Search for: All records

Both the ecological and social dimensions of fisheries are being affected by climate change. As a result, policymakers, managers, scientists and fishing communities are seeking guidance on how to holistically build resilience to climate change. Numerous studies have highlighted key attributes of resilience in fisheries, yet concrete examples that explicitly link these attributes to social‐ecological outcomes are lacking. To better understand climate resilience, we assembled 18 case studies spanning ecological, socio‐economic, governance and geographic contexts. Using a novel framework for evaluating 38 resilience attributes, the case studies were systematically assessed to understand how attributes enable or inhibit resilience to a given climate stressor. We found population abundance, learning capacity, and responsive governance were the most important attributes for conferring resilience, with ecosystem connectivity, place attachment, and accountable governance scoring the strongest across the climate‐resilient fisheries. We used these responses to develop an attribute typology that describes robust sources of resilience, actionable priority attributes and attributes that are case specific or require research. We identified five fishery archetypes to guide stakeholders as they set long‐term goals and prioritize actions to improve resilience. Lastly, we found evidence for two pathways to resilience: (1) building ecological assets and strengthening communities, which we observed in rural and small‐scale fisheries, and (2) building economic assets and improving effective governance, which was demonstrated in urban and wealthy fisheries. Our synthesis presents a novel framework that can be directly applied to identify approaches, pathways and actionable levers for improving climate resilience in fishery systems.

 

Recent discussions of healthy and sustainable diets encourage increased consumption of plants and decreased consumption of animal-source foods (ASFs) for both human and environmental health. Seafood is often peripheral in these discussions. This paper examines the relative environmental costs of sourcing key nutrients from different kinds of seafood, other ASFs, and a range of plant-based foods. We linked a nutrient richness index for different foods to life cycle assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the production of these foods to evaluate nutritional benefits relative to this key indicator of environmental impacts. The lowest GHG emissions to meet average nutrient requirement values were found in grains, tubers, roots, seeds, wild-caught small pelagic fish, farmed carp and bivalve shellfish. The highest GHG emissions per nutrient supply are in beef, lamb, wild-caught prawns, farmed crustaceans, and pork. Among ASFs, some fish and shellfish have GHG emissions at least as low as plants and merit inclusion in food systems policymaking for their potential to support a healthy, sustainable diet. However, other aquatic species and production methods deliver nutrition to diets at environmental costs at least as high as land-based meat production. It is important to disaggregate seafood by species and production method in ‘planetary health diet’ advice.

 

Abstract Injustices are prevalent in food systems, where the accumulation of vast wealth is possible for a few, yet one in ten people remain hungry. Here, for 194 countries we combine aquatic food production, distribution and consumption data with corresponding national policy documents and, drawing on theories of social justice, explore whether barriers to participation explain unequal distributions of benefits. Using Bayesian models, we find economic and political barriers are associated with lower wealth-based benefits; countries produce and consume less when wealth, formal education and voice and accountability are lacking. In contrast, social barriers are associated with lower welfare-based benefits; aquatic foods are less affordable where gender inequality is greater. Our analyses of policy documents reveal a frequent failure to address political and gender-based barriers. However, policies linked to more just food system outcomes centre principles of human rights, specify inclusive decision-making processes and identify and challenge drivers of injustice.