Popularity and parity assessment for more inclusive and balanced aquaculture development.
Diversity measures
Effective number of countries
Food system assessment
Inclusive development
Production distribution
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Oct 2024
25 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
17
09
2023
accepted:
22
07
2024
medline:
26
10
2024
pubmed:
26
10
2024
entrez:
25
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Aquaculture, a rapidly expanding food production system, holds promise for improving global food security and resilience. However, imbalanced growth has led to a highly uneven distribution of aquaculture production among countries, a concern that has not been comprehensively examined. This paper fills this knowledge gap by developing an innovative indicator system to assess this issue based on aquaculture development in ~ 200 countries over five decades. The system utilizes the "effective number of countries" (ENC) as a basic measure of production distribution and extends it into two novel indicators, popularity and parity, to gauge inclusiveness and balance. The assessment from 1970 to 2020 reveals that aquaculture has become a global enterprise, operating in nearly 90% of countries. Nevertheless, there is still substantial potential for growth in aquaculture popularity across most of 43 species groups examined here. Regarding concerns over persistently imbalanced aquaculture growth, our assessment reveals that aquaculture parity increased during 1970-2020 in the majority of 85 country groups examined here, including 18 of 27 regions and subregions. Global parity is also on the rise in the new millennium (2000-2020). However, the global aquaculture parity remains considerably lower than those of capture fisheries and terrestrial meat production. This suggests that imbalanced global aquaculture development cannot be solely attributed to countries' comparative advantages. This extraordinary imbalance could compromise global food security and food system resilience, but it also signifies untapped growth potential. Mainstreaming aquaculture popularity and parity as policy indicators can foster more inclusive and balanced development and unlock this potential. The proposed indicator system can be applied across diverse sectors and scales, contributing to a broader and refined understanding of the dynamics within the global food system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39455590
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-68325-7
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-68325-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
25317Informations de copyright
© 2024. FAO 2024.
Références
Merino, G. et al. Can marine fisheries and aquaculture meet fish demand from a growing human population in a changing climate?. Glob. Environ. Change. 22, 795–806 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.003
World Bank, 2013. Fish to 2030: prospects for fisheries and aquaculture. Agriculture and Environmental Services Discussion Paper No. 3. Washington, DC, World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/458631468152376668/Fishto-2030-prospects-for-fisheries-and-aquaculture .
HLPE, 2014. Sustainable fisheries and 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. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Béné, C. et al. Feeding 9 billion by 2050—Putting fish back on the menu. Food Sec. 7, 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z
Costello, C. et al. The future of food from the sea. Nature. 588, 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y
pubmed: 32814903
Belton, B. et al. Farming fish in the sea will not nourish the world. Nat. Commun. 11, 5804. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19679-9 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19679-9
pubmed: 33199697
pmcid: 7669870
Bennett, A. et al. Recognize fish as food in policy discourse and development funding. Ambio. 50, 981–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01451-4 (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01451-4
pubmed: 33454882
pmcid: 7811336
Golden, C. D. et al. Aquatic foods to nourish nations. Nature. 598, 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03917-1 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03917-1
pubmed: 34526720
pmcid: 10584661
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global production by production source 1950–2020 (FishStatJ). Rome. (2022). www.fao.org/fishery/en/statistics/software/fishstatj .
Naylor, R. L. et al. A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature 591, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6
pubmed: 33762770
Garlock, T. et al. A global blue revolution: Aquaculture growth across regions, species, and countries. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 28(1), 107–116 (2020).
doi: 10.1080/23308249.2019.1678111
Adeleke, B., Robertson-Andersson, D., Moodley, G. & Taylor, S. Aquaculture in Africa: A comparative review of Egypt, Nigeria, and Uganda vis-a-vis South Africa. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 29(2), 167–197 (2020).
doi: 10.1080/23308249.2020.1795615
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation. Rome, FAO (2022). https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en .
Edwards, P., Zhang, W., Belton, B. & Little, D. C. Misunderstandings, myths and mantras in aquaculture: Its contribution to world food supplies has been systematically over reported. Mar. Policy 106, 103547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103547 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103547
Sumaila, U. R. et al. Aquaculture over-optimism?. Front. Mar. Sci. 9, 984354. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.984354 (2022).
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.984354
Troell, M. et al. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system?. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 13257–13263 (2014).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1404067111
pubmed: 25136111
pmcid: 4169979
Waha, K. et al. The benefits and trade-offs of agricultural diversity for food security in low- and middle-income countries: A review of existing knowledge and evidence. Glob. Food Secur. 33, 100645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100645 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100645
Colwell, R. K. Biodiversity: Concepts, patterns and measurement. In The Princeton Guide to Ecology (ed. Levin, S. A.) 257–263 (Princeton, 2009).
doi: 10.1515/9781400833023.257
Jost, L. What do we mean by diversity? The path towards quantification. Mètode Sci. Stud. J. 9, 55–61 (2019).
doi: 10.7203/metode.9.11472
Crupi, V. Measures of biological diversity: Overview and unified framework. In Assessing to Conserving Biodiversity: Conceptual and Practical Challenges, 123–136 (2019).
Cai, J., Yan, X., Leung, P. S. Benchmarking species diversification in global aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 605. Rome (2022). https://doi.org/10.4060/cb8335en .
Cai, J., Chan, H. L., Yan, X. & Leung, P. S. A global assessment of species diversification in aquaculture. Aquaculture https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739837 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739837
Laakso, M. & Taagepera, R. “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comp. Polit. Stud. 12(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407901200101 (1979).
doi: 10.1177/001041407901200101
Lijphart, A. Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945–1990 (Oxford, 1994; online edn, Oxford Academic, 3 Oct. 2011) (1994). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198273479.001.0001 .
Ordover, J. A., Sykes, A. O. & Willig, R. D. Herfindahl concentration, rivalry, and mergers. Harvard Law Rev. 95(8), 1857–1874. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340652 (1982).
doi: 10.2307/1340652
Jost, L. Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology. 88(10), 2427–2439. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1736.1 (2007) (Erratum in: Ecology. 2009. 90 (12), 3593).
doi: 10.1890/06-1736.1
pubmed: 18027744
Tuomisto, H. A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 1. Defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma diversity. Ecography. 33(1), 2–22 (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05880.x
Jost, L. The relation between evenness and diversity. Diversity 2, 207–232. https://doi.org/10.3390/d2020207 (2010).
doi: 10.3390/d2020207
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). FAOSTAT data on crops and livestock products 1961–2021. Updated on 16 December, 2022. Rome (2022). www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL .
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Top 10 species groups in global aquaculture 2020. World Aquaculture Performance Indicators (WAPI) factsheet. Rome (2022). www.fao.org/3/cc0723en/cc0723en.pdf .
Cai, J., Lovatelli, A., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Cornish, L., Dabbadie, L., Desrochers, A., Diffey, S., Garrido Gamarro, E., Geehan, J., Hurtado, A., Lucente, D., Mair, G., Miao, W., Potin, P., Przybyla, C., Reantaso, M., Roubach, R., Tauati, M. & Yuan, X. Seaweeds and microalgae: an overview for unlocking their potential in global aquaculture development. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1229. Rome, FAO (2021). https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5670en .
Theuerkauf, S. J. et al. Habitat value of bivalve shellfish and seaweed aquaculture for fish and invertebrates: Pathways, synthesis and next steps. Rev. Aquac. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12584 (2021).
doi: 10.1111/raq.12584
Willer, D. F., Nicholls, R. J. & Aldridge, D. C. Opportunities and challenges for upscaled global bivalve seafood production. Nat. Food. 2, 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00423-5 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00423-5
pubmed: 37118255
Dury, S., Bendjebbar, P., Hainzelin, E., Giordano, T. and Bricas, N., eds. Food systems at risk: New trends and challenges. Rome, Montpellier, Brussels, FAO, CIRAD and European Commission (2019). https://doi.org/10.19182/agritrop/00080 .
Narwal, N. et al. Emerging micropollutants in aquatic ecosystems and nanotechnology-based removal alternatives: A review. Chemosphere 341, 139945 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139945
pubmed: 37648158
Jenila, J. S., Issac, P. K., Lam, S. S., Oviya, J. C., Jones, S., Munusamy-Ramanujam, G., Chang, S. W., Ravindran, B., Mannacharaju, M., Ghotekar, S., Khoo, K. S. Deleterious effect of gestagens from wastewater effluent on fish reproduction in aquatic environment: A review. Environ. Res. 116810 (2023).
Chan, C. Y. et al. The future of fish in Africa: Employment and investment opportunities. PLoS One 16(12), e0261615. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261615 (2021).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261615
pubmed: 34936682
pmcid: 8694441
Jennings, S. et al. 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. Fish. 17(4), 893–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12152 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/faf.12152
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Aquaculture growth potential in Africa. WAPI factsheet to facilitate evidence-based policymaking and sector management in aquaculture. World Aquaculture Performance Indicators (WAPI). Rome, FAO (2020). www.fao.org/3/ca8179en/ca8179en.pdf .
El-Sayed, A.-F. M. Social and economic performance of tilapia farming in Egypt. In Social and economic performance of tilapia farming in Africa (eds. Cai, J., Quagrainie, K. K., Hishamunda, N.) 1–48. (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1130., 2017). www.fao.org/3/i7258e/i7258e.pdf#page=13 .
Cai, J., Zhou, X. Contribution of aquaculture to total fishery production: the 50-percent mark. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter 60, 43–45. August, 2019 (2019). www.fao.org/3/ca5223en/ca5223en.pdf#page=43 .
Griffin, T., Conrad, Z., Peters, C., Ridberg, R. & Tyler, E. Regional self-reliance of the Northeast food system. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 30(4), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170514000027 (2015).
doi: 10.1017/S1742170514000027