example of research topics about agriculture and fisheries

Advancing the Science of Climate Change (2010)

Chapter: 10 agriculture, fisheries, and food production, chapter ten agriculture, fisheries, and food production.

M eeting the food needs of a still-growing and more affluent global population—as well as the nearly one billion people who already go without adequate food—presents a key challenge for economic and human security (see Chapter 16 ). Many analysts estimate that food production will need to nearly double over the coming several decades (Borlaug, 2007; FAO, 2009). Recent trends of using food crops for fuel (e.g., corn ethanol) or displacing food crops with fuel crops, along with potential opportunities for reforesting land for carbon credits, may amplify the food security challenge by increasing competition for arable land (Fargione et al., 2008). Climate change increases the complexity of meeting these food needs because of its multiple impacts on agricultural crops, livestock, and fisheries. The potential ability of agricultural and fishery systems to limit climate change adds yet another dimension to be considered.

Questions that farmers, fishers, and other decision makers are asking or will be asking about agriculture, fisheries, and food production in the context of climate change include the following:

How will climate change affect yields?

How will climate change affect weeds and pests, and will I need more pesticides or different technology to maintain or increase yields?

Will enough water be available for my crops? Will the risk of flooding or drought increase?

Should I change to more heat-resistant or slower-growing crop varieties?

What new market opportunities should I take advantage of? How will competitors in other regions be affected?

What adjustments do I need to make to guarantee the sustainability of the fisheries under my management?

How will climate change affect my catch? Will I need new equipment and technology? Will regulations change?

How will climate change affect the availability of food in domestic and international markets? Will food become more expensive? Will food security increase or decrease?

How can changes in agricultural production and practices contribute to reduc-

tions in greenhouse gas emissions or dampen regional-scale impacts related to climate change?

The scientific knowledge summarized in this chapter illustrates how agriculture will be influenced by climate change, and it explores the less well understood impacts of climate change on fisheries. The chapter also indicates how agricultural management may provide opportunities to reduce net human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and it offers insight into the science needed for adaptation in agriculture systems as well as food security issues. Finally, the chapter provides examples of a broad range of research that is needed to understand the impacts of climate change on food production systems and to develop strategies that assist in both limiting the magnitude of climate change through management practices and reducing vulnerability and increasing adaptive capacity in regions and populations in the United States and other parts of the world.

CROP PRODUCTION

Crop production will be influenced in multiple ways by climate change itself, as well as by our efforts to limit the magnitude of climate change and adapt to it. Over the past two decades, numerous experimental studies have been carried out on crop responses to increases in average temperature and atmospheric CO 2 concentrations (often referred to as carbon fertilization), and mathematical models depicting those relationships (singly or in combination) have been developed for individual crops. Fewer experiments and models have evaluated plant responses to climate-related increases in air pollutants such as ozone, or to changes in water or nutrient availability in combination with CO 2 and temperature changes. A recently published report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP, 2008e) summarized the results from experimental and modeling analyses for the United States. Results of experimental studies, for example, indicate that many crop plants, including wheat and soybeans, respond to elevated CO 2 with increased growth and seed yield, although not uniformly so. Likewise, elevated CO 2 also reduces the conductance of CO 2 and water vapor through pores in the leaves of some plants, with resulting improvements in water use efficiency and, potentially, improved growth under drought conditions (Leakey et al., 2009). On the other hand, studies carried out in the field under “free air CO 2 enrichment” environments indicate that growth response is often smaller than expected based on more controlled studies (e.g., Leakey et al., 2009; Long et al., 2006). The response of crop plants to carbon fertilization in field environments hence remains an important area of research (see Research Needs section at the end of the chapter).

Some heat-loving crop plants such as melons, sweet potatoes, and okra also respond positively to increasing temperatures and longer growing seasons; but many other crops, including grains and soybeans, are negatively affected, both in vegetative growth and seed production, by even small increases in temperature ( Figure 10.1 ). Many important grain crops tend to have lower yields when summer temperatures increase, primarily because heat accelerates the plant’s developmental cycle and reduces the duration of the grain-filling period (CCSP, 2008b; Rosenzweig and Hillel, 1998). In some crop plants, pollination, kernel set, and seed size, among other variables, are harmed by extreme heat (CCSP, 2008b; Wolfe et al., 2008). Studies also indicate that some crops such as fruit and nut trees are sensitive to changes in seasonality, reduced cold periods, and heat waves (Baldocchi and Wong, 2008; CCSP, 2008e; Luedeling et al., 2009).

Most assessments conclude that climate change will increase productivity of some crops in some regions, especially northern regions, while reducing production in others (CCSP, 2008b; Reilly et al., 2003), an expected result given the range of projected climate changes and diversity of food crops around the world. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests, with medium confidence, that moderate warming (1.8°F to 5.4°F [1°C to 3°C]) and associated increases in CO 2 and changes in precipitation would benefit crop and pasture lands in middle to high latitudes but decrease yields in seasonally dry and low-latitude areas (Easterling et al., 2007). This response to intermediate temperature increases would generate a situation of midlatitude “winners” in developed countries and low-latitude “losers” in developing coun-

FIGURE 10.1 Growth rates (green) and reproductive response (purple) versus temperature for corn (left) and soybean (right). The curves show that there is a temperature range (colored bars) within which the plants can optimally grow and reproduce, and that growth and reproduction are less efficient at temperatures above this range. The curves also show that, above a certain temperature, the plants cannot reproduce. SOURCE: USGCRP (2009a).

tries, thus magnifying rather than reducing existing inequities in food availability and security. The IPCC also concludes with medium to low confidence that, on the whole, global food production is likely to decrease with increases in average temperatures above 5.4°F (3°C).

Regional assessments of agricultural impacts in the United States (e.g., CCSP, 2008b, and references therein) suggest that over the next 30 years, the benefits of elevated CO 2 will mostly offset the negative effects of increasing temperature (see below for limits in modeling conducted to date). In northern regions of the country, many crops may respond positively to increases in temperature and atmospheric CO 2 concentrations. In the Midwest corn belt and more southern areas of the Great Plains, positive crop responses to elevated CO 2 may be offset by negative responses to increasing temperatures; rice, sorghum, and bean crops in the South would see negative growth impacts (CCSP, 2008b). In California, where half the nation’s fruit and vegetable crops are grown, climate change is projected to decrease yields of almonds, walnuts, avocados, and table grapes by up to 40 percent by 2050 (Lobell et al., 2007). As temperatures continue to rise, crops will increasingly experience temperatures above the optimum for growth and reproduction. Adaptation through altered crop types, planting dates, and other management options is expected to help the agricultural sector, especially in the developed world (Burke et al., 2009; Darwin et al., 1995). However, regional assessments for other areas of the world consistently conclude that climate change presents a serious risk to critical staple crops in sub-Saharan Africa, where adaptive capacity is expected to be less than in the industrialized world (Jones and Thornton, 2003; Parry et al., 2004). Parts of the world where agriculture depends on water resources from glacial melt, including the Andean highlands, the Ganges Plain, and portions of East Africa, are also at risk due to the worldwide reduction in snowpack and the retreat of glaciers (Bradley et al., 2006; Kehrwald et al., 2008; also see Chapter 8 ).

While models of crop responses to climate change have generally incorporated shifts in average temperature, length of growing season, and CO 2 fertilization, either singly or in combination, most have excluded expected changes in other factors that also have dramatic impacts on crop yields. These critical factors include changes in extreme events (such as heat waves, intense rainfall, or drought), pests and disease, and water supplies and energy use (for irrigation). Extreme events such as heavy downpours are already increasing in frequency and are projected to continue to increase (CCSP, 2008b; Rosenzweig et al., 2001). Intense rainfalls can delay planting, increase root diseases, damage fruit, and cause flooding and erosion, all of which reduce crop productivity. Drought frequency and intensity are likely (Christensen et al., 2007) to increase in several regions that already experience water stress, especially in developing

countries where investments have focused on disaster recovery more than adaptive capacity (e.g., Mirza, 2003).

Changes in water quantity and quality due to climate change are also expected to affect food availability, stability, access, and utilization. This will increase the vulnerability of many farmers and decrease food security, especially in the arid and semiarid tropics and in the large Asian and African deltas (Bates and Kundzewicz, 2008). As noted in Chapter 8 , freshwater demand globally will grow in coming decades, primarily due to population growth, increasing affluence, and the need for increased production of food and energy. Climate change is exacerbating these issues, and model simulations under various scenarios indicate that many regions face water resource challenges, especially in regions that depend on rainfall or irrigation from snowmelt (Hayhoe et al., 2007; Kapnick and Hall, 2009; Maurer and Duffy, 2005). As a result, many regions face critical decisions about modifying infrastructure and pricing policies as climate change progresses.

Many weeds, plant diseases, and insect pests benefit from warming (and from elevated CO 2 , in the case of most weed plants), sometimes more than crops; as temperatures continue to rise, many weeds, diseases, and pests will also expand their ranges (CCSP, 2008b; Garrett et al., 2006; Gregory et al., 2009; Lake and Wade, 2009; McDonald et al., 2009). In addition, under higher CO 2 concentrations, some herbicides appear to be less effective (CCSP, 2008b; Ziska, 2000; Ziska et al., 1999). In the United States, aggressive weeds such as kudzu, which has already invaded 2.5 million acres of the southeast, is expected to expand its range into agricultural areas to the north (Frumhoff, 2007). Worldwide, animal diseases and pests are already exhibiting range extensions from low to middle latitudes due to warming (CCSP, 2008b; Diffenbaugh et al., 2008). While these and other changes are expected to have negative impacts on crops, their impact on food production at regional or national scales has not been thoroughly evaluated.

Similar to crop production, commercial forestry will be affected by many aspects of climate change, including CO 2 fertilization, changes in length of growing season, changing precipitation patterns, and pests and diseases. Models project that global timber production could increase through a poleward shift in the locations where important forest species are grown, largely as a result of longer growing seasons. Enhanced growth due to carbon fertilization is also possible (Norby et al., 2005). However, experimental results and models typically do not account for limiting factors such as pests, weeds, nutrient availability, and drought; these limiting factors could potentially offset or even dominate the effects of longer growing seasons and carbon fertilization (Angert et al., 2005; Kirllenko and Sedjo, 2007; Norby et al., 2005).

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

Livestock respond to climate change directly through heat and humidity stresses, and they are also affected indirectly by changes in forage quantity and quality, water availability, and disease. Because heat stress reduces milk production, weight gain, and reproduction in livestock, production of pork, beef, and milk is projected to decline with warming temperatures, especially those above 5.4°F (3°C; Backlund et al., 2008) ( Figure 10.2 ). In addition, livestock losses due to heat waves are expected to increase, with the extreme heat exacerbated by rising minimum nighttime temperatures as well as increasing difficulties in providing adequate water (CCSP, 2008b).

Increasing temperatures may enhance production of forage in pastures and rangelands, except in already hot and dry locations. Longer growing seasons may also extend overall forage production, as long as precipitation and soil moisture are sufficient; however, uncertainty in climate model precipitation projections makes this difficult to determine. Although CO 2 enrichment stimulates production on many rangelands and pastures, it also reduces forage quality, shifts the dominant grass species toward those with lower food quality, and increases the prevalence of nonforage weeds (CCSP, 2008b; Eakin and Conley, 2002). In northern Sonora, Mexico, for example, buffelgrass, which was imported from Africa and improved in the United States, is increasingly planted as livestock pasture in arid conditions. However, the grass has become an

FIGURE 10.2 Percent change in milk yield from 20th-century (1850 to 1985) climate conditions to projected 2040 climate conditions made using two different models of future climate (bold versus italicized numbers) in different regions of the United States. The bold values are associated with the model that exhibits more rapid warming. SOURCE: CCSP (2008e).

aggressive invader, spreading across the Sonoran Desert landscape and into Arizona and overrunning important national parks and reserves (Arriaga et al., 2004). Overall, changes in forage are expected to lead to an overall decline in livestock productivity.

FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION

Over one billion people around the world rely on seafood as their primary source of protein, and roughly three billion people obtain at least 15 percent of their total protein intake from seafood (FAO, 2009). Global demand for seafood is growing at a rapid rate, fueled by increases in human population, affluence, and dietary shifts (York and Gossard, 2004). While demand for seafood is increasing, the catch of wild seafood has been declining slightly for 20 years (Watson and Pauly, 2001). Meeting the growth in demand has only been possible by rapid growth in marine aquaculture. The United States consumes nearly five billion pounds of seafood a year, ranking it third globally behind China and Japan. This large consumption, however, comes primarily from fish caught outside the nation’s boundary waters. Nearly 85 percent of U.S. consumption is imported, and that fraction is increasing (Becker, 2010). Therefore, consumption of food from the sea links the United States to nearly all the world’s ocean ecosystems.

Marine Fisheries

The impacts of climate change on marine-based food systems are far less well known than impacts on agriculture, but there is rapidly growing evidence that they could be severe (see Chapter 9 ). This is especially problematic given that a sizeable fraction of the world’s fisheries are already overexploited (Worm et al., 2009) and many are also subject to pollution from land or under stress from the decline of critical habitats like coral reefs and wetlands (Halpern et al., 2008; Sherman et al., 2009).

Year-to-year climate variability has long been known to cause large fluctuations in fish stocks, both directly and indirectly (McGowan et al., 1998; Stenseth et al., 2002), and this has always been a challenge for effective fisheries management (Walters and Parma, 1996). Similar sensitivity to longer time-scale variations in climate has been documented in a wide range of fish species from around the globe (Chavez et al., 2003; Steele, 1998), and this portends major changes in fish populations under future climate change scenarios. Successful management of fisheries will require an improved ability to forecast population fluctuations driven by climate change; this in turn demands significant new investments in research, including research on various management options (e.g., Mora et al., 2009). Fundamental shifts in management prac-

tices may be needed. For example, restoration planning for depleted Chinook salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest needs to account for the spatial shift in salmon habitat (Battin et al., 2007). An added complexity is that, because most of the fish catch comes from open oceans under international jurisdiction, any management regime will need to be negotiated and accepted by multiple nations to be effective.

Fished species tend to be relatively mobile, either as adults or young (larvae drifting in the plankton). As a result, their distributions can shift rapidly compared to those of land animals. In recent decades, geographical shifts toward the poles of tens to hundreds of kilometers have been documented for a wide range of marine species in different areas (Grebmeier et al., 2006; Lima et al., 2006; Mueter and Litzow, 2008; Sagarin et al., 1999; Zacherl et al., 2003). Model projections for anticipated changes by 2050 suggest a potentially dramatic rearrangement of marine life (Cheung et al., 2009). Although such projections are based upon relatively simple models and should be treated as hypotheses, they suggest that displacements of species ranges may be sufficiently large that the fish species harvested from any given port today may change dramatically in coming decades. Fishers in many Alaskan ports are already facing much longer commutes as distributions of target species have shifted (CCSP, 2009b).

Such projected shifts in fisheries distributions are likely to be most pronounced for U.S. fisheries in the North Pacific and North Atlantic, where temperature increases are likely to be greatest and will be coupled to major habitat changes driven by reduced sea ice (CCSP, 2009b). Abrupt warming in the late 1970s, which was associated with a regime shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, greatly altered the marine ecosystem composition in the Gulf of Alaska (Anderson and Piatt, 1999). Rapid reductions in ice-dominated regions of the Bering Sea will very likely expand the habitat for subarctic piscivores such as arrowtooth flounder, cod, and pollock. Because there are presently only fisheries for cod and pollock, arrowtooth flounder may experience significant population increases with broad potential consequences to the ecosystem (CCSP, 2009b).

The effects of ocean acidification from increased absorption of CO 2 by the sea (see Chapters 6 and 9 ) may be even more important for some fisheries than other aspects of climate change, although the overall impact of ocean acidification remains uncertain (Fabry et al., 2008; Guinotte and Fabry, 2008). Many fished species (e.g., invertebrates such as oysters, clams, scallops, and sea urchins) produce shells as adults or larvae, and the production of shells could be compromised by increased acidification (Fabry et al., 2008; Gazeau et al., 2007; Hofmann et al . , 2008). Many other fished species rely on shelled plankton, such as pteropods and foraminifera, as their primary food source. Projected declines in these plankton species could have catastrophic impacts

on fished species higher in the food chain. Finally, acidification can disrupt a variety of physiological processes beyond the production of shells. Hence, the potential impacts of acidification—especially in combination with other climate changes on marine fish-eries—is potentially enormous, but the details remain highly uncertain (NRC, 2010f).

Aquaculture and Freshwater Fisheries

Today, approximately a third of seafood is grown in aquaculture, and that number rises to half if seafood raised for animal feed is included. As the fastest growing source of animal protein on the planet, aquaculture is widely touted as critical for meeting growing demands for food. Although aquaculture avoids some of the climate impacts associated with wild fish harvesting, others (e.g., ocean acidification) are equally challenging. Indeed, the current predominance of aquaculture facilities in estuaries and bays may exacerbate some of the impacts of ocean acidification (Miller et al., 2009). In addition, since different forms of aquaculture may require a variety of other natural resources such as water, feed, and energy to produce seafood, there may be much broader indirect impacts of climate change on this rapidly growing industry.

Freshwater fisheries face most of the same challenges from climate change as those in saltwater, as well as some that are unique. Forecasting the consequences of warming on fish population dynamics is complicated, because details of future climate at relatively small geographic scales (e.g., seasonal and daily variation, regional variation across watersheds) are critical to anticipating fish population responses (Littell et al., 2009). Yet, as noted in Chapter 6 , regional and local aspects of climate change are the hardest to project. Expected effects include elevated temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen (Kalff, 2002), increased stratification of lakes (Gaedke et al., 1998; Kalff, 2002), and elevated pollutant toxicity (Ficke et al., 2007). Although the consequences of some of these changes are predictable when taken one at a time, the complex nature of interactions between their effects makes forecasting change for even a single species in a single region daunting (Littell et al., 2009). In addition to altering these physical and chemical characteristics of freshwater, climate change will also alter the quantity, timing, and variability of water flows (Mauget, 2003; Ye et al., 2003; Chapter 8 ). Climate-driven alterations of the flow regime will add to the decades or even centuries of alterations of stream and river flows through other human activities (e.g., urbanization, water withdrawals, dams; Poff et al., 2007). Finally, changes in lake levels that will result from changed patterns of precipitation, runoff, groundwater flows, and evaporation could adversely affect spawning grounds for some species, depending on bathymetry. While the full ramifications of these changes for freshwater fish require further analysis, there is evidence that coldwater fish such as salmon and trout will be especially

sensitive to them. For example, some projections suggest that half of the wild trout population of the Appalachians will be lost; in other areas of the nation, trout losses could range as high as 90 percent (Williams et al., 2007).

Globally, precipitation is expected to increase overall, and more of it is expected to occur in extreme events and as rain rather than snow, but anticipated regional changes in precipitation vary greatly and are highly uncertain (see Chapter 8 ). As a result, major alterations of stream and lake ecosystems are forecast in coming decades, but the details remain highly uncertain (Ficke et al., 2007). Although freshwater fish and invertebrates are typically as mobile as their marine counterparts, their ability to shift their range in response to climate change may be greatly compromised by the challenges of moving between watersheds. In contrast to the rapid changes in species ranges in the sea (Perry et al., 2005), freshwater fish and invertebrates may be much more constrained in their poleward range shifts in response to climate change, especially in east-west stream systems (Allan et al., 2005; McDowall, 1992).

In the United States, per capita consumption of fish and shellfish from the sea and estuaries is more than 15 times higher than consumption of freshwater fish (EPA, 2002); nevertheless, freshwater fish are important as recreation and as food for some U.S. populations. Globally, however, freshwater and diadromous fish (fish that migrate between fresh- and saltwater) account for about a quarter of total fish and shellfish consumption (Laurenti, 2007) and in many locations serve as the predominant source of protein (Bayley, 1981; van Zalinge et al., 2000). Given the large uncertainty in how climate change impacts on freshwater ecosystems will affect the fisheries they support, this important source of food and recreation is at considerable risk.

SCIENCE TO SUPPORT LIMITING CLIMATE CHANGE BY MODIFYING AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY SYSTEMS

Food production systems are not only affected by climate change, but also contribute to it. Agricultural activities release significant amounts of CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) to the atmosphere (Cole et al., 1997; Paustian et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2007). CO 2 is released largely from decomposition of soil organic matter by microorganisms or burning of live and dead plant materials (Janzen, 2004; Smith, 2004); decomposition is enhanced by vegetation removal and tillage of soils. CH 4 is produced when decomposition occurs in oxygen-deprived conditions, such as wetlands and flooded rice systems, and from digestion by many kinds of livestock (Matson et al., 1998; Mosier et al., 1998). N 2 O is generated by microbial processes in soils and manures, and the flux of N 2 O into the atmosphere is typically enhanced by fertilizer use,

especially when applied in excess of plant needs (Robertson and Vitousek, 2009; Smith and Conen, 2004). The 2007 IPCC assessment concluded, with medium certainty, that agriculture accounts for about 10 to 12 percent of total global human-caused emissions of GHGs, including 60 percent of N 2 O and about 50 percent of CH 4 (Smith et al., 2007). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that about 32 percent of CH 4 emissions and 67 percent of N 2 O emissions in the United States are associated with agricultural activities (EPA, 2009b).

Typically, the projected future of global agriculture is based on intensification—increasing the output per unit area or time—which is typically achieved by increasing or improving inputs such as fertilizer, water, pesticides, and crop varieties, and thereby potentially reducing agricultural demands on other lands (e.g., Borlaug, 2007). Given this projected intensification, global N 2 O emissions are predicted to increase by about 50 percent by 2020 (relative to 1990) due to increasing use of fertilizers in agricultural systems (EPA, 2006; Mosier and Kroeze, 2000). If CH 4 emissions grow in direct proportion to increases in livestock numbers, then global livestock-related CH 4 production is expected to increase by 60 percent up to 2030 (Bruinsma, 2003); in the United States, the EPA (2006) forecasts that livestock-related CH 4 emissions will increase by 21 percent between 2005 and 2020. Projected changes in CH 4 emissions from rice production vary but are generally smaller than those associated with livestock (Bruinsma, 2003; EPA, 2006).

The active management of agricultural systems offers possibilities for limiting these fluxes and offsetting other GHG emissions. Many of these opportunities use current technologies and can be implemented immediately, permitting a reduction in emissions per unit of food (or protein) produced, and perhaps also a reduction in emissions per capita of food consumption. For example, changes in feeds and feeding practices can reduce CH 4 emissions from livestock, and using biogas digesters for manure management can substantially reduce CH 4 and N 2 O emissions while producing energy. Changes in management of fertilizers, and the development of new fertilizer application technologies that more closely match crop demand—sometimes called precision or smart farming—can also reduce N 2 O fluxes. It may also be possible to develop and adopt new rice cultivars that emit less CH 4 or otherwise manage the soil-root microbial ecosystem that drives emissions (Wang et al., 1997). Alternatively, organic agriculture or its fusion into other crop practices may reduce emissions and other environmental problems. To date, however, there has been little research on the willingness of farmers and the agricultural sector in general to adopt practices that would reduce emissions, or on the kinds of education, incentives, and institutions that would promote their use.

Beyond limiting the trace gases emitted in agricultural practice, there are opportunities for offsetting GHG emissions more broadly by managing agricultural landscapes to absorb and store carbon in soils and vegetation (Scherr and Sthapit, 2009). For example, minimizing soil tillage yields multiple benefits by increasing soil carbon storage, improving and maintaining soil structure and moisture, and reducing the need for inorganic fertilizers, as well as reducing labor, mechanization, and energy costs. Such practices may also have beneficial effects on biodiversity and other ecosystem services provided by surrounding lands and can be made economically attractive to farmers (Robertson and Swinton, 2005; Swinton et al., 2006). Incorporating biochar (charcoal from fast-growing trees or other biomass that is burned in a low-oxygen environment) has also been proposed as a potentially effective way of taking carbon out of the atmosphere; the resulting biochar can be added to soils for storage and improvement of soil quality (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009), although there has been some debate about the longevity of the carbon storage (Lehmann and Sohi, 2008; Wardle et al., 2008). Shifting agricultural production systems to perennial instead of annual crops, or intercropping annuals with perennial plants such as trees, shrubs, and palms, could also store carbon while producing food and fiber. Biofuel systems that depend on perennial species rather than food crops could be an integral part of such a system. Research is needed to develop these options and to test their efficacy. Most important, a landscape approach would be required in order to plan for carbon storage in conjunction with food and fiber production, conservation, and other land uses and the ecosystem services they provide.

Land clearing and deforestation have been major contributors to GHG emissions over the past several centuries, although as fossil fuel use has grown, land use contributions have become proportionally less important. Still, tropical deforestation alone accounted for about 20 percent of the carbon released to the atmosphere from human activities from 2000 to 2005 (Gullison et al., 2007) and 17 percent of all long-lived GHGs in 2004 (Barker et al., 2007). Reducing deforestation and restoring vegetation in degraded areas could thus both limit climate change and provide linked ecosystem and social benefits (see Chapter 9 ). It is not yet clear, however, how such programs would interact with other forces operating on agriculture to affect overall land uses and emissions. Finally, as with all proposed emissions-limiting land-management approaches, it is critical that attention be paid to consequences for all GHGs, not just a single target gas (Robertson et al., 2000), and to all aspects of the climate system, including reflectivity of the land surface (Gibbard et al., 2005; Jackson et al., 2008), as well as co-benefits in conservation, agricultural production, water resources, energy, and other sectors.

SCIENCE TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION IN AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS

The ability of farmers and the entire food production, processing, and distribution system to adapt to climate change will contribute to, and to some extent govern, the ultimate impacts of climate change on food production. Adaptation strategies may include changes in location as well as in-place changes such as shifts in planting dates and varieties; expansion of irrigated or managed areas; diversification of crops and other income sources; application of agricultural chemicals; changes in livestock care, infrastructure, and water and feed management; selling assets or borrowing credit (Moser et al., 2008; NRC, 2010a; Wolfe et al., 2008). At the broadest level, adaptation also includes investment in agricultural research and in institutions to reduce vulnerability. This is because the ability of farmers and others to adapt depends in important ways on available technology, financial resources and financial risk-management instruments, market opportunities, availability of alternative agricultural practices, and importantly, access to, trust in, and use of information such as seasonal forecasts (Cash, 2001; Cash et al., 2006a). It also depends on specific institutional arrangements, including property rights, social norms, trust, monitoring and sanctions, and agricultural extension institutions that can facilitate diversification (Agrawal and Perrin, 2008). Not all farmers have access to such strategies or support institutions, and smallholders—especially those with substantial debt, and the landless in poor countries—are most likely to suffer negative effects on their livelihoods and food security. Smallholder and subsistence farmers will suffer complex, localized impacts of climate change (Easterling et al., 2007).

Integrated assessment models, which combine climate models with crop models and models of the responses of farmers and markets, have been used to simulate the impacts of climate changes on productivity and also on factors such as farm income and crop management. Some modeling studies have included adaptations in these integrated assessments (McCarl, 2008; Reilly et al., 2003), for example by adjusting planting dates or varieties and by reallocating crops according to changes in profitability. For the United States, these studies usually project very small effects of climate change on the agricultural economy, and, in some regions, positive increases in productivity and profitability (assuming adaptation through cropping systems changes). As noted earlier with regard to climate-crop models, assessments have not yet included potential impacts of pests and pathogens or extreme events, nor have they included site- and crop-specific responses to climate change or variations. Moreover, even integrated assessment models that include adaptation do not include estimates of rates of technological change, costs of adaptation, or planned interventions (Antle, 2009). Thus, our understanding of the effects climate change will have on U.S. agriculture and on

international food supplies, distribution, trade, and food security remains quite limited and warrants further research.

As they have in the past, both autonomous adaptations by farmers and planned interventions by governments and other institutions to facilitate, enable, and inform farmers’ responses will be important in reducing potential damages from climate change and other related changes. Investments in crop development, especially in developing countries, have stagnated since the 1980s (Pardey and Beintema, 2002), although recent investments by foundations may fill some of the void. Private-sector expenditures play an important role, especially in developed countries, and some companies are engaging in efforts to develop varieties well suited for a changing climate (Burke et al., 2009; Wolfe et al., 2008).

Government investments in new or rehabilitated irrigation systems (of all sizes) and efficient water use and allocation technologies, transportation infrastructure, financial infrastructure such as availability of credit and insurance mechanisms (Barnett et al., 2008; Gine et al., 2008; World Bank, 2007), and access to fair markets are also important elements of adaptation (Burke et al., 2009). Likewise, investments in participatory research and information provision to farmers have been a keystone of past agricultural development strategies (e.g., through extension services in both developed and developing countries) and no doubt will remain so in the future. Finally, the provision of social safety nets (e.g., formal and informal sharing of risks and costs, labor exchange, crop insurance programs, food aid during emergencies, public works programs, or cash payments), which have long been a mainstay of agriculture in the developed world, will remain important (Agrawal, 2008; Agrawal and Perrin, 2008). These considerations need to be integrated into development planning.

It is important that agriculture be viewed as an integrated system. As noted above, the United States and the rest of the world will be simultaneously developing strategies to adapt agriculture to climate change, to utilize the potential of agricultural practices and other land uses to reduce the magnitude of climate change, and to increase agricultural production to meet rising global demands. With careful analysis and institutional design, these efforts may be able to complement one another while also enhancing our ability to improve global food security. However, without such integrated analysis, various practices and policies could easily work at cross purposes, moving the global food production system further from, rather than closer to, sustainability. For example, increased biofuel production would decrease reliance on fossil fuels but could increase demand for land and food resources (Fargione et al., 2008).

FOOD SECURITY

Food security is defined as a “situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007). The four dimensions of food security are availability (the overall ability of agricultural systems to meet food demand), stability (the ability to acquire food during income or food price shocks), access (the ability of individuals to have adequate resources to acquire food), and utilization (the ability of the entire food chain to deliver safe food). Climate change affects all four dimensions directly or indirectly; all can be affected at the same time by nonclimatic factors such as social norms, gender roles, formal and informal institutional arrangements, economic markets, and global to local agricultural policies. For example, utilization can be affected through the impact of warming on spoilage and foodborne disease, while access can be affected by changing prices in the fuels used to transport food. Most studies have focused on the first dimension—the direct impact of climate change on the total availability of different agricultural products. Models that account for the other three dimensions need to be developed to identify where people are most vulnerable to food insecurity (Lobell et al., 2008; see also Chapter 4 ).

Because the food system is globally interconnected, it is not possible to view U.S. food security, or that of any other country, in isolation. Where food is imported—as is the case for a high percentage of seafood consumed in the United States—prices and availability can be directly affected by climate change impacts in other countries. Climate change impacts anywhere in the world potentially affect the demand for agricultural exports and the ability of the United States and other countries to meet that demand. Food security in the developing world also affects political stability, and thereby U.S. national security (see Chapter 16 ). Food riots that occurred in many countries as prices soared in 2008 are a case in point (Davis and Belkin, 2008). Over the past 30 years, there has been dramatic improvement in access to food as real food prices have dropped and incomes have increased in many parts of the developing world (Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007). Studies that project the number of people at risk of hunger from climate change indicate that the outcome strongly depends on socioeconomic development, since affluence tends to reduce vulnerability by enlarging coping capacity (Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007). Clearly, international development strategies and climate change are inextricably intertwined and require coordinated examination.

RESEARCH NEEDS

Given the challenges noted in the previous section, it is clear that expanded research efforts will be needed to help farmers, development planners, and others engaged in the agricultural sector to understand and respond to projected impacts of climate change on agriculture. There may also be opportunities to limit the magnitude of future climate change though changes in agricultural practices; it will be important to link such strategies with adaptation strategies so they complement rather than undermine each other. Identifying which regions, human communities, fisheries, and crops and livestock in the United States and other parts of the world are most vulnerable to climate change, developing adaptation approaches to reduce this vulnerability, and developing and assessing options for reducing agricultural GHG emissions are critical tasks for the nation’s climate change research program. Focus is also needed on the developing world, where the negative effects of climate change on agricultural and fisheries production tend to coincide with people with low adaptation capacity. Some specific research areas are listed below.

Improve models of crop response to climate and other environmental changes. Crop plants and timber species respond to multiple and interacting effects—including temperature, moisture, extreme weather events, CO 2 , ozone, and other factors such as pests, diseases, and weeds—all of which are affected by climate change. Experimental studies that evaluate the sensitivity of crops to such factors, singly and in interaction, are needed, especially in ecosystem-scale experiments and in environments where temperature is already close to optimal for crops. Many assessments model crop response to climate-related variables while assuming no change in availability of water resources, especially irrigation. Projections about agricultural success in the future need to explicitly include such interactions. Of particular concern are assumptions about water availability that include consideration of needs by other sectors. The reliability of water resources for agriculture when there is competition from other uses needs to be evaluated in the context of coupled human-environment systems, ideally at regional scales. Improved understanding of the response of farmers and markets to production and prices and also to policies and institutions that affect land and resource uses is needed; incorporation of that information in models will aid in designing effective agricultural strategies for limiting and adapting to climate change.

Improve models of response of fisheries to climate change. Sustainable yields from fisheries require matching catch limits with the growth of the fishery. Climate variation already makes forecasting the growth of fish populations difficult, and future climate change will increase this critical uncertainty. Studies of connections between

climate and marine population dynamics are needed to enhance model frameworks for fisheries management. In addition, there is considerable uncertainty about differences in sensitivity among and within species to ocean acidification (NRC, 2010f). This inevitable consequence of increasing atmospheric CO 2 is poorly understood, yet global in scope. Most fisheries are subject to other stressors in addition to warming, acidification, and harvesting, and the interactions of these other stresses need to be analyzed and incorporated into models. Finally, these efforts need to be linked to the analysis of effective institutions and policies for managing fisheries.

Expand observing and monitoring systems. Satellite, aircraft, and ground-based measures of changes in crops yields, stress symptoms, weed invasions, soil moisture, ocean productivity, and other variables related to fisheries and crop production are possible but not yet carried out systematically or continuously. Monitoring of the environmental and social dynamics of food production systems on land and in the oceans is also needed to enable assessments of vulnerable systems or threats to food security. Monitoring systems will require metrics of vulnerability and sustainability to provide early warnings and develop adaptation strategies.

Assess food security and vulnerability in the context of climate change. Effective adaptation will require integration of knowledge and models about environmental as well as socioeconomic systems in order to project regional food supplies and demands, understand appropriate responses, to develop institutional approaches for adapting under climate variability and climate change, and to assess implications for food security (NRC, 2009k). Scenarios that evaluate implications of climate change and adaptation strategies for food security in different regions are needed, as are models that assess shifting demands for meat and seafood that will influence price and supply. Approaches, tools, and metrics are needed to assess the differential vulnerability of various human-environment systems so that investments can be designed to reduce potential harm (e.g., through interventions such as the development of new crop varieties and technologies, new infrastructure, social safety nets, or other adaptation measures). A concerted research effort is needed both for conducting assessments and to support the development and implementation of options for adaptation. Surprisingly, relatively little effort has been directed toward identification of geographic areas where damages to agriculture or fisheries could be caused by extreme events (hurricanes, drought, hypoxia); where there is or will be systematic loss of agricultural area due to sea level rise, erosion, and saltwater intrusion; or where there will be changes in average conditions (e.g., extent of sea ice cover, and warming of areas that are now too cold for agriculture) that could lead to broad-scale changes—positive or negative—in the type and manner of agricultural and fisheries production.

Evaluate trade-offs and synergies in managing agricultural lands. Improved integrated assessment approaches and other tools are needed to evaluate agricultural lands and their responses to climate change in the context of other land uses and ecosystem services. Planning approaches need to be developed for avoiding adaptation responses that place other systems (or other generations) at risk—for example, by converting important conservation lands to agriculture, allocating water resources away from environmental or urban needs, or overuse of pesticides and fertilizers. Integrated assessments would help to evaluate both trade-offs (e.g., conservation versus agriculture) and co-benefits (e.g., increasing soil carbon storage while also enhancing soil productivity and reducing erosion) of different actions that might be taken in the agricultural sector to limit the magnitude of climate change or adapt to its impacts.

Evaluate trade-offs and synergies in managing the sea. The oceans provide a wide range of services to humans, but conflicts over use of the oceans are often magnified because of the absence of marine spatial planning and relatively weak international marine regulatory systems. Efforts to limit the magnitude of climate change are causing society to consider the sea for new sources of energy (e.g., waves, tides, thermal gradients), while the opening of ice-free areas in the Arctic is encouraging exploration of offshore reserves of minerals and fossil fuels. Without analyses of the looming tradeoffs between these emerging uses and existing services, such as fisheries and recreation, conflicts will inevitably grow. New approaches for analyses of such trade-offs are needed as an integral component of marine spatial planning.

Develop and improve technologies, management strategies, and institutions to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture and fisheries and to enhance adaptation to climate change. Research on options for reducing emissions from the agricultural sector is needed, including new technologies, evaluation of effectiveness, costs and benefits, perceptions of farmers and others, and policies to promote implementation. Technologies such as crop breeding and new cropping systems could dramatically increase the sector’s adaptive capacity. Research on the role of entitlements and institutional barriers in influencing mitigation or adaptation responses; the effectiveness of governance structures; interactions of national and local policies; and national security implications of climate-agriculture interactions are also needed.

Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems. The compelling case for these conclusions is provided in Advancing the Science of Climate Change , part of a congressionally requested suite of studies known as America's Climate Choices. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never closed, the book shows that hypotheses about climate change are supported by multiple lines of evidence and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute through research that improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change and also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels. The book identifies decisions being made in 12 sectors, ranging from agriculture to transportation, to identify decisions being made in response to climate change.

Advancing the Science of Climate Change calls for a single federal entity or program to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change. Seven cross-cutting research themes are identified to support this scientific enterprise. In addition, leaders of federal climate research should redouble efforts to deploy a comprehensive climate observing system, improve climate models and other analytical tools, invest in human capital, and improve linkages between research and decisions by forming partnerships with action-oriented programs.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Fisheries articles from across Nature Portfolio

Fisheries are social, biological and geographical objects involved in producing fish for human consumption. They are usually united by a common geographical area, catch technique and/or target species, and fisheries science is the study of factors affecting catch and stock sustainability.

Latest Research and Reviews

Ultrastructural examination of cryodamage in Paracentrotus lividus eggs during cryopreservation

• J. Troncoso

Anchovy boom and bust linked to trophic shifts in larval diet

A characteristic of costal-pelagic fishes is their large population size fluctuations, yet the drivers remain elusive. Here, the authors analyze a 45-year timeseries of nitrogen stable isotopes measured in larvae of Northern Anchovy and find that high energy transfer efficiency from the base of the food web up to young larvae confers high survival and recruitment to the adult population.

• Rasmus Swalethorp
• Michael R. Landry
• Andrew R. Thompson

Nursery origin of yellowfin tuna in the western Atlantic Ocean: significance of Caribbean Sea and trans-Atlantic migrants

• Jay R. Rooker
• Michelle Zapp Sluis
• R. J. David Wells

Shark teeth zinc isotope values document intrapopulation foraging differences related to ontogeny and sex

Sex- and ontogeny-related differences in diet and habitat use of endangered sand tiger sharks from Delaware Bay revealed by analysis of shark teeth zinc isotope values.

• Jeremy McCormack
• Molly Karnes
• Sora L. Kim

Artificial reefs reduce the adverse effects of mud and transport stress on behaviors of the sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus

• Fangyuan Hu
• Huiyan Wang

Inferring the ecology of north-Pacific albacore tuna from catch-and-effort data

• Hirotaka Ijima
• Carolina Minte-Vera
• Marko Jusup

News and Comment

Seafood access in Kiribati

• Annisa Chand

Climate policy must integrate blue energy with food security

• Jiangning Zeng

Forecast warns when sea life will get tangled in nets — one year in advance

Computational model uses sea surface temperatures to predict when whales and turtles are likely to get stuck in fishing gear.

• Carissa Wong

With the arrival of El Niño, prepare for stronger marine heatwaves

Record-high ocean temperatures, combined with a confluence of extreme climate and weather patterns, are pushing the world into uncharted waters. Researchers must help communities to plan how best to reduce the risks.

• Alistair J. Hobday
• Michael T. Burrows
• Thomas Wernberg

Rethinking the effect of marine heatwaves on fish

Marine heatwaves are on the rise. A surprising result from the analysis of data for fish populations in Europe and North America could change ways of thinking about the ecological consequences of such events.

• Mark R. Payne

Shark culling at a World Heritage site

• Philippe Borsa
• Martine Cornaille
• Bertrand Richer de Forges

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Directories
• Academic Departments
• Staff & Faculty
• Campus Info
• Calendars & Events
• Humboldt Brand
• Facility Rental
• Cares Reporting
• Ombuds Services
• Account Settings
• Reset Your Password
• Technology Assistance
• Course Info
• Class Schedule
• Course Rotations
• Major Academic Plans (MAPs)
• Registration
• Student Services
• Associated Students
• Financial Aid
• Tuition & Fee Payment
• Through Student Center
• Electronic Payments
• Student Financial Services

Fisheries Biology

Graduate Student Research Topics

Current students.

Jason Shaffer Thesis: Comparing environmental DNA and snorkel surveys to determine the spatial distribution of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Smith River Basin, California Advisor: Andre Buchheister, Ph.D.

Alex Juan Thesis: Evaluating the Use of a Trojan Y Chromosome Strategy to Eradicate Invasive Sacramento Pikeminnow in the Eel River to Aid Recovery of Threatened Salmonids Advisor: Andre Buchheister, Ph.D.

Claire Stuart Thesis: Monitoring and evaluating rocky-reef marine protected areas in Northern California Advisor: Andre Buchheister, Ph.D.

Gavin B. Bandy Thesis: A Technique to Calibrate eDNA Surveys for Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Dylan J. Keel Thesis: Quantification of the variability of Ceratonova shasta DNA concentrations in Klamath River water samples Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Noah Angell Thesis: Describing Population Status of Redtail Surfperch and Silver Surfperch in Sandy Beach Surf Zones in Northern California Including Marine Protected Areas Advisor: Jose Marin Jarrin, Ph.D.

Sarah Moreau Thesis: Graduate Student Advisor: Jose Marin Jarrin, Ph.D.

Z Zenobia Thesis: Status of Spirinchus starksi (Night Smelt) in Northern California in 2021 Advisor: Jose Marin Jarrin, Ph.D.

Lily Olmo Thesis: Using fish to study the trophic food chain of artificial wetlands in the Arcata Marsh, CA Advisor: Jose Marin Jarrin, Ph.D.

Jacqueline Bridegum Thesis: Advisor:

Summer 2022

Cory Dick Thesis: Comparing molecular methods to estimate fish stomach contents and gastric evacuation rates: Implications for measuring the impacts of predation on Central Valley Chinook salmon Advisor:

Spring 2022

Katie Terhaar Thesis: Sandy Beach Surf zone Fish Communities and Marine Protected Areas in Northern California Advisor: Jose Marin Jarrin, Ph.D.

Leon Davis Thesis: Assessing abundance, presence, and length, and marine protected area effectiveness for three key rocky reef species along the Northern California Coast Advisor: Andre Buchheister, Ph.D.

Max Grezlik Thesis: Evaluating the effects of Atlantic Menhaden management and environmental change on the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Ecosystem Advisor: Andre Buchheister, Ph.D.

Doyle J. Coyne Thesis: Comparison of standard and environmental DNA methods for estimating Chinook salmon smolt abundance in the Klamath River, California Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Christopher O'Keefe Thesis: Do beaver dam analogues act as passage barriers to juvenile coho salmon and juvenile steelhead trout? Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Roxanne Robertson Thesis: Resolving variability in size structure in an individual-based model for the North Pacific krill, Euphausia pacifica Advisor: Eric Bjorkstedt, Ph.D.

Blair M. Winnacott Thesis: Response of coastal ichthyoplankton assemblages off northern California to seasonal oceanographic and climate variability Advisor: Eric Bjorkstedt, Ph.D.

Nick Van Vleet Thesis: Effects of large wood restoration on coho salmon in a northern California watershed: a before-after-control-impact experiment Advisor:

Natalie Okun Thesis: Effects of large wood restoration on coho salmon in a northern California watershed: a before-after-control-impact experiment Advisor:

Nissa Kreidler Thesis: Species distribution models for three deep-sea coral and sponge taxa in the southern California Bight Advisor: Andre Buchheister, Ph.D.

Steven R. Fong Thesis: Spatial and temporal genetic structure of winter-run steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) returning to the Mad River, California Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Max Ramos Thesis: Recolonization potential for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in tributaries to the Klamath River after dam removal Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Madison Halloran Thesis: Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) dispersal and life history variations among Humboldt Bay watersheds Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Nissa Kreidler Thesis: Species distribution models for three deep-sea coral and sponge taxa in the Southern California Bight Advisor:

Emerson Kanawi Thesis: Comparing environmental DNA and traditional monitoring approaches to assess the abundance of outmigrating coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in California coastal streams Advisor:

Chad M. Martel Thesis: Using environmental DNA and occupancy modeling to estimate rangewide metapopulation dynamics of the endangered tidewater goby eucyclogobius spp. Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Grace Ghrist Thesis: Freshwater and marine survival of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) as a function of juvenile life history Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Laura Solinger Thesis: Spatial variability in recruitment of Chilipepper rockfish (sebastes goodei) in the California current system Advisor: Eric Bjorkstedt, Ph.D.

Chris Loomis Thesis: Density and distribution of piscivorous fishes in the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta Advisor:

John Deibner-Hanson Thesis: Overwinter survival and movement of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in relation to large woody debris and low-velocity habitat in Northern California streams Advisor:

Hannah Coe Thesis: Effects of longline oyster aquaculture on benthic invertebrate communities in Humboldt Bay, California Advisor:

Emily Chen Thesis: Contribution of juvenile estuarine residency in a bar-built estuary to recruitment of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Advisor:

Keith Parker Thesis: Evidence for the genetic basis and inheritance of ocean and river-maturing ecotypes of Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) in the Klamath River, California. Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Michael Sutter Thesis: Rangewide tidewater goby occupancy survey using environmental DNA Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Kevin Hinterman Thesis: Baseline monitoring and characterization of rocky intertidal fish communities in Northern California Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Cori Flannery Thesis: The effects of ocean acidification and reduced oxygen on the behavior and physiology of juvenile rockfish Advisor: Eric Bjorkstedt, Ph.D.

Gabriel Scheer Thesis: A population model for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Freshwater Creek: Evaluating the effects of life history variation and habitat restoration Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Justin Alvarez Thesis: Abundance, growth and predation by non-native brown trout in the Trinity River, CA Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Ryann Whitemore Thesis: Evaluation of parameter estimation and field application of transgenerational genetic mark-recapture Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Molly Gorman Thesis: Juvenile survival and adult return as a function of freshwater rearing life history for Coho Salmon in the Klamath River basin Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Michelle Krall Thesis: The influence of habitat characteristics on abundance and growth of juvenile Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch in constructed habitats in the middle Klamath River basin Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Conrad Newell Thesis: Development of captive culture methods for the endangered tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Molly Schmelzle Thesis: Monitoring endangered tidewater goby using environmental DNA in water samples Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Sean Cochran Thesis: Marine survival of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) from small coastal watersheds in Northern California Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Jesse Wiesenfeld Thesis: Riverscape genetics identifies cryptic lineages of speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) in the Klamath-Trinity basin Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Christine Roddam Thesis: Residency, growth, and outmigration size of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), across rearing locations in the Shasta River, California Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Shari Witmore Thesis: Seasonal growth retention and movement of juvenile coho salmon in natural and constructed habitats of the mid-Klamath River Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Kathryn Crane Thesis: Environmental effects on growth of early life history stages of rockfishes (Sebastes) off Central California based on analysis of otolith growth patterns. Advisor: Eric Bjorkstedt, Ph.D.

Jennifer Hauer Thesis: Overwinter survival and growth of juvenile coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, in Freshwater, California Advisor: Darren Ward, Ph.D.

Michael Hellmair Thesis: Life history variation, genetic diversity and extinction risk in the endangered tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Melissa Reneski Thesis: Temporal genetic analyses reveal divergence of hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) via drift Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

James Hearsey Thesis: Reproductive traits of sympatric spring and fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and their hybrids Advisor: Andrew Kinziger, Ph.D.

Program Overview

Fisheries Biology 1 Harpst St. Arcata, CA 95521 Phone: (707) 826-3953 [email protected]

Advertisement

Food system perspective on fisheries and aquaculture development in Asia

• Open access
• Published: 28 April 2020
• Volume 38 , pages 73–90, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Xavier Tezzo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4509-2901 1 , 2 ,
• Simon R. Bush 1 ,
• Peter Oosterveer 1 &
• Ben Belton 3 , 4  

10k Accesses

31 Citations

38 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper reviews development research and policies on freshwater fish in South and Southeast Asia. We conduct a systematic review of academic literature from three major science-based policy institutions to analyze development research and policies that have accompanied the ongoing transition from freshwater capture fisheries to aquaculture in the region. Using a ‘food fish system’ framework allows for the identification and systematic comparison of assumptions underpinning dominant development policies. We analyze the interrelations between the production, provisioning, and consumption of wild and farmed fish and demonstrate a shift toward food fish systems thinking in the sampled literature. We discuss gaps and weaknesses in the literature, as identified through the application of the food fish systems framework and present an agenda for future research aimed at securing the potential of fish as food.

Similar content being viewed by others

Recognize fish as food in policy discourse and development funding

Abigail Bennett, Xavier Basurto, … Sarah Zoubek

Linked sustainability challenges and trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture

Julia L. Blanchard, Reg A. Watson, … Simon Jennings

On the sustainability of inland fisheries: Finding a future for the forgotten

Steven J. Cooke, Edward H. Allison, … Robin L. Welcomme

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

‘Food systems’ are receiving renewed interest as means of moving beyond the productivist agendas that tend to dominate food policy (Béné et al. 2019 ). Central to food systems thinking is the transdisciplinary analysis of social and environmental trade-offs and synergies across the whole set of production, provisioning, and consumption activities that affect food security (Ericksen 2008 ; Ingram 2011 ; Eakin et al. 2016 ). Here, food security is understood as a condition related to the availability, accessibility, and use of food (Eakin et al. 2016 ). Such approaches are increasingly being promoted in policy circles as a way of identifying and understanding the effects of broader drivers of change such as urbanization and globalization on sustainable food provisioning (HLPE 2017 ; IPES 2017 ).

Despite growing attention, food systems thinking has yet to be applied in a systematic way to fish production, provisioning, and consumption (Olson et al. 2014 ; Béné et al. 2015 ). Recent policy discussions have marginalised or overlooked the role of fish, in comparison with conventional agricultural commodities (HLPE 2014 ; Willett et al. 2019 ). This is a major oversight given the significant contribution that fish makes to global food security: fish is a relatively cheap and accessible micronutrient-rich food that provides over 3 billion people with almost 20% of their average per capita intake of animal protein, and a further 1.3 billion people with about 15% of this intake (Beveridge et al. 2013 ; HLPE 2014 ). Golden et al. ( 2016 ) further predict that over 10% of the world population is vulnerable to micronutrient and fatty acid deficiencies due to declining fish supply over the next decade, with developing nations being particularly exposed.

Moreover, when fish is considered, it is articulated predominantly in terms of marine ‘seafood’, leaving freshwater food fish marginalized (Cooke et al. 2013 ; Lynch et al. 2019 ). Limited attention to freshwater fish production can be attributed to its relatively dispersed nature, the poor consistency of associated data, and the bias of northern-dominated research towards exported seafoods (FAO and WorldFish 2008 ; McIntyre et al. 2016 ; Bush et al. 2019 ; Tlusty et al. 2019 ; Belton and Bush 2014 ). This omission is particularly problematic in the context of South and Southeast Asia, which account for over a quarter of global fish production, the bulk of which is comprised of freshwater fish species (Chan et al. 2017 ; FAO 2018 ).

There is a rapid ongoing shift in the supply of freshwater fish in Asia, from wild to farmed sources, constituting an important, yet poorly understood food transition. Throughout inland areas of Asia, fish has been historically supplied by the harvest of wild fish from extensive networks of rivers and floodplains (Delgado et al. 2003 ; Brummett et al. 2013 ). The same region now accounts for the majority of global aquaculture (or farmed fish) production, most of which also takes place in freshwater environments. China, South and Southeast Asia are expected to remain the largest suppliers of farmed fish globally for the foreseeable future (Edwards 2015 ; FAO 2016 ; Ottinger et al. 2016 ). Integrated understandings of this transition are rare. Literature on the contribution of freshwater fish to food security tends to emphasize two polarizing narratives. As summarized by Little et al. ( 2016 ), the first narrative stresses trajectories of decline in wild capture fisheries production, while the second emphasises the role of a ‘booming’ aquaculture sector in meeting growing future demand for food fish.

The production focus central to both narratives, risks limiting how policy makers understand freshwater food fish in the context of rapid urbanization, rising incomes and changing diets (Reardon et al. 2014 ; Béné et al. 2016 ). A ‘food fish system’ approach, in contrast, integrates the role that provision and consumption play in shaping different demands for fish as food, and examines how these demands can be met through existing or potential capture fisheries and/or aquaculture production. We argue that this perspective can support the formulation of more proactive food security policies to address healthy and sustainable food fish provisioning at national, regional, and even global scales (see for e.g. Jennings et al. 2016 ).

Developing a food fish system perspective is especially relevant for South and Southeast Asia, as a major fish producing and consuming region that is undergoing rapid economic and social change. This raises the question of whether, in line with the wider food production literature, a shift towards food systems thinking is taking place in the science-based development literature on freshwater fish as food in this region. In other words, are science-based policy institutions with a mandate to support the fish sector development in South and Southeast Asia moving away from productivism toward more integrated approaches? To what degree are their perspectives locked in the two polarizing narratives of capture fisheries and aquaculture? And to what extent do associated development policies integrate and leverage interrelations across freshwater fish production, provision, and consumption activities?

In this paper we address these questions by reviewing the past 45 years of science-based development-policy literature on freshwater fish as food in South and Southeast Asia. Our investigation builds on a systematic review of the academic literature affiliated with three international organizations—FAO, SEAFDEC, and WorldFish—that have a long history of providing policy advice for fisheries and aquaculture in the region. The evolution of their academic positions provides a basis for identifying and systematically assessing evidence of progress from polarized narratives to more integrated understandings of freshwater fish as food.

The following section introduces the food fish system framework used for the review and positions it within the wider literature on food systems research. Section 3 then describes the methodology used for the review. Sections 4 and 5 present the results of the analysis, identifying and comparing literature focused on farmed or wild fish production, provisioning and consumption. Section 6 evaluates progression towards food fish systems thinking. The remaining sections discuss the broader implications of the results, and the emerging opportunities for revitalizing development agendas around food fish security.

The food fish system

The concept of food systems was formulated as early as in the 1980s, but it remained relatively marginal in food policy over subsequent decades (Kneen 1989 ). Renewed interest in food systems in recent years provides a framework for understanding trade-offs and synergies between food production with diverse consumer demands and complex provisioning systems that affect food security (Ericksen 2008 ; HLPE 2017 ). As argued by Béné et al. ( 2019 ), in policy terms this means moving beyond a focus on productivist technology and extension to pay greater attention to the full range of social and environmental concerns that affect how food is distributed and consumed.

‘Commodity chain’ and ‘value chain’ perspectives constituted an important first step away from productivist approaches by extending the scope of research and policy beyond the production ‘node’. These perspectives emphasize multi-directional flows of products, finance, and information between actors connecting sites of production and consumption, as well as extra-transactional actors that shape these flows (Ponte and Sturgeon 2014 ; Bush et al. 2015 ). Recent years have seen a broadening in the scope of value chain research with increasing consideration for social equity (see for e.g. Barrientos et al. 2003 ; Kaplinsky 2000 ). Yet, associated approaches largely conceive governance as a process of linking codified norms to economic value in order to leverage improvements in production (Marsden et al. 2000 ; Gereffi 2005 ; Ponte and Sturgeon 2014 ). Food systems thinking goes beyond value chain-based approaches by recognizing the multidirectional relations between interrelated sets of production, provision, and consumption practices (Spaargaren et al. 2012 ), and the possibilities for coordinating these practices and relations for achieving outcomes that extend beyond the performance of producers alone, such as food security or sustainability (Ericksen 2008 ; Ingram 2011 ). In addition, the food systems approach extends beyond value chain approaches by incorporating broader societal transitions such as urbanization and globalization and their influence on where and how food is produced, distributed, and consumed (HLPE 2017 ; IPES 2017 ).

Our review is based on a simplified food system framework that focuses on the interactions between wild and farmed freshwater fish across activities related to the production, provisioning, and consumption of food fish. The framework is used to identify governance approaches used to steer these activities toward normative goals such as food security or sustainability (Fig.  1 ). Each of these components is explained in turn below.

The food fish system conceptual framework

First, production is defined as the entire set of activities involved in the production of freshwater fish and derived foodstuffs. Production activities related to wild capture fisheries and aquaculture are highly differentiated. Capture fisheries use fishing gears to harvest wild fish and other aquatic organisms (i.e. originating from naturally reproducing, self-sustaining populations) from public or common access water bodies (FAO 2015 ). Aquaculture is a form of farming. This implies active management interventions to enhance biological productivity (e.g. artificial reproduction, stocking and feeding), and private property relations—i.e. private ownership of fish stocked in enclosed water bodies (FAO 2015 ; Edwards et al. 2002 ). However, in practice, the lines between these forms of production are often blurred. For example, aquaculture systems can rely to varying degrees on natural or stocked recruitment of wild fingerlings to ponds, fenced off habitat, or rice fields, while capture fisheries in lakes and reservoirs may rely on stocking of artificially spawned and raised fingerlings (FAO 2015 ). The review explores the diversity of these production activities and the degree to which they are differentiated from the perspective of provisioning and consumption.

Second, food provisioning refers to the organization of social and economic practices involved in the delivery of goods and services (Fine 1993 ; Evans 2011 ). These practices encompass activities related to the transmission and transformation of fish from raw material to marketable products—such as sourcing, transport, storage and trade, as well as processing and packaging. Provisioning practices also include social relations amongst chain actors that enable the flow of goods and/or preservation/transformation of products, including credit and finance, cultural and food safety norms and standards, and the use of cooperation and/or contractualization to set prices and supply (Reardon and Timmer 2014 ; HLPE 2017 ). Combined, these food-provisioning practices set the conditions for producers to access markets, information, and resources necessary for production. They also condition consumption practices while at the same time translating consumer demands to producers.

Third, consumption is defined as the entire range of activities related to the selection, purchase, preparation, and eating of fish. Consumption, as such, is influenced by economic determinants, such as price, but also by a range of practices that determine which species of fish are purchased, in what forms (e.g. fresh, processed, or prepared), from which outlets (e.g. wet markets, supermarkets, or restaurants), and with what consideration to quality—related to food safety, taste or culture (Spaargaren et al. 2012 ). From a systems approach, consumption is shaped by wider processes of urbanization, globalization and/or food (in)security rather than individual choice alone (HLPE 2017 ).

Finally, governance is defined as the rules, authority and institutions that coordinate, manage, or steer the food system. These include governments, and non-state institutions such as markets, traditions, networks, and civil society (van Bers et al. 2019 ). Among these governing entities, the present review focuses on science-based development policy actors and explores the logic of their efforts to move the system toward delivering food security. Food security here is understood as a condition related to the availability, accessibility, and use of fish as food. From a food fish systems perspective, governing food security requires incorporating the multiple ways in which production, provisioning and consumption interact (Ericksen 2008 ; Ingram 2011 ). The challenge of accounting for the full range of food system activities is in sharp contrast to the productivist paradigm that permeates much of the science underlying food policy in developing countries (Ickowitz et al. 2019 ). This focus on production has meant that the governance of food security has relied heavily on the extension of technologies to increase output, with the assumption that food availability would shape provisioning and consumption practices (Ickowitz et al. 2019 ; Gómez et al. 2013 ). However, as we explore further in this paper, a shift to a food fish systems thinking calls for understanding production as bound up with both the diverse demands of consumers and the complex factors influencing the development of provisioning systems in between.

Methodology

We undertook a systematic review (Arksey and Malley 2005 ; Levac et al. 2010 ) to assess the extent to which the development policy literature on freshwater fisheries and aquaculture in South and Southeast Asia reflects a shift to food systems thinking. We acknowledge that this literature does not provide a complete picture of how fish has been taken up in food systems thinking. But, aligned with our objective, this literature does represent the extent to which academic thinking has been translated into policy-directed science. As we describe below, this methodology follows a two-step process, comprised of: (1) document selection; and (2) content analysis.

Document selection

For the purpose of narrowing the scope, the review of the science policy landscape was limited to a selection of ‘boundary organizations’ that straddle politics and science (Guston 1996 ). As such, we only selected documents published by FAO, SEAFDEC, and WorldFish—three multilateral science-based policy organizations with more than 40 years of experience advising governments on improving fisheries and aquaculture for food security. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations established since 1945. The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) is an autonomous intergovernmental body established in 1967 with membership of 11 Southeast Asian countries. Footnote 1 WorldFish was established in 1973 as the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) and integrated into the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in the 1980s (cf. Pullin and Neal 1984 ).

Scientific publications from these organizations addressing freshwater fisheries and/or aquaculture in South and Southeast Asia were sourced through Scopus and Aquaculture Science and Fisheries Abstract (ASFA) databases. The search included all reviews, conference papers, and articles published between 1975 and 2018 Footnote 2 in academic journals, using the search terms: AF-ID (“WorldFish” OR “ICLARM” OR “FAO” OR “SEAFDEC”) AND (“Cambodia” OR “Myanmar” OR “Vietnam” OR “Thailand” OR “Laos” OR “Indonesia” OR “Malaysia” OR “Philippines” OR “Bangladesh” OR “India” OR “Pakistan” OR “Nepal” OR “Bhutan” OR “Sri-Lanka” OR “South Asia” OR “Southeast Asia”) AND (“Freshwater Fisheries”) OR (“Inland Fisheries”) OR (“Aquaculture”) in titles, abstracts, and keywords. The pooled search returned a total of 457 (N T ) distinct documents published in English.

Metadata for all articles was imported to Excel and titles, abstracts, and keywords were screened to select documents. First, we removed articles that were not fisheries or aquaculture related (n 1  = 19). We then excluded books and book chapters (n 2  = 48) as well as non-peer-reviewed documents (n 3  = 38) based on the observation that institutional reports from FAO, WorldFish and SEAFDEC were largely replicated in the peer-reviewed literature. We further excluded literature focusing only on geographical areas outside the scope of the study (n 4  = 37), as well as articles focusing solely on marine and coastal production systems (n 5  = 138). The final sample included 177 (N S1 ) articles.

Content analysis

The data extraction and analysis was carried out in two-steps.

First, a scan of the literature was conducted over all 177 (N S1 ) articles. Titles, abstracts, introductions, and conclusions were used to classify articles in terms of their relevance to (1) aquaculture and/or capture fisheries, and (2) production, provision and/or consumption. Papers focusing exclusively on wild or farmed fish were categorized as ‘segregated’. Papers focusing on both wild and farmed fish were categorized as ‘integrated’. Similarly, the coverage of production, provision and/or consumption supported a further classification: papers that did not explicitly refer to production, provision or consumption, or did refer to one component but did not provide any analytical focus on that component; and papers that effectively covered production, provision and/or consumption as an integral part of their analysis. In case of uncertainty, the screening of the text extended to the results and discussion sections of the paper.

Second, a content analysis of articles cited at least 15 times (N S2  = 85) was undertaken. For each category defined in the first step, the papers were read and assessed for the degree to which they focused on wild and/or farmed fish, and the extent to which production, provisioning and/or consumption were analysed, including the relationship between them.

Finally, both stages of the analysis took into consideration the change in food systems thinking over time, breaking the literature into five evenly distributed time-periods from 1975 to 2018.

Overview of the sampled literature

The first overall observation about the sampled literature is the institutional bias. The selection of documents is heavily skewed to WorldFish, which represents 78% of all documents compared to FAO and SEAFDEC making up 15% and 7% respectively (Fig.  2 ). This bias is caused by the higher prevalence of publications by WorldFish staff in international peer-reviewed journals compared to the higher proportion of institutionally published reports by FAO and SEAFDEC. Nevertheless, the review indicates that themes covered in the review are shared across the three organizations and, as a result, our analysis does not make any comparison between them. A detailed comparative analysis of the science policy interface that scrutinizes the contributions of these institutions to the complex process of policy-making (Gluckman 2018 ) goes beyond the scope of this study.

Institutional ( a ) and geographical ( b ) coverages of the sampled literature

The second observation is the bias in the geographical scope of the documents sampled. Bangladesh, which has received more development attention than other South and Southeast Asian nations over the past 40 years, represents over 35% of the documents reviewed. The Philippines, which hosted both ICLARM (now WorldFish) and SEAFDEC, makes up close to 10% of the articles reviewed. Meanwhile other major freshwater fisheries and aquaculture countries, such as Thailand and Vietnam, make up only 3% of the papers reviewed (Fig.  2 ). Overall, however, the sampled literature indicates that development policies and perspectives surrounding fish as food are largely shared across all countries covered in the review. Hence, while we are mindful that our choice of treating the great diversity of South and Southeast Asian contexts as one group implies important simplifications, we contend that our approach paints a faithful (albeit general) description of research and development policy around freshwater fisheries and aquaculture in the region.

The third and most significant observation is that the segregated literature (i.e. analytical focus on wild or farmed fish) represents 76% of the literature sampled, while the integrated literature (analytical focus on wild and farmed fish together) represents only 24% (Fig.  3 ). This confirms that freshwater fish production is largely understood as either farmed or wild caught, with limited understanding of how these two modes of production relate to each other. The division also confirms the polarization of narratives associated with farmed and wild fish production and their expected contribution to food security (cf. Little et al. 2016 ).

Proportions of segregated and integrated articles in the sampled literature

In the following section we present the results of the review by food fish system components (i.e. production, provisioning and consumption). In doing so we only reference papers categorized under the respective food fish system component and not papers that, even while relevant to the observations made, are not categorised under that component.

Coverage of the segregated literature

An observation shared across both the wild and farmed fish literature is the disproportionate and persistent focus on production. Nearly all (99%) the articles reviewed included analysis of production, creating a clear division between capture fisheries and aquaculture respectively (Fig.  4 ). This production focus was absolute from the 1970s into the 2000s. As the following shows, provision and consumption became more prevalent themes from the 2000s onwards. Nevertheless, a clear division between wild and farmed fish persists. The following outlines the main themes and topics covered under associated bodies of literature.

Proportion of segregated articles and key messages by food fish system components

The starting point of our review, in the mid-1970s, coincides with a redefinition of the capture fisheries research and development agenda. While the early literature from the 1960s-1970s had focused predominantly on increasing production through improved technology and infrastructure, Footnote 3 the new agenda emerged from the recognition that resources were not endless and that small-scale operators were the most impacted by their exhaustion (Smith 1981 ). This new agenda, commonly labelled “small-scale fisheries” largely developed around perspectives from both coastal and freshwater fisheries. From the 1990s onwards, this literature largely put the emphasis on overfishing as the main factor driving fisheries decline (Smith 1981 ; Sultana and Thompson 2004 ; Ratner 2006 ). Subsequently, in the late 2000s the scope of factors driving fisheries decline expanded to include environmental degradation and fish habitat destruction derived from industrial, agricultural developments, or climate change (Allison et al. 2009 ; Baran and Myschowoda 2009 ; Beard et al. 2011 ).

In parallel, a body of capture fisheries literature emerged in early to mid-2000s focusing on solutions for improving the status of wild fish stocks. The literature on solutions for fisheries decline can be further divided into two main themes. In the mid-2000s a broad range of resource management options were focused on, with co-management emerging as a leading approach for promoting the empowerment of fishing communities in the management and help to address broader inter-sectoral conflicts (Thompson et al. 2003 ; Nielsen et al. 2004 ; Andrew et al. 2007 ). In the mid to late 2000s, this management-focused literature broadened to include more attention to the social and economic conditions of fisheries production. Most notably, this literature has moved beyond conflict resolution to include social welfare (Béné et al. 2010 ), resilience (Ratner and Allison 2012 ), human rights (Allison et al. 2012 ) and well-being (Weeratunge et al. 2014 ). This ‘social-turn’ in freshwater capture fisheries contrasts markedly with the early literature in placing fishing communities as centrally important for the persistence of the fisheries as a source of food security.

In contrast to capture fisheries, the aquaculture literature has persisted from the 1970s with a strong productivist agenda (Pullin and Neal 1984 ). Throughout this early literature, the focus on production was justified by perceptions of declining wild capture fisheries, the assumption that aquaculture would replace declining stocks, and a broader agenda to further ‘the tropics’ as central to the development of the sector on a global scale (Coche 1978 ; Pullin and Neal 1984 ). The alignment of aquaculture under the wider ‘blue revolution’ narrative emphasizes the ‘untapped biophysical potential’ of the sector and (reflecting green revolution rhetoric) the need to advance the production technologies and cost-efficiency of a variety of production systems. This narrative of technical efficiency has persisted in the literature as a guiding principle for farmed fish research and development in South and Southeast Asia to the present (Dey et al. 2000b , 2005b ; Katiha et al 2005 ; Karim et al. 2016 ).

The focus on the technical efficiency of production is observed in the sampled literature through two further persistent narratives around Asian aquaculture. First, in line with the priorities of the three institutions studied, calls for technical efficiency have been made predominantly in relation to small-scale rural aquaculture (Dalsgaard 1997 ). The assumption underlying this focus is that these producers dominate the overall production in Asia and make the most direct contribution to food security (Ahmed and Lorica 2002 ; Dey et al. 2005a , b ). Second, the focus on technical efficiency has meant that a significant proportion of the literature sampled (33%) has been on fish breeding. Associated research has concentrated on single species’ yield maximization, denoting a change from earlier conceptualization of aquaculture as “an extremely diverse means of food production” (Pullin and Neal 1984 , p. 227). While still including a number of species overall (see Lind et al. 2012 ), fish breeding research has been dominated by tilapia (Eknath et al. 1993 ; Khaw et al. 2008 ; Dey et al. 2000b ; Bentsen et al. 2012 ); a species that now contributes over 20% of freshwater farmed fish in the region Footnote 4 .

In contrast with fisheries, and the wider literature on industrial (largely marine) aquaculture in other parts of the world Footnote 5 , the sampled literature on freshwater aquaculture gives limited consideration to environmental impact. This apparent gap may be explained by assumptions expressed in some papers around the limited environmental impact of production of low trophic-level freshwater carps (Prein 2002 ; Dey et al. 2005b ). These papers assume a high efficiency of such systems, with only limited attention to the gradual intensification of carp production systems. This is particularly evident in the research around terrestrial ingredients used in their diets, Footnote 6 where the emphasis has essentially consisted in ascertaining “economically optimal” feeding rate (Tacon and Silva 1997 ; Karim et al. 2011 ).

In addition to a sustained focus on production, the sampled science-policy literature is characterised by two persistent narratives. The fisheries literature has emphasized the decline of fish resources and the need for more effective stewardship and management through the empowerment of fishing communities. The aquaculture literature, in contrast, has persisted with a narrative of unfulfilled potential and the need for improved technical efficiency. As a result of their distinct narratives, a division is also observed between the disciplines underlying these two literatures: social scientists for wild fish, and natural scientists and economists for farmed fish research. As the following sections demonstrate, this dichotomy is also apparent across other food fish system components.

Research related to provisioning is evident in papers published from 2000 onwards but represents less than 20% of the literature reviewed (Fig.  4 ). Hence, provisioning represents the least documented food fish system component across both the wild and farmed fish literature. Provisioning activities are commonly observed as being related to, and of importance for consumption and production, rather than being a direct analytical focus of research. Nonetheless, the sampled literature does make various assertions around the importance of provisioning for addressing development priorities for both wild and farmed fish production.

Only 11% of wild fish-related papers integrate provisioning in their analysis (Fig.  4 ). Although not explicitly articulated, activities associated with moving and marketing freshwater fish are often assumed to be mostly traditional and homogenous by nature and therefore not worth further examination. For example, Thompson et al. ( 2003 ) do not consider market attributes related to community-based fisheries management in Bangladesh because “they are not significantly different between inland wetlands in Bangladesh” (p. 310). This is in direct contrast to more recent research which gives greater attention to complex and fragmented informal networks of trade and bartering that shape wild fish provisioning and catches (Cooke et al. 2016 ). As shown in the following section, there is mounting evidence of wild fish consumption far beyond the communities that catch them, but little research has been done on the provisioning practices that distribute this food fish.

The literature on farmed fish pays relatively greater attention to provisioning, with 18% of the papers reviewed making analytical reference in some way to provisioning related activities (Fig.  4 ). This literature can be further divided into papers focused on global provisioning (to major export markets like the EU and US), representing 12% of the sampled papers, and provisioning activities related to domestic and regional markets, representing only 6% of the sampled papers.

The main focus of the global provisioning literature addresses broad questions around the role of aquaculture in meeting global demands for export-oriented species like shrimp and pangasius (Ahmed et al. 2008 ; Little et al. 2012 ). Building on such a global perspective, it is often implied that Asian producers should target global export markets to benefit from enhanced profits compared to domestic or regional markets (Ahmed et al. 2010 ; Haque et al. 2010 ) and ideals of ‘upgrading’ trajectories are essentially articulated around international trade (Ponte et al. 2014 ). However, a smaller proportion of the literature raises questions around the merits of international trade, especially with regards to regulation and certification aimed at improving the environmental and social performance of the sector (Bush et al. 2013 ; Jonell et al. 2013 ; Troell et al. 2014 ). This literature acknowledges the limits of existing regulatory tools and points towards the necessary complementarity of public and private governance to address these challenges.

Papers focused on domestic and regional provisioning have been published from 2010 onwards and highlight the growing importance of aquaculture to food security and social wellbeing. Two major themes emerge from the literature sampled. First, the papers emphasize the development of farmed fish supply chains towards the provisioning of cities (E-Jahan et al. 2010 ; Karim et al. 2011 ; Toufique and Belton 2014 ; Belton et al. 2016 ). These papers show that urbanization translates into increased demand for (farmed) fish, rendering the development of the sector largely a peri-urban phenomenon, with fast-developing supply chains and associated services. Footnote 7 Second, this literature indicates a growing attention to gender in domestic supply chains, emphasizing on the one hand the more important roles women play in farmed fish post-harvest activities compared to men, and on the other the existence of formal and informal barriers limiting equal benefits from the sector for women (Morgan et al. 2017 ; Kruijssen et al. 2018 ). These papers, however, tend to focus on gendered roles and benefits from provisioning fish rather than the performance or conduct of provisioning activities themselves, such as processing, transportation or trade.

While some food system-related themes like the effects of urbanization on farmed fish demand are emerging, the sampled literature remains largely focused on international trade, regulation and social dynamics that condition but do not explain provisioning activities. This has consequences for understanding the relative contribution of wild and farmed fish to food security beyond the sites of production, especially in Asian domestic markets. As the following section demonstrates, this also has consequences for the attention paid to fish consumption.

Consumption

Consumption is analysed substantively in 35% of the articles reviewed (Fig.  4 ). However, these studies only emerged from 2000 onwards, indicating a relatively late recognition of the importance of freshwater fish as food in the region. Reflecting the dearth of attention given to provisioning, consumption is commonly considered in conjunction with production, which emphasizes subsistence or semi-subsistence production and thereby overlooks the wider contributions of fish to food security. The following outlines the overarching themes covered under consumption in the literature on wild and farmed fish respectively.

In line with the overall sample, only 37% of wild fish-related articles integrate fish consumption in their analysis (Fig.  4 ). This overall bias can be explained by the predominant focus on production, which views fish as a resource to be conserved rather than as a food source (Hall et al. 2012 ). As demonstrated by Evans et al. ( 2011 ), less than 10% of studies on co-management consider fish consumption. Our review indicates that even when the wild fish literature considers consumption, the attention tends to be limited to direct or ‘subsistence’ consumption by fishing communities (Thompson et al. 2003 ; Badjeck et al. 2010 ). This subsistence focus also tends to reinforce assumptions that fishing communities are highly vulnerable (Allison et al. 2009 ; Badjeck et al. 2010 ), which is underpinned by the lack of knowledge on provisioning and, as such, their engagement with the wider (food) economy.

A more recent key theme in the wild fish literature is the assessment of freshwater production on the basis of consumption data (Fluet-chouinard et al. 2018 ). These consumption-based approaches build on a wider “hidden harvest” narrative of FAO, WorldFish and other international policy organizations Footnote 8 that advocates that up to 80% of freshwater fish landing volumes are not recorded, with the consequence that the contribution of wild fish to food security is fundamentally misunderstood (Hall et al. 2012 ; Youn et al. 2014 ). Studies focused on nutrition have also emphasized the importance of species diversity for healthy fish-based diets, which in turn reaffirms the need for production-oriented management strategies to maintain biodiversity (Nurhasan et al. 2010 ; Youn et al. 2014 ).

Also in line with the overall sample, 35% of sampled papers from the farmed fish literature cover consumption in their analysis (see Fig.  4 ). An overarching theme in this subset of papers, in direct support of the productivist ‘blue revolution’ narrative, is that farmed fish is compensating for the decreasing availability of wild fish (e.g. Ahmed and Lorica 2002 ; Prein 2002 ). Except for a few papers that explore how vulnerable (poor) consumers access fish (E-Jahan et al. 2010 ), the literature places considerable emphasis on increasing the overall affordability and accessibility of farmed fish supply across the region (Dey 2000 ; Dey et al. 2000a ). This literature overwhelmingly refers to a generic category of ‘fish’ rather than giving details on consumer preference for different species (Morgan et al. 2017 ). Instead, claims of consumer preference lead to distinctions of preference that provide generalized and often unsubstantiated claims. For example, "common carp has traditionally been a preferred cultured species […] tilapia are proposed as an alternative because these fish are cheap to raise, give high yields and are also quite palatable" (Fernando and Halwart 2000 , p. 45) or "prices of fish […] are the driving force that influence consumers' decision to buy a particular species" (Dey et al. 2005a , p. 105).

Similar to the wild fish literature, another persistent theme is farmed fish consumption by producers, often framed as a benefit of aquaculture development interventions (Prein 2002 ; Karim et al. 2011 ; Pant et al. 2014 ). Footnote 9 Following Ahmed and Lorica ( 2002 ), increased fish consumption is positioned next to two other ‘linkages’ (income and employment) by which aquaculture contributes to food security of producing households. Increased direct consumption is the only linkage that has been documented in the sampled literature (E-Jahan and Pemsl 2011 ). Claims that increased income from aquaculture increases the consumption of nutritious foods, or that the nutritional benefits brought by aquaculture extend to the hired labour, are not well supported in the sampled literature (Kawarazuka and Béné 2010 ). Nevertheless, these assumptions are commonly advanced to legitimatize aquaculture development interventions in the interest of food security (E-Jahan et al. 2010 ), including when the production target is oriented towards export (Ahmed et al. 2010 ).

Finally, there is a strong bias in favour of rural farmed fish consumption, despite relatively early acknowledgement of the growth and importance of urban fish consumption (Dey et al. 2000a ; Ahmed and Lorica 2002 ). Studies that do focus on urban consumption highlight the role of higher urban purchasing power as a means of driving rural development, rather than the importance of fish consumption to urban food security (e.g. Karim et al. 2011 ). More recently, albeit to a lesser extent, attention has been given to the wider influence of urbanization as a key driver of aquaculture development, with attention going to the effects growing urban demand will have on both the volume and kinds of fish produced (Belton and Bush 2014 ).

Overall, however, the science-policy literature treats consumption in relatively limited respects, placing emphasis on direct and spatially proximate consumption rather than the wider contribution of food fish, both wild and farmed, to domestic and regional economies of South and Southeast Asia. Our comparative review of the segregated fisheries and aquaculture literature shows how this segregation has had a foundational role in the articulation of development policies associated with the two sectors.

Coverage of the integrated literature

While most papers segregate wild and farmed fish production, consumption and provisioning, a small but growing set of papers takes a more integrated perspective. In breaking down the distinction between wild and farmed fish, this literature has increasingly drawn attention to the interlinkages between production, provisioning and consumption, thereby giving rise to progressively more food system-oriented perspectives on fish (Fig.  5 ).

a Number of sampled articles and b their proportional focus on food fish system components in the sampled literature from 1975 to 2018

In stark contrast to the segregated literature, nearly two thirds of the articles in the integrated literature focus on consumption as a main area of inquiry (see Fig.  6 ). Also, in direct contrast with the segregated literature, these papers emphasize the degree to which wild and farmed fish are not substitutable. Belton and Thilsted ( 2014 ), for example, demonstrate the complementarity of wild and farmed fish in contributing to food security in Asia and other developing regions. In doing so they challenge the prevailing policy narrative that aquaculture will gradually replace declining wild fish stocks by showing that wild fisheries continue to make an important contribution to nutrition, particularly for the most vulnerable consumers. This is supported by a number of other papers that underscore the relatively higher nutritional value of wild fish and, as such, the importance of maintaining species diversity, particularly highly nutritious small fish that are consumed whole (Welcomme et al. 2010 ; Kawarazuka and Béné 2011 ; Beveridge et al. 2013 ; Belton and Thilsted 2014 ; Youn et al. 2014 ; Bogard et al. 2017 ).

Proportion of integrated articles and key messages by food fish system components

Similar to the segregated literature, relatively few papers (36%) in the sample give analytical attention to provisioning (see Fig.  6 ). Although the integrated literature has the merit of being more focused on regional dynamics, farmed fish in this literature is still more commonly framed as a cash crop than a food crop (Kawarazuka and Béné 2010 ). This tendency has contributed to steering development efforts towards the production of larger-sized fish aimed at the urban middle-classes rather than smaller and economically accessible fish aimed at poorer rural and urban consumers (Beveridge et al. 2013 ). While this literature emphasizes the value of wild fish for rural food security, it also recognizes that wild fish are increasingly traded to meet growing urban demand (Kawarazuka and Béné 2010 ). These general observations, however, lack empirical evidence and underlines a need for increased attention to how the transition to farming affects access to and use of food fish by different consumers. As argued by Toufique and Belton ( 2014 ), the greater the recognition given to fish as food in domestic markets, the more important it will be for the science-policy literature to shift the understanding of consumption beyond the producers and beyond categories of ‘wild’ and ‘farmed’.

Like the segregated literature, 89% of papers in the integrated literature focus their analysis on production (see Fig.  6 ). In opposition to the segregated literature however, the integrated literature challenges the dichotomy commonly assumed between farmed and wild fish. From the late 1990s onwards, the integrated literature has emphasised a continuum based on increasing human inputs and control over freshwater fish production and increasing private ownership moving from fisheries to aquaculture (Welcomme and Bartley 1998 ; Lorenzen et al. 2012 ). More recently, Little et al. ( 2016 ) explain the origin of aquaculture by describing the transition from fishing as "a gradual process" developing in "responses to times when demands for wild foods outstripped supplies" (p. 275). Despite its analytical power to rethink freshwater fisheries and aquaculture as closely interrelated production processes, it is evident from the review that such continuum perspective has had very little influence on the science-policy literature surrounding South and Southeast Asian freshwater.

Across consumption, provision, and production the integrated literature emphasizes the different contributions of wild and farmed fish as food, highlighting their complementarity rather than their substitutability. While this perspective underlines the importance of food fish systems thinking, it also shows that further evidence is still needed on the linkages between the three food system components, especially with respect to access and use of food fish by poor consumers in both rural and urban settings.

Discussion: towards food (fish) systems thinking

Our review of the science-policy literature on freshwater fish reveals a gradual shift toward understanding freshwater fish in South and Southeast Asia from a more integrated perspective. Historically, the science-policy literature has focused heavily on fish production and maintained a clear division between capture fisheries and aquaculture. However, attention is increasingly being paid to the provisioning and consumption of freshwater fish, and an emerging strand of ‘integrated’ literature is beginning to break down the dichotomy between wild caught and farmed fish. Though these emerging strands still represent a small proportion of the literature, and are not framed explicitly in terms of food systems thinking, they demonstrate the complementarity of wild and farmed fish as food, and lay the foundations for a more precise understanding of freshwater food fish in the region. We argue that the main value of the food fish systems approach, as applied to the Asian freshwater fish science-policy landscape in this review, is to reveal weaknesses and lacunae in the existing literature and identify agendas for future research.

Three points stand out. First, the science-policy literature on capture fisheries and aquaculture are heavily siloed. The two sectors are erroneously framed as separate, and in opposition, while their overlapping and highly complementary contributions to food security are rarely recognized. Second, the strongly productivist bias of the literature results in inadequate understanding of the system of provision and consumer behavior and their mutually constitutive and recursive relationships with the system of production. Moreover, a focus on specific types of production (subsistence, export) means that many important forms of production and associated systems of provision and consumption are overlooked. Third, the literature on freshwater fish largely assumes simplistic relations from production to consumption with the consequence that governance is conceived predominantly around production. Such framing ignores the multidirectional relations between the production, provision, and consumption of freshwater food fish and, as a result, falls short in leveraging other important entry points for governing food security. We address these points in greater detail below.

First, the deep disciplinary and epistemological disconnect between scientists working in freshwater fisheries and aquaculture, and the framing of the two sectors as separate and distinct policy spheres, often in competition or opposition to one another, has severely curtailed the terms in which policy-makers and researchers understand the relative roles and contributions of wild and farmed fish. In contrast, the food fish system perspective stresses the complementarity of these forms of production within the same food system, making it possible to appreciate their overlapping (albeit differentiated) contributions to food security in the region. As such, the food fish system perspective lays the ground for reconciling the siloed research agendas surrounding wild and farmed fish, suggesting multidisciplinary perspectives that combine elements from social and natural sciences. Such a reassessment notably calls for a better recognition of intermediate forms of production, that are still largely disregarded, and which understandings could help leveraging ecological synergies across wild and farmed fish production (Lynch et al. 2019 ). For instance, the food fish system would help moving the aquaculture research agenda beyond technical efficiency to pay greater attention to species diversity and become more sensitive to the ecology of local fish communities. By articulating a more integrated perspective on production, a food fish system perspective holds the promise to not only better tackle food security, but also to put greater emphasis on agroecological integrity rather than production efficiency alone (Eakin et al. 2016 ).

Second, a focus on fish production—and on specific types of production—has contributed to inadequate and distorted understandings of fish provision and consumption. Except for the literature on global value chains dealing with production for export, fish provision has been largely overlooked, creating a ‘missing middle’ in food fish system science-policy literature. Processing, distribution and consumption of fish, and the ways that changes in these spheres (e.g. technological and institutional innovations, new forms of retail, evolving consumption practices) ultimately shape production practices have been overlooked. Excessive attention towards export-oriented production in aquaculture has framed freshwater fish more as a global commodity for revenue generation than as a foodstuff contributing to food security in producing nations. Similarly, emphasis on the role of subsistence production in freshwater capture fisheries and aquaculture has contributed to ignoring the wider contribution of food fish to domestic and regional economies of South and Southeast Asia. As a result of these biases, understandings of fish consumption in the region fall short of grasping the socio-cultural factors that underpin where, how, and why, wild and/or farmed fish are consumed (see for e.g. Jennings et al. 2016 ), and their contributions to food security. In short, a food fish system perspective gives rise to clearer recognition of the specific nature of provision and consumption, implying a reconsideration of how these in turn shape and structure the system (Koc and Dahlberg 1999 ; Béné et al. 2019 ).

Third, our review demonstrates the value of understanding multidirectional interrelations between production, provisioning and consumption that make up a food fish systems approach. As such, the food fish system thinking goes beyond ‘chain’ approaches where the emphasis is on bi-directional flows of products and finance and where governance is predominantly perceived in terms of leveraging improvements around production (Ponte and Sturgeon 2014 ). In contrast, by recognizing interrelated sets of production, provision, and consumption practices, a food fish system perspective reveals multiple entry points for governing outcomes associated with food. Seen from this angle, achieving food security or sustainability requires incorporating and coordinating the multiple ways in which these different sets interact (Ericksen 2008 ; Ingram 2011 ). In the context of rapid societal transitions such as those occurring in South and Southeast Asia, acknowledging such multi-directionality has the potential to better anticipate what changing consumer demands and systems of provision mean for the relative contributions of wild and farmed fish to consumers in the region; both vulnerable and affluent (IPES 2017 ).

We have articulated our food fish system approach here around freshwater fish, the marginalized bulk of food fish in the region, and argued that it makes a compelling case for advancing food systems thinking. Yet, more research is needed to complement these understandings with a food systems-based analysis of marine food fish, which is another substantial component of the regional food basket. It will be even more important for future research to move beyond these two broad aggregate categories of food fish in order to fully account for diversity within them, and better appreciate the differentiated contributions that individual species and products make to the overall food fish system (Tlusty et al. 2019 ). Going even further, we argue that a food fish systems thinking can be advanced by engaging with the turn to ‘diet-thinking’. The latter works back from the practice of consuming meals or dishes to integrate the multiple and extended systems of ingredients (Haddad et al. 2016 ; Willett et al. 2019 ). A diet approach can also help avoid the common export bias surrounding food fish (see Belton and Bush 2014 ; McClanahan et al. 2015 ; Bush et al. 2019 ) by articulating the geographic scope of production through consumption and provisioning (Béné et al. 2019 ).

A partial shift towards a food fish system perspective is apparent in the freshwater fisheries and aquaculture literature in South and Southeast Asia. The approach appears to be useful in explaining and reconciling polarizing narratives surrounding freshwater food fish by questioning key assumptions around what drives their production, provisioning and consumption in the region. The science policy literature is yet to frame future directions in ‘food fish systems’ terms. Nevertheless, there are indications that this literature, and the organizations it represents, are starting to open up to the value of systemically linking production, provision and consumption and translating these linkages into the policy landscape. By doing so they hold the potential to shift policy towards more integrated perspectives, moving beyond the simplistic productivist narratives to better consider how food fish is distributed and consumed in the region.

There remains considerable opportunity to further develop a food fish systems approach in Asia and beyond. While food systems research has generated considerable enthusiasm in recent years, such studies are still for the most part limited to the ‘temperate minority’ Footnote 10 from where most academic contributors originate (see for e.g. Jennings et al. 2016 ). In advancing the food fish system agenda, it will be essential for academics to make sure that they account for the realities of the ‘tropical majority’, 9 in particular Asia, where most of the world’s fish is produced and consumed (FAO 2018 ). In that regard, the present study should be taken as a preliminary broad-brush assessment. Because food fish systems (however global) are dependent on local conditions, further attention should be given to fine-grained place-based studies that dissect and document how complex and interrelated sets of production, provision, and consumption practices affect the availability, accessibility, and use of food fish in particular places.

Notwithstanding this ongoing shift towards food fish systems thinking, we contend that the latter needs to be more explicitly fostered and adopted by research and development actors at the center of our review. Only then will it have a substantial influence in framing how the contribution of fish to food security is understood and translated into policy in regions such as South and Southeast Asia. It is worth noting that some of the criticisms stemming from our review have been recurring. It has been over 20 years since Bailey ( 1988 ) wrote in this same journal: “international development agencies have promoted a dualistic pattern of fisheries development within the Third World […] fisheries development and resource management need to be seen as complementary aspects of a single process”. To do so effectively, we have argued here for a food fish system as a promising framework for revitalizing fisheries and aquaculture development agendas towards food security.

Brunei, Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam

The search was initially done using 1960 as a starting date, corresponding to the beginning of the Green Revolution. 1975 was eventually retained as the start point because it corresponded to the earliest publication in the sample fitting the review inclusion criteria. The end date of 2018 was used as it corresponded to the year when the review process was initiated.

Refer to Smith ( 1979 ) and the more recent sequel article of Pomeroy ( 2016 ) for a contextualization of the research agenda prevailing at the time.

*Statistics calculated with FAO-FIGIS ( http://www.fao.org/figis ) for 2017.

Refer to Naylor et al. ( 2000 ), or Natale et al. ( 2013 ) for a discussion on the environmental impacts of (marine) aquaculture.

Refer to Pahlow et al. ( 2015 ) for a discussion on the terrestrial feed demand of (marine and freshwater) aquaculture.

See Bush et al. ( 2019 ) for a recent synthesis of aquaculture research on domestic and regional supply chains in the Global South.

See Kelleher et al. ( 2012 ) for more on the “Hidden harvest” narrative.

Refer to Belton and Little ( 2011 ) for an analysis of the aquaculture development narrative in Asia.

This terminology is borrowed from Bavinck et al. ( 2018 ) to refer to the global north and the global south respectively.

Ahmed, N., E.H. Allison, and J.F. Muir. 2008. Using the sustainable livelihoods framework to identify constraints and opportunities to the development of freshwater prawn farming in Southwest Bangladesh. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 39 (5): 598–611.

Google Scholar  

Ahmed, N., Æ.E.H. Allison, and Æ.J.F. Muir. 2010. Rice fields to prawn farms: A blue revolution in southwest Bangladesh? Aquaculture International 18: 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-009-9276-0 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmed, M., and M.H. Lorica. 2002. Improving developing country food security through aquaculture development—Lessons from Asia. Food Policy 27 (1652): 125–141.

Allison, E.H., A.L. Perry, M. Badjeck, W.N. Adger, K. Brown, D. Conway, A.S. Halls, J.M. Pilling, J.D. Reynolds, N.L. Andrew, and N.K. Dulvy. 2009. Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10: 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00310.x .

Allison, E.H., B.D. Ratner, B. Asgard, R. Willmann, R. Pomeroy, and J. Kurien. 2012. Rights-based fisheries governance: From fishing rights to human rights. Fish and Fisheries 13: 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00405.x .

Andrew, N.L., C. Béné, S.J. Hall, E.H. Allison, S. Heck, and B.D. Ratner. 2007. Diagnosis and management of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Fish and Fisheries 8 (227): 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2679.2007.00252.x .

Arksey, H., and L.O. Malley. 2005. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 .

Badjeck, M., E.H. Allison, A.S. Halls, and N.K. Dulvy. 2010. Impacts of climate variability and change on fishery-based livelihoods. Marine Policy 34 (3): 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.08.007 .

Bailey, C. 1988. The political economy of fisheries development in the third world. Agriculture and Human Values 5 (1–2): 35–48.

Baran, E., and C. Myschowoda. 2009. Dams and fisheries in the Mekong Basin. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 12 (3): 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634980903149902 .

Barrientos, S., C. Dolan, and A. Tallontire. 2003. A gendered value chain approach to codes of conduct in African horticulture. World Development 31 (9): 1511–1526.

Bavinck, M., S. Jentoft, and J. Scholtens. 2018. Fisheries as social struggle: A reinvigorated social science research agenda. Marine Policy 94: 46–52.

Beard, T.D.J., R. Arlinghaus, S.J. Cooke, P.B. McIntyre, S. De Silva, D. Bartley, and I.G. Cowx. 2011. Ecosystem approach to inland fisheries: Research needs and implementation strategies. Biology Letters - Conservation Biology 7: 481–483.

Belton, B., and S.R. Bush. 2014. Beyond net deficits: New priorities for an aquacultural geography. Geographical Journal 180 (1): 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12035 .

Belton, B., and D.C. Little. 2011. Immanent and interventionist inland Asian aquaculture development and its outcomes. Development Policy Review 29 (4): 459–484.

Belton, B., and S.H. Thilsted. 2014. Fisheries in transition: Food and nutrition security implications for the global South. Global Food Security 3 (1): 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.10.001 .

Belton, B., I.J.M. van Asseldonk, and S.R. Bush. 2016. Domestic crop booms, livelihood pathways and nested transitions: Charting the implications of Bangladesh’s Pangasius Boom. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (4): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12168 .

Béné, C., R. Arthur, H. Norbury, E.H. Allison, M.C.M. Beveridge, S.R. Bush, L. Campling, W. Leschen, D. Little, D. Squires, S.H. Thilsted, M. Troell, and M. Williams. 2016. Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: Assessing the current evidence. World Development 79: 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.007 .

Béné, C., M. Barange, R. Subasinghe, P. Pinstrup-Andersen, G. Merino, G. Hemre, and M. Williams. 2015. Feeding 9 billion by 2050—Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security 7: 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z .

Béné, C., B. Hersoug, and E.H. Allison. 2010. Not by rent alone: Analysing the pro-poor functions of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Development Policy Review 28 (3): 325–358.

Béné, C., P. Oosterveer, L. Lamotte, I.D. Brouwer, S. de Haan, S.D. Prager, E.F. Talsma, and C.K. Khoury. 2019. When food systems meet sustainability—Current narratives and implications for actions. World Development 113: 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011 .

Bentsen, H.B., B. Gjerde, N.H. Nguyen, M. Rye, R.W. Ponzoni, M.S. Palada de Vera, H.L. Bolivar, R.R. Velasco, J.C. Danting, E.E. Dionisio, F.M. Longalong, R.A. Reyes, T.A. Abella, M.M. Tayamen, and A.E. Eknath. 2012. Genetic improvement of farmed tilapias: Genetic parameters for body weight at harvest in Nile tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus ) during five generations of testing in multiple environments. Aquaculture 341: 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.01.027 .

Beveridge, M.C.M., S.H. Thilsted, M.J. Phillips, M. Metian, M. Troell, and S.J. Hall. 2013. Meeting the food and nutrition needs of the poor: The role of fish and the opportunities and challenges emerging from. Fish Biology 83: 1067–1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12187 .

Bogard, J.R., S. Farook, G.C. Marks, J. Waid, B. Belton, M. Ali, K. Toufique, A. Mamun, and S.H. Thilsted. 2017. Higher fish but lower micronutrient intakes: Temporal changes in fish consumption from capture fisheries and aquaculture in Bangladesh. PLoS ONE . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175098 .

Brummett, R.E., M.C.M. Beveridge, and I.G. Cowx. 2013. Functional aquatic ecosystems, inland fisheries and the Millennium Development Goals. Fish and Fisheries 14 (3): 312–324.

Bush, S.R., B. Belton, D. Hall, P. Vandergeest, F.J. Murray, S. Ponte, P. Oosterveer, M.S. Islam, A.P.J. Mol, M. Hatanaka, T.T.T. Ha, D.C. Little, and R. Kusamawati. 2013. Certify sustainable aquaculture? Science 341 (6150): 1067–1068. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237314 .

Bush, S.R., B. Belton, D. Little, and I.M. Saidul. 2019. Emerging trends in aquaculture value chain research. Aquaculture 498: 428–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.08.077 .

Bush, S.R., P. Oosterveer, M. Bailey, and A.P. Mol. 2015. Sustainability governance of chains and networks: A review and future outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production 107: 8–19.

Chan, C.Y., N. Tran, C.D. Dao, T.B. Sulser, M.J. Phillips, M. Batka, K. Wiebe, and N. Preston. 2017. Fish to 2050 in the ASEAN region. Penang, Malaysia: WorldFish and Washington DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Working Paper: 2017-01.

Coche, G. 1978. A Review of fish cage culture as practiced in inland waters. Aquaculture 13: 157–189.

Cooke, S.J., E.H. Allison, T.D. Beard Jr., J.R. Arlinghaus, A.H. Arthington, D.M. Bartley, I.G. Cowx, C. Fuentevilla, N.J. Leonard, K. Lorenzen, A.J. Lynch, V.M. Nguyen, S. Youn, W.W. Taylor, and R.L. Welcomme. 2016. On the sustainability of inland fisheries: Finding a future for the forgotten. Ambio 45 (7): 753–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0787-4 .

Cooke, S.J., N.W.R. Lapointe, E.G. Martins, J.D. Thiem, G.D. Raby, M.K. Taylor, T.D. Beard Jr., and I.G. Cowx. 2013. Failure to engage the public in issues related to inland fishes and fisheries: Strategies for building public and political will to promote meaningful conservation. Journal of Fish Biology 83 (4): 997–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12222 .

Dalsgaard, J.P.T. 1997. A quantitative approach for assessing the productive performance and ecological contributions of smallholder farms. Agricultural Systems 55 (4): 503–533.

Delgado, C.L. 2003. Fish to 2020: Supply and demand in changing global markets . Washington: WorldFishTechnical Report 62. International Food Policy Research Institute and WorldFish.

Dey, M.M. 2000. The impact of genetically improved farmed Nile tilapia in Asia. Aquaculture Economics and Management 7305 (4): 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300009380263 .

Dey, M.M., G.B. Bimbao, L. Yong, P. Regaspi, A.H.M. Kohinoor, N. Pongthana, and F.J. Paraguas. 2000a. Current status of production and consumption of tilapia in selected Asian countries. Aquaculture Economics and Management 7305 (4): 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300009380258 .

Dey, M.M., F.J. Paraguas, G.B. Bimbao, and P.B. Regaspi. 2000b. Technical efficiency of tilapia growout pond operations in the Philippines. Aquaculture Economics and Management 4 (1–2): 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300009380259 .

Dey, M.M., M.A. Rab, F.J. Paraguas, S. Piumsombun, R. Bhatta, M.F. Alam, and M. Ahmed. 2005a. Fish consumption and food security: A disaggregated analysis by types of fish and classes of consumers in selected Asian countries. Aquaculture Economics and Management 9 (1–2): 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300590961537 .

Dey, M.M., M.A. Rab, F.J. Paraguas, R. Bhatta, M.F. Alam, S. Koeshendrajana, and M. Ahmed. 2005b. Status and economics of freshwater aquaculture in selected countries of Asia. Aquaculture Economics and Management 9 (1): 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300590961609 .

E-Jahan, K.M., M. Ahmed, and B. Belton. 2010. The impacts of aquaculture development on food security: Lessons from Bangladesh. Aquaculture Research 41: 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02337.x .

E-Jahan, K.M., and D.E. Pemsl. 2011. The impact of integrated aquaculture—Agriculture on small-scale farm sustainability and farmers’ livelihoods: Experience from Bangladesh. Agricultural Systems 104 (5): 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.01.003 .

Eakin, H., J.P. Connors, C. Wharton, F. Bretmann, A. Xiong, and J. Stoltzfus. 2016. Identifying attributes of food system sustainability: Emerging themes and consensus. Agriculture and Human Values 34 (3): 757–773.

Edwards, P. 2015. Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present and likely future trends. Aquaculture 447: 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.02.001 .

Edwards, P., D.C. Little, and H. Demaine (eds.). 2002. Rural aquaculture . Wallingford: CABI.

Eknath, A.E., M.M. Tayamen, M.S. Palada-de Vera, J.C. Danting, R.A. Reyes, E.E. Dionisio, J.B. Capili, L. Boliva, T.A. Abella, A.V. Circa, H.B. Bentsen, B. Gjerde, T. Gjedrem, and R.S.V. Pullin. 1993. Genetic improvement of farmed tilapias: The growth performance of eight strains of Oreochromis niloticus tested in different farm environments. Aquaculture 111 (1–4): 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(93)90035-W .

Ericksen, P.J. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change 18: 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002 .

Evans, D. 2011. Systems of provision. In Encyclopedia of consumer culture , ed. D. Southerton. London: Sage Publications.

Evans, L., N. Cherrett, and D. Pemsl. 2011. Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: A meta-analysis’. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1938–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.010 .

FAO. 2015. Responsible stocking and enhancement of inland waters in Asia . FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. RAP Publication 2015/11.

FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all . Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2018. Yearbook: Fishery and aquaculture statistics . Rome: FAO.

FAO and WorldFish. 2008. Small-scale capture fisheries: A global overview with emphasis on developing countries . Penang, Malaysia: A Preliminary Report of the Big Numbers Project.

Fernando, C.H., and M. Halwart. 2000. Possibilities for the integration of fish farming into irrigation systems. Fisheries Management and Ecology 7 (1–2): 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2000.00188.x .

Fine, B. 1993. The world of consumption: The material and cultural revisited . London: Routledge.

Fluet-chouinard, E., S. Funge-smith, and P.B. Mcintyre. 2018. Global hidden harvest of freshwater fish revealed by household surveys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (29): 7623–7628. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721097115 .

Gereffi, G., J. Humphrey, and T. Sturgeon. 2005. The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy 12 (1): 78–104.

Gluckman, P. 2018. The role of evidence and expertise in policy-making: The politics and practice of science advice. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales 151 (467/468): 91.

Golden, C.D., E.H. Allison, W.W. Cheung, M.M. Dey, B.S. Halpern, D.J. McCauley, M. Smith, B. Vaitla, D. Zeller, and S.S. Myers. 2016. Nutrition: Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature News 534 (7607): 317.

Gómez, M.I., C.B. Barrett, T. Raney, P. Pinstrup-Andersen, J. Meerman, A. Croppenstedt, B. Carisma, and B. Thompson. 2013. Post-green revolution food systems and the triple burden of malnutrition. Food Policy 42: 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.06.009 .

Guston, D.H. 1996. Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Science and Public Policy 23 (4): 229–240.

Haddad, L., C. Hawkes, P. Webb, S. Thomas, J. Beddington, J. Waage, and D. Flynn. 2016. A new global research agenda for food. Nature News 540 (7631): 30.

Hall, S.J., R. Hillborn, N.L. Andrew, and E.H. Allison. 2012. Innovations in capture fisheries are an imperative for nutrition security in the developing world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (21): 8393–8398. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208067110 .

Haque, M.M., D.C. Little, and B.K. Barman. 2010. The adoption process of ricefield-based fish seed production in Northwest Bangladesh: An understanding through quantitative and qualitative investigation the adoption process of ricefield-based fish seed production in Northwest Bangladesh: An understand. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 16 (2): 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892241003651415 .

HLPE. 2014. Aquaculture for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome, Italy.

HLPE. 2017. Nutrition and food systems. A report by The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Rome, Italy.

Ickowitz, A., B. Powell, D. Rowland, A. Jones, and T. Sunderland. 2019. Agricultural intensification, dietary diversity, and markets in the global food security narrative. Global Food Security 20: 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.11.002 .

Ingram, J. 2011. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change. Food Security 3 (4): 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-011-0149-9 .

IPES. 2017. What makes urban food policy happen? Insights from five case studies . International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Cities_full.pdf Accessed 20 June 2018.

Jennings, S., G.D. Stentiford, A.M. Leocadio, K.R. Jeffery, J.D. Metcalfe, I. Katsiadaki, N.A. Auchterlonie, S.C. Mangi, J.K. Pinnegar, T. Ellis, E.J. Peeler, T. Luisetti, C. Baker-Austin, M. Brown, L. Catchpole, F.J. Clyne, S.R. Dyel, N.J. Edmonds, K. Hyder, J. Lee, D.N. Lees, O.C. Morgan, C.M. O'Brien, B. Oidtmann, P.E. Posen, A.R. Santos, N.G.H. Taylor, A.D. Turner, B.L. Townhill, and D.W. Verner-Jeffrey. 2016. Aquatic food security: Insights into challenges and solutions from an analysis of interactions between fisheries, aquaculture, food safety, human health, fish and human welfare, economy and environment. Fish and Fisheries 17: 893–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12152 .

Jonell, M., M.J. Phillips, P. Ronnback, and M. Troell. 2013. Eco-certification of farmed seafood: Will it make a difference? Ambio 42: 659–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0409-3 .

Kaplinsky, R. 2000. Globalisation and unequalisation: What can be learned from value chain analysis? Journal of development studies 37 (2): 117–146.

Karim, M., H.J. Keus, M.H. Ullah, L. Kassam, M.J. Phillips, and M.C.M. Beveridge. 2016. Investing in carp seed quality improvements in homestead aquaculture: Lessons from Bangladesh. Aquaculture 453: 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.11.027 .

Karim, M., D.C. Little, M.S. Kabir, M.J.C. Verdegem, T. Telfer, and M.A. Wahab. 2011. Enhancing benefits from polycultures including tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus ) within integrated pond-dike systems: A participatory trial with households of varying socio-economic level in rural and peri-urban areas of Bangladesh. Aquaculture 314 (1–4): 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.01.027 .

Katiha, P.K., J.K. Jena, N.G.K. Pillai, C. Chakraborty, and M.M. Dey. 2005. Inland aquaculture in India: Past trend, present status and future prospects. Aquaculture Economics and Management 9 (1–2): 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300590961573 .

Kawarazuka, N., and C. Béné. 2010. Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to household nutritional security: An overview. Food Security 2 (4): 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0079-y .

Kawarazuka, N., and C. Béné. 2011. The potential role of small fish species in improving micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries: Building evidence. Public Health Nutrition 14 (11): 1927–1938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980011000814 .

Kelleher, K., L. Westlund, E. Hoshino, D. Mills, R. Willmann, G. de Graaf, and R. Brummett. 2012. Hidden harvest: The global contribution of capture fisheries . Washington: The World Bank and WorldFish.

Khaw, H.L., R.W. Ponzoni, and M.J.C. Danting. 2008. Estimation of genetic change in the GIFT strain of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) by comparing contemporary progeny produced by males born in 1991 or in 2003. Aquaculture 275 (1–4): 64–69.

Kneen, B. 1989. From land to mouth: Understanding the food system . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Koc, M., and K.A. Dahlberg. 1999. The restructuring of food systems: Trends, research, and policy issues. Agriculture and Human Values 16 (2): 109–116.

Kruijssen, F., C.L. Mcdougall, and I.J.M. van Asseldonk. 2018. Gender and aquaculture value chains: A review of key issues and implications for research. Aquaculture 493: 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.12.038 .

Levac, D., H. Colquhoun, and K.K.O. Brien. 2010. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 5 (69): 1–9.

Lind, C.E., R.W. Ponzoni, N.H. Nguyen, and H.L. Khaw. 2012. Selective breeding in fish and conservation of genetic resources for aquaculture. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 47: 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02084.x .

Little, D.C., S.R. Bush, B. Belton, N.T. Phuong, J.A. Young, and F.J. Murray. 2012. Whitefish wars: Pangasius, politics and consumer confusion in Europe. Marine Policy 36 (3): 738–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.006 .

Little, D.C., R.W. Newton, and M.C.M. Beveridge. 2016. Aquaculture: A rapidly growing and significant source of sustainable food? Status, transitions and potential. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 75 (3): 274–286.

Lorenzen, K., M.C.M. Beveridge, and M. Mangel. 2012. Cultured fish: Integrative biology and management of domestication and interactions with wild fish. Biological Reviews 87: 639–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00215.x .

Lynch, A.J., D.M. Bartley, T.D. Beard Jr., I.G. Cowx, S. Funge-Smith, W.W. Taylor, and S.J. Cooke. 2019. Examining progress towards achieving the Ten Steps of the Rome Declaration on Responsible Inland Fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 21 (1): 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12410 .

Marsden, T., J. Banks, and G. Bristow. 2000. Exploring their role in rural development food supply chain approaches. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4): 424–438.

McClanahan, T., E.H. Allison, and J.E. Cinner. 2015. Managing fisheries for human and food security. Fish and Fisheries 16 (1): 78–103.

McIntyre, P.B., C.A.R. Liermann, and C. Revenga. 2016. Linking freshwater fishery management to global food security and biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (45): 12880–12885.

Morgan, M., G. Terry, S. Rajaratnam, and J. Pant. 2017. Socio-cultural dynamics shaping the potential of aquaculture to deliver development outcomes. Reviews in Aquaculture 9: 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12137 .

Natale, F., J. Hofherr, G. Fiore, and J. Virtanen. 2013. Interactions between aquaculture and fisheries. Marine Policy 38: 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.037 .

Naylor, R.L., R.J. Goldburg, J.H. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M.C.M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, J. Lubchencos, H. Mooney, and M. Troell. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405: 1017–1024.

Nielsen, R.J., P. Degnbol, K.K. Viswanathan, M. Ahmed, M. Hara, and N.M.R. Abdullah. 2004. Fisheries co-management—An institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa. Marine Policy 28: 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(03)00083-6 .

Nurhasan, M., H.K. Maehre, M.K. Malde, S.K. Stormo, M. Halwart, D. James, and E.O. Elvevoll. 2010. Nutritional composition of aquatic species in Laotian rice field ecosystems. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 23 (3): 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2009.12.001 .

Olson, J., P.M. Clay, and P. Pinto. 2014. Putting the seafood in sustainable food systems. Marine Policy 43: 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.001 .

Ottinger, M., K. Clauss, and C. Kuenzer. 2016. Aquaculture: Relevance, distribution, impacts and spatial assessments—A review. Ocean and Coastal Management 119: 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.015 .

Pahlow, M., P.R. Van Oel, M.M. Mekonnen, and A.Y. Hoekstra. 2015. Increasing pressure on freshwater resources due to terrestrial feed ingredients for aquaculture production. Science of the Total Environment 536: 847–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.124 .

Pant, J., B.K. Barman, K.M. E-Jahan, B. Belton, and M.C.M. Beveridge. 2014. Can aquaculture benefit the extreme poor? A case study of landless and socially marginalized Adivasi (ethnic) communities in Bangladesh. Aquaculture 418: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.09.027 .

Pomeroy, R. 2016. A research framework for traditional fisheries: Revisited. Marine Policy 70: 153–163.

Ponte, S., I. Kelling, and K. Sau. 2014. The blue revolution in Asia: Upgrading and governance in aquaculture value chains. World Development 64: 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.022 .

Ponte, S., and T. Sturgeon. 2014. Explaining governance in global value chains: A modular theory-building effort. Review of International Political Economy 21 (1): 195–223.

Prein, M. 2002. Integration of aquaculture into crop—Animal systems in Asia. Agricultural Systems 71 (1611): 127–146.

Pullin, R.S., and R.A. Neal. 1984. Tropical aquaculture. Need for a strong research base. Marine Policy 8 (3): 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(84)90002-2 .

Ratner, B.D. 2006. Policy review community management by decree? Lessons from Cambodia’ s fisheries reform. Society and Natural Resources 19: 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920500323344 .

Ratner, B.D., and E.H. Allison. 2012. Wealth, rights, and resilience: An agenda for Governance Reform in Small-scale Fisheries. Development Policy Review 30 (4): 371–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2012.00581.x .

Reardon, T., and C.P. Timmer. 2014. Five inter-linked transformations in the Asian agrifood economy: Food security implications. Global Food Security 3 (2): 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.02.001 .

Reardon, T., D. Tschirley, M. Dolislager, J. Snyder, C. Hu, and S. White. 2014. Urbanization, diet change, and transformation of food supply chains in Asia . Michigan: Global Center for Food Systems Innovation.

Smith I.R. 1979. A research framework for traditional fisheries . ICLARM Studies and Reviews No. 2, International Center For Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, the Philippines.

Smith, I.R. 1981. Improving fishing incomes when resources are overfished. Marine Policy 5 (1): 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(81)90070-1 .

Spaargaren, G., P. Oosterveer, and A. Loeber. 2012. Sustainability transitions in food consumption, retail and production. In Food practices in transition: Changing food consumption, retail and production in the age of reflexive modernity , ed. G. Spaargaren, P. Oosterveer, and A. Loeber, 21–52. London: Routledge.

Sultana, P., and P. Thompson. 2004. Methods of consensus building for community-based fisheries management in Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta. Agricultural Systems 82 (3): 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.07.007 .

Tacon, A.G.J., and S.S. De Silva. 1997. Feed preparation and feed management strategies within semi-intensive fish farming systems in the tropics. Aquaculture 151: 379–404.

Thompson, P.M., P. Sultana, and N. Islam. 2003. Lessons from community based management of floodplain fisheries in Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Management 69: 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.09.014 .

Tlusty, M.F., P. Tyedmers, M. Bailey, F. Ziegler, P.J. Henriksson, C. Béné, S.R. Bush, R. Newton, F. Asche, D.C. Little, and M. Troell. 2019. Reframing the sustainable seafood narrative. Global Environmental Change 59: 101991.

Toufique, K.A., and B. Belton. 2014. Is aquaculture pro-poor? Empirical evidence of impacts on fish consumption in Bangladesh. World Development 64: 609–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.06.035 .

Troell, M., R.L. Naylor, M. Metian, M.C.M. Beveridge, P.H. Tyedmers, C. Folke, K.J. Arrow, S. Barrett, A. Crepin, P.R. Ehrlich, A. Gren, N. Kautsky, S.A. Levin, K. Nyborg, H. Osterblom, S. Polasky, M. Scefferm, B.H. Walker, T. Xepapadeas, and A. de Zeeuw. 2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (37): 13257–13263. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404067111 .

van Bers, C., A. Delaney, H. Eakin, L. Cramer, M. Purdon, C. Oberlack, T. Evans, C. Pahl-Wostl, S. Eriksen, L. Jones, and K. Korhonen-Kurki. 2019. Advancing the research agenda on food systems governance and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39: 94–102.

Weeratunge, N., C. Béné, R. Siriwardane, A. Charles, D. Johnson, E.H. Allison, P.K. Nayak, and M. Badjeck. 2014. Small-scale fisheries through the wellbeing lens. Fish and Fisheries 15 (2): 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12016 .

Welcomme, R.L., and D.M. Bartley. 1998. Current approaches to the enhancement of fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5: 351–382.

Welcomme, R.L., I.G. Cowx, and D. Coates. 2010. Inland capture fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365 (1554): 2881–2896. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0168 .

Willett, W., J. Rockstom, B. Loken, M. Springmann, T. Lang, S. Vermeulen, T. Garnett, D. Tilman, F. DeClerck, A. Wood, M. Jonell, M. Clark, L.J. Gordon, J. Fanzo, C. Hawkes, R. Zurayk, J.A. Rivera, W. De Vries, M.S. Sibanda, A. Afshin, A. Chaudhary, M. Herrero, R. Augustina, F. Branca, A. Lartey, S. Fan, B. Crona, E. Fox, V. Bignet, M. Troell, T. Lindhal, S. Singh, S.E. Cornell, K.S. Reddy, S. Narain, S. Nishtar, and C.J.L. Murray. 2019. The Lancet Commissions Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT – Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393 (10170): 447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 .

Youn, S., W.W. Taylor, A.J. Lynch, I.G. Cowx, T.D. Beard Jr., D. Bartley, and F. Wu. 2014. Inland capture fishery contributions to global food security and threats to their future. Global Food Security 3 (3–4): 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.09.005 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish. The program is supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. Funding support for this work was provided by the Australian Government and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (Grant No. FIS/2011/052), the United States Agency for International Development (Grant No. AID-482-LA-14-00003), and financial assistance from the Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT). We are very grateful to the many counterparts from FAO, SEAFDEC, and WorldFish with whom we had the privilege to interact during the implementation of this research. The richness of our discussions provided some inestimable contribution to the conceptualization and writing of this article. The authors also thank Alexandra Vanderschelden for constructive and helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript and her invaluable help with the visuals. Finally, we would like to stress that the opinions expressed here belong to the authors only, and do not necessarily reflect those of the FAO, SEAFDEC, WorldFish, nor of the aforementionned donors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Environment Policy Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Xavier Tezzo, Simon R. Bush & Peter Oosterveer

Department of Fisheries, WorldFish, Myanmar Office, West Gyogone, Bayint Naung Road, Insein Township, Yangon, 11181, Myanmar

Xavier Tezzo

Department of Agricultural, Food and Resources Economics, Michigan State University, 446 West Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

WorldFish, Head Office, Jalan Batu Maung, 11960, Bayan Lepas, Penang, Malaysia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xavier Tezzo .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tezzo, X., Bush, S.R., Oosterveer, P. et al. Food system perspective on fisheries and aquaculture development in Asia. Agric Hum Values 38 , 73–90 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10037-5

Download citation

Accepted : 18 April 2020

Published : 28 April 2020

Issue Date : February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10037-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Development policy
• Food security
• Food systems
• Freshwater fish
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Food for Thought
• Food for Thought: Luminaries
• Food for Thought: Rising Tides
• Quo Vadimus
• Stories from the Front Lines
• Symposium Issues
• Themed Sets
• Introductions
• Hidden Gems
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish with us?
• About ICES Journal of Marine Science
• About the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, review approach, key findings, category i: well-established science and advice topics in ices, category ii: less-established science and advice topics in ices, discussion: future perspectives, identifying operational fleet capacity targets and capacity adjustment strategies, informing policy on key interactions determining fisheries responses to management, acknowledgements, conflict of interest, author contributions, data availability, integrating economics into fisheries science and advice: progress, needs, and future opportunities.

Authorship equal for these lead authors .

Authorship equal for these topic coordinators and editors .

Authorship equal for these authors .

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

O Thébaud, J R Nielsen, A Motova, H Curtis, F Bastardie, G E Blomqvist, F Daurès, L Goti, J Holzer, J Innes, A Muench, A Murillas, R Nielsen, R Rosa, E Thunberg, S Villasante, J Virtanen, S Waldo, S Agnarsson, D Castilla Espino, R Curtin, G DePiper, R Doering, H Ellefsen, J J García del Hoyo1, S Gourguet, P Greene, K G Hamon, A Haynie, J B Kellner, S Kuikka, B Le Gallic, C Macher, R Prellezo, J Santiago Castro-Rial, K Sys, H van Oostenbrugge, B M J Vastenhoud, Integrating economics into fisheries science and advice: progress, needs, and future opportunities, ICES Journal of Marine Science , Volume 80, Issue 4, May 2023, Pages 647–663, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsad005

• Permissions Icon Permissions

While the science supporting fisheries management has generally been dominated by the natural sciences, there has been a growing recognition that managing fisheries essentially means managing economic systems. Indeed, over the past seven decades, economic ideas and insights have increasingly come to play a role in fisheries management and policy. As an illustration of this, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has been actively seeking to expand the scope of its scientific expertise beyond natural sciences [another inter-governmental marine science organization which has done this over the same period is the North Pacific Marine Science organization (PICES)]. In particular, the recently created ICES Working Group on Economics set out to review current work and key future needs relating to economic research and management advice on marine capture fisheries. This article presents the results of this review and addresses how economic research can be incorporated into the science of ICES to provide integrated perspectives on fisheries systems that can contribute to the provision of advice in support of policy development and management decision-making for sustainable uses of living marine resources.

Over the past seven decades, economic ideas and insights have increasingly come to play a role in fisheries management and policy. Central to the early development of this literature, Gordon ( 1954 ) and Scott ( 1955 ) laid the foundations of the economic rationale for fisheries management by contrasting resource extraction under open access with optimal management aimed at maximizing economic yield. Clark and Munro ( 1975 ) also studied fisheries management as a capital theory problem, allowing economists to use a diversity of well-developed analytical tools to evaluate the efficient intertemporal use of fishery resources. Extending the discrete choice random utility model developed by (McFadden, 1974 ), (Eales and Wilen, 1986 ) and later (Holland and Sutinen, 2000 ) demonstrated the capacity to predict location choices in commercial fisheries. Location choice models have also been applied to the study of recreational fisheries (Bockstael and Opaluch, 1983 ; Bockstael et al ., 1989 ; McConnell et al ., 1995 ). For an extensive review of applied location choice models, see Girardin et al . ( 2017 ). Key to these and other contributions has been the increasing availability of economic data and the ability of economics to grapple with the identification of incentives driving fisher behaviour, as well as the evaluation of the costs and benefits associated with policy interventions.

In many instances, economic analyses have actively informed policy design (Wilen, 2000 ; Anderson, 2015 ), although scholars have noted that the full potential for contributions of fisheries economics to policy has yet to be realized (Hanna, 2011 ; Knapp, 2012 ). Underlying fisheries economics contributions is the recognition that how different policy options interact with stakeholders’ incentives impacts the likelihood of achieving management objectives. For example, early economic studies of fisheries management under an industry-wide total allowable catch (TAC) provided an understanding of harvesters’ incentives to further engage in capital investment (so-called “capital stuffing”), with the resulting race to fish and dissipation of profit (Homans and Wilen, 1997 ). Other studies emphasized the incentives for input substitution in input-managed fisheries, questioning the usefulness of such controls in practice (Dupont, 1991 ). Many fisheries policy innovations were introduced in light of these economic insights, in particular the various approaches for allocating harvest rights to different user groups (Shotton, 2001 ; OECD, 2006 ). The work of (Christy, 1973 ) was instrumental to the introduction of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), which has become a widespread tool for fisheries management. In such management regimes, rather than setting industry-wide catch limits only, the regulator allocates individual catch shares with the intent that these will provide fishermen with more secure rights to fish, thereby limiting perverse incentives (Costello et al ., 2008 ).

Given that efficient allocation of scarce resources is central to economics (Samuelson et al ., 2019 ), assessing trade-offs is consubstantial to the discipline. Indeed, trade-off analysis is embedded in how economists quantify economic value. As a measure of value, economists typically use differences in net benefits from a policy intervention compared to no policy, or differences in net benefits with and without a shock to the system such as an ecological disturbance or an industrial accident (e.g. an oil spill). In supporting fisheries management, application of economic analysis has largely focused on informing decisions on how to best allocate limited resources such as time, capital, and fish stocks to attain the highest net benefits to society (see e.g. Dichmont et al ., 2010 ; Pereau et al ., 2012 ; Guillen et al ., 2013 ). Economic analysis has also paid attention to costs in fisheries, both fixed and variable, and how these can help understand the development of the industry and the influence of policy (e.g. Sala et al ., 2018 ).

In setting the general principles that allow understanding of incentives and trade-offs, early fisheries economics work was largely normative and theoretical (Wilen, 2000 ). Research over the past three decades has seen a strong development of empirical research, with increasing availability of empirical information and computing power (Andersen, 2013 ), as well as the recruitment of economists working in national marine laboratories. A number of complex bio-economic methods and models have also recently been developed and implemented for different fisheries around the world (see Nielsen et al ., 2018a for a review and Thébaud et al ., 2014 for a discussion of key challenges). In contrast to earlier economic literature focusing on stylized biological models, the population dynamics in these models are of similar complexity to stock assessment models currently used in fishery advice. As a result, this new literature has significantly contributed to bridging the gap between ecological and economic perspectives on fishery systems (Doyen et al ., 2013 ; Nielsen et al ., 2018a ). For example, in Australia, where the policy objective is set to achieve maximum economic yield (MEY) in commercial fisheries, bio-economic models are used on a regular basis to support management decisions (Dichmont et al ., 2010 ; Pascoe et al ., 2014 ; Pascoe et al ., 2016 ). In the northeast US Gulf of Maine, bio-economic models of recreational fisher behaviour are used to set annual management specifications for Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ) and Atlantic haddock ( Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) stocks (Lee et al ., 2017 ). Indeed, the application of fisheries economics has been able to rely on a growing diversity of economic models and data, including the collection of cost and earnings data for commercial fishing operations (Thunberg et al ., 2015 ; STECF, 2020 ; Werner et al ., 2020 ). Other techniques enable economists to assess the welfare changes associated with policy interventions on non-market ecosystem services (ES), such as surveys of willingness to pay for the conservation of marine protected species that interact with fisheries (Wallmo and Lew, 2012 ).

While the science supporting fisheries management has generally been dominated by the natural sciences, there has been a growing recognition among natural scientists (Hilborn, 2007 ) that managing fisheries means managing economic and social systems (Charles, 2005 ). Indeed, international guidelines have increasingly highlighted the need to account for ecological, economic, and social goals in managing fisheries for sustainability as part of ecosystem-based fisheries management (Pikitch et al ., 2004 ). This resulted in the explicit inclusion of socio-economic considerations in fisheries policies around the world as well as in scientific advice, leading, for example, to initial discussions on incorporating fisheries economics into the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as far back as 1971 (ICES, 2003 ). It is only in recent years, however, that efforts by ICES have materialized to expand the scope of scientific expertise to incorporate contributions from the social sciences. According to its current strategic plan (ICES. 2021. Strategic Plan. 18 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.7460 ), the vision of ICES is “to be a world-leading marine science organization, meeting societal needs for impartial evidence on the state and sustainable use of our seas and oceans”. Based on this vision, ICES defines its mission as advancing and sharing scientific understanding of marine ecosystems and the services they provide, and using this knowledge to generate state-of-the-art advice for meeting conservation, management, and sustainability goals. This has led ICES to broaden its scientific priorities (ICES, 2019: Strategic Plan, pp. 18–19, https://issuu.com/icesdk/docs/ices_stategic_plan_2019_web ), which now include elucidating the present and future states of not only natural but also social systems, placing the understanding of human behaviour, incentives, and values as central to the work of the organization.

These priorities have led to a move towards the broadening of the science-base of ICES to fully include social sciences, and to discussions on how to expand upon the conventional information basis largely centred on biological/ecological information to more explicit consideration of the social and economic dimensions associated with policy development and management choices. This inclusion of a marine socio-ecological systems perspective (Link et al ., 2017 ) has led to new initiatives within ICES, including the Strategic Initiative on Human Dimensions (SIHD: https://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/SIHD.aspx ) and the initiation of new working groups, including the Working Group on Economics (WGECON). These efforts have been undertaken to promote progress in the integration of economics into ICES science and advice. As one of its first tasks, WGECON (see https://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGECON.aspx ) set out to review the status and progress made in applying fisheries economics in ICES marine areas to policy topics and research of relevance to fisheries managers.

This article presents the results of this review. Through examination of a selection of key topics of current ICES and global relevance to fisheries science and policy, we illustrate how economic research can provide an improved understanding of the ways in which fisheries develop and respond to change and of the trade-offs associated with alternative scenarios and management strategies. As such, the article addresses the question of how contributions from economic research can be incorporated into the scientific advice of an organization such as ICES, eventually contributing to informing policy development and management decision-making for sustainable uses of living marine resources.

Section 2 presents the review approach, based on consultation with experts in the field and a systematic process of synthesizing and reviewing the state of the art in applied fisheries economics research. Section 3 presents a synthesis of the extent to which existing research is currently used in supporting fisheries policy. We show that a strong body of applied fisheries economics research exists, covering a broad range of topics at the core of fisheries management, but that only some of this work is incorporated in the advice supporting policy implementation. Section 4 identifies the potential for further developments of direct relevance to the science supporting management advice internationally. We conclude by highlighting the key steps that can be taken to support a stronger integration of economics into fisheries science and advice.

The review relied mainly on expert assessment drawn from the expertise of WGECON, a group composed of >50 economists and fisheries experts from 16 countries, including European and North American researchers specializing in marine living resource economics. The group met annually from 2018 to 2020 and established an initial list of 12 key contemporaneous commercial fishery management topics central to economic research and analyses that were perceived to be of high relevance to ICES scientific and advisory work.

For each of these topics, the members of the group reviewed both current and future research priorities. The group first considered the research currently conducted and advice provided as part of ICES work and more broadly in fisheries management, including the economic issues relating to the topic that economists have examined, the evaluation methods and tools available, as well as the data available and indicators used. Next, the group assessed key future needs for research and integration into ICES science, including issues and questions that could be documented, evaluation methods and tools that should be developed, data and indicators that needed to be made available, and the associated information flow from research to policy support.

The information collected from group members was first compiled in shorthand format for each topic. Based on these synthetic reports, sub-groups, typically consisting of two moderators and two reviewers, developed revised and elaborated report texts and summary sheets for each topic (see Supplementary Material Section B ). The reports and summary sheets were systematically reviewed by at least two other members of the group, leading to revised summary sheets and report text. A final round of revisions was carried out during a final meeting where both moderators and reviewers participated in the process, leading to the material presented in this article.

The identified topics were classified into two broad categories ( Table 1 ). The first category was commercial fisheries management topics, on which ICES science and advice are well established in disciplines other than economics. These topics were ordered from the older, standard topics to the more recent and complex ones. The second category was topics the group perceived to be important to consider for sustainable fisheries yet not commonly included in the standard science supporting advice. These topics were ranked by increasing level of complexity.  Table 1 summarizes the topics in both categories and the key research questions addressed under each.

Topics considered in the review.

The connections between these different topics were repeatedly and extensively discussed by the group, highlighting the importance of bringing the different topics under each category into integrated approaches in order to inform fisheries management.  Figure 1 summarizes the 12 topics considered in the review and illustrates the interconnectedness between them, which is also reflected in the key findings section hereafter.

Graphical representation of the topics for science and advice considered in the review. See  Table 1 for the identification of questions addressed under each of the topics illustrated.

To complement the work of the expert group, an international survey among fisheries economists was carried out in collaboration with the European Association of Fisheries Economists (EAFE) during 2019. Members of the North American Association of Fisheries Economists (NAAFE) were also invited to respond. The aim of the survey was to evaluate whether the key topics identified by the WGECON experts were indeed representative of the core contributions that fisheries economics can provide to support management advice, and to identify any other topics that should also be included. Survey respondents were asked about key fishery economic topics and were asked to rank the relative importance of each of these topics in terms of research and management advice. The survey was conducted through an online form that was circulated to the EAFE and NAAFE mailing lists. To increase the response rate and discuss preliminary results, a specific session was organized during the 2019 EAFE Conference in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Additionally, a presentation of WGECON and the survey were given during the 2019 NAAFE Forum in Halifax, Canada. Additional paper questionnaires were also administered to survey participants during the two conferences.

In total, 36 responses to the survey were collected through fisheries economics networks. Responses confirmed the list of 12 topics but also identified the major additional, cross-cutting theme of climate change impacts that is mobilizing increasing research attention in the profession (other emerging topics such as pollution, regionalization of management, and coastal community studies were mentioned as important topics for future work). Because of its cross-cutting nature, this was not included as a separate topic in the review but rather considered in terms of how research on the 12 topics might assist in addressing the issues arising from climate-related impacts on ecosystems and the economy.

The results of the review for the 12 key topics are summarized in this section, highlighting the advances in applied fisheries economic research that are relevant to ICES work.  Table 2 provides a qualitative overview of the assessment by WGECON of the degree to which research on these topics has advanced to a stage where the key issues relating to each topic are being addressed, both in research as well as in management advice. This assessment includes the methods, tools, data, and indicators that have been developed and are being used in formal advisory processes at national and/or international levels. In what follows, we provide the main arguments for these assessments for each of the 12 topics, as well as selected key references to the relevant state-of-the-art literature in fisheries economics. For more detailed assessment information and additional references to literature published outside the economics journals on each topic, the reader is referred to Section A of the Supplementary Material .

Progress in the availability and use in advice of work on issues, methods, and tools, and data and indicators for each topic, within and outside ICES.

Colour scale indicates the extent to which the research is available and used/applied in the science supporting the advice, according to the views of the expert group. Dark green: used/applied; Medium green: fully available; light green: only partially available. “Within ICES” refers to research that is being conducted within ICES member countries. “Outside ICES” refers to research that is being conducted in countries outside ICES.

Topic I: TAC setting in output-based management systems

Early fisheries economics research largely centred on redirecting attention from the strictly biological focus of fisheries science to consideration of issues such as wealth dissipation, fleet misallocation, or the low income of fishers (Scott, 1989 ). Efforts thus focused on extending the biological production function and its response to alternative regulatory regimes (Clark and Munro, 1975 ; Clark, 1980 ; Scott, 1989 ). At the same time, output controls such as TAC limits were becoming a common instrument to help sustain fisheries harvests internationally, with strong developments in the science of population dynamics. Earlier economic work studied how TACs can interact with fleet incentives to result in overcapacity and reduced economic returns (Homans and Wilen, 1997 ). With the growing availability of economic data on fishing activities, a range of applied bio-economic models were developed and are being used to inform management. However, with some notable exceptions (Dichmont et al ., 2010 ; Pascoe et al ., 2016 ), these models have mainly focused on impact assessments, evaluating the economic consequences of alternative TACs set based on biological objectives, either achieving maximum sustainable yield or avoiding unwanted biological outcomes of fishing (see Supplementary Material for references to the large body of literature that has developed in this field in the ICES context). In parallel, significant steps have been made in the bio-economic modelling literature to build directly on the biological models routinely used to inform TAC setting, in particular age- or size-structured models of fish population dynamics (Pascoe and Mardle, 2001 ; Tahvonen, 2009 ; Macher et al ., 2018 ; Tahvonen et al ., 2018 ). Given that they largely capture the key dimensions considered in identifying fishing mortality targets in fisheries management advice, we argue that these models can be directly used to examine strategies that consider economic objectives, including MEY (Grafton et al ., 2010 ). With the increased availability of economic data on fishing fleets across ICES regions, these models constitute a strong set of tools for addressing many of the research questions identified under the different topics that follow.

Topic II: mixed species fisheries management

Models have been applied to the question of managing so-called mixed fisheries, where fleets targeting mixes of species interact through differing levels of contributions to the mortality of given fish stocks in given areas and seasons while also differing in their levels of economic dependency on these stocks (Holland and Sutinen, 2000 ). This has led to further empirical analysis of the structure of profit functions in fisheries and to a better understanding of observed industry structures and their evolution over time (Squires, 1988 ; Weninger, 2001 ). Research has also focused on aggregate fishery-level production relationships to determine the economic importance of bycatch species in a fishery and optimal bycatch rules (Larson et al ., 1998 ). Economic models of bycatch have included incentives that may exist in multi-species fisheries for fishermen to modify their fishing strategies (Birkenbach et al ., 2020 ), as well as responses to TAC and quota allocation decisions for target and bycatch species (Marchal et al ., 2011 ; Holzer and DePiper, 2019 ). A broad range of simulation methods have been developed for evaluating the sustainability and distributional effects of management strategies pursuing biological targets such as single stock MSY (and associated ranges) or multi-species MSY, as well as economic targets such as single- and multi-fleet MEY and/or social targets such as employment (Voss et al ., 2014 ; Ulrich et al ., 2016 ; Nielsen et al ., 2018a ). Multi-criteria assessment methods, such as viable control, have been developed to evaluate strategies satisfying a set of ecological, social, and economic constraints (Gourguet et al ., 2013 ; Doyen et al ., 2017 ; Briton et al ., 2020 ). Recent modelling efforts make use of the latest biological and economic knowledge to examine the benefits of strategies aimed at economic multispecies management objectives as well as dealing with variability and uncertainty (Lagarde et al ., 2018 ; Voss et al ., 2021 ). However, while these methods and tools are widely available and have been used to support management in other parts of the world, to date they have not generally been used in management advice at ICES.

Topic III: area-based and spatial management

As the importance of spatial structure in the distribution of fish populations and the need to account for this in designing spatially explicit management measures has become increasingly acknowledged, so has research focused on describing, explaining, and predicting the spatial allocation of fishing activities and their interactions with the spatial dynamics of fish resources (Eales and Wilen, 1986 ; Sanchirico and Wilen, 1999 ; Holland and Sutinen, 2000 ; Smith, 2000 ; Smith et al ., 2009 ; Dépalle et al ., 2021 ). The analyses have particularly been used to examine the potential bio-economic consequences of spatial management measures such as closed areas and marine protected areas (Hannesson, 1998 ), with more recent work highlighting the importance of considering economic behaviour in examining the potential benefits of such measures (Smith and Wilen, 2003 ; Haynie and Layton, 2010 ; Albers et al ., 2020 ).

In the context of ICES, recent ad hoc initiatives have examined balancing spatially resolved environmental and fisheries economics considerations; an example being the risks of habitat degradation and protective measures adopted as part of deep-sea access regulations. However, to date, ICES has not implemented any advice that incorporates economic or social considerations into spatial fisheries management. This contrasts with other regions where studies of the economic consequences of spatial management have been conducted and are being considered by advisory bodies (Bisack and Sutinen, 2006 ; Abbott and Haynie, 2012 ).

Topic IV: adjustment of capacity to resource potential

Rights-based fishery management approaches aimed at removing the race-to-fish incentives due to the common-pool nature of marine fish stocks should eliminate the need to manage fishing capacity (Homans and Wilen, 1997 ). However, the pervasiveness of policies focused on biological and social considerations has led to a need for capacity management and the development of research to support this endeavour (Pascoe, 2007a ). Economists have particularly focused on the short-term measurement of fishing capacity using output-based measures of observed production given the technical characteristics of fishing fleets and prevailing conditions in the fishery (Kirkley et al ., 2002 ). While robust methods are now available to carry out such measurements, their use to date to inform policy has remained limited. Instead, input-based definitions of fishing capacity have been predominantly used as part of multi-criteria evaluation approaches such as the EU capacity balance indicator guidelines. These guidelines require an annual evaluation of several bio-economic indicators of excess capacity of EU fleets ( https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance ), leading to mandatory national plans to address excess capacity. Concurrently, public buyback programmes have often been seen as a preferred capacity reduction instrument, as they are voluntary and compensate industry members for capacity reductions (Pascoe, 2007a ). This has led to a large body of work investigating the outcomes of alternative designs for such programmes (Campbell, 1989 ; Weninger and McConnell, 2000 ; OECD, 2009 ; Holzer et al ., 2017 ). Factors influencing capacity, such as capital investment (including fishing rights) ownership (Nostbakken et al ., 2011 ), entry and exit dynamics of fishing capacity in fisheries (Tidd et al ., 2011 ), or technical progress in fisheries (Squires, 1992 ), have been extensively considered. Underlying these endeavours is research into the implications of governmental support policies for the fishing sector on capacity, fish stocks, and fisher welfare (Clark et al ., 2005 ; Martini and Innes, 2018 ; Smith, 2019 ). The impacts on capacity of incentive-based approaches to regulating access to fisheries resources have also rapidly developed (see Topic VII below). Finally, the alternative approach of using bio-economic models to help identify long-term target capacity levels, both in input and output terms, has also made strong advances (see Topics I and II above). The extent to which these different lines of research and sets of analytical tools can effectively inform fisheries policy and management in the ICES area, however, remains limited.

Topic V: data-limited situations

For several species, stocks, fleets, and fisheries, a lack of data limits the ability to develop appropriate fisheries management advice on matters such as limitations on levels of total catch in single or multi-species fisheries, the spatial and seasonal management of fishing, or the designation of spatial restrictions on fishing. With the growing literature on applied economic analyses of fisheries, there has been increasing acknowledgement of the information limitations and uncertainty that need to be explicitly considered in developing tools that can effectively support policy. This led to an early recognition that, even under economic, biological, and implementation uncertainty, an understanding of the likely responses of fishers to regulations could provide useful information, alongside efforts to develop more complete bio-economic approaches (Bockstael and Opaluch, 1983 ). Related research has considered the implications of uncertainty for the determination of optimal management strategies (Andersen, 1982 ; Charles and Munro, 1985 ; Sethi et al ., 2005 ; Gourguet et al ., 2014 ; Tromeur et al ., 2021 ). Studies have also focused on methods to enable economic analyses while explicitly accounting for the limited information available (Pascoe, 2007b ; Sanchirico et al ., 2008 ; Pascoe et al ., 2014 ; Gacutan et al ., 2019 ). For user groups such as small-scale and recreational fishing activities, data limitations tend to be particularly acute. A growing body of economic research has been devoted to providing a better understanding of these sectors (Zeller et al ., 2006 ; Schuhbauer and Sumaila, 2016 ; Abbott et al ., 2022 ).

Topic VI: shared stocks management

A further extension of fisheries economics has dealt with the added complexity associated with managing fisheries that are shared by several states, with potentially conflicting management strategies due to diverging incentives for fish stock preservation, fishing effort costs, or consumer preferences (Munro, 1979 ). Building on game theory, approaches to eliciting the likely outcomes of international fisheries management have been proposed (Bailey et al ., 2010 ; Hannesson, 2011 ; Costello and Molina, 2021 ), with a growing number of empirical applications. Empirical analysis has also shown that the status of fisheries dependent on shared stocks is generally poorer than that of fisheries under single jurisdictions (McWhinnie, 2009 ). Despite the insights economic research provides into the determinants of international fisheries management, this research has remained largely academic with few actual applications to policy.

Topic VII: fishing rights allocation

Fishing rights, in particular quota allocation, are a key foundation of many fisheries and their management in ICES member countries. In many ways, rights-based management represents the interplay between traditional ICES biological advice and how management bodies implement that advice. Economics can play a key role in helping understand this interplay, especially in relation to the political economy of converting scientific advice into fishing opportunities (Bellanger et al ., 2016 ). Fisheries economic research on fishing rights has focused on both conceptual (Arnason, 1990 ; Boyce, 2004 ; Costello and Deacon, 2007 ) and empirical applications examining the rationalization of commercial fisheries using ITQs (Dupont et al ., 2002 ; Weninger and Waters, 2003 ; Grainger and Costello, 2016 ; Birkenbach et al ., 2017 ). Economic research has in fact investigated a broad range of rights-based management approaches (Shotton, 2001 ; Costello and Kaffine, 2008 ; Thébaud et al ., 2012 ), including territorial use rights (Wilen et al ., 2012 ). Further extensions of fishing rights research have included allocation between commercial and recreational fisheries in the presence of incompletely defined rights (Holzer and McConnell, 2014 ) and defining temporal fishing allocations taking into account the finer spatial and temporal scales at which the race to fish may occur (Huang and Smith, 2014 ). Despite this strong scientific expertise and active research efforts, which are being undertaken in ICES countries on the processes by which fishing rights are allocated among individual fishers, economic analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of fishing rights has typically not been included in the research undertaken by ICES or in the advice it produces.

Topic VIII: sustainability of small-scale fisheries (SSF)

With the global quest for sustainable fisheries, international interest has developed regarding the economic, social, and ecological impacts of small-scale fisheries. The reasons for this interest are manifold. First, while a large fraction of the fisheries management research has historically focused on large-scale fishing activities, relatively less attention has been granted to SSF, despite the fact that these have been shown to represent significant sources of food and employment, as well as important cultural services, in many regions of the world (Zeller et al ., 2006 ; Schuhbauer and Sumaila, 2016 ). Second, the observed impacts of fisheries management regimes on rural and remote coastal communities that depend on fisheries have also raised growing concerns (Copes and Charles, 2004 ; Sutherland and Edwards, 2022 ). Third, SSF tend to operate in areas in high demand for other sectors (e.g. recreational activities, aquaculture, renewable energy, coastal development), which often leads to spatial conflicts. Fourth, a branch of research has developed that emphasizes the potential role of institutional regimes that may help address the common-pool resource problem (Schlager and Ostrom, 1992 ; Copes and Charles, 2004 ). To date, research on the economics of SSF and their management has centred on gaining an understanding of their economic, social, and biological dimensions, as well as their interactions with other activities. Key interactions of interest include other industrial fishing fleets harvesting the same stocks, recreational fisheries pursuing the same stocks or operating on the same grounds, as well as other competing sectors. This line of research has led to an increase in the knowledge base as well as the quantity and quality of SSF data available, even extending to the cultural ecosystem services associated with these fisheries (Ropars-Collet et al ., 2017 ; Andersson et al ., 2021 ). However, this information has only recently begun to be considered in the work of some ICES working groups, with a focus on the presentation of information on these fisheries and the communities that depend on them in integrated assessments.

Topic IX: links between the catch sector and markets for fish

An important focus of fisheries economics has been concerned with markets for fish. Research has particularly centred on issues such as the expected long-term drop in fish production of open access fisheries with resulting increased prices of fish (Copes, 1970 ), and on the importance of taking into account the consequences of fisheries management on consumer and producer welfare (Hanemann and Strand, 1993 ; Lee and Thunberg, 2013 ; Costello et al ., 2020 ). Economic research on market price effects has included the relationship between complementary or substitute species in the markets for fish products (Gordon et al ., 1993 ), as well as the influence of price differences on choices of markets and product forms (Asche and Hannesson, 2002 ). The economic implications of interactions between ex-vessel prices and increasing levels of processing sector concentration (Clark and Munro, 1980 ) have also been studied. In addition, over the last 20 years, economic studies have considered consumers’ preferences for fisheries certification and willingness to pay for eco-labelled seafood (Blomquist et al ., 2015 ; Fonner and Sylvia, 2015 ; Ankamah-Yeboah et al ., 2020 ), as well as the effects these consumer-driven schemes have on production systems and/or fishers’ behaviour (Roheim et al ., 2018 ). However, despite the key role of market processes in understanding the economic responses of fisheries systems to management, this research is not commonly considered in fisheries management advice internationally.

Topic X: diversification of commercial fishing

Two economic drivers for diversification of a firm are lower production costs by diversifying to similar products (economies of scope; Panzar and Willig, 1981 ) and to reduce risk by focusing on multiple products with unrelated risk profiles in line with modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, 1952 ). In fisheries, this may involve multiple fishing operations (Bockstael and Opaluch, 1983 ), such as using multiple gears to target different species (Kasperski and Holland, 2013 ), as well as expanding the range of activities to other sectors, such as tourism or processing (Nostbakken et al ., 2011 ). Diversification has implications for fisheries management since it alters the incentives driving fishing choices or strategies, depending on the opportunity costs of fishing (i.e. earnings in alternative activities). For example, fishers might increase engagement in a specific fishery during periods with low earnings in other fisheries. The regulation of diversified fisheries can also be examined from the perspective of risk management strategies (Sanchirico et al ., 2008 ; Gourguet et al ., 2014 ). Economic research has used a wide range of mathematical and statistical methods to examine diversification strategies, their impacts on incentives, and the implications for fisheries management (see, e.g. Huang and Smith, 2014 ; Holland et al ., 2017 ). This has been possible due to the availability of data for within-fisheries analyses, regarding, e.g. fishing effort, gear use, catch composition, fish prices, and operating costs. Less analysis of diversification outside the fishing sector has been possible due to the more limited availability of data regarding alternative activities to fishing. To date, despite its importance in understanding the responses of fisheries to management, this research is not regularly incorporated into fisheries management advice internationally.

Topic XI: fisheries-aquaculture connections

The analysis of interactions between wild-capture fisheries and aquaculture has also attracted research interest with respect to the ways in which the development of aquaculture may affect the status of fisheries, both conceptually (Anderson, 1985 ) and empirically (Asche et al ., 2001 ). Control over the biological process and technical development (Anderson, 2002 ; Asche, 2008 ) have led to tremendous growth in the productivity of the aquaculture industry, improving its competitiveness relative to wild fisheries (Nielsen et al ., 2021 ), for input factors (Ankamah-Yeboah et al ., 2021 ), and in the supply chain (Asche and Smith, 2018 ). Fisheries and aquaculture compete in the same global markets with common price determination processes (Anderson et al ., 2018 ); consequently, fishers and fish farmers influence each other’s incentives and strategies (Valderrama and Anderson, 2010 ). Furthermore, the sectors compete for space, and there are biological interactions in the form of genetic contamination, disease, and environmental externalities (Asche et al ., 2022 ), which lead to novel management issues (Nielsen, 2012 ). Additional interactions relate to the fishing sector providing raw materials for aquaculture in the form of feed and seeds for capture-based aquaculture (Naylor et al ., 2000 ; Tveterås and Tveterås, 2010 ). Notably, while research on the social and economic dimensions of aquaculture has steadily developed over the past two decades, leading to the formation of ICES working groups ( https://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGSEDA.aspx ), this work has not yet specifically considered the economic interactions between fisheries and aquaculture.

Topic XII: valuation of ecosystem services

With growing concern for the scale of human impacts on the biosphere, interest has developed in combining ecology and economics to understand the interactions between ecosystems and human systems giving rise to ES (Polasky and Segerson, 2009 ). Identifying and quantifying the market and non-market services supported by ecosystems that contribute to human well-being has indeed been the focus of growing research efforts over the last 50 years, including in the marine realm (Smith, 1993 ; Costanza et al ., 1997 ; Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007 ; Bateman et al ., 2011 ; Barbier, 2012 ; Pendleton et al ., 2016 ). In this literature, commercial fisheries have been considered both a provider of provisioning and cultural ecosystem services and a sector that may impact other supporting and regulating services provided by marine ecosystems. Economic assessment of ES is usually applied in the context of ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management (EBFM) and in support of the management of competing interests in the exploitation of marine resources. Approaches range from the measurement of the economic contribution of ecosystem functions and services through applied natural capital accounting to the integration of biological processes and functions into economic models to examine the consequences of alternative development and management patterns for fisheries. While wide-ranging internationally, comparable datasets of the monetary or non-monetary value of ES across countries do not currently exist, but initiatives to progress these data are under way as part of broader initiatives to establish reporting standards on the blue economy (Jolliffe et al ., 2021 ). Research on the understanding and valuation of ecosystem services is currently being pursued in several ICES working groups. However, to date, this work has not been incorporated into the fisheries science and advice of the organization.

Our review conveys that a large body of applied fisheries economics research has developed, especially over the past three decades, which provides information of direct relevance to various dimensions of fisheries management advice. Beyond this assessment of existing research in applied fisheries economics, the group also identified the potential for further developments of direct relevance to the science supporting management advice internationally. These are discussed below, keeping to the list of key topics that structured the review but reorganizing them into three key areas for future research and emphasizing their relevance to future developments in ICES work. These key areas are the provision of ecological-economic advice, assisting with the identification of fishing capacity targets and capacity adjustment strategies, and informing policy in relation to key interactions determining the responses of fisheries systems to management.

Providing ecological-economic advice

Models and data are now largely available to evaluate the socio-economic impacts of TAC setting by taking into account the possibilities for fishers to adjust to TAC constraints through changes in fishing strategies and fishing capacities at producer, industry, or country levels. Such an impact assessment can also address effects on markets (e.g. price responses to changed landings), uncertainties in the management system (e.g. the use of precautionary buffers), or issues of compliance. In addition to these impact assessments, we believe that existing models and data could be used to carry out ex-ante evaluations of TAC strategies to achieve bio-economic objectives such as MEY in single species fisheries, as is already routinely the case in Australia (Pascoe et al ., 2016 ). These assessments can also incorporate social goals associated with alternative management options, as has been demonstrated in applied co-viability analyses (Briton et al ., 2020 ).

Extending such analyses to the optimization of mixed-fisheries systems could also provide a broader perspective on the fishery-wide benefits associated with TAC strategies that may involve reducing single-species TACs below what would generate maximum single-species returns or yields. Standardized data, robust and validated economic methods, and integrated models allowing for the study of critical problems in mixed fisheries are available to evaluate mixed fisheries management options (Nielsen et al ., 2018a ). However, methods to track and assess the dynamic interactions that occur in mixed fisheries in response to management interventions require more research. Assessing the full impacts of mixed-fisheries management strategies requires better capturing fisher behaviour regarding the choices of gear, effort levels, and allocation of effort between areas and seasons (Hutton et al ., 2004 ; Dépalle et al ., 2021 ), as well as other vessel adaptations and resulting changes in fishing efficiency (van Putten et al ., 2012 ). Ex-post evaluations of management measures can also be used to complement ex-ante approaches and test realized outcomes against ex-ante predictions, thus helping better understand the actual industry responses to economic incentives and alternative regulatory obligations. This could inform the evaluation of alternative approaches to distributing catch across stocks and years as part of long-term management plans seeking to address issues of bycatch and discards (such as under the landing obligation in the EU). Developing methods and tools enabling stakeholder engagement in such evaluations (see, e.g. Macher et al ., 2018 ) is also likely to strengthen the uptake of evaluation results as part of adaptive management decision-making processes.

Support for the development, maintenance, and uptake of models and data seems essential to progress in this area of bio-economic advice. Standardized data collection protocols are required regarding fishing effort and landings, as well as economic data, using common dimensions regarding key fishery, fleet, and vessel characteristics. In general, the availability of information at the individual-vessel level will be preferable, as this allows data to be aggregated at any scale required. Indeed, individual-based models have been increasingly developed and applied in mixed fisheries management advice (Nielsen et al ., 2018a ), although this demands complex and very data demanding methods.

Contributing to the development of approaches to deal with data-limited situations

While bio-economic models have been developed and applied to a range of fisheries around the world, it seems unrealistic to expect that the data-rich approach of developing full analytical models for the many data-poor fish stocks will ever be possible (indeed, the cost of data collection and model development to achieve this may exceed the additional value derived from the information produced by these models). Hence, there is a need to explore new approaches that can both capture the total economic activity of the fleets (i.e. include information relating to the revenues and costs associated with the catch of all stocks) and link this to the best available understanding of the biological status of the stocks. Fisheries biologists have developed a range of data-poor methods for fisheries assessments, based on the life history characteristics of the fish caught or on catch and effort data. Similar approaches can be carried out with respect to bio-economic assessments, and initial efforts have shown that limited information on the revenues and costs associated with fishing may be used to identify reference points for the management of fisheries that take into account economic objectives (Pascoe et al ., 2014 ). With these first results in mind, economists could contribute to the efforts devoted to addressing data-limited fisheries assessments, which usually start with a meta-analysis aimed at integrating the knowledge from existing reports and data sets that may help decrease the uncertainty arising from limited data. Such knowledge can also be used to set priors in Bayesian statistical approaches, allowing to carry out value-of-information analysis and identifying the variables having an impact on the ranking of decision options and thus needing to be estimated more precisely. Further uncertainties due to data-limited situations can be described using risk assessment frameworks such as the pedigree matrix or probability-based harvest control rules (Goti-Aralucea, 2019 ). Lastly, research is also needed on how to deal with and effectively communicate uncertainty and stochasticity in assessments and advice, both in fisheries economics and in the broader field of fisheries science.

Analysing trade-offs associated with area-based and spatial management

Spatially resolved economic analysis of fisheries focuses on associating fishing stakeholders at the vessel, fleet, and community levels to chosen fishing areas and quantifying the importance of these areas in terms of catch rates and profitability. Based on behavioural change scenarios, the economic consequences of spatial restrictions on fishing on the re-allocation of effort in space and time and to métiers can be estimated (Blau and Green, 2015 ). Such preliminary analyses provide the economic information needed for trade-off analyses as well as reducing the potential for surprises in the outcomes (Wilen et al ., 2002 ). Research in ICES could incorporate existing models to assess the past performance of spatial management to project possible paths for alternative futures, as well as the fleets likely to be impacted by a proposal. This would enable impact assessment of changes in fishing pressure on the biological and ecosystem components with effects propagating to the economics of the fishery. While ICES hosts many data sets that could help condition such impact assessment models, a major obstacle would still be the limited data collection or resolution of data collected on certain variables (e.g. catch), which currently does not fit the spatial and time resolutions that matter to stakeholders and policymakers.

Increasingly, the above spatial fisheries management considerations need to be cast in the context of broader marine spatial planning aimed at allocating ocean space from an ecosystem-based management perspective (Katsanevakis et al ., 2011 ). This includes both conflicts between fisheries and other maritime activities and the potential for co-locating activities. The benefits of co-locating uses such as wind farms with fisheries have begun to be investigated (Stelzenmüller et al ., 2021 ), but very few practical examples exist. More scientific effort should be put into elucidating the possible ecological-economic effects of reserving space to windfarms, from local to overall effects on marine biodiversity and fishing opportunities (e.g. Bastardie et al ., 2014 ). While relative economic returns have only rarely been considered before introducing spatial management measures, integrating measures of economic benefits into existing ecological models would allow assessment of how these benefits may be distributed across ICES regions and among beneficiaries such as local communities, the tourism sector, or different fishing vessels. Such assessments should consider whether compensation should be considered in the course of implementing the measures as well as the timespan over which the benefits accrue and uncertainty regarding the outcomes of the spatial measures (e.g. including climate change effects). Such integrated understanding could provide new knowledge on hotly debated topics to inform policymakers’ decisions. Examples of this could include case studies documenting the possible fishing effort displacement in response to the implementation of conservation areas (e.g. in the EU, Natura 2000 designated areas) that might require costly short-run adaptation of fishing strategies balanced with possible long-term benefits from improved productivity of the exploited ecosystem (e.g. Bastardie et al ., 2020 ). Another example would be the evaluation of large-scale exclusion scenarios such as those associated with “Brexit” that would lead to excluding the EU fleet from the UK Economic Exclusive Zone (Dépalle et al ., 2020 ).

Having clearly stated long-term objectives that can guide the definition of operational targets in developing fisheries management measures is a necessary requirement for achieving sustainable fisheries. For example, the EU’s CFP aims to ensure the exploitation of living marine resources in sustainable economic, environmental, and social conditions by achieving MSY. Efforts to translate this overall objective into operational targets for fishing capacity and to design alternative approaches to achieving such targets could benefit from the accumulated knowledge we find on this issue in the fisheries economics literature. As an intergovernmental organization that brings together broad knowledge from its 20 member countries across the Atlantic, ICES is well suited to provide guidance regarding the approaches and methods that may be best applied to manage fishing capacity in local circumstances.

Development of guidance could include assessing whether the long-standing “balance” indicators in the EU ( https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance ) adequately address the challenges of adjusting fishing capacity to the production potential of fish stocks. These short-term assessments could be complemented with long-term analyses to help identify economically optimal objectives for fleet structure. Beyond EU countries, a similar assessment of the extent to which policy objectives strike a balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities would appear relevant across ICES countries.

Further advice could be provided through overviews of the role factors such as subsidies, nominal limitations on gross tonnage caps, market-based measures, or other factors play in influencing fishing capacity in each country. Additional insights could be gained from comparisons of national action plans for fleet capacity adjustments and assessments of alternative capacity adjustment approaches.

Informing the allocation of fishing rights: key issues and best-practice evaluation methods

In addition to informing capacity management, much more economic insights could be provided regarding the difficult but unavoidable question of how to allocate fishing possibilities to reduce the race-to-fish incentives driving the development of excess capacity. Involving ICES in the coordination of research efforts across its member countries to improve understanding of the alternative allocation approaches and their consequences in terms of management, equity, and sustainability objectives would seem particularly relevant. Such coordinated research efforts would enable providing independent guidelines that could be made available to a broad range of stakeholders within ICES countries on design considerations in fishing rights allocation. Such guidelines could include: (i) structured approaches to the key economic questions to consider; (ii) empirically tested methods and tools to address these questions, and (iii) key data sets and indicators required for the analyses of alternative designs of the allocation of fishing possibilities. A review of national administrative databases holding either quota, fishing rights, swaps, or actual fishing activity data to help build up an evidence base of how rights are effectively distributed could also be undertaken. Methods could then be developed to relate this evidence base to performance measures under alternative management approaches.

Accounting for SFF in sustainability assessments

In determining operational sustainability targets and examining trade-offs associated with alternative management strategies, it is important to account for the ecological impacts, cultural values, and economic significance of SSF. Having a better understanding of the structure of SSF and of their importance to household income alongside that from other sources would enable more comprehensive assessment of the economic consequences of fisheries management on coastal communities (Bueno and Basurto, 2009 ; Colburn et al ., 2016 ). Studying the synergies and competition between SSF and large-scale fishing along the supply chain would also help improve our understanding of the linkages between fisheries management, markets, and welfare effects.

While a harmonized definition of SSF might seem useful to establish, a “one size fits all” definition of SSF may not be suitable for local management purposes (García-Flórez et al ., 2014 ; Rousseau et al ., 2019 ; Smith and Basurto, 2019 ). Additionally, research is needed to set boundaries between recreational fishing and SSF. Current definitions may not adequately capture the socio-economic differences between these sectors, such as motivation for fishing. Hence, more research is needed to find the balance between a general definition of support fisheries management advice and the incorporation of the specific characteristics of local SSF.

Meeting these research needs has been hampered by important data gaps. Filling these gaps requires improvements in the information collected (e.g. the distribution of activities within fishing communities, ownership of fishing rights, and income from fishing and other businesses) and the accuracy of data collected by national and international data collection programmes. Higher resolution spatial data regarding SSF is also needed to allow a more robust economic spatial analysis of SSF fishing grounds (Breen et al ., 2014 ; Gacutan et al ., 2019 ). Here also, efforts to engage stakeholders in carrying out the research and developing management advice may facilitate progress.

Informing shared stocks management

A strength of ICES is its ability to coordinate research efforts across its member countries. In this endeavour, ICES can aim to improve the general level of understanding of shared stock management issues and coordinate research across countries to improve the science supporting policy and the development of relevant advice about the impacts of changing established allocation approaches. Our review shows that economics can provide an understanding of both the incentives and other factors at play in shared stock management and the likely outcomes and trade-offs associated with different TAC allocations. In addition, the process for developing TACs and other conservation measures itself warrants further research, as this is key to understanding why certain measures are adopted and others are not. More could also be learned with respect to allocation of fishing possibilities at multiple decision levels (e.g. individual companies, POs, regional authorities, nations) and non-fishing related interests (e.g. processing, fishing rights holders, broader community interests, other industry interests). Improving shared stock allocation processes calls for research in political science, political economics, and applications of public choice theory. The role of additional factors influencing incentives for cooperative management and compliance with management regulations, such as financial support policies for the fisheries sector, should also be taken into account in these analyses.

Including ecological processes in the assessment of shared stock harvest strategies offers promising developments to deal with current and future shifts in stock distributions and the ensuing need for adaptive approaches to allocate quotas (e.g. historic catch shares versus zonal distribution of stocks). Despite improved data availability in many countries, a lack of standardization, compatibility, and sometimes comparability in the types of data collected remains an impediment to better analyses. These difficulties may be related to the potential disincentives for negotiators and the industry in making economic information available when initiating negotiations on conservation objectives and/or access right allocations between parties. Economic analysis can also help assess the potential for long-term harvest strategies to minimize such disincentives, thereby leading to improved data quality.

We find that a large research effort in fisheries economics has been devoted to analysis of how interactions between specific fisheries and other components of fisheries social–ecological systems affect how these systems respond to management. Key interactions to consider include the connections between the catch sector and markets, the diversification of commercial fishing, fisheries-aquaculture interactions, as well as broader interactions between fisheries and the provision of ecosystem services.

Accounting for interactions between the catch sector and markets

Research on implications of different fisheries management options on value chain structure as well as understanding wider market issues and forces has grown rapidly, and must continue. The information produced by such research could be beneficial when considering the regional and global impacts of fisheries management strategies (Mullon et al ., 2009 ; Roheim et al ., 2018 ; Costello et al ., 2020 ; Chávez et al ., 2021 ). Some ICES countries currently estimate the expected economic outcomes associated with agreed quota allocations when these are announced. Economists could provide guidance on such an approach, as well as highlight price effects, supply chain tipping points, and the feedback loops with fishing effort and ensuing fishing mortality. Consumer preference and the effects of labelling schemes are still an active area of research in fisheries economics, and there is a further need to investigate the externalities generated by fisheries and how these effects can be related to markets and consumer demand. Above all, because management can be a driving force for fish prices or market outlets, this linkage should be better documented by fishery science and considered when defining management scenarios. The integration of markets into bio-economic modelling could help advance fishery science in this domain.

This research can rely on existing methods and tools, but researchers and experts from different research communities should be encouraged to share their methods, models, and experiences. Data collected for market and demand analysis must meet data formats that most often do not align with those needed for fisheries science. Therefore, future research in ICES with a focus on the linkages between ecosystem-based fisheries management on the one hand and markets and value chains on the other should contribute to and help design data formats (e.g. regarding ex-vessel production or processing) that enable both dimensions to be explored simultaneously, supported by a strong interaction between research groups and data collecting agencies.

Taking into account diversification of commercial fishing

A better understanding of the impacts of diversification on fishers, coastal communities, and the ecosystem would reduce the risks of biased assessments of the potential impacts of fisheries management in the ICES area. Yet, the economic incentives to diversify and how they affect the success of fisheries management are poorly documented in current research, despite the importance of such diversification strategies in determining the economic risks faced by fishers (Abbott et al ., 2023 ). Briton et al . ( 2021 ) highlighted the need to better understand the possibilities for fishers to change species mix and thus adjust to changed management or market conditions, taking the example of an Australian fishery. Holland et al . ( 2017 ) found that fisheries management might restrict individual fishers’ ability to reduce income risk through diversification, despite the importance of such diversification in the face of changing productivity and distribution of fish stocks. The role of income sources from outside the fishing sector is even less frequently analysed in economics, although it is well known to be important in many fisheries (Nielsen et al ., 2018b ; Hoff et al ., 2021 ). Our understanding of alternative sources of income or non-pecuniary aspects such as cultural and job satisfaction would benefit from interdisciplinary work (Holland et al ., 2020 ). Furthering, the economic analysis of diversification will also require the addition of socio-economic data at vessel level, on within-fisheries diversification (e.g. in mixed-fisheries), as well as regarding other sectors towards which fishers can diversify.

Evaluating the implications of fisheries-aquaculture connections

In the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ICES could participate in the elaboration of scenarios for fisheries and aquaculture to achieve SDG goals 14 (life below water), 12 (sustainable consumption and production), and 3 (good health) as seafood is a major source of valuable nutrients for people. The continuous growth in aquaculture and the many links to catch-based fisheries call for more research on the interactions between the two sectors. Possible research questions include how these sectors compete at the fish market and in local communities, and how they can coexist and even potentially benefit from each other. Such studies require geographically disaggregated economic and employment data on fisheries and aquaculture production and mar-kets.

A possible way forward would be to develop an assessment of the competition and impacts of aquaculture development within the value chain as a whole, focusing on specific species as well as broader sets of products and integrating socio-economic as well as environmental management issues. Bio-economic modelling, value chains, and regulatory analyses could be used to address these issues, whereas time series econometrics can provide relevant information related to interactions on markets for wild and farmed fish (Jiménez-Toribio et al ., 2007 ; Bjørndal and Guillen, 2017 ).

Interactions with the provision of ecosystem services

The push for EBFM is leading to a need to better incorporate the broader interactions between fisheries and the provision of ES into management advice in the future. This includes considering ES when assessing the potential impacts of TACs on fisheries’ socio-ecological systems. Such assessments should include the existing understanding of tipping points or thresholds for maintaining ES. Moreover, economic ES assessment could help inform the evaluation of trade-offs associated with marine spatial planning, supporting policymakers in assessing the social welfare outcomes of marine spatial plans.

Providing such advice requires the collection of disaggregated economic data at finer spatial and temporal resolutions, as well as the ability to link this economic data with the other categories of data (e.g. regarding biodiversity, marine habitats, the impacts of fishing and other activities, etc.) used in multidisciplinary frameworks for full ES assessment. Such data gaps could be filled using surveys, which would require some standardization and generalization of the approaches on how to value marine ES.

There has been an increasing demand for fisheries science and management advice to address economic evaluations and analyses. Our review clearly shows that economic research can provide important contributions to ICES science and advice in line with the objectives highlighted in the organization’s strategic plan. Moreover, economic insights can contribute to scientific programmes and organizations working towards achieving the UN SDGs relating to the conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources. In many cases, we identify sets of methods and tools that can be used in a broad range of contexts, for which best practice recommendations can be provided as to how they should be used in applied research and management advice. The increased availability of cost and earnings data regarding fishing operations across ICES regions has helped make significant progress in this regard. Continuing efforts and support towards the collection of such data will be key. We also identify a range of other data that can support further applications of economic analyses to the different fisheries management topics considered in our review.

For some key topics, contributing to management advice may involve integrating economic analyses into current practice. For example, while steps have been taken to incorporate economic considerations in the assessment of mixed fishery management options in the European Union, methods and data are available that can directly inform trade-off analyses associated with managing these fisheries. Another example is the incorporation of economic analyses and indicators in the production of social-ecological status assessments such as the ICES Ecosystem, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Overviews. We feel that these overviews would more effectively inform policymakers, managers, and stakeholders by integrating many of the topics listed in our review. Such an endeavour should eventually lead the economic considerations identified in this review to become an integral part of marine science and scientific advice regarding the use and conservation of marine resources in ICES areas as well as other regions of the world.

Future work should focus on demonstrations of the ways in which relevant economic research, methods, tools, and data can be included in fisheries management advice. Applications of such analyses could also inform the ecosystem and fisheries overviews. This has already begun as part of a number of existing working groups in ICES dedicated to the analysis of economic and social dimensions, leading to the expansion of social sciences capabilities as these groups develop and interact with other disciplines on the different topics we identified in developing integrated assessment approaches. Such integrative support tools, knowledge, and advice could be an entry point for engaging stakeholders in holistic assessments of the impacts of fishing sustainably.

These economic analyses can rely on already well-structured research capacity, data, methods, and tools. However, the dedicated inclusion of economics and economists into the ICES strategic plan and its capacity to further grow in the network through the establishment of focused groups such as ICES WGECON is relatively new. Our survey of economists showed that economists have been only marginally involved in ICES activities. One-third of respondents had not participated in ICES conferences and/or symposia in the last five years, while another third had participated only once. Lack of economic topics and time were mentioned as main factors behind low participation levels, a limitation that should be progressively lifted as the presence of fisheries economics in ICES work increases. While the majority of respondents (75%) showed interest in the development of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments, many also said they would increase their participation in ICES activities if funding was available to support their participation. The growth potential is there, especially with the development of activities such as the MSEAS conference ( https://www.ices.dk/events/symposia/MSEAS/Pages/MSEAS.aspx ), training courses, and cross-cutting meetings such as those recently organized in relation to the interactions between windfarms and commercial fishing ( https://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/news-archive/news/Pages/WKSEIOWFC.aspx ). Hence, a key challenge for further developing economic contributions to fisheries science and advice remains the ability to support an effective engagement of economists, including early-career ones, in the regular research work of organizations such as ICES. In addition, the engagement of economists in collaborative groups supporting advisory and decision-making processes at multiple scales may also be a key feature that could help mainstream economics into such processes.

We would like to thank the ICES secretariat for its support in organizing face-to-face and online meetings of the ECON working group and in developing the online survey of fisheries economists. We also express our gratitude to the three reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions, which helped us improve the manuscript.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

OT, JRN, AM, and HC coordinated the review and the conception of the paper. All authors participated in the identification and development of the review topics. The authors identified as Topic Coordinators in section B of the supplementary material led the initial writing up of the review summaries for each topic. The authors identified as Topic Reviewers reviewed and edited these summaries. OT led the writing of the manuscript. FB, GEB, FD, LG, JH, JI, AM, AnM, ArM, JRN, RN, RR, OT, ET, SV, JV, and SW coordinated the writing up and revisions of sections of the paper relating to the different topics. All authors contributed to editing the manuscript and approved the final draft. OT and BLG led the survey of fisheries economists, and AM helped analyse the results.

The review data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material . The survey data of fisheries economists will be shared upon reasonable request with the corresponding author.

Abbott J. K. , Haynie A. C . 2012 . What are we protecting? Fisher behavior and the unintended consequences of spatial closures as a fishery management tool . Ecological Applications , 22 : 762 – 777 .

Google Scholar

Abbott J. K. , Lew D. K. , Whitehead J. C. , Woodward R. T . 2022 . The future of fishing for fun: the economics and sustainable management of recreational fisheries . Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 16 : 262 – 281 .

Abbott J. K. , Sakai Y. , Holland D. S . 2023 . Species, space and time: a quarter century of fishers’ diversification strategies on the US West Coast . Fish and Fisheries , 24 : 93 – 110 .

Albers H. J. , Preonas L. , Capitán T. , Robinson E. J. Z. , Madrigal-Ballestero R . 2020 . Optimal siting, sizing, and enforcement of marine protected areas . Environmental and Resource Economics , 77 : 229 – 269 .

Andersen P . 1982 . Commercial fisheries under price uncertainty . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 9 : 11 – 28 .

Andersen P . 2013 . Fisheries economics and fisheries management: a reflective note in honor of Rögnvaldur Hannesson . Marine Resource Economics , 28 : 351 – 359 .

Anderson J. L . 1985 . Market interactions between aquaculture and the common-property commercial fishery . Marine Resource Economics , 2 : 1 – 24 .

Anderson J. L . 2002 . Aquaculture and the future: why fisheries economists should care . Marine Resource Economics , 17 : 133 – 151 .

Anderson J. L. , Asche F. , Garlock T . 2018 . Globalization and commoditization: the transformation of the seafood market . Journal of Commodity Markets , 12 : 2 – 8 .

Anderson L. G . 2015 . The application of basic economic principles to real-world fisheries management and regulation . Marine Resource Economics , 30 : 235 – 249 .

Andersson A. , Blomquist J. , Waldo S . 2021 . Local fisheries and thriving harbors: is there a value for the tourism sector? . Marine Resource Economics , 36 : 111 – 131 .

Ankamah-Yeboah I. , Asche F. , Bronnmann J. , Nielsen M. , Nielsen R . 2020 . Consumer preference heterogeneity and preference segmentation: the case of ecolabeled salmon in Danish retail sales . Marine Resource Economics , 35 : 159 – 176 .

Ankamah-Yeboah I. , Nielsen R. , Llorente I . 2021 . Capital structure and firm performance: agency theory application to Mediterranean aquaculture firms . Aquaculture Economics & Management , 25 : 367 – 387 .

Arnason R . 1990 . Minimum information management in fisheries . The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'Economique , 23 : 630 – 653 .

Asche F . 2008 . Farming the sea . Marine Resource Economics , 23 : 527 – 547 .

Asche F. , Bjørndal T. , Young J. A . 2001 . Market interactions for aquaculture products . Aquaculture Economics & Management , 5 : 303 – 318 .

Asche F. , Eggert H. , Oglend A. , Roheim C. A. , Smith M. D . 2022 . Aquaculture: externalities and policy options . Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 16 : 282 – 305 .

Asche F. , Hannesson R . 2002 . Allocation of fish between markets and product forms . Marine Resource Economics , 17 : 225 – 238 .

Asche F. , Smith M. D . 2018 . Viewpoint: induced innovation in fisheries and aquaculture . Food Policy , 76 : 1 – 7 .

Bailey M. , Sumaila U. R. , Lindroos M . 2010 . Application of game theory to fisheries over three decades . Fisheries Research , 102 : 1 – 8 .

Barbier E. B . 2012 . Progress and challenges in valuing coastal and marine ecosystem services . Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 6 : 1 – 19 .

Bastardie F. , Danto J. , Rufener M.-C. , van Denderen D. , Eigaard O. R. , Dinesen G. E. , Nielsen J. R . 2020 . Reducing fisheries impacts on the seafloor: a bio-economic evaluation of policy strategies for improving sustainability in the Baltic Sea . Fisheries Research , 230 : 105681 .

Bastardie F. , Nielsen J. R. , Miethe T . 2014 . DISPLACE: a dynamic, individual-based model for spatial fishing planning and effort displacement—integrating underlying fish population models . Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences , 71 : 366 – 386 .

Bateman I. J. , Mace G. M. , Fezzi C. , Atkinson G. , Turner K . 2011 . Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments . Environmental and Resource Economics , 48 : 177 – 218 .

Bellanger M. , Macher C. , Guyader O . 2016 . A new approach to determine the distributional effects of quota management in fisheries . Fisheries Research , 181 : 116 – 126 .

Birkenbach A. M. , Cojocaru A. L. , Asche F. , Guttormsen A. G. , Smith M. D . 2020 . Seasonal harvest patterns in multispecies fisheries . Environmental and Resource Economics , 75 : 631 – 655 .

Birkenbach A. M. , Kaczan D. J. , Smith M. D . 2017 . Catch shares slow the race to fish . Nature , 544 : 223 – 226 .

Bisack K. D. , Sutinen J. G . 2006 . Harbor porpoise bycatch: iTQs or time/area closures in the New England gillnet fishery . Land Economics , 82 : 85 – 102 .

Bjørndal T. , Guillen J . 2017 . Market integration between wild and farmed seabream and seabass in Spain . Applied Economics , 49 : 4567 – 4578 .

Blau J. , Green L . 2015 . Assessing the impact of a new approach to ocean management: evidence to date from five ocean plans . Marine Policy , 56 : 1 – 8 .

Blomquist J. , Bartolino V. , Waldo S . 2015 . Price premiums for providing eco-labelled seafood: evidence from MSC-certified cod in Sweden . Journal of Agricultural Economics , 66 : 690 – 704 .

Bockstael N. E. , McConnell K. E. , Strand I. E . 1989 . A random utility model for sportfishing: some preliminary results for Florida . Marine Resource Economics , 6 : 245 – 260 .

Bockstael N. E. , Opaluch J. J . 1983 . Discrete modelling of supply response under uncertainty: the case of the fishery . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 10 : 125 – 137 .

Boyce J. R . 2004 . Instrument choice in a fishery . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 47 : 183 – 206 .

Boyd J. , Banzhaf S . 2007 . What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units . Ecological Economics , 63 : 616 – 626 .

Breen P. , Vanstaen K. , Clark R. W. E . 2014 . Mapping inshore fishing activity using aerial, land, and vessel-based sighting information . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 72 : 467 – 479 .

Briton F. , Macher C. , Merzeréaud M. , Le Grand C. , Fifas S. , Thébaud O . 2020 . Providing integrated total catch advice for the management of mixed fisheries with an eco-viability approach . Environmental Modeling & Assessment , 25 : 307 – 325 .

Briton F. , Thébaud O. , Macher C. , Gardner C. , Little L. R . 2021 . Flexibility of joint production in mixed fisheries and implications for management . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 78 : 1599 – 1613 .

Bueno N. , Basurto X . 2009 . Resilience and collapse of artisanal fisheries: a system dynamics analysis of a shellfish fishery in the Gulf of California, Mexico . Sustainability Science , 4 : 139 .

Campbell H. F . 1989 . Fishery buy-back programmes and economic welfare . Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics , 33 : 20 – 31 .

Charles A . 2005 . Toward sustainable and resilient fisheries: a fishery-system approach to overcoming the factors of unsustainability . In Overcoming Factors of Unsustainability and Overexploitation in Fisheries: Selected Papers on Issues and Approaches , pp. 221 – 233 .. FAO , Rome .

Google Preview

Charles A. T. , Munro G. R . 1985 . Irreversible investment and optimal fisheries management: a stochastic analysis . Marine Resource Economics , 1 : 247 – 264 .

Chávez C. , Eggert H. , Reimer M . 2021 . Economics of marine resources in the Global South—meeting the challenge of agenda 2030 . Marine Resource Economics , 36 : 307 – 318 .

Christy T. F . 1973 . Fisherman quotas: a tentative suggestion for domestic management . Available from:  https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/43011 , (last accessed on 30 January 2023 ).

Clark C. W . 1980 . Towards a predictive model for the economic regulation of commercial fisheries . Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences , 37 : 1111 – 1129 .

Clark C. W. , Munro G. R . 1975 . The economics of fishing and modern capital theory: a simplified approach . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 2 : 92 – 106 .

Clark C. W. , Munro G. R . 1980 . Fisheries and the processing sector: some implications for management policy . The Bell Journal of Economics , 11 : 603 – 616 .

Clark C. W. , Munro G. R. , Sumaila U. R . 2005 . Subsidies, buybacks, and sustainable fisheries . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 50 : 47 – 58 .

Colburn L. L. , Jepson M. , Weng C. , Seara T. , Weiss J. , Hare J. A . 2016 . Indicators of climate change and social vulnerability in fishing dependent communities along the eastern and gulf coasts of the United States . Marine Policy , 74 : 323 – 333 .

Copes P . 1970 . The backward-bending supply curve of the fishing industry 1 . Scottish Journal of Political Economy , 17 : 69 – 77 .

Copes P. , Charles A . 2004 . Socioeconomics of individual transferable quotas and community-based fishery management . Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , 33 : 171 – 181 .

Costanza R. , d'Arge R. , de Groot R. , Farber S. , Grasso M. , Hannon B. , Limburg K. et al.  1997 . The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital . Nature , 387 : 253 – 260 .

Costello C. , Cao L. , Gelcich S. , Cisneros-Mata M. Á. , Free C. M. , Froehlich H. E. , Golden C. D. et al.  2020 . The future of food from the sea . Nature , 588 : 95 – 100 .

Costello C. , Deacon R . 2007 . The efficiency gains from fully delineating rights in an ITQ fishery . Marine Resource Economics , 22 : 347 – 361 .

Costello C. , Gaines S. , Lynham J . 2008 . Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? . Science , 321 : 1678 – 1681 .

Costello C. , Molina R . 2021 . Transboundary marine protected areas . Resource and Energy Economics , 65 : 101239 .

Costello C. J. , Kaffine D . 2008 . Natural resource use with limited-tenure property rights . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 55 : 20 – 36 .

Dépalle M. , Sanchirico J. N. , Thébaud O. , O'Farrell S. , Haynie A. C. , Perruso L . 2021 . Scale-dependency in discrete choice models: a fishery application . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 105 : 102388 .

Dépalle M. , Thébaud O. , Sanchirico J. N . 2020 . Accounting for fleet heterogeneity in estimating the impacts of large-scale fishery closures . Marine Resource Economics , 35 : 361 – 378 .

Dichmont C. M. , Pascoe S. , Kompas T. , Punt A. E. , Deng R . 2010 . On implementing maximum economic yield in commercial fisheries . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 107 : 16 – 21 .

Doyen L. , Béné C. , Bertignac M. , Blanchard F. , Cissé A. A. , Dichmont C. , Gourguet S. et al.  2017 . Ecoviability for ecosystem-based fisheries management . Fish and Fisheries , 18 : 1056 – 1072 .

Doyen L. , Cissé A. , Gourguet S. , Mouysset L. , Hardy P. Y. , Béné C. , Blanchard F. et al.  2013 . Ecological-economic modelling for the sustainable management of biodiversity . Computational Management Science , 10 : 353 – 364 .

Dupont D. P . 1991 . Testing for input substitution in a regulated fishery . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 73 : 155 – 164 .

Dupont D. P. , Grafton R. Q. , Kirkley J. , Squires D . 2002 . Capacity utilization measures and excess capacity in multi-product privatized fisheries . Resource and energy economics , 24 : 193 – 210 .

Eales J. , Wilen J. E . 1986 . An examination of fishing location choice in the pink shrimp fishery . Marine Resource Economics , 2 : 331 – 351 .

Fonner R. , Sylvia G . 2015 . Willingness to pay for multiple seafood labels in a niche market . Marine Resource Economics , 30 : 51 – 70 .

Gacutan J. , Galparsoro I. , Murillas-Maza A . 2019 . Towards an understanding of the spatial relationships between natural capital and maritime activities: a Bayesian belief network approach . Ecosystem Services , 40 : 101034 .

García-Flórez L. , Morales J. , Gaspar M. B. , Castilla D. , Mugerza E. , Berthou P. , García de la Fuente L. et al.  2014 . A novel and simple approach to define artisanal fisheries in Europe . Marine Policy , 44 : 152 – 159 .

Girardin R. , Hamon K. G. , Pinnegar J. , Poos J. J. , Thébaud O. , Tidd A. , Vermard Y. et al.  2017 . Thirty years of fleet dynamics modelling using discrete-choice models: what have we learned? . Fish and Fisheries , 18 : 638 – 655 .

Gordon D. V. , Salvanes K. G. , Atkins F . 1993 . A fish is a fish is a fish? Testing for market linkages on the Paris fish market . Marine Resource Economics , 8 : 331 – 343 .

Gordon H. S . 1954 . The economic theory of a common-property resource: the fishery . Journal of Political Economy , 62 : 124 .

Goti-Aralucea L . 2019 . Assessing the social and economic impact of small scale fisheries management measures in a marine protected area with limited data . Marine Policy , 101 : 246 – 256 .

Gourguet S. , Macher C. , Doyen L. , Thébaud O. , Bertignac M. , Guyader O . 2013 . Managing mixed fisheries for bio-economic viability . Fisheries Research , 140 : 46 – 62 .

Gourguet S. , Thébaud O. , Dichmont C. , Jennings S. , Little L. R. , Pascoe S. , Deng R. A. et al.  2014 . Risk versus economic performance in a mixed fishery . Ecological Economics , 99 : 110 – 120 .

Grafton R. Q. , Kompas T. , Chu L. , Che N . 2010 . Maximum economic yield . Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , 54 : 273 – 280 .

Grainger C. A. , Costello C . 2016 . Distributional effects of the transition to property rights for a common-pool resource . Marine Resource Economics , 31 : 1 – 26 .

Guillen J. , Macher C. , Merzéréaud M. , Bertignac M. , Fifas S. , Guyader O . 2013 . Estimating MSY and MEY in multi-species and multi-fleet fisheries, consequences and limits: an application to the Bay of Biscay mixed fishery . Marine Policy , 40 : 64 – 74 .

Hanemann W. M. , Strand I. E . 1993 . Natural resource damage assessment: economic implications for fisheries management . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 75 : 1188 – 1193 .

Hanna S . 2011 . Economics in the service of fisheries policy and practice . Marine Resource Economics , 26 : 87 – 94 .

Hannesson R . 1998 . Marine reserves: what would they accomplish? . Marine Resource Economics , 13 : 159 – 170 .

Hannesson R . 2011 . Game theory and fisheries . Annual Review of Resource Economics , 3 : 181 – 202 .

Haynie A.C. , Layton D. F . 2010 . An expected profit model for monetizing fishing location choices . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 59 : 165 – 176 .

Hilborn R . 2007 . Managing fisheries is managing people: what has been learned? . Fish and Fisheries , 8 : 285 – 296 .

Hoff A. , Nielsen M. , Nielsen R . 2021 . Do efficient small-scale fishers stay active in eras of introducing individual transferable quotas? Evidence from Denmark . Aquatic Living Resources , 34 : 16 .

Holland D. S. , Abbott J. K. , Norman K. E . 2020 . Fishing to live or living to fish: job satisfaction and identity of west coast fishermen . Ambio , 49 : 628 – 639 .

Holland D. S. , Speir C. , Agar J. , Crosson S. , DePiper G. , Kasperski S. , Kitts A. W. et al.  2017 . Impact of catch shares on diversification of fishers; income and risk . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114 : 9302 – 9307 .

Holland D. S. , Sutinen J. G . 2000 . Location choice in New England trawl fisheries: old habits die hard . Land Economics , 76 : 133 – 150 .

Holzer J. , DePiper G . 2019 . Intertemporal quota arbitrage in multispecies fisheries . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 93 : 185 – 207 .

Holzer J. , DePiper G. , Lipton D . 2017 . Buybacks with costly participation . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 85 : 130 – 145 .

Holzer J. , McConnell K . 2014 . Harvest allocation without property rights . Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists , 1 : 209 – 232 .

Homans F. R. , Wilen J. E . 1997 . A model of regulated open access resource use . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 32 : 1 – 21 .

Huang L. , Smith M. D . 2014 . The dynamic efficiency costs of common-pool resource exploitation . The American Economic Review , 104 : 4071 – 4103 .

Hutton T. , Mardle S. , Pascoe S. , Clark R. A . 2004 . Modelling fishing location choice within mixed fisheries: English North Sea beam trawlers in 2000 and 2001 . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 61 : 1443 – 1452 .

ICES . 2003 . Stockholm 1999 centenary lectures . ICES Cooperative Research Report , 260 : 55 .

Jiménez-Toribio R. , García-del-Hoyo J. J. , García-Ordaz F . 2007 . Market delineation of the Spanish clam market . Aquaculture Economics & Management , 11 : 133 – 150 .

Jolliffe J. , Jolly C. , Stevens B . 2021 . Blueprint for improved measurement of the international ocean economy: an exploration of satellite accounting for ocean economic activity . In OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2021 (4) . OECD Editions , Paris .

Kasperski S. , Holland D. S . 2013 . Income diversification and risk for fishermen . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA , 110 : 2076 – 2081 .

Katsanevakis S. , Stelzenmüller V. , South A. , Sørensen T. K. , Jones P. J. S. , Kerr S. , Badalamenti F. et al.  2011 . Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: review of concepts, policies, tools, and critical issues . Ocean & Coastal Management , 54 : 807 – 820 .

Kirkley J. , Morrison Paul C. J. , Squires D . 2002 . Capacity and capacity utilization in common-pool resource industries . Environmental and Resource Economics , 22 : 71 – 97 .

Knapp G . 2012 . Economics and fisheries policy: a survey of NAAFE members . Marine Resource Economics , 27 : 389 – 395 .

Lagarde A. , Doyen L. , Ahad-Cissé A. , Caill-Milly N. , Gourguet S. , Pape O. L. , Macher C. et al.  2018 . How does MMEY mitigate the bioeconomic effects of climate change for mixed fisheries . Ecological Economics , 154 : 317 – 332 .

Larson D. M. , House B. W. , Terry J. M . 1998 . Bycatch control in multispecies fisheries: a quasi-rent share approach to the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands midwater trawl pollock fishery . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 80 : 778 – 792 .

Lee M.-Y. , Steinback S. , Wallmo K . 2017 . Applying a bioeconomic model to recreational fisheries management: groundfish in the northeast United States . Marine Resource Economics , 32 : 191 – 216 .

Lee M.-Y. A. , Thunberg E. M . 2013 . An inverse demand system for New England groundfish: welfare analysis of the transition to catch share management . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 95 : 1178 – 1195 .

Link J. S. , Thébaud O. , Smith D. C. , Smith A. D. M. , Schmidt J. , Rice J. , Poos J. J. et al.  2017 . Keeping humans in the ecosystem . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 74 : 1947 – 1956 .

Macher C. , Bertignac Michel , Guyader Olivier , Frangoudes Katia , Fresard Marjolaine , Le Grand Christelle , Merzereaud Mathieu et al.  2018 . The role of technical protocols and partnership engagement in developing a decision support framework for fisheries management . Journal of Environmental Management , 223 : 503 – 516 .

McConnell K. E. , Strand I. E. , Blake-Hedges L . 1995 . Random utility models of recreational fishing: catching fish using a Poisson process . Marine Resource Economics , 10 : 247 – 261 .

McFadden D . 1974 . Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior . In Frontiers in Econometrics , pp. 105 – 142 .. Ed. by P   Zarembka . Academic Press , New York, NY .

McWhinnie S. F . 2009 . The tragedy of the commons in international fisheries: an empirical examination . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 57 : 321 – 333 .

Marchal P. , Little L. R. , Thébaud O . 2011 . Quota allocation in mixed fisheries: a bioeconomic modelling approach applied to the channel flatfish fisheries . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 68 : 1580 – 1591 .

Markowitz H . 1952 . Portfolio selection . The Journal of Finance , 7 : 77 – 91 .

Martini R. , Innes J . 2018 . Relative effects of fisheries support policies . In OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 115 . OECD Editions , Paris .

Mullon C. , Mittaine J. F. , Thébaud O. , Peron G. , Merino G. , Barange M . 2009 . Modeling the global fishmeal and fish oil markets . Natural Resource Modeling , 22 : 564 – 609 .

Munro G. R . 1979 . The optimal management of transboundary renewable resources . The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'Economique , 12 : 355 – 376 .

Naylor R. L. , Goldburg R. J. , Primavera J. H. , Kautsky N. , Beveridge M. C. M. , Clay J. , Folke C. et al.  2000 . Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies . Nature , 405 : 1017 – 1024 .

Nielsen J. R. , Thunberg E. , Holland D. S. , Schmidt J. O. , Fulton E. A. , Bastardie F. , Punt A. E. et al.  2018a . Integrated ecological–economic fisheries models—Evaluation, review and challenges for implementation . Fish and Fisheries , 19 : 1 – 29 .

Nielsen M. , Asche F. , Bergesen O. , Blomquist J. , Henriksen E. , Hoff A. , Nielsen R. et al.  2018b . The myth of the poor fisher: evidence from the Nordic countries . Marine Policy , 93 : 186 – 194 .

Nielsen R . 2012 . Introducing individual transferable quotas on nitrogen in Danish fresh water aquaculture: production and profitability gains . Ecological Economics , 75 : 83 – 90 .

Nielsen R. , Ankamah-Yeboah I. , Llorente I . 2021 . Technical efficiency and environmental impact of seabream and seabass farms . Aquaculture Economics & Management , 25 : 106 – 125 .

Nostbakken L. , Thébaud Olivier , Sorensen Lars-Christian . 2011 . Investment behaviour and capacity adjustment in fisheries: a survey of the literature . Marine Resource Economics , 26 : 95 – 117 .

OECD . 2006 . Using Market Mechanisms to Manage Fisheries, Smoothing the Path . OECD Editions , Paris . 325 pp.

OECD . 2009 . Reducing Fishing Capacity . OECD Editions , Paris .

Panzar J. C. , Willig R. D . 1981 . Economies of scope . The American Economic Review , 71 : 268 – 272 .

Pascoe S . 2007a . Capacity analysis and Fisheries policy: theory versus practice . Marine Resource Economics , 22 : 83 – 87 .

Pascoe S . 2007b . Estimation of cost functions in a data poor environment: the case of capacity estimation in fisheries . Applied Economics , 39 : 2643 – 2654 .

Pascoe S. , Kahui V. , Hutton T. , Dichmont C . 2016 . Experiences with the use of bioeconomic models in the management of Australian and New Zealand fisheries . Fisheries Research , 183 : 539 – 548 .

Pascoe S. , Mardle S . 2001 . Optimal fleet size in the English Channel: a multi-objective programming approach . European Review of Agricultural Economics , 28 : 161 – 185 .

Pascoe S. , Thébaud O. , Vieira S . 2014 . Estimating proxy economic target reference points in data-poor single-species fisheries . Marine and Coastal Fisheries , 6 : 247 – 259 .

Pendleton L. H. , Thébaud O. , Mongruel R. C. , Levrel H . 2016 . Has the value of global marine and coastal ecosystem services changed? . Marine Policy , 64 : 156 – 158 .

Pereau J.-C. , Doyen L. , Little L. R. , Thébaud O . 2012 . The triple bottom line: meeting ecological, economic and social goals with individual transferable quotas . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 63 : 419 – 434 .

Pikitch E. K. , Santora C. , Babcock E. A. , Bakun A. , Bonfil R. , Conover D. O. , Dayton P. et al.  2004 . Ecosystem-based fishery management . Science , 305 : 346 – 347 .

Polasky S. , Segerson K . 2009 . Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: some lessons learned . Annual Review of Resource Economics , 1 : 409 – 434 .

Roheim C. A. , Bush S. R. , Asche F. , Sanchirico J. N. , Uchida H . 2018 . Evolution and future of the sustainable seafood market . Nature Sustainability , 1 : 392 – 398 .

Ropars-Collet C. , Leplat M. , Goffe P. L . 2017 . Commercial fisheries as an asset for recreational demand on the coast: evidence from a choice experiment . Marine Resource Economics , 32 : 391 – 409 .

Rousseau Y. , Watson R. A. , Blanchard J. L. , Fulton E. A . 2019 . Defining global artisanal fisheries . Marine Policy , 108 : 103634 .

Sala E. , Mayorga J. , Costello C. , Kroodsma D. , Palomares M. L. D. , Pauly D. , Sumaila U. R. et al.  2018 . The economics of fishing the high seas . Science Advances , 4 : eaat2504 .

Samuelson P. , Nordhaus William . 2019 . Economics . McGraw-Hill Education , New York, NY .

Sanchirico J. N. , Smith M. D. , Lipton D. W . 2008 . An empirical approach to ecosystem-based fishery management . Ecological Economics , 64 : 586 – 596 .

Sanchirico J. N. , Wilen J. E . 1999 . Bioeconomics of spatial exploitation in a patchy environment . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 37 : 129 – 150 .

Schlager E. , Ostrom E . 1992 . Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis . Land Economics , 68 : 249 – 262 .

Schuhbauer A. , Sumaila U. R . 2016 . Economic viability and small-scale fisheries—a review . Ecological Economics , 124 : 69 – 75 .

Scott A . 1955 . The fishery: the objectives of sole ownership . Journal of Political Economy , 63 : 116 .

Scott A. D . 1989 . Conceptual origins of rights based fishing . In Rights Based Fishing , pp. 11 – 38 .. Ed. by Neher P. A. , Arnason R. , and Mollett N. . Springer , Dordrecht .

Sethi G. , Costello C. , Fisher A. , Hanemann M. , Karp L . 2005 . Fishery management under multiple uncertainty . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 50 : 300 – 318 .

Shotton R. (Ed.) 2001 . Case studies on the allocation of transferable quota rights in fisheries . In FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 411 . FAO , Rome . 373 pp.

Smith H. , Basurto X . 2019 . Defining small-scale fisheries and examining the role of science in shaping perceptions of who and what counts: a systematic review . Frontiers in Marine Science , 6 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00236 (last accessed on 3 February 2023) .

Smith M. D . 2000 . Spatial search and fishing location choice: methodological challenges of empirical modeling . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 82 : 1198 – 1206 .

Smith M. D . 2019 . Subsidies, efficiency, and fairness in fisheries policy . Science , 364 : 34 – 35 .

Smith M. D. , Sanchirico J. N. , Wilen J. E . 2009 . The economics of spatial-dynamic processes: applications to renewable resources . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 57 : 104 – 121 .

Smith M. D. , Wilen J. E . 2003 . Economic impacts of marine reserves: the importance of spatial behavior . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 46 : 183 – 206 .

Smith V . 1993 . Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretive appraisal . Land Economics , 69 : 1 – 26 .

Squires D . 1988 . Production technology, costs, and multiproduct industry structure: an application of the long-run profit function to the New England fishing industry . The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'Economique , 21 : 359 – 378 .

Squires D . 1992 . Productivity measurement in common property resource industries: an application to the Pacific Coast trawl fishery . The RAND Journal of Economics , 23 : 221 – 236 .

STECF . 2020 . The 2020 annual economic report on the EU fishing fleet (STECF 20-06) . In Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) . European Commission , Brussels .

Stelzenmüller V. , Gimpel A. , Haslob H. , Letschert J. , Berkenhagen J. , Brüning S . 2021 . Sustainable co-location solutions for offshore wind farms and fisheries need to account for socio-ecological trade-offs . Science of The Total Environment , 776 : 145918 .

Sutherland S. A. , Edwards E. C . 2022 . The impact of property rights to fish on remote communities in Alaska . Land Economics , 98 : 239 – 253 .

Tahvonen O . 2009 . Economics of harvesting age-structured fish populations . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 58 : 281 – 299 .

Tahvonen O. , Quaas M. F. , Voss R . 2018 . Harvesting selectivity and stochastic recruitment in economic models of age-structured fisheries . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 92 : 659 – 676 .

Thébaud O. , Doyen L. , Innes J. , Lample M. , Macher C. , Mahévas S. , Mullon C. et al.  2014 . Building ecological-economic models and scenarios of marine resource systems: workshop report . Marine Policy , 43 : 382 – 386 .

Thébaud O. , Innes J. , Ellis N . 2012 . From anecdotes to scientific evidence? A review of recent literature on catch share systems in marine fisheries . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 10 : 433 – 437 .

Thunberg E. , Agar Juan , Crosson Scott , Garber-Yonts Brian , Harley , Abigail K. , Andrew Lee et al.  2015 . A Snapshot of NOAA Fisheries Data collection . US Department of Commerce , Washington, DC . 331 pp .

Tidd A. N. , Hutton T. , Kell L. T. , Padda G . 2011 . Exit and entry of fishing vessels: an evaluation of factors affecting investment decisions in the North Sea English beam trawl fleet . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 68 : 961 – 971 .

Tromeur E. , Doyen L. , Tarizzo V. , Little L. R. , Jennings S. , Thébaud O . 2021 . Risk averse policies foster bio-economic sustainability in mixed fisheries . Ecological Economics , 190 : 107178 .

Tveterås S. , Tveterås R . 2010 . The global competition for wild fish resources between livestock and aquaculture . Journal of Agricultural Economics , 61 : 381 – 397 .

Ulrich C. , Vermard Y. , Dolder P. J. , Brunel T. , Jardim E. , Holmes S. J. , Kempf A. et al.  2016 . Achieving maximum sustainable yield in mixed fisheries: a management approach for the North Sea demersal fisheries . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 74 : 566 – 575 .

Valderrama D. , Anderson J. L . 2010 . Market interactions between aquaculture and common-property fisheries: recent evidence from the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery in Alaska . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 59 : 115 – 128 .

van Putten I. E. , Kulmala S. , Thébaud O. , Dowling N. , Hamon K. G. , Hutton T. , Pascoe S . 2012 . Theories and behavioural drivers underlying fleet dynamics models . Fish and Fisheries , 13 : 216 – 235 .

Voss R. , Quaas M. , Neuenfeldt S . 2021 . Robust, ecological–economic multispecies management of Central Baltic fishery resources . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 79 : 169 – 181 .

Voss R. , Quaas M. F. , Schmidt J. O. , Tahvonen O. , Lindegren M. , Möllmann C . 2014 . Assessing social–ecological trade-offs to advance ecosystem-based fisheries management . PLoS One , 9 : e107811 .

Wallmo K. , Lew D. K . 2012 . Public willingness to pay for recovering and downlisting threatened and endangered marine species . Conservation Biology , 26 : 830 – 839 .

Weninger Q . 2001 . An analysis of the efficient production frontier in the fishery: implications for enhanced fisheries management . Applied Economics , 33 : 71 – 79 .

Weninger Q. , McConnell K. E . 2000 . Buyback programs in commercial fisheries: effciency versus transfers . Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique , 33 : 394 – 412 .

Weninger Q. , Waters J. R . 2003 . Economic benefits of management reform in the northern Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 46 : 207 – 230 .

Werner S. , DePiper G. , Jin D. , Kitts A . 2020 . Estimation of commercial fishing trip costs using sea sampling data . Marine Resource Economics , 35 : 379 – 410 .

Wilen J. E . 2000 . Renewable resource economists and policy: what differences have we made? . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 39 : 306 – 327 .

Wilen J. E. , Cancino J. , Uchida H . 2012 . The economics of territorial use rights fisheries, or turfs . Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 6 : 237 – 257 .

Wilen J. E. , Smith M. D. , Lockwood D. , Botsford F. W . 2002 . Avoiding surprises: incorporating fisherman behavior into management models . Bulletin of Marine Science , 70 : 553 – 575 .

Zeller D. , Booth S. , Pauly D . 2006 . Fisheries contributions to the gross domestic product: underestimating small-scale fisheries in the Pacific . Marine Resource Economics , 21 : 355 – 374 .

Author notes

Supplementary data, email alerts, citing articles via.

• Contact ICES
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1095-9289
• Print ISSN 1054-3139
• Copyright © 2024 ICES/CIEM
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

186 Agriculture Essay Topics & Research Questions + Examples

Are you looking for the best agriculture topics to write about? You’re at the right place! StudyCorgi has prepared a list of important agriculture research topics. On this page, any student can find essay questions and project ideas on various agricultural issues, such as food safety, genetically engineered crops, and sustainable farming practices.

👨‍🌾 TOP 7 Agriculture Research Topics – 2024

🏆 best essay topics on agriculture, 🎓 most interesting agriculture topics for college students, 👍 good agriculture research topics & essay examples, 💡 cool agricultural research topics for high school students, ❓ research questions about agriculture, 🔎 current agriculture research paper topics, 📝 agriculture argumentative essay topics, 🗣️ agriculture topics for speech.

• Globalization Impact on Sustainable Agriculture
• Agriculture and Its Role in Economic Development
• Food Safety Issues in Modern Agriculture
• Commercial Agriculture, Its Role and Definition
• Agricultural Biotechnology and Its Pros and Cons
• Agriculture: Personal Field Visit
• In Support of Robotics Use in Agriculture
• Improving Stress Resistance in Agricultural Crops The essay suggests that stress-resistant crops are needed to ensure yield stability under stress conditions and to minimize the environmental impacts of crop production.
• Agricultural Influences on the Developing Civil Society Agriculture had a significant influence on developing societies, ranging from creating trade to bringing industrialization, education, and social classes.
• Agriculture and Food in Ancient Greece The paper states that agricultural practices and goods from Greece extended to neighboring countries in the Mediterranean as the dominance increased.
• Food and Agriculture of Ancient Greece The concepts of agriculture and cuisine both have a deep connection to Greek history, culture, development, and social trends.
• Population Growth and Agriculture in the Future The current industrial agriculture needs to be advanced and developed in combination with sustainable agricultural practices.
• Agricultural Role in African Development Diao et al. attempt to determine the role of agriculture in overcoming the challenge of poverty in rural areas of Africa compared to alternative theories of economic growth.
• Food Safety: A Policy Issue in Agriculture Today Food safety constitutes proper preparation, storage and preservation of all foods. Markets are increasingly calling for improvement in the quality and safety standards of food crops.
• Soil: The Essential Aspect of Agriculture Soil is an integral part of human life as it determines one’s quality of life. The health of the soil is reduced by erosion and degradation due to human activities.
• Industry and Agriculture: Use of Technology Industry and agriculture are among the areas that have experienced a vast rise in effectiveness and performance quality due to the integration of new types of technology into them.
• Repeasantization: Impact on Agriculture The repeasantization led to fundamental changes that created a new system of agriculture that is still relevant today.
• Agriculture Development and Related Theories There are two main domestication models used to describe the development of agriculture: unconscious and conscious.
• The Neolithic Era: Architecture and Agriculture The improvements to agriculture, society, architecture, and culture made during the Neolithic period had an undeniable impact on aspects of the world.
• Agricultural Technology Implementation by Medieval Europeans and West Africans The paper examines how West Africans and Medieval Europeans were affected by their corresponding climates and why their methods were unique to their respective locations.
• Agricultural Traditions of Canadians In Canada there is a very good agricultural education, so young people can get higher education in agriculture and use it on their own farms.
• Agriculture: Application of Information Technology IT application in agriculture has contributed to food security in most modern communities. Farming has become easier than before as new inventions are made.
• Sharecropping. History of Racial Agriculture Sharecropping became a variation of racialized agriculture, that which has negative impact on the capabilities of the black population to generate and pass down wealth.
• Agriculture the Backbone of Ancient Egypt’s Economy In pre-industrial societies, agriculture was the backbone of most economies. This is true in ancient times and very much evident in ancient Egypt.
• Hunting and Gathering Versus Agricultural Society The hunting and gathering society is considered the most equitable of all seven types, while the agricultural community gives rise to the development of civilization.
• The Agriculture Industry’s Digital Transformation This study seeks to explore the dynamics of digital technology in agriculture over the past two decades, focusing on the perspectives and perceptions of the farmers.
• Colonialism and Economic Development of Africa Through Agriculture The colonial period is characterized by the exploitation of the agricultural sector in Africa to make a profit and provide Western countries with raw materials.
• The Big History of Civilizations – Origins of Agriculture: Video Analysis This paper aims to analyze the origins of agriculture – what was a foraging economy and way of life like, as well as compare foragers and farmers.
• History of Agricultural Technology Development Agricultural technologies were majorly developed during the Medieval period to ensure sufficient product yields for growing populations around the world.
• Impacts of Genetic Engineering of Agricultural Crops In present days the importance of genetic engineering grew due to the innovations in biotechnologies and Sciences.
• Agriculture in Honduras: Existing Challenges and Possible Solutions This paper tackles the issue of existing challenges and possible solutions to the problems of agriculture in Honduras.
• Virtual Water Savings and Trade in Agriculture The idea of virtual water was initially created as a method for assessing how water-rare nations could offer food, clothing, and other water-intensive products to their residents.
• Market Revolution: Agriculture and Global Trade In the era of traders, the vast land area and rich natural resources created many economic opportunities. Most people lived in rural areas and were engaged in agriculture.
• Agriculture and Food Production in the Old Kingdom
• Agriculture and the Transition to the Market in Asia
• Agrarian Reform and Subsistence Agriculture in Russia
• Agriculture, Nutrition, and the Green Revolution in Bangladesh
• Agriculture Business and Management
• Agriculture, Horticulture, and Ancient Egypt
• Agriculture and Food Production in the Old Kingdom of Egypt
• Administrative and Transaction-Related Costs of Subsidising Agriculture
• Agriculture and Economic Growth in Argentina, 1913-84
• Agriculture and Economic Development in Brazil, 1960-1995
• Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Cap-And-Trade
• Croatian Agriculture Towards World Market Liberalization
• Adapting Credit Risk Models to Agriculture
• Agriculture and European Union Enlargement
• Agriculture and Food Security in Pakistan
• Cash Flows and Financing in Texas Agriculture
• Current Problems With Indian Agriculture
• Agriculture and Its Drain on California
• Agriculture and the Economic Life of India
• Agriculture and Global Climate Stabilization
• Achieving Regional Growth Dynamics in African Agriculture
• Agriculture and Non-agricultural Liberalization in the Millennium Round
• Corporate Agriculture and Modern Times
• Agriculture and Rural Employment Agricultural in Bolivia
• Climatic Fluctuations and the DI¤Usion of Agriculture
• Agriculture Global Market Briefing
• Agriculture and the Industrial Revolution of the Late 1700s
• Agriculture and Animal Husbandry in Ecuador
• Biofuels, Agriculture, and Climate Change
• Aggregate Technical Efficiency and Water Use in U.S. Agriculture
• Agriculture, Water, and Food Security in Tanzania This paper evaluates the strategies applicable to the development and further maintenance of agriculture, water, and food security in Tanzania.
• The Australian Agriculture Company’s Financial Analysis The Australian Agriculture Company shows a positive sign for investment due to its financial analysis indicating company resilience and strong prospects of growth.
• Governmental Price Control in Agricultural Sector The consequences of real-life governmental price control are the evolutionary nature of transformations in the agricultural sector.
• Aspects of Pesticide Use in Agriculture This paper investigates socio-environmental factors connected with pesticide use in agriculture and food production. It has a destructive impact on the environment
• Agriculture-Led Food Crops and Cash Crops in Tanzania This paper aims to explore the contributions of the agriculture sector in Tanzania to the country’s industrialization process by using recent data about its food and cash crops.
• The Impact of Pesticides’ Use on Agriculture Pesticides are mostly known for their adverse effects and, therefore, have a mostly negative connotation when discussed among general audiences.
• Cuisine and Agriculture of Ancient Greece There are many reasons for modern students to investigate the development of cuisine and agriculture in Ancient Greece.
• Agriculture and Food Safety in the United States Agriculture in the United States has grown progressively centralized. The shortcomings in the 2018 U.S. farm legislation resulted in multiple challenges in the food system.
• Sustainable Agriculture and Future Perspectives Sustainable agriculture is essential to the earth’s environment. When farmers take care of their land and crops, they are taking care of environmental sustainability.
• Agricultural Adaptation to Changing Environments The paper discusses the impact of climate change on agriculture in Canada. This phenomenon is real and has affected the industry over at least the last three decades.
• Trade Peculiarities in Food and Agriculture Food trading is a peculiar area, as food is the basis for surviving the population. The one who controls food production and trading routes, also controls all populations.
• Multinational Agricultural Manufacturing Companies’ Standardization & Adaptation The most popular approaches that multinational companies use to serve their customers from various countries are standardization and adaptation.
• Sustainable Agriculture Against Food Insecurity The paper argues sustainable agriculture is one way to reduce food insecurity without harming the planet because the number of resources is currently decreasing.
• Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture and Food This paper will examine four aspects of climate change: variation in the rainfall pattern, water levels, drought, temperature, and heatwaves.
• Canadian Laws Regarding Agricultural Sector The unions in Canada are the concept over which there has been an excessive dispute involving court proceedings and questioning the constitutional rights of citizens.
• Food Additives Use in Agriculture in the United States Food additives in agriculture become a debatable issue because their benefits do not always prevail over such shortages like health issues and environmental concerns.
• Radio-Frequency Identification in Healthcare and Agriculture Specifically, radio-frequency identification (RFID) has gained traction due to its ability to transmit data over distance.
• Mechanism of US Agricultural Market The fact that lower interest rates increased the number of potential customers for real estate in the 2000s shows that housing prices should have increased.
• A Biological Terror Attack in Agriculture The United States is highly vulnerable to terror attacks of biological nature in agriculture yet such an occurrence can cripple the economy.
• The Economics of Race, Agriculture and Environment This research paper is going to answer the question; do public policies reduce or enhance racial inequality in agricultural and environmental affairs?
• Impact of Bioterrorism on the U.S Agriculture System The paper describes that the term bioterrorism has several definitions depending upon the origin of the attack but in general terms, it refers to any form of terrorist attack.
• The Effects of Genetic Modification of Agricultural Products Discussion of the threat to the health of the global population of genetically modified food in the works of Such authors as Jane Brody and David Ehrenfeld.
• Climate Change and Its Potential Impact on Agriculture and Food Supply The global food supply chain has been greatly affected by the impact of global climate change. There are, however, benefits as well as drawbacks to crop production.
• Agriculture and Mayan Society Resilience The Yucatan peninsula had a vast landscape which was good for agriculture thus making agriculture to be the main economic base for the Mayans.
• Climate Changes Impact on Agriculture and Livestock The project evaluates the influences of climate changes on agriculture and livestock in different areas in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
• Homeland Security in Agriculture and Health Sectors Lack of attention to the security and protection of the agricultural sector in the U.S. economy can create a serious threat to the health and safety of the population.
• Water Savings and Virtual Trade in Agriculture Water trade in agriculture is not a practice that is unique to the modern generation. The practice was common long before the emergence of the Egyptian Empire.
• Virtual Water Trade and Savings in Agriculture This essay discusses the savings associated with virtual water trade in agriculture and touches on the effects of a shift to local agricultural production on global water savings.
• Virtual Water Trade of Agricultural Products Virtual water trade is a concept associated with globalization and the global economy. Its rise was motivated by growing water scarcity in arid areas around the world.
• European Invasion and Agriculture in the Caribbean The early invasion of the Europeans in the Caribbean did not prompt the employment of the slave trade in the agricultural activities until the development of the sugar plantations.
• Freedom in American Countryside and Agriculture This paper portrays how freedom has been eliminated in the countryside by the state agriculture department, and whether the farmer has a moral right to do his farming practices.
• Agricultural Problems in Venezuela Agriculture has been greatly underdeveloped in Venezuela, yet it is a country that has vital minerals and resources required for the global economy.
• America’s Agriculture in the Period of 1865-1938 This paper analyzes America’s contribution in prevention of natural calamities, decline of soil quality, promotion of production outlay and provision of sufficient food.
• Capital Taxes and Agriculture
• Canadian Trade With the Chinese Agriculture Market
• Agriculture and Its Impact on Economic Development
• Bacteriocins From the Rhizosphere Microbiome From an Agriculture Perspective
• Agriculture and Its Impact on Financial Institutions
• Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food in the Irish Economy
• Adoption and Economic Impact of Site-Specific Technologies in U.S. Agriculture
• Cash Rents and Land Values in U.S. Agriculture
• Crises and Structural Change in Australian Agriculture
• Biotechnology and Its Application in Agriculture
• Alternative Policies for Agriculture in Europe
• Agriculture and Food Security in Asia by 2030
• Agriculture and Coping Climate Change in Nepal
• Agriculture and Ethiopia’s Economic Transformation
• Culture: Agriculture and Egalitarian Social
• Adaptation, Climate Change, Agriculture, and Water
• Agriculture and the Literati in Colonial Bengal, 1870 to 1940
• Agriculture and Barley Farming Taro
• Agriculture and Agricultural Inputs Markets
• Agriculture and Environmental Challenges
• Challenges for Sustainable Agriculture in India
• Agriculture and German Reunification
• Agriculture and Tourism Relationship in Malaysia Tourism
• 21st Century Rural America: New Horizons for U.S. Agriculture
• Canadian Agriculture and the Canadian Agricultural Industry
• California Agriculture Dimensions and Issues
• Advancements and the Development of Agriculture in Ancient Greece and Rome
• Agriculture and Early Industrial Revolution
• Aztec: Agriculture and Habersham County
• Agriculture and Current Deforestation Practices
• How Has Agriculture Changed From Early Egypt, Greece, and Rome to the Present?
• What Are the Advantages of Using Pesticides on Agriculture?
• Are Digital Technologies for the Future of Agriculture?
• How Did Agriculture Change Our Society?
• Does Agriculture Help Poverty and Inequality Reduction?
• Can Agriculture Prosper Without Increased Social Capital?
• Are Mega-Farms the Future of Global Agriculture?
• How Can African Agriculture Adapt to Climate Change?
• Does Agriculture Really Matter for Economic Growth in Developing Countries?
• Can Conservation Agriculture Save Tropical Forests?
• How Can Sustainable Agriculture Be Better for Americans?
• Are U.S. and European Union Agriculture Policies Becoming More Similar?
• Should Pollution Reductions Count as Productivity Gains for Agriculture?
• Can Market Access Help African Agriculture?
• How Does Genetic Engineering Affect Agriculture?
• Does Individualization Help Productivity of Transition Agriculture?
• Can Spot and Contract Markets Co-Exist in Agriculture?
• How Has Biotechnology Changed Agriculture Throughout the Years?
• Does Trade Policy Impact Food and Agriculture Global Value Chain Participation of Sub-Saharan African Countries?
• Can Sustainable Agriculture Feed Africa?
• How Can Multifunctional Agriculture Support a Transition to a Green Economy in Africa?
• Does Urban Agriculture Enhance Dietary Diversity?
• How Did Government Policy, Technology, and Economic Conditions Affect Agriculture?
• Can the Small Dairy Farm Remain Competitive in US Agriculture?
• What Are the Main Changes in French Agriculture Since 1945 and What Challenges Does It Face Today?
• How Can Marketing Theory Be Applied to Policy Design to Deliver Sustainable Agriculture in England?
• Will African Agriculture Survive Climate Change?
• How Has Agriculture Changed Civilizations?
• Does Urban Agriculture Improve Food Security?
• Can US and Great Plains Agriculture Compete in the World Market?
• The effect of climate change on crop yields and food security.
• Sustainable agricultural practices for soil health.
• Precision agriculture techniques and applications.
• The impact of genetically engineered organisms on crop yields and safety.
• The benefits of agroforestry systems for the environment.
• Current challenges in water management in agriculture.
• The environmental impact of organic farming.
• The potential of urban agriculture to address food insecurity.
• Food waste in the agricultural supply chain.
• Comparing the effectiveness of aquaponic and hydroponic systems.
• Organic vs. conventional farming.
• Can regenerative agriculture combat climate change?
• Agricultural subsidies: pros and cons.
• Should harmful pesticides be banned to protect pollinators?
• Should arable land be used for biofuels or food production?
• Do patent protections of seeds hinder agricultural innovation?
• Agricultural robots: increased efficiency or displaced rural labor?
• Should GMO labeling be mandatory?
• Do the benefits of pesticides outweigh their potential health harms?
• Is it unsustainable to grow water-intensive crops in arid regions?
• The economics of organic farming.
• The need for climate-adaptive crops.
• The role of bees in agriculture and threats to their survival.
• Smart agriculture: transforming farming with data and connectivity.
• The journey of food in modern agricultural supply chains.
• The role of agri-tech startups in agricultural innovation.
• Youth in agriculture: inspiring the next generation of farmers.
• Why should we shift to plant-based meat alternatives?
• The importance of preserving indigenous agricultural practices.
• Smart irrigation systems: optimizing water use in agriculture.

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, March 1). 186 Agriculture Essay Topics & Research Questions + Examples. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/agriculture-essay-topics/

"186 Agriculture Essay Topics & Research Questions + Examples." StudyCorgi , 1 Mar. 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/agriculture-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '186 Agriculture Essay Topics & Research Questions + Examples'. 1 March.

1. StudyCorgi . "186 Agriculture Essay Topics & Research Questions + Examples." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/agriculture-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "186 Agriculture Essay Topics & Research Questions + Examples." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/agriculture-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "186 Agriculture Essay Topics & Research Questions + Examples." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/agriculture-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Agriculture were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 21, 2024 .

Quantitative Fisheries Research

Our lab conducts research and participates in science advisory work to improve the management of ecologically and economically valuable marine resources..

Our science contributes to the sustainability and resilience of marine resources, ecosystems, fishing communities, and the seafood industry.

• Understand the influence of climate, harvest, and management on our fishery resources.
• Develop approaches to improve fisheries stock assessment and management.
• Advance the study of fish population structure and its implications for sustainable management and fishery resource resilience.
• Understand aspects of fish population biology and dynamics in relation to key factors (e.g., climate and ecosystem factors and fishing).

Lisa Kerr, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, UMaine School of Marine Sciences

Katie Lankowicz, Ph.D.

Postdoctoral Research Associate

Zachary Whitener

Senior Research Associate, Vessel Safety Officer

Jamie Behan

Quantitative Research Associate

Jerelle Jesse

PhD Graduate Student

Amanda Hart

Our diverse skill set addresses critical ecological questions that directly apply to fisheries management..

We conduct field sampling or partner with the fishing industry to collect data on focal species (e.g. Atlantic cod, bluefin tuna). We utilize mathematical and statistical modeling to understand how fish stocks respond to climate change, fishing, and management measures (e.g. management strategy evaluation). We also conduct stock identification analysis in the lab, utilizing structural and chemical analysis of fish hard parts (e.g. otoliths) to understand the origin of the fish we catch and integrate this information into models.

• Field Sampling
• Data Collection
• Mathematical Modeling
• Stock Identification

Lab Projects

Explore our quantitative fisheries research projects.

Northeast Climate Integrated Modeling (NCLIM)

Transforming fisheries' decision-making processes from dependent on historical observations to more a forward-looking process will require interdisciplinary research efforts that advance our knowledge and understanding …

Integrating Climate Impacts into Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Stock Assessment

Our project is examining atmospheric and oceanographic changes that may have impacted the distribution of giant bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Maine. This information …

The Open Knowledge Network to Meet Ocean Decision Challenges (OceanOKN)

Throughout history, people have been able to rely on their past experience to inform their decisions about the future. We are now entering a period …

Evaluating Alternative Harvest Control Rules for New England Groundfish

The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) initiated a groundfish harvest control rule review so that fishery management can be sure they are prescribing the …

Snap-a-Striper

Striped bass catches have declined dramatically in recent years — with landings down by 90%, according to some estimates — leaving both scientists and fishermen …

Groundfish Management Strategy Evaluation

The impacts of climate change on marine fisheries resources are increasing. Some groundfish stocks, such as Georges Bank cod, have declined to record-low biomass in …

Evaluating Age Structure, Aging Bias and Mixed Stock Composition of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in the Northwest Atlantic

Our project sets up long-term biological sample collections to fill in life history gaps, including age structure and stock mixing. We do this by using …

Evaluating the Importance of Chub Mackerel in the Diet of Highly Migratory Species

Our project seeks to investigate the foraging ecology of marlins (blue, white, round-scale spearfish) and tunas (bigeye, yellowfin) along the East Coast to identify the …

Assessing Allocation Strategies for Fisheries Affected by Climate Change

Our project aims to develop guidance and adaptive strategies for fishery managers grappling with climate change induced allocation challenges.

Windjamming on the Warming Gulf of Maine - Eos

Press Clips

Bluefin Tuna Milestone

Dr. Walt Golet and his Pelagic Fisheries Lab celebrate a significant sampling milestone.

Determining Where Bluefin Tuna Come From | On The Water

Convening climate experts.

In April, GMRI scientists hosted a modeling workshop for over 30 leading climate, oceanography, socio-economic, and fisheries experts. The group convened to discuss a question …

Research topics

​​​​Our research comprehensively covers the agriculture, forestry and fisheries portfolio – reports, information and data is grouped within the following research areas and the ‘About my region’ sub-site.

• ABARES Insights
• Agricultural outlook
• Agricultural forecasting
• Climate and drought
• Farm surveys and analysis
• Productivity
• Agricultural workforce
• Social sciences
• Biosecurity
• Invasive species
• Food demand
• About my region
• Working papers
• Rice vesting

We aren't able to respond to your individual comments or questions. To contact us directly phone us or submit an online inquiry

Please verify that you are not a robot.

• Browse Works
• Agriculture

Fisheries and Aquaculture

Fisheries and aquaculture research papers/topics, beef cattle value chain analysis in bora and dugda districts, oromia regional state, ethiopia.

Abstract: This study was aimed at analyzing beef cattle value chain in Bora and Dugda districts, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. The specific objectives of the study were to:- identify major beef cattle value chain actors and their roles in beef cattle value chain in the study areas; Identify the major constraints and opportunities in beef cattle value chain; analyzing the determinants of smallholders farmers' market participation decision and quantity of beef cattle supplied to the market ...

FISHERMEN’S WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: THE CASE OF LAKE ZEWAY, ETHIOPIA

Abstract: Lake Zeway fishery is threatened with problems of overexploitation and consequently unrecovered resources resulting in loss of its potentials due to mismanagement. This study identified the determinants of fishermen’s willingness to pay for fishery management and measured mean fishermen’s willingness to pay for lake Zeway fishery management. A two-stage random sampling techniques was applied to identify sample fishermen’s from Adami Tulu Gido Kombolcha, Zeway Dugda and Dugda ...

ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING FISH CATCH LEVELS FROM LAKE TANA, ETHIOPIA

Abstract: Agriculture plays vital role in Ethiopian economy. However, despite its importance and potential, the sector has remained at subsistence level. One of the traditional sources of animal protein of the developing world is through livestock rearing. Unfortunately, the livestock production is under increasing pressure from the combined effects of human population growth, shortage of grazing land and desertification. Therefore, it is important to look for a better and cheap, alternative...

Using Ulva (Chlorophyta) for the Production of Biomethane and Mitigation Against Coastal Acidification

In South Africa the green macroalga Ulva armoricana is the main species of macroalgae cultured. The species is currently the largest aquaculture (2884.61 tonnes) product by weight with a corresponding capacity for biogas (CH4) production. We have shown that biotransformation of U. armoricana to Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) is viable and economically feasible as a clean fuel. pH toxicity tests showed that U. armoricana can be used as a health index, under potentially increased CO2 concentrati...

Moving Toward Sustainable Aquaculture for Rural Sustainability and Development in Kenya. A Case of Vihiga County

Kenya has a tremendous great potential for growth in the aquaculture sector. To attain the sustainable development goal of zero hunger, the government is needed to encourage fish culture among the rural communities. The study's objective is to investigate the elements that affect the sustainable development of fresh water Aquaculture in Kenya a Vihiga County case. The purpose of the research is to determine how production characteristics and extension affect the long-term sustainability of fr...

A Comparison of the Growth of the Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus, Linnaeus, 1758) Fingerlings Fed with Blue Crown® And Skretting® Commercial Feeds

ABSTRACTA comparison of the growth of the Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)fingerlings fed with Blue crown® and Skretting® commercial feeds was studiedfor a period of 8 weeks. A total of sixty fingerlings of Oreochromis niloticuswere used. The treatments showed significant difference (p0.05)between   the   two   feeds.  Some   water   quality   parameters   assessed   during   theexperiment indicated that only the dissolved oxygen was significantly differentbetween the two treatments (p

Determination Of Thermal Tolerance, Density And Distribution Of The Mangrove Crabs, Perisesarma Guttatum (Sesarmidae) And Uca Urvillei (Ocypodidae) At Gazi-Bay, Kenya

Abstract Mangrove crabs are important in ecosystem functioning including; bioturbation of the soil resulting in soil particle size distribution, sediment aeration, reduction in sediment salinity and nutrient recycling and thus are fundamental for the viability of mangrove forests which are in turn important to the coastal communities’ livelihoods. Mangroves are intertidal forested wetlands confined to the tropical and subtropical regions. They play important role as habitat for animals, pro...

Nutrient Composition of Trachurus trachurus (Atlantic Horse Mackerel) Smoked With Sawdust and Different Fire Woods (Dialium guineensis AND Pentaclethra macrophylla)

ABSTRACT Trachurus trachurus (Atlantic horse mackerel) was smoked with two different fire woods Di'alium guineensis and Pentaclethra macrohylla and sawdust using a traditional smoking kiln and a constructed sawdust stove sited in the fish farm of Michael Okpara University of agriculture Umudike. The frozen fish sample was weighed, eviscerated and washed properly with clean water. During smoking the temperature of the heat was taken, duration of smoking period was also noted in smoking p...

Chemical Analysis and Nutritional Assessment of Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam. (Jack Fruit) Defatted Seeds used as Additive in Feed for Clarias gariepinus post juveniles

Abstract A 49-day feeding trial was carried out with feeds supplemented with microgram quantities of the defatted seeds of Artocarpus heterophyllus in the diets of Clarias gariepinus at the post juveinile stage. Five diets at 40% crude protein were formulated containing 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60x106 µg DAH seed as additive. Each dietary treatment was replicated three times with 10 fish per replicate. Proximate composition of the defatted seed showed that it was rich in protein, carbohydrate and ...

Assessment of Genetic Structure of Clarias Gariepinus, Burchell, 1822 Population in Asejire Lake

Abstract Wild brood-stock is a major genetic reservoir for sustainable culture of Clarias gariepinus. This has been observed to be declining in major freshwater dams in Nigeria. There is inadequate information on factors responsible for this decline and their effects on genetic structuring of the fish resources in these dams. This study therefore investigated genetic structure of C. gariepinus in relation to environmental condition of Asejire Dam.    The Dam was spatially divided into Oyo...

Economic Efficiency Of Fishing Among Marine And Lagoon Artisanal Fisherfolks In Lagos State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT Fishing is a major source of livelihood for rural and peri-urban communities along coastal waters. The operation of artisanal fisherfolks is threatened by increasing overfishing of inshore waters, inadequate credit facilities, insufficient fishing input subsidies and inadequate extension services. These had negative implications on their efficiency hence their well-being.  In order to enhance their performance, the efficiency of the fisherfolks, profitability and challenges were ex...

The Effect of Walnut (Tetracarpidium conophorum) Leaf and Onion (Allium cepa) Bulb Residues on the Growth Performance and Nutrient Utilization of Clarias gariepinus Juveniles

Abstract Feeding trial were conducted in experimental tanks (50 x 34 x 27 cm) to assess the growth responses and nutrient utilization of Walnut Leaf (WL) and Onion Bulb (OB) residues in Clarias gariepinus. Nine experimental diets: control (0%), OB2 (0.5%), OB3 (1.0%), OB4 (1.5%), OB5 (2.0%), WL6 (0.5%), WL7 (1.0%), WL8 (1.5%) and WL9 (2.0%) were formulated and replicated thrice at 40% crude protein. Fish (mean weight 7.39±0.02 g and length 10.37±1.24 cm) were fed twice daily at 3% body wei...

Epidemiology Of Edwardsiella Infections In Farmed Fish In Morogoro, Tanzania

ABSTRACT A cross sectional study was undertaken from November 2016 to April 2017 to find out whether Edwardsiella infections exist in farmed fish in Morogoro. The prevalence of infection, risk factors and fish haematological parameters were established. A total of 270 fish were sampled from 24 ponds. Each fish was clinically examined and aseptically swabs of kidney, liver and spleen and pond water were collected for bacteriology. Bacteria were cultured onto Tryptic soya agar and Salmonella-S...

Abstract A 49-day feeding trial was carried out with feeds supplemented with microgram quantities of the defatted seeds of Artocarpus heterophyllus in the diets of Clarias gariepinus at the post juveinile stage. Five diets at 40% crude protein were formulated containing 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60x106 µg DAH seed as additive. Each dietary treatment was replicated three times with 10 fish per replicate. Proximate composition of the defatted seed showed that it was rich in protein, carbohydrate ...

Assessment Of Trace Metals Pollution Along The Central Namibian Marine Coastline: Using Choromytilus Meridionalis (Black Mussel) As Indicator Organisms

ABSTRACT This study was carried out at four stations along the Central Namibian marine coastline towns (Walvis Bay, Swakopmund, Henties Bay and Cape Cross) to assess trace metals pollution using Choromytilus meridionalis as indicator organism. Samples were collected using randomized sampling techniques during winter and summer months of 2012. EPA 3050B and ICP-OES protocols were used to digest and assimilate the samples. Data were analysed using a 4x2x3 factorial model of a completely random...

Projects, thesis, seminars, research papers, termpapers topics in Fisheries & Aqauculture. Fisheries & Aquaculture projects, thesis, seminars and termpapers topic and materials

Popular Papers/Topics

The socio-economic analysis of small scale fish farming enterprise in lagos state fish farm estate, ikorodu, nigeria, fish pond construction and management, assessment of socio-economic and ecological activities of oyan and opeji lakes, ogun state, nigeria, characterization of genetic strains in clariid species, clarias gariepinus and heterobranchus bidorsalis using microsatellite markers, morphometric and meristics characteristics of erpetoichthys calabaricus from wetland of ogun water-side local government area, report on industrial attachment undertaken at kenya marine and fisheries research institute attachment period 12th june to 04th august 2017, aquatic ecological survey, analysis of the nutritional values of feed compounded from locally available materials, assesment of catfish growth in relation to feeding and change in water quality in dry lands, casestudy of seku, kitui., application of biotechnology for genetic improvement in fish farming a case of african catfish clarias gariepinus, influence of stocking density on the growth and survival of post fry of the african mud catfish (clarias gariepinus), survival and growth rate of clarias gariepinus larvae fed with artemia salina and inert diet., effect of dietary supplementation of inulin and vitamin c on the growth, hematology, innate immunity, and resistance of nile tilapia (oreochromis niloticus), effect of probiotics on the survival, growth and challenge infection in tilapia nilotica (oreochromis niloticus).

Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Terms | Copyright | © 2024, Afribary Limited. All rights reserved.