Sustainability Activities in a Hard-to-Abate Industry—A Real-Life Example

Abstract

Marine sources of omega-3, proteins, and other nutrients are in increasing demand, while supply is struggling to meet this demand increase. A key focus for meeting the need for marine ingredients for human and animal nutrition is ensuring sustainable sourcing for both the oceans as well as other production types. Aker BioMarine is harvesting and producing marine ingredients from krill and this communication is intended to showcase how the harvesting and production of such ingredients are performed in a sustainable way. This communication is written to describe the krill fisheries’ management, to provide demonstration cases from CO₂ hot spotting, and show how results from these are used to target GHG emission reduction. The initiatives that are taken to ensure sustainable fishing and production, as well as examples of short- and long-term actions to reduce and minimize the impact of all activities, are provided.

1. Introduction

Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) inhabits the Southern Ocean encircling Antarctica. Once they reach adulthood, krill take on a shrimp-like appearance, measuring up to 6 cm in length, and form sizable gatherings facilitating harvesting [1]. Despite their relatively large size, they consume tiny free-floating nano- and microplankton. This is made possible by their specialized filtering system, featuring a mesh with dimensions of 2–3 µm [2]. Thanks to their diet primarily consisting of algae, krill accumulate abundant nutrients while maintaining low levels of pollutants, owing to their low position on the food chain.

Krill meal (KM), derived from finely ground krill, holds significance in diverse feed applications for pets, or in fish and shrimp aquaculture. Characterized by a protein content of approximately 60%, exhibiting a balanced amino acid profile and a lipid content of, on average, 25%, KM can play a valuable role in animal nutrition. In the context of human consumption, the lipid fraction undergoes extraction to yield krill oil (KO), containing around 40% phospholipids (PLs) [3,4] with the majority of long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n − 3 PUFAs), such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, 20:5n − 3) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 22:6n − 3), residing within the phosphatidylcholine (PC) configuration [5,6]. In contrast, the omega-3 fatty acids of fish oil are incorporated into triglycerides. There is evidence that the differences between the molecular forms of omega-3 fatty acids (triglycerides and ethyl-esters in fish oil, and phospholipids in krill oil) are important. Studies conducted on various species, including dogs [7], piglets [8], baboons [9], mice [10], rats [11], and humans [12], have demonstrated that the phospholipid omega-3 delivery form has the potential to enhance omega-3 tissue integration when compared to triglycerides. Furthermore, the scientific evidence suggests that phospholipids and choline, as found in krill oil, offer numerous health benefits on their own [13,14,15]. Notably, krill also contains a potent antioxidant in the form of astaxanthin [16], which is of relevance to protect the PUFAs from oxidative degradation, while concurrently enhancing the characteristic pink pigmentation in salmon.

From an aquaculture perspective, krill products are further valuable due to their content of bioactive constituents, including cholesterol, minerals, and vitamins [6], as well as water-soluble, low-molecular-weight feed attractants encompassing free amino acids, nucleotides, nucleosides, quaternary ammonium compounds, phospholipids (PLs), biogenic amines, and chitin. These compounds collectively enhance the attractability and palatability of diets [17,18].

Studies have shown that krill oil can support the optimization of cell membranes, improve nutrient levels in the body, and exhibit anti-inflammatory, inflammation-resolving, and antioxidant properties [19,20]. This is especially significant in conditions that impact the heart, liver, brain, and joints, as well as those following intense exercise or as a result of aging, which commonly exhibit decreased levels of the nutrients found in krill oil.

In a world with a rapidly increasing population, seafood and ingredient production from the ocean represents a key part of the solution for a sustainable food system for the future [21,22]. Omega-3 and marine proteins are in increasingly short supply, and supplying these ingredients from sustainably managed fisheries is key. The unique composition of krill products makes the harvesting of krill appealing and addresses the n − 3 PUFA and marine proteins’ shortage in the world, since the availability of marine ingredients derived from capture fisheries is unlikely to increase much beyond its present extraction rate due to the stock capacity and increased management of resources [23,24].

AKBM strongly believes that krill is a piece of the solution for future food and feed, and that the documented affect from krill products underlines the importance of using the right ingredients for the right markets. Among all the multicellular animal species on Earth, Antarctic krill stands out as one of the most abundant, displaying a biomass of between 300 to 500 million metric tons [25]. Krill is a closely and very sustainably managed species with a quota for harvesting set to well below 1% of the estimated biomass. Krill plays an important role in both human and animal nutrition [26,27], and the sustainable and correct use of krill is part of supporting future sustainable food systems.

AKBM owns and operates three fishing vessels that both harvest and process the krill on board to yield krill meal. The fishing vessels remain on the fishing fields during the fishing season, which lasts around 11 months, and during that period, AKBM’s transportation vessel goes to and from the fishing fields to collect meal produced on board the vessel, as well as to provide the fishing vessels with needed supplies. The meal is offloaded and stored in the logistics hub in Montevideo, Uruguay, before it is either shipped directly to customers around the world, or to AKBM’s factory in Houston, Texas, USA. In Houston, omega-3- and phospholipid-rich krill oil is extracted (KO). The division between meal shipped directly to customers and to lipid extraction depends on the biological seasonal variations of the krill fisheries, but in general, about 10% of the produced meal is used for omega-3 oil extraction, while the rest is shipped directly to customers. The majority of KM customers are in the aquaculture and pet industry. Figure 1 illustrates the process and various products produced on the boats and up to oil extraction. The further processing, established as described below, is not included in this illustration as it is still being established.

Upon extracting the KO from the KM, a residual protein-rich meal remains. This meal is either shipped to customers directly for use in aquaculture or to a newly established factory in Ski in Norway. The factory in Ski is established in order to maximize the value of the protein-rich meal, which is a side stream of the oil extraction. The side stream retains the food grade classification. A process to produce a nutritious protein product for human consumption has been established. Utilizing this protein fraction directly to human consumption without taking it via a feed fits well into the sustainable utilization of biomass by employing the food first principle [28]. The factory is in the process of establishing production, thus sustainability data for the production are being collected and will be added to the AKBM reporting when the data are available. The factory is built with specific focus on energy efficiency and resource optimization with low water usage. The factory also has focused on total biomass utilization, thus any waste fraction from the protein production will be utilized, either in feed, as a fermentation substrate, as a bio-stimulant or other. The results from these efforts will be communicated as they are mapped [29].

Aker BioMarine (AKBM) stands for 65–70% of the global catch of krill [30], thus the efforts made by AKBM are important to ensure that the harvesting and utilization of krill is conducted in a sustainable manner [29]. This communication is composed in order to showcase how the company is working to improve sustainability in harvest and production as well as in conducting business. As a company, AKBM is committed to ensuring that resources from the ocean are used in a sustainable way and for the optimal purpose. The significance of improved harvesting methods, product quality, and ecosystem conservation is discussed, emphasizing advanced monitoring, data incorporation, and technological innovations. In addition, CO₂ hotspot mapping and how to use data to steer the reduction of the environmental footprint is discussed. Sustainable production and business operations also include many social and economic aspects which will be touched upon at the end of this communication, together with the resource utilization and circularity of the materials used. In this communication, activities to certify the fisheries’ activities, as well as the process for accounting for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, are described. A selection of the activities conducted for reducing the energy consumption of fisheries and during on-board production is described in detail to showcase how the work can be conducted. The activities described will not be a fully exhaustive description of all activities conducted in order be as energy effective as possible, but rather representative examples of how innovation and development has guided the improved and more sustainable fisheries and production.

2. Certifications and Documentation of Sustainable Fisheries’ Activities

A key focus for AKBM is to make sure that fishing activities do not impact the Antarctic ecosystem. Therefore, the independent certifications of AKBM activities from external certification bodies are ensured. MSC is the only global wild-capture certification program that meets the best practice requirements set by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI), and ISEAL. AKBM has been MSC-certified since 2010 and part of Friends of the Sea since 2016. MSC certification is carried out every fifth year, where the fishing operations are measured against MSC’s Fishery Standard requirements and verified by an independent third-party reviewer, a Conformity Assessment Body (CAB). A surveillance audit is undertaken every year. Aker BioMarine is certified according to the fisheries standard and the chain of custody standard [31]. Friends of the Sea (FoS) has developed an additional sustainability standard for wild-caught fisheries, which was last updated in 2023. FoS, like MSC, requires the certification process to be conducted through an independent certification body [32]. The external certification structure is important as it provides an external evaluation of AKBM activities and allows the benchmarking of activities towards other fisheries.

Performing activities in the Antarctic comes with the responsibility of stringent control and constant adherence to current regulations, standards, and scientific findings. The Antarctic fishery, and under that, the krill fishery, is governed by CCAMLR, the commission for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. CCAMLR has been active since 1980 and is the institution that holds the most knowledge about the Antarctic ecosystem. The scientific committee evaluates the status and management of the fisheries on an annual basis. The evaluation is based on up-to-date scientific evaluations as well as data collected during real time or semi-real time monitoring of all fisheries conducted during the fishing season. Catch limits in each fishery are agreed using decision rules that ensure the long-term sustainability of the fishery. These limits and the other operational aspects defined in the conservation measures determine when, where, and how fisheries are conducted in order to manage the potential impacts on the ecosystem. These regulations are usually specific to a fishing season, and currently apply to toothfish, icefish, and krill fisheries. Other fisheries have operated at various times in the past and are no longer active.

Antarctic krill is harvested in the area around the Antarctic Peninsula, called Area 48. The fishery is precautionary and closely regulated by conservation measures (CM). These measures are CM 51-01 and CM 51-07 [33,34]. The total biomass in the Antarctic is estimated to be around 300 to 500 million tons [25]. Krill reproduces at an exceptionally high rate. The krill biomass was surveyed by CCAMLR in 2019 and estimated to be about 63 million metric tons. The regulated catch is capped at 620,000 MT which is less than 1% of what the estimated total biomass is believed to be in Area 48. Under this quota system, the biomass has been stable in its density and distribution across the estimates at 60.3 million tons in 2000 and 62.6 million tons in 2019, as reported by CCAMLR [26,35]. The conservative catch limits and the observed trends in biomass management contribute to the well-regulated and underutilized nature of krill stocks. Another study, using ten years of fresh acoustic biomass monitoring data, also confirms the consistently high densities of krill on smaller scales. This study presents a 10-year time-series on smaller scales (South Orkney) that confirms that the annual krill catches are kept well below the upper precautionary level for the area [27]. The last 15 years have been marked by more regular big-scale krill surveys in Antarctica which have not detected any systematic change in the krill population. As such, the conclusion by Krafft et al. [35], who organized the last big-scale CCAMLR krill survey, is that “active acoustic techniques from larger vessels currently remain the only practical krill surveying option that can synoptically sample at the scales considered here during most sea-states”. As an alternative to larger vessels, unmanned vehicles are now also emerging as a viable option for survey and biomass mapping [36]. A more recent time-series published in 2023 has confirmed the significant concentration of krill and a fishery operating well below the upper precautionary limit [27]. A recent study confirms whales’ return to ancestral feeding grounds in the Antarctic Peninsula. High densities and the re-establishment of historical behaviors indicate a recovering population [37].

The krill fishery has very low bycatch rates. A study published in Fisheries Management and Ecology [26] concludes that the bycatch in the Antarctic krill fishery (range is 0.1–2.2%) is lower than other trawl fisheries globally (range 10–55%). AKBM employs Eco-Harvesting technology, a technology that was developed and patented by the company. The technology ensures that by-catching is avoided through exclusion devices, as well as gentle harvesting through slow-speed mid-water trawling with a modern pump technology that conserves both the biomass we harvest and the ecosystem around.

The monitoring of the fisheries is performed using information reported to the Secretariat in real-time and other short intervals during the fishing season. AKBM is the only krill operator that has internationally independent observers deployed on board vessels during 100% of the fishery operations who report directly to CCAMLR. This is an important step to ensure the transparency of operations. The status and management of the fisheries is reviewed annually by the Scientific Committee and its specialist working groups use the best available science and information, including detailed data from the fisheries and fishery surveys, and the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO). Member countries maintain complementary management strategies in areas under their jurisdiction in the Convention Area, including waters adjacent to the Prince Edward and Marion Islands (South Africa), and Crozet and Kerguelen Islands (France).

In addition to the compulsory monitoring and reporting, transparency and adherence to the scientific work and measures in the Antarctic are key commitments for AKBM. AKBM facilitates science through providing scientists with time on vessels to perform research, and we share data from all our fisheries. AKBM also contributes annually to the Antarctic wildlife research fund (AWR) [38], which facilitates and promotes research on the Antarctic ecosystem to promote a healthy and resilient ecosystem.

Industrial fishing companies have come together to form ARK—the association of responsible krill harvesting companies—where the primary goal is to develop practices that ensures the long-term sustainability of both the krill fisheries as well as the ecosystem in the Antarctic. This has, for example, resulted in voluntary measures with the seasonal closure of areas to protect penguin breeding grounds [39].

3. Accounting, Reporting, and Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Industrial Activities

One key focus of this communication is the demonstration on how to reduce emissions from fisheries and production activities in AKBM. In order to start reduction efforts, an important first step is to establish CO₂ accounting and standardized reporting that enables AKBM to know which activities have the most impact on our emissions, as well as communicate our impact factors and reduction efforts in a way that is easily understood by our stakeholders. GHG emissions in the AKBM value chain are measured using the standards and guidance stated in The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, where scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions are mapped and converted to CO₂ equivalents using calculated conversion factors or available conversion factors [40]. The conversion factors used in GHG accounting were either calculated specifically for our vessels and operations or obtained from suppliers. AKBM-specific conversion factors were calculated by DNV, Det Norske Veritas, an accredited certification organization. GHG accounting is audited annually by a certified accounting body [40,41]. To structure direct efforts towards GHG reduction, a value chain approach was adopted. By employing the GHG protocol, AKBM has been able to hot-spot the value chain and identify where in the value chain activities have the highest impact in terms of GHG emission. These activities can then be targeted specifically for the reduction of CO₂ emissions. Figure 2 is a representative example of how GHG emissions are distributed along the value chain. The figure shows that the majority of emissions are related to the fisheries’ operations. The harvest and production label represents the activities conducted by the active three fishing vessels, while the transportation to/from the fishing field represents the GHG emissions from the transportation vessel that transports products produced on-board to the logistics hub.

Most fisheries today are dependent on fossil fuels for their operations [42] which makes fisheries and on-board production activities something that is considered hard to abate. Decarbonizing the fishing industry has been identified as a bottleneck in many reports and studies [42,43]. The implementation of the use of alternative fuel sources is a challenge in fisheries, especially in long-distance fisheries. There are many different reasons for this, including access to the fuels and infrastructure, the retrofitting and safety of new fuels, regulations, and the energy density of the alternatives [36,42,43]. Alternative fuels will be needed in the future in order to reduce GHG emissions to very low levels; however, in the meantime, digital tools, life cycle analysis, and process analysis, combined with process optimization are valuable tools to reduce GHG emissions [36,42,43], and are being employed in AKBMs’ operations. The reduction in the energy consumption per unit of product produced is essential to reduce the reliance on any fuel and improve fishing and production operations. In AKBM’s annual report, the total GHG emission for all operations is reported together with the GHG emission per meal produced on board [29]. Improvement efforts during fishing and production are based on the analysis of fuel consumption during vessel operations, as can be seen in Figure 3. The figure illustrates that the activity that requires the most fuel, and thus is the most GHG-intensive in the value chain, is when the vessels are actively fishing and producing meal on-board. During fishing and production activities, the split between fuel usage for propulsion and the running factory is estimated to be about a four-to-six ratio. This is based on measurements from the factory and overall fuel usage. By implementing improvements to the on-board production, the energy requirements per unit of product can be improved. This will thereby reduce the GHG intensity of production. Similarly, by optimizing fishing operations, energy consumption connected with the searching and catch of krill (propulsion) can be reduced. This will reduce the searching for krill and steaming portion of Figure 3, and similarly to the factory and processing improvement, reduce the GHG intensity of production. Below, the activities and estimated effect of the improvements with respect to energy consumption during fishing and on-board production are described as demonstration cases.

4. On-Board Factory Improvements to Reduce GHG Emissions

Meal production in the factory on board has a significant impact on the total emissions, as seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3. A project was initiated to investigate whether optimizing the way the factories are operated can reduce the fuel usage. All three AKBM fishing vessels have meal processing on board. Each vessel has three lines of production, except for the smallest vessel which has two lines. The production lines on the different vessels are considered similar enough for the validation of process optimization on one of the vessels to be used as a demonstration case.

5. Demonstration Case 1—Investigating Factory Line Speed Effect on Energy Efficiency

In the first demonstration case, a project was initiated to evaluate whether the factory line speed could be optimized to reduce GHG emissions. The fuel efficiency in the factory was investigated in order to evaluate the effect of the speed and usage of factory lines in the on-board factory. The fuel efficiency was compared based on the total fuel consumption per produced unit of meal when one, two, or three factory lines were run in parallel. In this case, data from the vessel Antarctic Endurance were used. This vessel has installed several sensors on various infrastructure in the production line which allows for more accurate calculations of the effects of modifications to the way the factory operates. Factories are operated based on the mass of krill fished and the quality assurance requirements, including the temperature and holding time. Unlike shore-based factories, the feeding into the factory varies with harvesting rates and the amount of krill and the holding time in the tanks. Thus, the factory must be able to operate as efficiently as possible at various feed rates.

In production, raw krill enters the factory where it is weighed and then routed into one of three holding tanks, representing the start of the factory line. The factory used has three lines, these are called A, B, and C in this demonstration case. The speeds of the factory lines are between 40 and 100 Hz, which amounts to between 10 and 20 tons of krill per hour. The speed of each line is described as the speed of the lamellar pumps pumping the krill to the pre-heating stage, where the biomass is pre-heated to about 55 °C before it is moved to the steam cooker to reach and hold 95 °C according to preset quality assurance parameters. The preheater uses indirect heating (hot water) while the steam cooker uses direct heating with steam injections. After steam cooking, the krill is decanted using a decanter to separate the liquids, containing mainly water and some lipids, from the solid mass. The solids are further dried using a disc or vacuum dryer to a dryness of about 8%. From the liquids, the lipids can be separated from the water phase. These lipids are rich in triglycerides and astaxanthin and can be collected separately or reintroduced in the krill meal. The water phase, often called stick water, can either be discarded, or in the case of this vessel, routed to an evaporator to isolate the proteinaceous biomass in the stick water. The evaporation can either be reintroduced into the meal or collected separately. The reintroduction of stick water into the meal is a separate initiative to reduce fuel consumption per unit of meal produced, as described below. Dried meal is then packed in either 500 kg or 25 kg bags based on customer specifications. The preheating, cooking, and drying steps are the most energy-consuming steps. The decanter uses little energy in comparison; however, overloading the decanter can lead to a loss of separation efficiency, and thus will impact the yield of the production.

The total factory speed was calculated by adding the speed of each line A, B, and C together. In the comparisons, one line running at 80 Hz is the same factory speed as two lines running at 40 Hz. Similarly, three lines running at 50 Hz is the same factory speed as one line running at 70 Hz and one other running at 80 Hz. In these calculations, Hz is used as a measure for speed. All three pumps in the demonstration factory are the same size with a similar performance. The data used in the calculations were flow scale data into the factory (Kg/min), the speed of the lamellar pumps into each factory line (Hz), the fuel consumption from fuel flow meters (L/h), the decanter differential bowl speed (rpm), the disc dryer motor amp (A), the steam consumption for each dryer (Kg/h), and the steam consumption for each steam cooker (Kg/h). The data were also verified against other available production data sources including packaging and QA/QC data. Due to the different granularities of the data and some shifts in responses, some data were sliced and shifted, but these modifications were verified using logged production and sales data.

In the analyses, only the speed and number of lines operated were investigated, and the temperature set points for various infrastructure were not a part of the scope. Production within a three-hour period was compared. The fuel consumption in the factory was evaluated based on both feed-in and product-out of the factory in order to make comparable data. This was denoted fuel per meal efficiency and measured in liters of fuel per Kg of product produced. The energy metrics were evaluated at different factory speeds for various line configurations. Due to possible minor differences, the number and combination of lines were considered. For a factory with three parallel production lines, there are seven unique combinations which were denoted A, B, C, AB, AC, BC, and ABC.

The analysis shows that the energy efficiency, as measured in the fuel per product, improves when the factory line speed is reduced and, conversely, that the energy efficiency decreases with the increasing factory line speed. The same trend is shown when two factory lines are run slowly compared to one line running fast, and three factory lines running slowly compared to two running fast. This is illustrated in Figure 4, where the fuel consumption per unit of meal produced versus the speed and number of factory lines is shown. This analysis results in a new tool for monitoring the factory line speed with the resulting fuel per meal production unit so that the factory workers can monitor the operations and adjust the line speed to optimize fuel usage. As the tool has been recently developed, the impact of optimizing just the line speed needs further analysis, but preliminary estimates indicate that just line speed optimization can result in about a 1% reduction in fuel usage in total. This is a rough estimate based on several factors, including the total fuel consumption in the factory and historical catch and production data showing the amount of production time line adjustments which are possible. In the maximal effect, the fuel consumption per Kg meal produced can be improved by almost 70% according to Figure 4, from the least energy efficient production speed to the most energy efficient production speed. Based on Figure 2 and Figure 3, factory processing accounts for almost 50% of the total AKBM fuel consumption. However, it needs to be taken into account that line speed setting is dependent on how much krill is being fished, and thus it is not always possible to run the lines at a low speed, and the average fuel consumption per unit produced is an average of what is seen in Figure 4.

As the tool is further implemented, the impact can be estimated more accurately, and the effects of other factory optimizations can be evaluated and implemented. While the impact is not large for the line speed alone, there is a possibility that other improvement efforts can yield additional GHG savings. The implementation of these types of efforts are especially important as they are ways of reducing GHG emissions without capex, and they save on costs as they reduce the energy usage; thus they are truly valuable tools for many factories.

6. Demonstration Case 2—Increasing Yield to Increase Energy Efficiency of Production

Producing more product without increasing the energy consumption is an efficient improvement step. In order to increase the yield during meal production, stick water from the decanter was concentrated using a stick water evaporator. Heat used in the evaporator was waste heat generated in the factory during meal drying, thus minimizing the energy consumption during stick water inclusion into the meal. To evaluate the effectiveness of stick water inclusion, production yield was calculated. The yield was calculated as a % of the meal produced based on the mass of the raw krill fed into the factory. The total fuel consumption per meal produced compared to the production without stick water was then used as a measure of the GHG improvement during production. The catch and production data have been analyzed to determine if including stick water in the produced meal improves the GHG emission per unit of produced meal and to compare the fuel usage and production yield when stick water was not included in the meal in the same factory. Stick water inclusion in meal production is still being developed and the effect of the process is being investigated. Therefore, further monitoring and analysis is needed to determine the long-term effect. The early analysis indicates that the yield can be increased by as much as 2% with the same input energy. The effect of a 2% yield increase on one vessel amounts to about 1.4% of the total GHG emissions in AKBM, based on the division of fuel usage in the value chain, as illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

7. Demonstration Case 3—Heat Recovery in Factories for Reduction of Energy Usage

During production, one of the steps is preheating the krill before steam cooking, as described above. In one vessel, an energy-saving measurement was implemented and evaluated by using waste heat in the factory to pre-heat the krill before cooking. In this process, waste heat from the steam cooking was routed to the pre-heater, replacing the need for boiler steam to pre-heat krill before cooking as described above, and thus reducing the energy needed for generating heat for the pre-heating step. The fuel consumption per produced meal was then calculated and the fuel used before and after routing waste heat to the pre-heating stage was compared and evaluated. The calculations were carried out in the same way for the factory optimization and the stick water inclusion, as demonstrated in cases 1 and 2, where the fuel usage per unit of meal produced was the measure. Demonstration case 3 was performed on a different vessel than the vessel investigating factory optimization and stick water inclusion. The results are estimated to a reduction of about 7% in the factory energy usage for running the factory during krill meal production. The fraction of energy usage in the factory with respect to the total fishing and production contribution of the energy to the factory depends on several input factors including the catch rates and factory speed, but a yearly average is illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3. From this figure it can be deducted that a 7% energy usage reduction in all factories can represent up to 4% of the total fuel consumption for the vessels, and just under 3% of the total emissions from the value chain. This is based on the calculations that harvesting and production represent just under 70% of the total AKBM GHG emissions. While this setup and these measurements of effects are still under development, the extensive use of waste heat and factory improvements and optimization will result in a significant reduction in the total GHG emissions.

8. Optimizing Searching for Krill in Order to Reduce Fuel Consumption in Fisheries through Development of a Digital Tool

In order to reduce fuel consumption by optimizing the search for krill, a digital tool was developed in AKBM. The tool enables captains to use data-driven predictions to improve the harvesting efficiency. An improved efficiency in the fisheries results in reduced fuel usage per harvested unit of krill. The model is based on 10+ years of harvesting history combined with open sources’ indirect data. The machine learning model predicts the likelihood of finding harvestable krill resources at different locations of the fishing grounds at any given time. Based on the predictions of the model, the captains can move the fishing vessels to a location with a high probability of having harvestable krill resources. During fishing, it is a likely scenario that krill is highly abundant in the area where krill is actively fished, but the area is geographically very large and the stocks are spread out over a large area. Fishing is performed where the krill are in schools, and due to the size of the fishing grounds as well as the unpredictable behavior of the schools, it is very difficult to predict the exact location of any given school. This can result in large variations in catch volumes. The fishing vessels are optimized to harvest and produce krill meal, and thus using the vessels to search for krill does not result in the optimal usage of the vessels. The fuel usage dedicated to the activity of searching for krill is not straight forward to calculate, but it is estimated that searching for krill alone stands for just under 3% of the fuel usage for the fishing and production part of AKBM activities. Some of the fuel usage attributed to steaming and the category called other can also be involved in the searching processes as these are hard to separate (see Figure 3).

An application was thus designed and given the name “Krillviz” to minimize the search carried out by fishing vessels, and to provide better decisions during searching and fishing operations. The application combines a predictive model with unmanned energy-efficient drones equipped with echosounder and fish-finder tools. The model predicts the best location to fish and the drone is deployed to confirm that the location is good enough to move the big vessel to harvest in the predicted location.

The application and technology are still under implementation and test evaluation, but the data used are both direct and indirect data. Direct observations are data from echosounders located on the harvesting vessels, transport vessels, and unmanned vehicles. The echosounders used are Kongsberg Simrad DS 80 Sounders using 38, 70, and 120 Hz frequencies. The data are synced in near-real-time amongst the fleet and allow captains to obtain a better overview of the whereabouts of krill schools at any given time. Indirect observation data are historical catch data reported to CCAMLR from all active fishing vessels. In addition to these satellite data, weather and ocean models and research data are used. In building the model, data from all input have been combined and processed and a predictive model provides a local biomass estimate on a small scale where the fishing vessels are active. Fishing data are aggregated to daily data and catches from one day are combined with echosounder data and used to train the predictive model. In addition to the catch data, sea ice data [44] and models developed to predict copepod movement are combined in the predictive model. The exact predictive model used in the in-house predictive model is proprietary, but representative principles of modeling are given by Slagstad et al. [45].

The application together with the unmanned vehicle was tested early in 2024, and it has been demonstrated that information from the application enabled the boats to significantly improve their efficiency. In the first use case, autonomous vehicles were deployed from vessels that were actively fishing, and by combining the data, the application was able to predict that a repositioning of only 10–20 km would improve harvesting. Upon repositioning, it was determined that the harvesting efficiency went up to towards 100%. In addition, to reduce the GHG footprint of the fishing and production, using the application can also be of use for the management of the fisheries.

The prediction and monitoring of the krill biomass is not only of value for making the fishery more energy efficient; the data from the model can also be used in biomass estimations, scientific research for monitoring and following the krill biomass, as well as providing more data for quota setting. AKBM shares data from the application to further scientific research and ensure the best management of the fisheries.

9. On-Shore-Production Plant Improvements for Reduction of GHG Emissions

Part of onshore production activities in AKBM include oil extraction in a dedicated factory situated in Houston, TX, USA. To reduce the GHG emissions of this extraction factory, a number of activities are being initiated in the plant. The plant’s energy usage and CO₂ equivalent emissions are monitored using the GHG protocol [40]. An in-house data collection and analysis application has been developed in order to optimize the various steps involved in oil extraction. The aim is to reduce the input factors including electricity, water, and chemicals, while maximizing the output of the extracted oil. While the full description of the factory and developing on-going measures is not included in this communication, the principles of using an energy audit on a factory scale is well described in a case study from the food industry presented by Almomani et al. [46]. As seen from Figure 3, about 7.7% of the GHG emissions from AKBM activities are a result of processes to extract oil. The extraction process involves several steps, and in a similar way to the factory optimization described for the on-board process, the optimization of each stem can result in a more energy-efficient process. The GHG emissions from the factory are attributed to electricity usage and natural gas usage. The most applicable approaches for AKBM include switching, where possible, the energy usage from gas to electricity, as well as sourcing green electricity from the grid which is more readily available than green gas. Process efficiency is a key tool to improve the footprint of production. In the last year, due to several ongoing projects, periodic factory shut down has been conducted. These variations in factory running have complicated the quantification of the effects on emissions of ongoing improvement projects. More accurate reporting will be available upon continuous production over time.

An important tool to reduce the impact of factory operations is that the input factors are gas and electricity, which allows for low-emitting alternatives. These alternatives include green certificates for electricity and gas. Electricity can be produced using technologies like solar and wind, which results in a clean energy source. Purchasing green electricity and gas will allow us to reduce the GHG emissions by up to 7.7% of the total GHG impact of the value chain. Low emission energy production is a technological field in fast development, and it is fair to assume that low or no GHG-emitting electricity will be readily available in the future. As the efficiency efforts continue in the factory, the % impact from the unit on the entire value chain will likely be reduced, and the aim is to eliminate the GHG impact from Houston production by the end of 2029.

10. Industry Collaboration and Business Innovation for Scope 3 Reduction

Reductions in scope 3 emissions are activities that are performed in collaboration with our suppliers. The transport of goods and packaging is the largest contributor to scope 3 emissions in AKBM. Scope 3 reduction is reliant on collaboration and progress in the shipping industry. Challenges, opportunities, and regulatory and industry activities for the decarbonization of the shipping industry are described at length in the recent literature [47,48,49]. A number of different actions are taken for scope 3 reduction emissions, including optimizing freight routes and working with our suppliers to introduce green fuel on their shipping routes. AKBM has also been committed to an initiative named The First Movers Coalition, where over 90 large industry players have committed to use their combined purchasing power to drive green technology, including green shipping, forward [50]. The transportation of goods in AKBM is mostly conducted by sea, and while sea transport is today a GHG heavy industry, there are significant efforts being put in place to decarbonize the industry, including policies, MGO initiatives, green corridors, technical developments, and market initiatives [51,52,53]. Many of the shipping companies have also set their own targets, and while the solutions are not in place today, it is expected that significant improvements in the GHG from global shipping can be realized within the next decade [51,52,53]. Shipping currently accounts for approximately 9.6% of the total value chain emissions, thus a potential reduction of about 9% total value chain reduction is achievable through the de-carbonization of the shipping industry; however, the timing of the realization is yet to be determined.

The second largest scope 3 emission in AKBM is packaging. To reduce the footprint of the packaging materials, AKBM has been and continues to switch to materials for packaging that are less GHG intensive when being produced, as well as better suited for recycling such that reuse into new materials can be facilitated. The main type of packaging used is big bags for meal production on board as well as steel drums for oil production. Plastic products that are used in fishing and aquaculture have been identified as high-quality with respect to recycling and thus are suitable raw materials in other production processes, including furniture, construction, and others [54]. The recycling and reuse of plastic is a separate industry and thus not a core business for AKBM [55]. Plastic waste from the fishing trawls as well as used krill meal packaging bags are handled by AION, a spin-off company of AKBM since 2020. This company has established circularity as a service for several different industries, transforming used plastics into new products including trays for cafeterias, shopping baskets for grocery stores, and pallets for transportation to replace wooden once, to name a few of the products created from used plastic products [56]. All products from AION represent GHG savings compared to conventional products. These savings are reported by AION.

11. LCA and EPD Analysis and Usage for Reporting, Benchmarking, and Improvement

An LCA analysis was conducted on the krill meal produced on-board which landed in Montevideo. The life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis was conducted according to the following Product Category Rules (PCR): preparation used in animal feeding for food-producing animals, PCR 2016:03, V.2.0, UN CPC 233. 2021-09-10. The PCR review was conducted by The Technical Committee of the International EPDR System. The LCA was conducted and given accountability by Riga Technical University, Institute of Energy Systems and Environment, Riga, Latvia. The independent third-party verification of the declaration and data was carried out according to ISO 14025:2006 and approved by The International EPDR System. The full EPD report is available at www.environdec.com (accessed on 9 June 2023) or by request from Aker BioMarine. In addition to the EPD according to the abovementioned PCR, an economic and mass allocation was performed by the LCA responsible.

The EPD format was chosen as it is used globally and well established, and there is an available PCR that can be used for ingredients for feed from marine-harvested processed products. Many feed producers are increasingly also adhering to the European version of environmental product declarations, named the PEF, or the Product Environmental Footprint. Product category rules for PEF declarations are named PEFCRs, and a suitable PEFCR is currently not available for the type of ingredient that AKBM produces, but as this becomes available, AKBM is aiming to develop this type of documentation as well. The two types of environmental documentation, EPD and PEF, are not directly comparable, and discrepancies are found with respect to the allocation and cut-off rules, as well as the modeling approach. The impact categories also differ to some degree [57]. Thus, a direct one-to-one comparison with a PEF declaration is not possible, but both allow for an evaluation of many levels of impact as well as the general trending of the product over time. Figure 5, demonstrates the system boundaries and the life cycle stages in the EPD in order to evaluate the environmental impact categories, and shows the upstream, core, and downstream processes included. It can be seen that the impact has been calculated for meal delivered to the AKBM logistics hub in Montevideo, Uruguay. The reason the impact was determined here was that KM customers are located at different locations globally, and thus an impact category for delivered meal would have to be calculated for each location. Therefore, AKBM communicates to customers the cut-off for the environmental impact, and thus the customer can add the impact for shipping into their calculations if required. Figure 6 and

Table 1. Results from EPD LCA analysis performed for the EPD documentation.

Impact Category	Unit	Upstream Process	Core Process	Down-Stream Process	Total
Climate change	kg CO2 eq	2.167804798	0.000963664	0.33325149	2.50
Ozone depletion	kg CFC11 eq	4.70743 × 10−7	1.11436 × 10−10	6.81531 × 10−8	0.00
Ionizing radiation	kBq U-235 eq	0.134154272	3.49934× 10−5	0.019095853	0.15
Photochemical ozone formation	kg NMVOC eq	0.049017605	8.38491 × 10−6	0.006185716	0.06
Particulate matter	disease inc.	5.61536 × 10−7	5.83287 × 10−11	9.31648 × 10−9	0.00
Human toxicity, non-cancer	CTUh	1.1664 × 10−8	8.39881 × 10−12	2.8711 × 10−9	0.00
Human toxicity, cancer	CTUh	1.5362 × 10−9	8.9062 × 10−13	2.11849 × 10−10	0.00
Acidification	mol H+ eq	0.074575478	1.27365 × 10−15	0.007954411	0.08
Eutrophication, freshwater	kg P eq	4.78856 × 10−5	7.12363 × 10−8	1.53321 × 10−5	0.00
Eutrophication, marine	kg N eq	0.018014463	3.10007 × 10−6	0.00231181	0.02
Eutrophication, terrestrial	mol N eq	0.197199905	3.43268 × 10−5	0.025481248	0.22
Ecotoxicity, freshwater	CTUe	16.76788855	0.013391508	3.248236109	20.03
Land use	Pt	3.938592129	0.034794937	0.600144136	4.57
Water use	m3 depriv.	0.049251675	5.58782 × 10−5	0.002584578	0.05
Resource use, fossils	MJ	30.10881641	0.007909807	4.025804073	34.14
Resource use, minerals and metals	kg Sb eq	2.68935 × 10−6	1.11956 × 10−8	1.43815 × 10−6	0.00
Climate change—Fossil	kg CO2 eq	2.166509948	0.000701092	0.332312631	2.50
Climate change—Biogenic	kg CO2 eq	0.001047109	0.000262178	0.000771701	0.00
Climate change—Land use and LU change	kg CO2 eq	0.000247732	3.93806 × 10−7	0.00016715	0.00
Human toxicity, non-cancer—organics	CTUh	2.00818 × 10−10	3.48608 × 10−13	4.63541 × 10−11	0.00
Human toxicity, non-cancer—inorganics	CTUh	5.99729× 10−9	2.01547 × 10−12	1.60061 × 10−9	0.00
Human toxicity, non-cancer—metals	CTUh	5.51445 × 10−9	6.05727 × 10−12	1.23175 × 10−9	0.00
Human toxicity, cancer—organics	CTUh	1.08864 × 10−9	1.9825 × 10−13	4.91373 × 10−11	0.00
Human toxicity, cancer—inorganics	CTUh	0	0	0	0.00
Human toxicity, cancer—metals	CTUh	4.47564 × 10−10	6.9237 × 10−13	1.62711 × 10−10	0.00
Ecotoxicity, freshwater—organics	CTUe	1.850321125	0.00048013	0.280209497	2.13
Ecotoxicity, freshwater—inorganics	CTUe	4.919523892	0.001475054	0.799102561	5.72
Ecotoxicity, freshwater—metals	CTUe	1.00 × 101	1.14 × 10−2	2.17 × 100	12.18

show the LCA results for the different environmental performance indicators in the EPD preparation. The LCA was performed using 2022 data. A simple estimation of the same model for 2020 data indicated a total reduction in 36% of all impact categories, and an 18% reduction in GHG emissions for these two years. The results provide a trend to AKBM that can be used to continue efforts that have proven to be positive for GHG reductions.

12. Discussions

This communication describes a representative collection of activities AKBM has started and continues to conduct to ensure that the company’s sustainability profile and efforts are aligned with a sustainable future. Not all measures and possibilities towards improving the footprint of krill fisheries and production are included, rather a collection of initiatives towards different areas. An important goal is ensuring that the fishing activities that AKBM and the industry as a whole are conducting are safe and sustainable. In addition, AKBM is focused on reducing the environmental impact, improving the societal impact and adhering to regulatory and market expectations in terms of governance, reporting, and communication. The impact of the described sustainability efforts in this communication describes the current situation, and improvements and innovations are continuously being made and implemented to drive forward the improvement efforts, thus this communication is a snapshot of current activities in the company. Some efforts will not result in concrete measurable effects with respect to reduced emissions or a specific impact. However, trends in the right direction can be measured, and continued data will enable a more precise measure of impacts in the future.

Much focus in this communication has been kept on activities that target biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in our fisheries, as well as activities that reduce the GHG footprint of AKBM operations. Environmental impact monitoring and improvement is just one leg of conducting sustainable operations and ensuring that the products produced are of value to society and justify the fisheries and production operations.

Krill products are important in both human and animal nutrition. Starting with aquaculture, krill products are sustainably sourced essential marine ingredients that are and will increasingly be scarce in the future. Both proteinaceous and omega-3 ingredients will be in need. Marine ingredients contain important marine proteins and omega-3 that aquaculture feeds need. However, many marine-harvested species come from fish stocks that are fished beyond the stock capacity, and the availability of wild-caught marine ingredients is not likely to increase in the future [23,24]. Providing an ingredient from a marine-harvested species that is harvested from very well managed and conservative fisheries is important to enable growth in the industry.

Another important part of delivering a sustainable ingredient to aquaculture is providing an ingredient that improves the performance of the farm. Many trials have demonstrated that adding a relatively small amount of krill to the feed leads to an increased appetite, growth and feed utilization, improved health and robustness, as well as to a better quality product with a better yield. This supports the better feed utilization and reduces the impact of health treatments in the farm; in addition, it supports the better use of the products produced. All of these benefits support sustainable farming.

As aquaculture is growing, it is essential that the aquaculture industry can use feed ingredients that support the health and well-being of the farmed animals as well as allow for the increased use of novel and alternative ingredients to support the increased feed need. Many novel ingredients have shown challenges with palatability and digestibility. Krill inclusion in the feed can alleviate this, and AKBM firmly believes that krill is an important puzzle in the introduction of novel ingredients [58,59,60].

Krill also is a source of omega-3 that is high in phospholipids, which are essential for not only animal, but also human health. A number of studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of omega-3 from krill in humans and pets in addition to the effects seen in aquaculture. Utilizing omega-3 in preventive health for humans and pets is an essential step to reducing the impact of health treatments and reduced public health issues [61,62,63]. In addition, marine omega-3 is a superior ingredient, and like omega-3 to aquaculture, many fisheries suffer from over fishing and stock reductions, thus sourcing sustainably is essential to provide enough omega-3 to the market.

Transparency and reporting have become and will become even more important going forward. Being transparent with reporting and sharing successes and challenges within and between industries is a driving force towards more sustainable operations. AKBM reports on activities in the annual report to track and demonstrate progress over time. Reporting according to established frameworks allows for the comparison and benchmarking of activities of different industry players. In addition to environmental reporting, financial reporting including taxonomy scoring, as implemented in the EU [64,65], and reporting on socially responsible activities is essential [29]. Recently, to allow for a better comparison between sectors, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) has been established to harmonize reporting across industries [66]. AKBM is constantly developing their reporting structure to adhere to current reporting requirements. The thorough and comprehensive periodical revision of all ESG ambitions, actions, and the following transition plans is also performed. These efforts are reported in the annual report [29].

13. Conclusions

This communication aims at providing a representative and descriptive overview of sustainability efforts in the value chain of a hard-to-abate fishing industry. The emphasis has been made on how fisheries and production has been investigated, managed, modified, and reported to reduce the impact of activities, while providing an important marine ingredient for the future. Management and reporting systems have been described and examples of concrete activities and modification in AKBM operations to reduce GHG emissions have been given. This communication provides discussions around building a transition plan for sustainable operations in the future based on the results of innovation. The landscape of technology is rapidly changing and AKBM keeps an updated, adaptable, and dynamic approach to utilizing and developing a data-driven technology landscape to improve the operations and reduce the impacts. There is still a considerable effort to be undertaken to reach the needed level of impact in the future; however, many successful initiatives have proven that it will be possible to operate sustainably going forward.