R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Extended Life Cycle

Assessment of Southern Pink
Shrimp Products Originating
in Senegalese Artisanal and
Industrial Fisheries for Export
to Europe
Friederike Ziegler, Andreas Emanuelsson, John Lucas Eichelsheim,
Anna Flysjo, Vaque Ndiaye, and Mikkel Thrane

Keywords:
Summary
discard
energy use Southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis) are an important Sene-
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions galese export commodity. Artisanal fisheries in rivers produce
seafloor 60%. Forty percent are landed in trawl fisheries at sea. The
seafood shrimp from both fisheries result in a frozen, consumer-packed
trawl
product that is exported to Europe. We applied attributional
life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental
Supporting information is available impact of the two supply chains and identify improvement
on the JIE Web site options. In addition to standard LCA impact categories, bio-
logical impacts of each fishery were quantified with regard to
landed by-catch, discard, seafloor impact, and size of target
catch. Results for typical LCA categories include that artisanal
fisheries have much lower inputs and emissions in the fishing
phase than does the industrial fishery. For the product from
artisanal fisheries, the main part of the impact in the standard
LCA categories occurs during processing on land, mainly due
to the use of heavy fuel oil and refrigerants with high global
warming and ozone depletion potentials. From a biological
point of view, each fishery has advantages and drawbacks,
Address correspondence to: and a number of improvement options were identified. If de-
Friederike Ziegler veloping countries can ensure biological sustainability of their
SIK, The Swedish Institute for Food and fisheries and design the chain on land in a resource-efficient
Biotechnology
PO Box 5401, SE-402 29 way, long distance to markets is not an obstacle to sustainable
Goteborg, Sweden trading of seafood products originating in artisanal fisheries.
fz@sik.se
www.sik.se


c 2011 by Yale University
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00344.x

Volume 15, Number 4

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 527

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Introduction
Sustainability of seafood production is of in-
creasing importance to consumers at all lev-
els, given the increasing awareness about de-
pletion of many of the worlds commercially
fished stocks. The United Nations (UN) Food
and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates
that around 85% of the worlds major commer-
cially fished stocks are fully or overexploited
(FAO 2011). Shrimp fisheries in general but
especially in tropical waters are known to be
problematic for a range of reasons, including by-
catch and discard ratios, seafloor impact, con-
flict with small-scale fisheries, overcapacity, and
overexploitation (FAO 2009). The development
and impact of the shrimp industry are also de-
scribed by Ackefors (2009). In addition to con-
cerns about the biological sustainability of fishing
activities, interest in the contribution of food pro-
duction to global environmental impacts, espe-
cially global warming, has increased rapidly in
recent years. Seafood is one of the most traded
commodities in the world, and food transporta-
tion has been widely debated in terms of food
miles, especially in Europe and in the United
States (Tyedmers 2010).
The FAO also foresees a continued increase in
demand for seafood due to a growing world popu-
lation and to economic growth in both developed
and developing countries, which will change food
consumption patterns, including seafood (FAO
2009). In this perspective, systematic environ-
mental assessment of seafood production chains
from the sea to the table is more needed than ever.
It can be used to guide consumers, managers, and
companies in decisions about what to purchase as
well as how to improve the environmental per-
formance of their own activities (Baumann and
Tillman 2004).
Life cycle assessment (LCA) provides a stan-
dardized methodology to quantify and evaluate
the environmental impact of products with re-
gard to a number of environmental impact cate-
gories (ISO 2006a, 2006b). Generally, biological
aspects are not included in the LCA methodol-
ogy, but attempts have been made to broaden
the methodology to also encompass local eco-
logical and socioeconomic impacts (Ziegler and
Valentinsson 2008; Kruse et al. 2009). LCAs for
528 Journal of Industrial Ecology
seafood products originating in capture fisheries
have been performed since the late 1990s and
have exclusively analysed industrialized fisheries
(e.g., Ziegler et al. 2003; Thrane 2004a, 2004b,
2006; Hospido and Tyedmers 2005; Ellingsen
and Aanondsen 2006; Ziegler and Valentinsson
2008). Two major conclusions from the seafood
LCAs undertaken to date are that the fishing
phase is the most important phase in all cate-
gories of environmental impact and that there
are major differences between different methods
used to fish the same species.
During the last decade, eco-labeling has been
introduced in the seafood sector and has grown
rapidly, mainly as a result of environmental goals
set by large wholesale and retail chains in Europe
and in the United States, to sell, often within
2 to 3 years, only products from certified fisheries.
Current seafood eco-labels deal exclusively with
the biological aspects of fishingthat is, impacts
on target and nontarget stocks, fisheries man-
agement, and ecosystem effects. Certification re-
quires availability of detailed data on a number
of matters that spring from, for example, rigor-
ous stock assessment and discard monitoring pro-
grams. Demand for eco-labeled seafood products
has increased rapidly in many developed coun-
tries for the reasons mentioned above. In devel-
oping countries, conditions often differ regarding
availability of the necessary data, and therefore
many seafood producers feel that demand for eco-
labels is a trade barrier that stops them from ex-
porting their products (Wessells et al. 2001).
Senegalese southern pink shrimp (Penaeus no-
tialis) fisheries produce almost exclusively for ex-
port to Europe. Shrimp are fished in FAO Catch
Zone 32 (Central Eastern Atlantic) by a num-
ber of fishing methods, then washed, frozen and
packed either on land or on the boat, and stored
before being shipped to Europe. Much of the fish-
ing is done by a trawl fleet based in Dakar, Sene-
gal, consisting of around 30 vessels that go both
north and south to fish off-shore (figure 1). In
2007, these trawlers landed around 40% of the
total pink shrimp landings in Senegal (in total
around 3000 tonnes). The other 60% are landed
in artisanal fisheries for the same species in rivers,
mainly the Gambia and the Casamance Rivers.
The species spawns at sea, and juveniles migrate
upstream along river shores to feed and grow for
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Figure 1 Location of Ziguinchor along the Casamance River in southern Senegal.

a period of around 3 months, after which they
migrate out in the deepest part of the river again
to spawn in the open sea. Various fishing meth-
ods make use of this biological resource; fele-fele,
mujas, and xuus (figure 2). Fele-fele is a type of
drift net operated by three men in a canoe; mu-
jas are trawl-like nets set on the bottom of the
river, so that the tide brings the shrimp into the
nets. Mujas are operated by one man while the
canoe is anchored. Xuus are land seines used from
the beach by two to three men; they represent a
much smaller portion of the landings than the
other two methods, which are used to similar ex-
tents. Artisanal fisheries only in the Casamance
region sustain 6,000 to 8,000 fishermen as well
as around 100 employees at the processing plant
plus their families (IDEE Casamance 2007). The
industrial fishery, which lands around 40% of the
shrimp, supports around 300 crew members and
their families.
The present study quantifies and evaluates
the environmental impact of Senegalese shrimp
products using LCA methodology. The aim is
not only to evaluate environmental impacts in
traditional LCA categories but also to expand
the framework and quantify relevant biological
aspects of these fisheries in relation to the func-
tional unit chosen. Due to the highly different na-
ture of the two main fisheries involved, industrial
and artisanal fisheries, the study also compares
the environmental and biological performance
of the two ways of fishing.

Figure 2 Artisanal fishing methods: Fele-fele is left, and mujas is right. Illustrations by A. Emanuelsson.

Ziegler et al., Extended Life Cycle Assessment of Senegalese Shrimp for Expor t to Europe 529
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

background system

Production of foreground system

diesel Fl-fl/Mujas fishery Trawl fishery *

heavy fuel oil

Trader ( trp port to processing )

electricity
Processing * Truck trp port to storage

cooling agents

Truck trp Ziguinchor to M bour

emissions to
anti fouling agent
air
Storage in M bbour/Dakar
water soil

water
ice Truck trp Mbour to Dakar Truck trp storage to port
etc

packaging
Container trp Dakar to Vigo
material

waste
FU: 1 kg of shrimps in package
management

Figure 3 Flow charts for the studied chains (grey boxes are transport). The shaded area represents the
foreground system, and the white area represents the background system. = including packaging and
freezing. Trp = transport; F U = functional unit; kg = kilogram.

Methods fishermen took what they would sell or eat. In

The studied system starts with the production
of fuel and refrigerant used in the fisheries and fol-
lows the shrimp products through fishing, trading,
and processing as well as truck and ship trans-
portation to the port of Vigo, Spain (figure 3).
Both fisheries result in a consumer-packed prod-
uct of 2 kilograms (kg)1 of frozen, whole shrimp
in a cardboard package. The functional unit in
this study is defined as 1 kg of shrimp and the
accompanying packaging material at the point of
import to Europe.
Data for the foreground system were collected
from numerous official and unofficial sources.
By-catch and discard data were collected during
November and December 2007 from two landing
sites along the Casamance river through sampling
of around 30 landings. The fishermen were asked
in advance by a local contact to land all they
caughtthat is, not to discard. Species of fish
and invertebrates in the entire catch were then
identified, weighed, and measured, and later the
this way, discard and landed by-catch were quan-
tified in relation to the landings of shrimp. Local,
regional, and national fisheries authorities were
involved and provided available data on the fish-
eries and stocks. The more typical LCA data on
material and energy use were collected through
interviews with fishermen on the same landing
sites; by visits to two shrimp processing plants
in Ziguinchor, Senegal, and the local electricity
plant; as well as through interviews with shrimp
traders. All the data for the Dakar-based trawl
fishery were gathered by interviews with vessel
owners, crew members, and other workers in the
fishing port of Dakar; these interviews gave access
to both export statistics and company-specific
data that covered a considerable part of the fleet
(19 out of 30 vessels).
We modeled the LCA in SimaPro Software
Version 7.1.6 using impact assessment method
CML baseline 2 2002, adjusted with 2007 Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

530 Journal of Industrial Ecology


Table 1 Landed small shrimp, landed by-catch (other species), discard, and seafloor impact per kilogram of
large shrimp landed
Fishery Landed small shrimp (kg) Landed by-catch (kg/kg)
Fele-fele 1.3 0.25
Mujas 0.38
Trawl 0.09
Note: kg = kilogram; m2 = square meter.
indicators for global warming potential (GWP).
Impact categories included were GWP, eutroph-
ication potential (EP), acidification potential
(AP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), photo-
chemical ozone creation potential (POCP), en-
ergy use, and toxicity (human, terrestrial, ma-
rine aquatic, and marine sediment). In addition
to these categories, which are commonly found
in LCA studies, biological aspects, such as im-
pact on fished shrimp stocks, by-catch, discard,
and seafloor impact, were evaluated and, as far as
possible, quantified. Background data (e.g., pro-
duction of fuel and various transport modes) were
taken from the LCA database ecoinvent Version
2.0. Refrigeration during transportation was mod-
eled by the addition of 30% extra fuel use for the
transport, on the basis of literature data (Garnett
2007).
Results
The three fisheries have highly different catch
profiles, due to both the technique and the loca-
tion of each fishery. The trawl fishery catches the
smallest proportion of shrimp, but the shrimp it
catches are of a larger mean size. Shrimp repre-
sent 12% of the landings in mass but 46% of
the economic value. The fish by-catch hence
represents 88% of the mass of the landed catch
and 54% of the economic value. The proportion
of fish landed in the artisanal fisheries is much
smaller in terms of weight and even lower in
terms of value (fish are 5% and shrimp are 95%
of the value of landings). The difference is re-
lated to both the species and the sizes caught. In
the river, small individuals of commercial species
are caught that have a lower value compared to
the by-catch in trawl fishing. With regard to dis-
card, high levels are found both in the trawl
Ziegler et al., Extended Life Cycle Assessment of Senegalese Shrimp for Expor t to Europe
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Discard (kg) Seafloor impact (m2 )
0.13 0
1.2 0.55 0
7.0 5.4 10,100
and the mujas fisheries. The discard in the ar-
tisanal fisheries to a considerable part consists
of swimming crabs, as opposed to the discard
in the trawl fishery, which, according to inter-
views with trawl skippers and crew, largely con-
sists of undersized specimens of commercial fish
species, many of which are considered to be in
a highly overexploited condition (UNEP 2002).
Swimming crabs are not known to be overex-
ploited. The results of relating the four biologi-
cal indicatorssmall size ratio, landed by-catch,
discarded by-catch, and sea floor impactto the
functional unit are shown in table 1. More detail
on both methodology used and results of the bi-
ological part of this work can be found in work
by Emanuelsson (2008), provided as Supporting
Information S2 available on the Journals Web
site.
The results of the more typical categories ana-
lyzed in LCAs are shown in figure 4, from which it
is clear that there are major differences between
the two fishing methods (figure 4a). Fishing is the
most important phase in all impact categories for
the product originating in the trawl fishery and
processing is the most important phase in all im-
pact categories for the product originating in the
artisanal fisheries (figure 4b), with some excep-
tions. The exceptions are ODP for the artisanal
chain, for which storage contributes more than
processing, and terrestrial toxicity for the arti-
sanal chain, for which fishing is responsible for
most emissions (which is due to the deposition
of mercury batteries on the shore). Transporta-
tion and production of packaging materials to-
gether typically represent about 10% of total im-
pacts. In the POCP and EP categories for the
artisanal chain, these activities make their high-
est contributions: 20% to 25% of total emissions
(figure 4b).
531
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Figure 4 Relative results of impact assessment for each impact category (top figure a) in total with artisanal
or industrial set to 100% depending on which of them gave the highest impacts in each category and
(bottom figure b) per life cycle phase. (I = industrial; A = artisanal). The impact categories studied are global
warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), photochemical ozone
creation potential (POCP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), human toxicity (TOX H), terrestrial ecotoxicity
(TOX T), marine aquatic ecotoxicity (TOX MA), marine sediment ecotoxicity (TOX MS), and energy use (E).

The difference in GWP between artisanal
and industrial fisheries is overwhelmingly due
to the use of 9.8 liters (L)2 of diesel fuel and
2.7 grams (g)3 of refrigerant R22 in the trawl
fishery, as opposed to 0.05 L of fuel and no use
of refrigerants in the fishing phase in the arti-
sanal fisheries (figure 4a). Around 6% of the on-
board fuel use in the trawl fishery is allocated to
the onboard processing activities (Schau et al.
2009); still almost 29 kg of carbon dioxide equiv-
alents (CO2 e) per kilogram of shrimp landed are
due to the fishing activity itself. In the fele-fele

532 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Figure 5 Global warming potential caused by (a) a kilogram (kg) of shrimp landed by the three fishing
methods, (b) a kilogram of shrimp product delivered to Vigo and fished either in artisanal fisheries or in the
trawl fishery. The contributions of different life cycle phases are indicated. CO2 = carbon dioxide; CO2 e =
carbon dioxide equivalent; incl. = including.

fishery, this figure is 0.2 kg CO2 e, and in the mu-
jas fishery it is zero. When we include processing
to make the figures more comparable, the arti-
sanal fishery causes emissions of 4.4 kg CO2 e,
versus 35 kg CO2 e for the industrial fishery (fig-
ure 5a).When the life cycle after landing is added,
the artisanal product causes emissions of 7.8 kg
CO2 e per kilogram of product, and the industri-
ally fished product causes 38 kg CO2 e per kilo-
gram. The major contributions to global warming
emissions from the artisanal product are caused
by energy-related and refrigeration-related emis-
sions in processing and storage. To our knowl-
edge, this is the only seafood LCA in which
processing and storage have led to larger green-
house gas contributions than fishing, which per-
haps reflects that seafood production chains from
artisanal fisheries in developing countries have
not previously been studied using LCA metho-
dology.
In the acidification category, the impact of the
industrially fished product is three times higher
than the artisanal one. This is despite the fact
that the diesel fuel (used to process industrial
shrimps) has a much lower content of sulfur than
the heavy fuel oil used to the produce electricity
with which artisanal shrimps are processed. The
combustion and production of these fuels explain
the main part of the acidification caused through-
out the chains. Shipment also plays a role. The
difference with regard to eutrophication is con-
siderably larger, and this category is dominated
by emissions of nitrous oxides from combustion
of fossil fuels in both chains.

Ziegler et al., Extended Life Cycle Assessment of Senegalese Shrimp for Expor t to Europe 533
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
The formation of ozone is largely correlated
with the use of gasoline and with the produc-
tion of fossil fuels: gasoline, diesel, and heavy fuel
oil. Use of gasoline only occurs in the fele-fele engines (instead of 5% as today), that would
fishery, stemming from the use of outboard en-
gines. Diesel oil is used on the trawler and for
transports, and heavy fuel oil is used for electric-
ity production. Transports score highest in this
category (almost 20% of the artisanal products
emissions).
A refrigerant with a high ODP, R22, is used
both onboard the trawlers and in the processing
plant on land. At the processing plant, two re-
frigerants are used, one for ice making (R22), of
which only the very low amount used for shrimp
is allocated to the products, and one for freezing
and maintenance (R404a), which is entirely al-
located to the shrimp. R22 has a high ODP and
GWP, whereas R404a has zero ODP but an even
higher GWP than R22. Therefore, R22 domi-
nates this category, whereas R404a is important
in the GWP category.
Artisanal fisheries score 50% to 60% lower in
all toxicity categories, with the exception of ter-
restrial toxicity, which is higher for the artisanal
product. This is due to the emission of mercury
to soil from the batteries used. Many of the toxic
emissions also originate from the production of
fossil fuels. For the trawlers, the aquatic emis-
sions of copper ions from the antifouling paint
account for a considerable part of the aquatic
toxicity results.
The GWP of the trawled product is about
five times higher than that of the artisanal prod-
uct, which still is considerable. The relation be-
tween the fisheries regarding energy use is similar
to their relation regarding global warming. The
production chain from artisanal fisheries requires
about 15% of the energy of the industrial prod-
uct chain. This similarity in result in the GWP
and energy use categories reflects the fact that the
energy use throughout the two chains to a large
extent is fossil fuel based. Had the energy used for
processing, for example, to a higher degree been
based on hydropower or nuclear power, then the
GWP result of the artisanal chain would have
been lower, while the energy result would have
been the same.
We conducted a number of sensitivity analy-
ses to explore the robustness of the results. Details
534 Journal of Industrial Ecology
can be found in work by Ziegler and colleagues
(2009a, 2009b).4 Interesting results include that
if 100% of fele-fele fishermen were using outboard
translate into a 10% increase in GWP at the prod-
uct level. Likewise, changing the energy source
of the processing plant from the heavy-fuel-oil-
based electricity production in the Casamance
to solar energy, in combination with replacing
the refrigerant used today with a climate-neutral
one, would decrease global warming emissions by
50%. All in all, uncertainty in the data is consid-
ered to be high, and the sensitivity analysis shows
several issues that can make results fluctuate con-
siderably, but the large difference between the
artisanal and industrial production systems seems
to be consistent. Hence, the absolute levels of
emissions in each category are subject to con-
siderable uncertainty, but the difference between
the systems evaluated is robust, as is the analysis of
which life cycle phases and activities contribute
most to the results.
Discussion
The product originating in the trawl fishery
led to higher impacts in all categories investi-
gated except terrestrial toxicity, which was due
to the disposal of mercury-containing batteries
on the beach by artisanal fishermen. This prac-
tice ceased after the results of this study were
first presented. It is hence not difficult to decide
which product to recommend from an environ-
mental point of view. Today it is difficult for
consumers to know how and where their seafood
products were produced, however. The informa-
tion mandatory within the European Union that
shrimp were fished in FAO Zone 32 does not
help much. Rather, major players in the seafood
industry do not source seafood from this area at
all due to the lack of knowledge regarding ex-
ploitation of stocks. This definitely represents the
largest challenge to the fisheries in the region: To
make sure that the fisheries are being conducted
in a more sustainable manner that ensures viable
stocks now and in the future. Increased traceabil-
ity is one way to give the consumer a chance to
make an informed choice; in some cases, such
as the present one, that choice can make a
difference.

We have not found any other data on the
energy efficiency of Penaeid shrimp fisheries for
comparison. Nonetheless, fuel use in North At-
lantic shrimp (Pandalus borealis) trawl fisheries
have been reported to be in the range of 0.7
to 2.3 L/kg (Tyedmers 2001) and 1.2 L/kg
(Thrane 2004a), compared to the 9.8 L/kg
in Senegalese trawl fishery. Those findings are
more in keeping with the results regarding Nor-
way lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) fished out-
side Sweden (8.7 L/kg; Ziegler and Valentinsson
2008). Thranes (2004a) shrimp study and the
Nephrops study used economic allocation, the
same method used in the present study, whereas
Tyedmers (2001) used mass allocation. The fuel
use reported by Tyedmers (2001) would have
been higher if the difference in value between
shrimp and fish catch had been taken into ac-
count. Shrimp trawl fisheries in general seem to
be energy-intensive (Thrane 2004a, Tyedmers
et al. 2005), and the studied shrimp trawl fishery
in Senegal is no exception. The use of fuel per
kilogram of shrimp landed is very high indepen-
dent of which method of allocation is used. With
regard to climate change, the total impact of the
trawled Norway lobsters, with a short distance
between the fishing location and consumption,
was in the same range as the trawled Senegalese
shrimp being shipped to Spain (32 versus 38 kg
CO2 e/kg). Given that the edible part of a kilo-
gram of whole shrimp and lobsters is only around
30% to 40%, these emission levels are very high.
Conversely, crayfish normally represent a tiny
part of our diet, so they are perhaps not the most
crucial target in efforts to decrease the climate
impact of food consumption in general. From
a fisheries management perspective, however, it
should be important to minimize environmental
impact of all kinds. It is quite evident from both
this study and previous seafood LCAs (Thrane
2006; Ziegler and Valentinsson 2008) that a great
improvement potential is represented by the use
of more resource-efficient fishing methods.
Both the trawled and the artisanal shrimp are
much higher with regard to global warming emis-
sions than tropical farmed shrimp (less than 5 kg
CO2 e/kg over the whole chain from feed pro-
duction to the consumer, reported by Mungkung
2005, 2006), due to several factors, which are ex-
plained below. These include high productivity
Ziegler et al., Extended Life Cycle Assessment of Senegalese Shrimp for Expor t to Europe
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
of intensive farming systems and the fact that
economic allocation is used to divide resource
use between target and by-catch, used for food
and feed, respectively, caught in the same fish-
ery, which places much less environmental bur-
den on the shrimp feed than would other alloca-
tion methods. The same method of allocation is
used in the present study in the shrimp fishery to
separate the environmental burden between fish
and shrimp, and it places a higher impact on the
shrimp compared to the fish landed in parallel
than would other methods.
Due to the low amount of inputs to artisanal
fisheries, their products represent a unique case
among seafood products in that the main part of
the impact occurs after the fishery. To our knowl-
edge, this is the first case where this has been
observed for a seafood supply chain. Artisanal
fisheries have stayed relatively low-tech during a
number of decades in which the bulk of commer-
cial fisheries have become more and more high-
tech with regard to gear and engine technology,
on-board processing, electronic equipment and,
above all, highly dependent on the availability
of cheap fossil fuels. This may turn out to be a
great advantage for artisanal fisheries, for which
the greatest challenge is to ensure that the stocks
are used in a sustainable way.
Many questioned whether we would be able to
find the relevant data to do this study, assuming
it would be much more difficult to do an LCA
of a Senegalese product than, for example, of a
European one. This is not our experience. Suc-
cessfully performing an LCA in Senegal requires
collaboration with local organizations and indi-
viduals. We could not inventory data by e-mail
and phone correspondence to the same extent as
we do when we conduct an LCA study in Europe.
Once we were in the country, it was not more
difficult to convince Senegalese companies and
authorities to share data than, from our previous
experience, it is to collect data in Europe.
Conclusions
The product from artisanal fisheries causes
lower environmental impact in almost all
categories.
The product from artisanal fisheries is
the only seafood product studied by LCA
535
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
methodology that has been shown to have
its highest impacts after landing.
A great advantage of artisanal fisheries com-
pared to the bulk of commercial fisheries is
that they are almost independent of fossil
fuels.
Considerable improvement potential exists
both for typical LCA impact categories and
the more fishery-specific biological impacts
in both studied chains.
If developing countries can ensure bio-
logical sustainability of their fisheries and
design the chain on land in a resource-
efficient way, long distance to markets is
not an obstacle to sustainable trading of
seafood products.
Acknowledgements
We are most grateful to artisanal fishermen,
owners and crew of trawlers, shrimp traders in
the Ziguinchor area, employees of shrimp pro-
cessing and the local power plant, and the fish-
eries administrations both in Ziguinchor and in
Dakar for all their help with data collection.
We are also grateful to the international con-
sultancy group of the Swedish Board of Fisheries,
Swedmar, and the Swedish International Devel-
opment Cooperation Agency, Sida, for funding
the work and, not the least, to the FAO Fisheries
and Aquaculture Department in Rome, Italy,
for interest, help, and guidance throughout the
project.
Notes
1. One kilogram (kg, SI) 2.204 pounds (lb).
2. One liter (L) = 0.001 cubic meters (m3 ,
SI) 0.264 gallons (gal).
3. One gram (g) = 103 kilograms (kg, SI) 0.035
ounces (oz).
4. The report by Ziegler and colleagues (2009a) is pro-
vided as Supporting Information S1 on the Web.
References
Ackefors, H. 2009. The evolution of a worldwide
shrimp industry. World Aquaculture 40(3): 4648,
5055.
Baumann, H. and A.-M. Tillman. 2004. The hitch-hikers
guide to LCA. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
536 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Ellingsen, H. and S. A. Aanondsen. 2006. Environ-
mental impact of wild caught cod and farmed
salmon: A comparison with chicken. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11(1): 6065.
Emanuelsson, A. 2008. Bycatch and discard in Senegalese
artisanal and industrial fisheries for southern pink
shrimp (Penaeus notialis). B.Sc. thesis, Goteborg
University, Goteborg, Sweden.
FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organi-
sation). 2009. The state of the worlds fisheries and
aquaculture SOFIA 2008. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. 2011. The state of the worlds fisheries and aquacul-
ture SOFIA 2010. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Garnett, T. 2007. Food refrigeration: What is the contri-
bution to greenhouse gas emissions and how might
emissions be reduced? Working paper. Surrey,
England: Food Climate Research Network, Cen-
tre for Environmental Strategy, University of
Surrey.
Hospido, A. and P. Tyedmers. 2005. Life cycle environ-
mental impacts of Spanish tuna fisheries. Fisheries
Research 76(2): 174186.
IDEE (Intervenir pour le Developpment Ecologique et
de lEnvironnement en Casamance) Casamance.
2007. Eco-labelling and value chain promotion of
the Casamance shrimp fishery: Achieving sustain-
ability through fisheries co-management and mar-
ket incentives. Funding proposal. Zurich, Switzer-
land: Blueyou, and Ziguinchor, Senegal: IDEE
Casamance.
ISO (International Organization for Standardiza-
tion). 2006a. ISO 14040:2006(E): Environmental
managementLife cycle assessmentPrinciples and
framework. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
ISO. 2006b. ISO 14044:2006(E): Environmental man-
agementLife cycle assessmentRequirements and
guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
Kruse, S. A, A. Flysjo, N. Kasperczyk, and A. J. Scholz.
2009. Socioeconomic indicators as a complement
to life cycle assessment: An application to salmon
production systems. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 14(1): 818.
Mungkung, R. T., 2005. Shrimp aquaculture in
Thailand: Application of life cycle assessment
to support sustainable development. Ph.D. the-
sis, Center for Environmental Strategy, School of
Engineering, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.
Mungkung, R. T., H. A. Udo de Haes, and R. Clift.
2006. Potentials and limitations of life cycle as-
sessment in setting ecolabelling criteria: A case
study of a Thai shrimp aquaculture product. In-
ternational Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11(1):
5559.
Schau, E. M., H. Ellingsen, A. Endal, and S. A.
Aanondsen. 2009. Energy consumption in the

Norwegian fisheries. Journal of Cleaner Production
17: 325334.
Thrane, M. 2004a. Energy consumption in the Danish
fishery: Identification of key factors. Journal of In-
dustrial Ecology 8(12): 223239.
Thrane, M. 2004b. Environmental impacts from Danish
fish products. Ph.D. dissertation, Aalborg Univer-
sity, Aalborg, Denmark.
Thrane, M. 2006. LCA of Danish fish products: New
methods and insights. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 11(1): 6674.
Tyedmers, P. 2001. Energy consumed by North
Atlantic fisheries. In Fisheries impacts on North
Atlantic ecosystems: Catch, effort and national/
regional data sets, edited by D. Zeller, R. Watson,
and D. Pauly. Fisheries Centre Research Reports
9(3). Downloadable at www.seaaroundus.org/
researcher/dpauly/PDF/2001/Books&Chapters/
FisheriesImpactsNorthAtlanticEcosystemsCatch
EffortNationalRe.pdf.
Tyedmers, P. 2010. Keynote speech at the Energy
Use in Fisheries conference, Seattle, WA, USA,
16 November 2010.
Tyedmers, P., R. Watson, and D. Pauly. 2005. Fueling
global fishing fleets. Ambio 34(8): 619622.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)
2002. Support policies to Senegalese fisheries. In
Policy implementations and fisheries resource man-
agement: Lesson from Senegal, edited by K. Da-
hou, E. Tiers Monde, and M. Deme. Geneva,
Switzerland: UNEP.
Wessells, C. R., K. Cochrane, C. Deere, P. Wallis,
and R. Willmann. 2001. Product certification and
eco-labeling for fisheries sustainability. FAO Fish-
eries Technical Paper 422. Rome, Italy: United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Ziegler, F. and D. Valentinsson. 2008. Environ-
mental life cycle assessment of Norway lobster
(Nephrops norvegicus) caught along the Swedish
west coast by creels and conventional trawls:
LCA methodology with case study. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13(6): 487
497.
Ziegler, F., P. Nilsson, B. Mattsson, and Y. Walther.
Ziegler et al., Extended Life Cycle Assessment of Senegalese Shrimp for Expor t to Europe
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
2003. Life cycle assessment of frozen cod fillets
including fishery-specific environmental impacts.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8(1):
3947.
Ziegler, F., J. L. Eichelsheim, A. Emanuelsson,
A. Flysjo, V. Ndiaye, and M. Thrane. 2009a. Life
cycle assessment of southern pink shrimp products
from Senegal: An environmental comparison be-
tween artisanal fisheries in the Casamance region
and a trawl fishery based in Dakar. SIK report 789.
Goteborg, Sweden: SIK.
Ziegler, F., J. L. Eichelsheim, A. Emanuelsson,
A. Flysjo, V. Ndiaye, and M. Thrane. 2009b. Life
cycle assessment of southern pink shrimp products
from Senegal: An environmental comparison be-
tween artisanal fisheries in the Casamance region
and a trawl fishery based in Dakar. FAO Fisheries
Circular No. 1044 FIE/C1044. Available at
www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0910e/i0910e00.htm.
Accessed 8 April 2011.
About the Authors
Friederike Ziegler and Andreas Emanuels-
son are researchers at the Swedish Institute for
Food and Biotechnology (SIK) in Goteborg, Swe-
den. John Lucas Eichelsheim is the founder of
IDEE Casamance in Ziguinchor, Senegal. Anna
Flysjo is an LCA consultant on leave from the
Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology
(SIK) in Goteborg, Sweden. She is currently pur-
suing her Ph.D. at Aarhus University, Denmark,
and is employed by Arla Foods. Vaque Ndiaye
was a researcher for the Centre de Recherches
Oceanographiques de Dakar Thiaroye (CRODT)
in Dakar, Senegal, at the time the study was con-
ducted. He is now working with USAID in Sene-
gal. Mikkel Thrane was an associate professor at
the Department of Development and Planning in
Aalborg University in Denmark at the time the
study was performed. He is now an LCA expert
with Danisco.
537
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article:
Supporting Information S1: This supplement contains SIK Report 789, which provides addi-
tional detail on the environmental comparison between artisanal fisheries in the Casamance
region and a conventional trawl fishery in Dakar in Senegal.
Supporting Information S2: This supplement contains SIK Report 774, a report that pro-
vides additional detail regarding the quantification of the bycatch and discard situation in the
Sengalese artisanal shrimp fishery.
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting
information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be
directed to the corresponding author for the article.

538 Journal of Industrial Ecology