., Barredo J.I., Nations, 2015, OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015, OECD
Pereira H.M., Stott A., Laporte V., Meiner A., Olah B., Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-
Royo Gelabert E., Spyropoulou R., Petersen J.E., Maguire 2015-e
C., Zal N., Achilleos E., Rubin A., Ledoux L., Brown C.,
Raes C., Jacobs S., Vandewalle M., Connor D., Bidoglio Olson, J., Clay, P. M. and da Silva, P. P., 2014, 'Putting the
G, 2013, Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and seafood in sustainable food systems', Marine Policy, 43,
their services: An analytical framework for ecosystem 104–111, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.001.
assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy
to 2020, Publications Office of the European Union, Olsson, P., Bodin, Ö. and Folke, C., 2010, 'Building
Luxembourg. transformative capacity for ecosystem stewardship in
social-ecological systems', in: Armitage, D. and Plummer,
Maggio, A., Van Criekinge, T., and Malingreau, J. P, R. (eds), Adaptive capacity and environmental governance,
2015, Global food security 2030: Assessing trends with a Springer Verlag, New York, 263–286.
view to guiding future EU policies, JRC Science and Policy
Reports — Foresight series, European Commission, Joint Opitz, S., Hoffmann, J., Quaas, M., Matz-Lück, N.,
Research Centre, Publications Office of the European Binolahn, C. and Froese, R., 2016, 'Assessment of MSC-
Union, Luxembourg. certified fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic', Marine
Policy, 71, 10–14.
Meadows, D., 1999, 'Leverage Points: Places to Intervene
in a System', Sustainability Institute, Hartland, VT. Österblom H., Jouffray J. B., Folke, C., Crona, B., Troell,
M. and Merrie, A., 2015, 'Transnational corporations
Micheli, F., De Leo, G., Shester, G. G., Martone, R. G., as “keystone actors” in marine ecosystems', PLoS ONE,
Lluch-Cota, S. E., Butner, C., Crowder, L. B., Fujita, R., 10(5), e0127533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127533.
Gelcich, S., Jain, M., Lester, S. E., McCay, B., Pelc, R.
and Sáenz-Arroyo, A., 2014, 'A system-wide approach Patterson J., Schulz K., Vervoort J., Adler C., Hurlbert
to supporting improvements in seafood production M., van der Hel S., Schmidt A., Barau A., Obani P.,
practices and outcomes', Frontiers in Ecology and the Sethi M., Hissen N., Tebboth M., Anderton K., Börner
Environment, 12(5), 297–305. S., and Widerberg O., 2015, Transformations towards
sustainability — Emerging approaches, critical reflections,
Narberhaus, M. and Sheppard, A., 2015, 'Re.imagining and a research agenda, Earth System Governance
Activism: A practical guide for the Great Transition', Working Paper No 33, Earth System Governance
Smart CSOs Lab and Michael Narberhaus. Project, Lund and Amsterdam.
Natale, F., Carvalho, N., Harrop, M., Guillen, J. And Pike, I. H. and Jackson, A., 2010, 'Fish oil: production
Frangoudes, K., 2013, 'Identifying fisheries dependent and use now and in the future', Lipid Technology, 22(3),
communities in EU coastal areas', Marine Policy, 42, 59–61, doi: 10.1002/lite.201000003.
245–252.
Purchase, D. and Dom, A., 2015, 'Ensuring sustainable
O'Brien, K. and Sygna L., 2013, 'Responding to climate aquaculture feed ingredients', Policy paper, Seas at
change: The three spheres of transformation.', in Risk, Brussels.
Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate,
19–21 June 2013, 16–23. University of Oslo, Oslo, Ramírez-Monsalve, P., Raakjær, J., Nielsen, K. N., Laksá,
Norway. ISBN 978-82-570-2000-2 U., Danielsen, R., Degnbol, D., Ballesteros, M. and
Degnbol, P., 2016a, 'Institutional challenges for policy-
O'Higgins, T.G. 2015, It's Not Easy Being Green, A Systems making and fisheries advice to move to a full EAFM
Approach to Environmental Management, Dunedin approach within the current governance structures for
Academic Press, Edinburgh. marine policies', Marine Policy, 69, 1–12.
O'Rourke, D. and Ringer, A., 2016, 'The Impact of Ramírez-Monsalve, P., Raakjær, J., Nielsen, K.N.,
Sustainability Information on Consumer Decision Santiago, J.L., Ballesteros, M., Laksá, U. and Degnbol, P.,
Making', Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20 (4), 882–892. 2016b, 'Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management
(EAFM) in the EU — Current science–policy–society
OECD, 2016, The ocean economy in 2030, OECD interfaces and emerging requirements', Marine Policy,
Publishing, Paris. 66, 83–92.
References
Rana, K. J., Siriwardena, S. and Hasan, M. R., 2009, Reports, European Commission; Scientific, Technical
Impact of rising feed ingredient prices on aquafeeds and and Economic Committee for Fisheries, Publications
aquaculture production, FAO fisheries and aquaculture Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27033
technical paper No 541, Food and Agriculture EN, JRC 93169, 451.
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
STECF, 2014b, The economic performance report on the
Richardson, J., 2014, National Geographic, Feeding the EU fish processing (STECF-14-21), JRC Science and Policy
World, May 2014, p. 35. Reports, European Commission; Scientific, Technical
and Economic Committee for Fisheries, Publications
Rindorf, A., Dichmont, C. M., Levin, P. S., Mace, P., Pascoe, Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27029
S., Prellezo, R., Punt, A. E., Reid, D. G., Stephenson, R., EN, JRC 93340, 355.
Ulrich, C., Vinther, M. and Worsøe Clausen, L., 2016,
'Food for thought: Pretty good multispecies yield', ICES STECF, 2015, The 2015 annual economic report on the
Journal of Marine Science, first published online May 12, EU fishing fleet (STECF-15-07), JRC Science and Policy
doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsw071. Reports, European Commission; Scientific, Technical
and Economic Committee for Fisheries, Publications
Rittel H. and Webber M., 1973, 'Dilemmas in a general Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27428
theory of planning', Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. EN, JRC 97371, 434.
Rotmans, J. and Loorbach, D., 2010, 'Towards a better STECF, 2016a, Monitoring the performance of the
understanding of transitions and their governance — Common Fisheries Policy (STECF-16-05) — Corrigendum to
A systematic and reflexive approach', in: Transitions to STECF-16-03, JRC Science and Policy Reports, European
sustainable development: New directions in the study of Commission; Scientific, Technical and Economic
long-term transformative change, Taylor and Francis. Committee for Fisheries, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27758 EN, JRC
Russi, D., Pantzar, M., Kettunen, M., Gitti, G., Mutafoglu, 100945, 60.
K., Kotulak, M. and ten Brink, P., 2016, Socio-economic
benefits of the EU marine protected areas, Institute for STECF, 2016b, Reports of the Scientific, Technical and
European Environmental Policy (IEEP), London. Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) — 51st Plenary
Meeting Report (PLEN-16-01). 2016. Publications Office
SCAR-Fish, 2013, Science in support of the European of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27917 EN,
fisheries and aquaculture policy SCAR-Fish, The Strategic JRC 101442, 95 pp.
Working Group on Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Sull, D. N. and Eisenhardt, K.M., 2015, Simple Rules: How
Scharmer, O. and Kaufer, K., 2013, Leading From to Thrive in a Complex World, John Murray Publishers,
the Emerging Future: From Ego-system to Eco-system London, UK.
Economies, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Swartz, W., Sala, E., Tracey, S., Watson, R., Pauly, D.,
Schultz, L., Folke, C., Osterblom, H. and Olsson, P., 2015, 2010, 'The spatial expansion and ecological footprint
'Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and of fisheries (1950 to present)', PLOS one, 5(12),
natural capital', PNAS, 112(24), 7 369–7 374. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015143.
SERI, 2008, Methods and tools for integrated sustainability Tacon, A. G. J. and Metian, M., 2013, 'Fish matters:
assessment: MATISSE project summary, Sustainable Europe Importance of aquatic foods in human nutrition and
Research Institute, Vienna. global food supply', Reviews in Fisheries Science, 21(1)
22–38, doi: 10.1080/10641262.2012.753405.
SFP, 2016, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership – Annual
Report 2015, accessed online at https://www. Tacon, A. G. J. and Metian, M., 2015, 'Feed matters:
sustainablefish.org/publications. Satisfying the feed demand of aquaculture', Reviews
in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 23(1), 1–10,
Sinha, R., and Draimin, T, 2016, Mapping Momentum: doi: 10.1080/23308249.2014.987209.
a snapshot of the emerging field of systems change, Social
Innovation Generation (SiG). TNS, 2014, Study on Impact of Food Information on
Consumers' Decision Making, TNS European Behaviour
STECF, 2014a, The economic performance of the EU Studies Consortium Final Report.
aquaculture sector (STECF-14-18), JRC Science and Policy
References
Transparency International, 2016, 'Casting the net: Veitch, L., Luk, S. and Tacconi, F., 2015, Maximum
How can we increase the transparency of council Sustainable Yield in the Common Fisheries Policy: A Legal
decision-making' (http://www.transparencyinternational. Briefing, ClientEarth, London.
eu/2016/04/opening-up-the-black-box-how-can-we-
increase-the-transparency-of-council-decision-making) Waite, R. and Kaushik, S., 2014, Improving productivity
accessed 8 August 2016. and environmental performance of aquaculture, Creating
a Sustainable Food Future Instalment 5, World Resource
Trenkel, V. M., Hintzen, N. T., Farnsworth, K. D., Olesen, Institute.
C., Reid, D., Rindorf, A., Shephard, S. and Dickey-
Collas, M., 2015, 'Identifying marine pelagic ecosystem Ward, T. J. and Phillips, B., 2008, 'Anecdotes and lessons
management objectives and indicators', Marine Policy, of a decade', in: Ward, T. and Phillips, B. (eds), Seafood
55, 23–32. labelling: Principles and practice, Wiley‑Blackwell, Oxford,
416–435.
Troell, M., Naylor, R.L., Metian, M., Beveridge, M.,
Tyedmers, P.H., Folke, C., Arrow, K.J., Barrett, S., Crépin, Watson, R. A., Green, B. S., Tracey, S. R., Farmery, A. and
A.S., Ehrlich, P.R., Gren, Å. Kautsky, Nils, Levin, S.A., Pitcher, T. J., 2015, 'Provenance of global seafood', Fish
Nyborg, K., Österblom, H., Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., and Fisheries, 17(3) 585–595 doi: 10.1111/faf.12129.
Walker, B.H., Xepapadeas, T., Zeeuw, A.D., 2014, 'Does
aquaculture add resilience to the global food system', Welch, A., Hoenig, R., Stieglitz, J., Benetti, D., Tacon, A.,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Sims, N. and O'Hanlon, B., 2010, 'From fishing to the
United States of America, 111(37) 13 257–13 263. sustainable farming of carnivorous marine finfish',
Reviews in Fisheries Science, 18(3), 225–247.
Umpfenbach, K., 2014, Influences on consumer behaviour
— Policy implications beyond nudging, Final report, WHO, 2016, Obesity and Overweight, Fact sheet, World
European Commission, Publications Office of the Health Organisation, Accessed on-line http://www.who.
European Union, Luxembourg. int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en.
UN, 2015, Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for World Bank, 2008, Rising food and fuel prices: addressing
Sustainable Development, United Nations, A/RES/70/1. the risks to future generations, The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
UN, 2016, 'The first global integrated marine assessment'
(http://www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_ World Bank, 2013, Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries
RegProcess.htm) accessed 8 August 2016. and Aquaculture, Agriculture and environmental services
discussion paper nr 3, World Bank, Washington, DC.
UNEP, 2009, The role of supply chains in addressing
the global seafood crisis, United Nations Environment World Bank, 2015, World Development Report 2015: Mind,
Program. Society, and Behavior, World Bank, Washington, DC.
UNEP, 2016, 'Food systems and natural resources', World Bank and FAO, 2009, The sunken billions:
Working Group on Food Systems of the International The economic justification for fisheries reform,
Resource Panel, United Nations Environment The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Programme. Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC.
UN General Assembly, 2012, 'Fisheries and the right to Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A., Collie,
food'. Note by the Secretary General, 30 October 2012, J. S., Costello, C., Fogarty, M. J., Fulton, E. A., Hutchings,
A/67/268. J. A., Jennings, S., Jensen, O. P., Lotze, H. K., Mace, P.
M., McClanahan, T. R., Minto, C., Palumbi, S. R., Parma,
Van Bavel, R, Herrmann, B., Esposito, G. and A. M., Ricard, D., Rosenberg, A. A., Watson, R. and
Proestakis, A., 2013, 'Applying behavioural sciences Zeller, D., 2009, 'Rebuilding global fisheries', Science,
to EU policy‑making', JRC scientific and policy reports, 325(5940), 578–585.
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
WWF, 2010, Become A Marine Specialist Within
Vanhonacker, F., Pieniak, Z. and Verbke, W., 2013, 10 Minutes, Maritime Spatial Planning in The Baltic Sea,
'European consumer image of farmed fish, wild fish, WWF Germany in the Framework of the BaltSeaPlan
seabass and seabream', Aquaculture International, 21, project, Frankfurt, Germany.
1 017–1 033.
References
WWF, 2016a, Fishery Improvement Projects — WWF behalf of the WWF Baltic Ecoregional Programme,
Seafood Guidelines, Accessed at http://awsassets. Düsseldorf, Germany.
panda.org/downloads/wwf_brochure_fisheries_
improvement_projects_final_19_4_16.pdf. Ytrestøyl, T., Synnøve Aas, A., Åsgård, T., 2015, 'Utilisation
of feed resources in production of Atlantic salmon
WWF, 2016b, How to safeguard the seas with (Salmo salar) in Norway', Aquaculture, 448, 365–374.
ecosystem‑based management, WWF Germany, on
Seafood in Europe
2016 —56 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9213-818-9
doi:10.2800/06589
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps:

from the European Union's representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

doi:10.2800/06589
TH-AL-16-024-EN-N

Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Seafood in Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seafood in Europe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seafood in Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EEA Report No 25/2016

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016

European Environment Agency

Authors and acknowledgements............................................................................................... 4

2 Sustainability in the food system....................................................................................... 12

3 Interactions in the journey of fish to fork......................................................................... 22

4 Transforming Europe's food system.................................................................................. 33

5 Looking ahead — food for thought.................................................................................... 45

Authors and acknowledgements

Lead authors: of Ronan Uhel and Stéphane Isoard, and shorter

The authors would like to thank the colleagues at EEA

Com Sus Lon

Europe Action Programme

2020 (7th EAP) tra Res

economy Safeguard Europe’s

(Roadmap) Water Resources

1.1 Food connects people, the planet

2 Sustainability in the food system

Ireland 22.3 EU-28 average 22.6

Estonia 14.7 Africa 10.9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Source: FAO, 2016.

WORLD FISH UTILIZATION AND SUPPLY

At biologically unsustainable levels Within biologically sustainable levels

Source: FAO, 2016.

Fished sustainably Overfished

Source: Based on STECF, 2016b.

The increased understanding of the complex nature of

Box 2.1 Definition of food security

TRADITIONAL VALUE CHAIN

PRODUCING PROCESSING AND SUPPLY, RETAIL CONSUMING

INTERMEDIATE VALUE CHAIN

PRODUCING PROCESSING AND SUPPLY, RETAIL CONSUMING

MODERN VALUE CHAIN

PRODUCING PROCESSING AND SUPPLY, RETAIL CONSUMING

INPUT INDUSTRY WHOLESALE

Source: EEA based on UNEP, 2016.

Figure 2.8 Conceptualising Europe's food system from a sustainability perspective

3 Interactions in the journey of fish to fork

Photo: © Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF)

24 % Aquaculture protein meals and oils

Terrestrial plant proteins and oils

Other plant meals and fillers

Source: Based on Tacon and Metian, 2015.

Plant ingredients Export

Source: Based on IFFO, 2014 and Ytrestøyl et al., 2015.

INPUT INDUSTRY 47 000

PRODUCING FARMERS AND 11 989 000

FISHERS AND 98 000

PROCESSING AND FOOD AND DRINK 289 000

WHOLESALE AND 208 000

CONSUMING CONSUMERS 505 572 000

Recently the EU has run a Europe-wide information campaign — Inseparable

Figure 3.5 The new EU fish label

4 Transforming Europe's food system

Box 4.1 Defining sustainability transformations

on human decision-making is important because 4.1 Building a shared understanding of

Com Sus Lon