Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI): The First Global Environmental Assessment of Marine Fish Farming
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Section
2.1. Which Metrics Should Be Included and How to Measure Each?
Criteria | Criteria Description | Criteria Equation |
---|---|---|
Antibiotic | Amount of antibiotics used, weighted by a measure of human and animal health risk. | Σ (Amount Active Ingredient (kg) × WHO-OIE Score) mT Fish Produced |
Antifoulants (Copper) | Estimated proportion of production using copper-based antifoulants. | (BOD (mg O2) * Area of Impact (km2)) mT Fish Produced |
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) | Relative oxygen-depletion effect of waste contaminants (uneaten feed and feces). | ∑(Amount (kg) × [(1/LC50) + 1] * Persistence (Days)) mT Fish Produced |
Capture-Based Aquaculture | The extent to which a system relies on the capture of wild fish for production, taking into account the sustainability of these wild fish inputs. | (∑Proportion Fish/Livestock/Plant * Knife Coefficient (Megajoules/mT) * Total Feed Consumed (mT)) mT Fish Produced |
Ecological Energy | Amount of energy, or net primary productivity (NPP), that farmed fish divert from the marine ecosystem through consumption of wild fish ingredients of feed | ∑ Net Primary Production of Feed Inputs (g carbon/kg) mT Fish Produced |
Escapes | Number of escaped fish, weighted by an estimate of the per capita risk associated with escapes. | ∑Pathogen-specific Wild Losses (mT) mT Fish Produced |
Industrial Energy | Energy consumed in the acquisition and processing of feed ingredients, which serves as a proxy for the total industrial energy used in production. | ∑(Amount from Wild Capture (kg) * Sustainability Score) mT Fish Produced |
Parasiticide | Amount of parasiticides used, weighted by measures of environmental toxicity and persistence. | (Production (mT) * % Production Using Copper-based Antifoulants) mT Fish Produced |
Pathogens | Number of on-farm mortalities, weighted by an estimate of wild species in the ecosystem that are susceptible to farm-derived pathogens. | ∑(Amount (kg) × [1/LC50 + 1 × Persistence (days)] mT Fish Produced |
Sustainability of Feed | Amount, efficiency, and sustainability of wild fish ingredients of feed. | ∑((Proportion of Feed by Species * Sustainability Score of Each Species) * Fish In: Fish Out Ratio * Production (mT)) mT Fish Produced |
Species Rank (mT) | Marine Finfish Species (in production in 2007) | % of Global Marine Finfish Production by Weight | % of Global Marine Finfish Production by Value | Producing Countries Included in GAPI Analysis (Representing 90% of Species Production) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Atlantic salmon | 40.8 | 50 | Canada, Chile, Norway, UK |
2 | Milkfish | 17.1 | 4.6 | Indonesia, Philippines |
3 | Flathead grey mullet | 6.7 | 3.8 | Egypt |
4 | Japanese amberjack | 4.9 | 9 | Japan |
5 | Red seabream | 3.8 | 3.7 | China, Japan |
6 | Gilthead seabream | 3.5 | 4.7 | Greece, Israel, Italy, Spain, Turkey |
7 | Coho salmon | 3.3 | 3 | Chile, Japan |
8 | Bastard halibut | 3.2 | 4.1 | China, Korea |
9 | European seabass | 3 | 4.3 | Greece, Italy, Spain, Turkey |
10 | Japanese seabass | 2.9 | 0.9 | China |
11 | Groupers | 2 | 1.4 | China, Indonesia, Taiwan |
12 | Large yellow croaker | 1.8 | 0.5 | China |
13 | Red drum | 1.5 | 0.5 | China |
14 | Korean rockfish | 1 | 1.4 | Korea, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia |
15 | Barramundi | 0.9 | 0.6 | Thailand |
16 | Cobia | 0.8 | 0.4 | China, Taiwan |
17 | Tiger pufferfish | 0.5 | 0.7 | China, Japan |
18 | Atlantic cod | 0.3 | 0.3 | Iceland, Norway |
19 | Chinook salmon | 0.3 | 0.5 | Chile, New Zealand |
20 | Turbot | 0.2 | 0.4 | France, Spain |
Total % of Global Marine Finfish production | 98.5 | 95 | ||
% of Global Marine Finfish production assessed by GAPI | 93.7 | 91 |
2.2. Deriving the GAPI Score
2.2.1. Select Key Indicators of Environmental Performance
2.2.2. Construct Indicator Metrics
- -
- relevant and measures direct environmental impact;
- -
- performance oriented and tracks actual, on-the-water performance; (as opposed to aspirational or “best practice”)
- -
- transparent (both formulae and data); and
- -
- utilizes the highest quality data available
2.2.3. Set Targets for Each Indicator
2.2.4. Collect Data
2.2.5. Winsorization
2.2.6. Proximity-to-Target Calculation
2.2.7. Weighting Indicators
A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|
Indicator | Indicator Performance | PCA Derived Weight (%) | Weighted Performance (PCA Weight (%) × Indicator Performance) | GAPI Score (Sum of Weighted Performances) |
ANTI | 37 | 15 | 5.6 | 42 |
BOD | 72 | 8.3 | 3.7 | |
CAP | 100 | 5 | 5.1 | |
COP | 28 | 5 | 2.3 | |
ECOE | 66 | 15 | 9.8 | |
ESC | 47 | 8.3 | 3.9 | |
FEED | 11 | 8.3 | 1.6 | |
INDE | 60 | 15 | 5 | |
PARA | 84 | 5 | 4.3 | |
PATH | 3 | 15 | 0.5 |
2.2.8. Calculating the Final Country Score
Species | Country | Overall Score | CAP | ECOE | FEED | INDE | ANTI | BOD | COP | PARA | ESC | PATH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atlantic Cod | Norway | 62 | 100 | 64 | 68 | 58 | 98 | 59 | 28 | 45 | 0 | 63 |
Atlantic Cod | Iceland | 69 | 100 | 64 | 68 | 58 | 98 | 92 | 28 | 88 | 0 | 87 |
Atlantic Salmon | Chile | 66 | 100 | 72 | 75 | 62 | 68 | 81 | 28 | 77 | 38 | 67 |
Atlantic Salmon | Canada | 70 | 100 | 74 | 75 | 57 | 90 | 66 | 28 | 99 | 39 | 72 |
Atlantic Salmon | UK | 72 | 100 | 66 | 75 | 60 | 96 | 61 | 49 | 53 | 40 | 86 |
Atlantic Salmon | Norway | 72 | 100 | 75 | 75 | 64 | 99 | 50 | 28 | 84 | 40 | 78 |
Barramundi | Thailand | 41 | 100 | 39 | 44 | 40 | 38 | 0 | 28 | 40 | 35 | 46 |
Barramundi | Indonesia | 46 | 100 | 39 | 44 | 40 | 42 | 94 | 28 | 5 | 35 | 57 |
Barramundi | Australia | 47 | 100 | 70 | 65 | 0 | 58 | 62 | 28 | 30 | 35 | 24 |
Barramundi | Malaysia | 50 | 100 | 39 | 44 | 40 | 77 | 75 | 28 | 0 | 35 | 57 |
Bastard Halibut | China | 41 | 100 | 59 | 34 | 61 | 37 | 39 | 28 | 69 | 49 | 0 |
Bastard Halibut | Korea, | 61 | 100 | 51 | 42 | 23 | 82 | 44 | 100 | 4 | 100 | 57 |
Chinook Salmon | Chile | 64 | 100 | 75 | 75 | 55 | 68 | 98 | 28 | 64 | 42 | 53 |
Chinook Salmon | New Zealand | 73 | 100 | 70 | 52 | 43 | 100 | 100 | 28 | 100 | 47 | 100 |
Cobia | Taiwan | 35 | 100 | 0 | 51 | 5 | 24 | 74 | 28 | 6 | 41 | 60 |
Cobia | China | 37 | 100 | 0 | 51 | 5 | 37 | 42 | 28 | 35 | 41 | 60 |
Coho Salmon | Japan | 56 | 100 | 68 | 62 | 61 | 13 | 68 | 28 | 79 | 34 | 77 |
Coho Salmon | Chile | 63 | 100 | 71 | 75 | 59 | 68 | 90 | 28 | 64 | 37 | 52 |
European Seabass | Turkey | 61 | 100 | 59 | 74 | 43 | 50 | 66 | 28 | 81 | 53 | 75 |
European Seabass | Spain | 63 | 100 | 60 | 69 | 47 | 57 | 93 | 31 | 78 | 49 | 75 |
European Seabass | Greece | 66 | 100 | 61 | 75 | 50 | 81 | 58 | 28 | 81 | 47 | 75 |
European Seabass | Italy | 69 | 100 | 61 | 72 | 31 | 64 | 97 | 64 | 81 | 74 | 75 |
Flathead Grey Mullet | Egypt | 71 | 68 | 67 | 99 | 57 | 32 | 79 | 100 | 81 | 41 | 91 |
Gilthead Seabream | Turkey | 55 | 100 | 75 | 69 | 55 | 50 | 66 | 28 | 81 | 5 | 44 |
Gilthead Seabream | Greece | 56 | 100 | 69 | 79 | 60 | 50 | 49 | 28 | 57 | 5 | 56 |
Gilthead Seabream | Spain | 57 | 100 | 69 | 72 | 57 | 50 | 90 | 31 | 56 | 8 | 56 |
Gilthead Seabream | Israel | 60 | 100 | 67 | 80 | 41 | 50 | 69 | 49 | 77 | 32 | 56 |
Gilthead Seabream | Italy | 65 | 100 | 67 | 81 | 37 | 50 | 98 | 64 | 81 | 53 | 56 |
Groupers | Indonesia | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 85 | 28 | 6 | 32 | 3 |
Groupers | China | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 21 | 28 | 47 | 35 | 3 |
Groupers | Taiwan | 28 | 0 | 41 | 45 | 39 | 24 | 58 | 28 | 0 | 35 | 3 |
Japanese Amberjack | Japan | 45 | 99 | 60 | 39 | 56 | 36 | 0 | 28 | 84 | 43 | 32 |
Japanese Seabass | China | 32 | 54 | 24 | 18 | 25 | 31 | 4 | 28 | 44 | 35 | 57 |
Korean Rockfish | Korea | 54 | 100 | 55 | 52 | 40 | 82 | 45 | 28 | 0 | 49 | 57 |
Lg Yellow Croaker | China | 41 | 100 | 23 | 33 | 27 | 31 | 37 | 28 | 89 | 48 | 57 |
Milkfish | Phillippines | 59 | 98 | 78 | 90 | 57 | 69 | 37 | 28 | 0 | 46 | 39 |
Milkfish | Indonesia | 68 | 98 | 80 | 90 | 61 | 97 | 67 | 28 | 45 | 46 | 39 |
Red Drum | China | 26 | 100 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 37 | 21 | 28 | 49 | 37 | 37 |
Red Seabream | China | 25 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 11 | 28 | 65 | 44 | 32 |
Red Seabream | Japan | 47 | 100 | 59 | 60 | 52 | 36 | 9 | 28 | 72 | 44 | 32 |
Tiger puffer | Japan | 39 | 100 | 69 | 11 | 60 | 36 | 80 | 28 | 21 | 47 | 3 |
Tiger puffer | China | 42 | 100 | 66 | 11 | 60 | 37 | 72 | 28 | 84 | 47 | 3 |
Turbot | Spain | 63 | 100 | 68 | 83 | 44 | 23 | 82 | 51 | 65 | 61 | 73 |
Turbot | France | 68 | 100 | 68 | 81 | 44 | 52 | 100 | 51 | 67 | 61 | 73 |
3. Results and Discussion
Country-Species | Normalized | Cumulative | % Global Marine | Difference | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rank | GAPI score | Rank | GAPI score | Finfish Production | Cum-Norm | |
New Zealand-Chinook salmon | 1 | 73 | 5 | 90 | 0.27 | 17 |
Norway-Atlantic Salmon | 2 | 72 | 38 | 33 | 21.00 | −39 |
UK-Atlantic Salmon | 3 | 72 | 28 | 64 | 3.70 | −8 |
Egypt-Flathead grey mullet | 4 | 71 | 29 | 64 | 6.41 | −8 |
Canada-Atlantic Salmon | 5 | 70 | 27 | 64 | 3.30 | −6 |
Iceland -Atlantic cod | 6 | 69 | 2 | 96 | 0.04 | 27 |
Italy-European seabass | 7 | 69 | 7 | 89 | 0.24 | 20 |
France-Turbot | 8 | 68 | 1 | 96 | 0.02 | 29 |
Indonesia-Milkfish | 9 | 68 | 34 | 46 | 7.49 | −22 |
Greece-European seabass | 10 | 66 | 17 | 77 | 1.00 | 11 |
Chile-Atlantic Salmon | 11 | 66 | 42 | 23 | 10.80 | −43 |
Italy-Gilthead Seabream | 12 | 65 | 9 | 88 | 0.20 | 23 |
Chile-Chinook salmon | 13 | 64 | 3 | 94 | 0.06 | 30 |
Spain-European seabass | 14 | 63 | 10 | 87 | 0.26 | 24 |
Chile-Coho Salmon | 15 | 63 | 32 | 57 | 2.90 | −6 |
Spain-Turbot | 16 | 63 | 8 | 88 | 0.19 | 26 |
Norway-Atlantic cod | 17 | 62 | 11 | 87 | 0.27 | 25 |
Turkey-European seabass | 18 | 61 | 21 | 70 | 1.19 | 9 |
Korea-Bastard halibut | 19 | 61 | 22 | 69 | 1.17 | 8 |
Israel-Gilthead Seabream | 20 | 60 | 4 | 91 | 0.08 | 31 |
Phillippines-Milkfish | 21 | 59 | 41 | 28 | 8.78 | −30 |
Spain-Gilthead Seabream | 22 | 57 | 18 | 77 | 0.58 | 20 |
Greece-Gilthead Seabream | 23 | 56 | 23 | 68 | 1.42 | 12 |
Japan-Coho Salmon | 24 | 56 | 16 | 80 | 0.38 | 25 |
Turkey-Gilthead Seabream | 25 | 55 | 26 | 66 | 0.95 | 10 |
Korea-Korean Rockfish | 26 | 54 | 24 | 68 | 1.01 | 15 |
Malaysia-Barramundi | 27 | 50 | 13 | 86 | 0.16 | 36 |
Japan-Red seabream | 28 | 47 | 33 | 50 | 1.91 | 2 |
Australia-Barramundi | 29 | 47 | 6 | 90 | 0.07 | 43 |
Indonesia-Barramundi | 30 | 46 | 12 | 86 | 0.13 | 41 |
Japan-Japanese Amberjack | 31 | 45 | 43 | 21 | 4.49 | −23 |
China-Tiger puffer | 32 | 42 | 19 | 72 | 0.43 | 31 |
China-Large Yellow Croaker | 33 | 41 | 35 | 44 | 1.76 | 2 |
China-Bastard halibut | 34 | 41 | 36 | 43 | 1.89 | 1 |
Thailand-Barramundi | 35 | 41 | 20 | 72 | 0.45 | 31 |
Japan-Tiger puffer | 36 | 39 | 14 | 85 | 0.12 | 46 |
China-Cobia | 37 | 37 | 30 | 62 | 0.74 | 24 |
Taiwan-Cobia | 38 | 35 | 15 | 84 | 0.11 | 49 |
China-Japanese Seabass | 39 | 32 | 44 | 19 | 2.86 | −13 |
Taiwan-Groupers | 40 | 28 | 31 | 59 | 0.49 | 31 |
China-Red Drum | 41 | 26 | 37 | 37 | 1.40 | 10 |
China-Red Seabream | 42 | 25 | 39 | 33 | 1.56 | 8 |
China-Groupers | 43 | 15 | 40 | 29 | 1.22 | 14 |
Indonesia-Groupers | 44 | 10 | 25 | 68 | 0.18 | 58 |
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Supplementary Materials
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002; FAO Fisheries Department: Rome, Italy, 2003.
- Hall, S.J.; Delaporte, A.; Phillips, M.J.; Beveridge, M.; O’Keefe, M. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture; The WorldFish Center: Penang, Malaysia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Scottish Executive Research Unit, Review and Synthesis of the Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture; Government of Scotland: Edinburgh, Scotland, 2002.
- Phillips, S. Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture Issue Paper; Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission: Portland, OR, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Jacquet, J.; Hocevar, J.; Lai, S.; Majluf, P.; Pelletier, N.; Pitcher, T.; Sala, E.; Sumaila, R.; Pauly, D. Conserving wild fish in a sea of market-based efforts. Orynx 2009, 44, 45–56. [Google Scholar]
- Emerson, J.W.; Hsu, A.; Levy, M.A.; de Sherbinin, A.; Mara, V.; Esty, D.C.; Jaiteh, M. Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index; Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy: New Haven, CT, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). FishStat Plus: Universal Software for Fishery Statistical Time Series; FAO: Rome, Italy. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat/en (accessed on 15 November 2010).
- Emerson, J.; Esty, D.; Levy, M.; Kim, C.; Mara, V.; de Sherbinin, A.; Srebotnjak, T. Environmental Performance Index; Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy: New Haven, CT, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, R.; Murty, H.; Gupta, S.; Dikshit, A. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indicat. 2009, 9, 189–212. [Google Scholar]
- Cabello, F. Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: A growing problem for human and animal health and for the environment. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 8, 1137–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)-FIGIS. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fishery/figis/en (accessed on 2 May 2010).
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Volpe, J.P.; Gee, J.L.M.; Ethier, V.A.; Beck, M.; Wilson, A.J.; Stoner, J.M.S. Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI): The First Global Environmental Assessment of Marine Fish Farming. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3976-3991. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5093976
Volpe JP, Gee JLM, Ethier VA, Beck M, Wilson AJ, Stoner JMS. Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI): The First Global Environmental Assessment of Marine Fish Farming. Sustainability. 2013; 5(9):3976-3991. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5093976
Chicago/Turabian StyleVolpe, John P., Jennifer L.M. Gee, Valerie A. Ethier, Martina Beck, Amanda J. Wilson, and Jenna M.S. Stoner. 2013. "Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI): The First Global Environmental Assessment of Marine Fish Farming" Sustainability 5, no. 9: 3976-3991. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5093976