Suchergebnisse

Sudden disruptions, or shocks, to food production can adversely impact access to and trade of food commodities. Seafood is the most traded food commodity and is globally important to human nutrition. The seafood production and trade system is exposed to a variety of disruptions including fishery collapses, natural disasters, oil spills, policy changes, and aquaculture disease outbreaks, aquafeed resource access and price spikes. The patterns and trends of these shocks to fisheries and aquaculture are poorly characterized and this limits the ability to generalize or predict responses to political, economic, and environmental changes. We applied a statistical shock detection approach to historic fisheries and aquaculture data to identify shocks over the period 1976–2011. A complementary case study approach was used to identify possible key social and political dynamics related to these shocks. The lack of a trend in the frequency or magnitude of the identified shocks and the range of identified causes suggest shocks are a common feature of these systems which occur due to a variety, and often multiple and simultaneous, causes. Shocks occurred most frequently in the Caribbean and Central America, the Middle East and North Africa, and South America, while the largest magnitude shocks occurred in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Shocks also occurred more frequently in aquaculture systems than in capture systems, particularly in recent years. In response to shocks, countries tend to increase imports and experience decreases in supply. The specific combination of changes in trade and supply are context specific, which is highlighted through four case studies. Historical examples of shocks considered in this study can inform policy for responding to shocks and identify potential risks and opportunities to build resilience in the global food system.

This report aims to develop a set of indicators that measure sustainable development of Arctic seafood production. It builds on an environmental, a social, and an economic dimension, three dimensions of sustainable development. Our indicator system provides decision support information and monitoring tool for relevant decision makers. It aims to facilitate orientation in a complex multitude of social and ecological systems as well as their intersection. The indicator set is structured as a pyramid made up of the three dimensions of sustainable development, subdivided into policy categories, each described by one or few indicator target areas, supplemented by a number of more contextual indicators. We give a short presentation of each indicator and assess data availability. While this report provides decision support it cannot stand alone and is part of the synthesis of the European Union project Arctic Climate Change Economy and Society.

Worldwide, the area planted in genetically modified (GM) crops has increased dramatically in recent years. Between 1996 and 1999, it rose from 1.6 X 106 ha to more than 35 X 106 ha (James 1998, May 1999). This rapid increase has provoked an explosion of concern, particularly in Europe, over the health and environmental impacts of these crops. Despite claims of safety and warnings against popular panic, public concern over GM crops has resulted in changes in their marketing, labeling, planting, and trade. These changes have fueled an increasingly heated debate among environmental advocates, critics of industrial agriculture, seed companies, governments, and scientists. This debate has been characterized by exaggerations of both the safety and danger of GM crops, and by attempts to suppress and avoid public discussion. This paper is the product of a discussion among an international, interdisciplinary group of scientists. Our discussion was based on the Forum articles in this issue of Conservation Ecology. These articles summarize the nature of the debate over biotechnology, describe ways to cope with potential ecological impacts of GM crops, provide insights into the cause and validity of public concern, and make suggestions on where to go from here. Our own dialogue, which was informed by these and other articles, attempts to broaden the debate and develop strategies for coping with and directing the development of biotechnology. As an interdisciplinary group, we do not try to assess the details of particular GM crops, but rather to connect the ecological, economic, and political issues that surround them. As noted by Conway (2000), Pimentel (2000), and others, the balance of evidence suggests that GM organisms have the potential to both degrade and improve the functioning of agroecosystems. Depending on which GM crops are developed and how they are used, GM crops could lead to either increases or decreases in pesticide use, the enhancement or degradation of the ecological services provided by agroecosystems, or the loss or conservation of biodiversity. However, as Conway argues, the current character of GM crop development provides cause for concern.

Failure of the blue revolution is a global risk. The international problem is that there is a gap in knowledge exchange between the aquaculture industry, policymakers trying to support aquaculture development and people who depend on aquaculture for a job and/or food source. Thus, governments and international organizations promoting aquaculture as the solution to improving food security, nutrition and income are failing to optimise production of natural aquatic resources. We identify a "people–policy gap", and suggest that this is an understudied constraint, which needs to be overcome before worldwide food security can be achieved from aquatic environments. We argue that this gap leads to uneven distribution of benefits, a disconnection between benefits and local needs, and detrimental effects on human health and food security, all of which can have negative repercussions on human communities and ecosystems. In order to address this need, we present an analytical framework to guide context specific, policy-relevant assessments of the social, economic and ecological dimensions of aquaculture on a case-by-case basis. The framework is designed to make best use of existing data and scientific tools for decision-making. In conclusion, we argue for: equal consideration of ecological, social and economic issues in aquaculture policymaking; pre-emptive identification of likely social impacts; integration of people- and context-specific social framing conditions into planning and policy review; addressing the social disconnection between global consumption and production; and, encouragement of creative combinations of theories and methods to assess and interpret the social dimensions of aquaculture in multiple contexts.