Explore the vast range of titles available.

Aquaculture is a rapidly growing food production technology, but there are significant concerns related to its environmental impact and adverse social effects. We examine aquaculture outcomes in a three pillars of sustainability framework by analyzing data collected using the Aquaculture Performance Indicators. Using this approach, comparable data has been collected for 57 aquaculture systems worldwide on 88 metrics that measure social, economic, or environmental outcomes. We first examine the relationships among the three pillars of sustainability and then analyze performance in the three pillars by technology and species. The results show that economic, social, and environmental outcomes are, on average, mutually reinforced in global aquaculture systems. However, the analysis also shows significant variation in the degree of sustainability in different aquaculture systems, and weak performance of some production systems in some dimensions provides opportunity for innovative policy measures and investment to further align sustainability objectives.

Diseases are an important challenge in aquaculture. However, most of what is known about the effect of diseases comes from laboratory experiments. Using a farm-level data set containing sea lice infestation counts for all Norwegian salmon farms over an 84-month period, we empirically investigate the biological and economic impacts of observed levels of infective lice. Sea lice, a common ectoparasitic copepod of salmonids, have been shown to reduce fish growth and appetite and cause substantial costs to salmon farmers worldwide. Our results suggest that the percent of total biomass growth lost per production cycle due to average infestations varies from 3.62 to 16.55%, despite control, and depends on farm location. Using a discrete harvesting model, we simulate the economic impact on farm profits over typical cycles. An average infestation over a typical central region spring-release cycle generates damages of US$0.46 per kg of harvested biomass, equivalent to 9% of farm revenues. We estimate that lice parasitism produced US$436m in damages to the Norwegian industry in 2011.

Since the Blue Revolution began in the late 1960s, global aquaculture production has grown rapidly. Aquaculture now accounts for over half of the world's fish for direct human consumption and is expected to approach two-thirds by 2030. With aquaculture's growth, a number of high-profile concerns have arisen, including pollution, feeding practices, disease management and antibiotic use, habitat use, non-native species, food safety, fraud, animal welfare, impacts on traditional wild fisheries, access to water and space, market competition, and genetics. Managing these concerns requires thoughtful and well-designed policies and regulations. This manuscript reviews the contributions natural resource economics has made to evaluating aquaculture policy and regulation. Despite their valuable contributions, however, economists have been largely underrepresented in the debate. The primary influencers of aquaculture policies and regulations have been traditional fisheries managers, environmental groups, and natural scientists. We identify many important areas that should be more thoroughly addressed by economists.

Sustainability of global fisheries is a growing concern. The United Nations has identified three pillars of sustainability: economic development, social development, and environmental protection. The fisheries literature suggests that there are two key trade-offs among these pillars of sustainability. First, poor ecological health of a fishery reduces economic profits for fishers, and second, economic profitability of individual fishers undermines the social objectives of fishing communities. Although recent research has shown that management can reconcile ecological and economic objectives, there are lingering concerns about achieving positive social outcomes. We examined trade-offs among the three pillars of sustainability by analyzing the Fishery Performance Indicators, a unique dataset that scores 121 distinct fishery systems worldwide on 68 metrics categorized by social, economic, or ecological outcomes. For each of the 121 fishery systems, we averaged the outcome measures to create overall scores for economic, ecological, and social performance. We analyzed the scores and found that they were positively associated in the full sample. We divided the data into subsamples that correspond to fisheries management systems with three categories of access—open access, access rights, and harvest rights—and performed a similar analysis. Our results show that economic, social, and ecological objectives are at worst independent and are mutually reinforcing in both types of managed fisheries. The implication is that rights-based management systems should not be rejected on the basis of potentially negative social outcomes; instead, social considerations should be addressed in the design of these systems.

The commons literature focuses heavily on rules and the behavior of resource users but places less emphasis on the returns to individual effort. However, for most resource settings, market conditions and associated resource prices are key drivers of exploitation effort. In a globalized world, import competition can strongly influence the incentives for individual resource users, a topic largely unexplored in the commons literature. Import competition is especially salient for seafood, one of the most internationally traded food groups. We analyze the US shrimp market, which was once dominated by domestic catches but is now mostly supplied by imports. For domestic producers (users of the commons), lower revenues result, while US consumers eat more shrimp at lower prices. Globalization changed the sources of price risk and compensation that domestic producers face and altered incentives to exploit the commons. In a market dominated by domestic supply shocks, the price response to a shock moderates the effect on revenue and effort. In a market dominated by imports, domestic shocks are buffered by import adjustments, while price movements are determined by global shocks. Despite losses for the domestic fishery, globalization creates new incentives to coordinate effort and capture price premiums determined in the global market.

World food prices hit an all-time high in February 2011 and are still almost two and a half times those of 2000. Although three billion people worldwide use seafood as a key source of animal protein, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations-which compiles prices for other major food categories-has not tracked seafood prices. We fill this gap by developing an index of global seafood prices that can help to understand food crises and may assist in averting them. The fish price index (FPI) relies on trade statistics because seafood is heavily traded internationally, exposing non-traded seafood to price competition from imports and exports. Easily updated trade data can thus proxy for domestic seafood prices that are difficult to observe in many regions and costly to update with global coverage. Calculations of the extent of price competition in different countries support the plausibility of reliance on trade data. Overall, the FPI shows less volatility and fewer price spikes than other food price indices including oils, cereals, and dairy. The FPI generally reflects seafood scarcity, but it can also be separated into indices by production technology, fish species, or region. Splitting FPI into capture fisheries and aquaculture suggests increased scarcity of capture fishery resources in recent years, but also growth in aquaculture that is keeping pace with demand. Regionally, seafood price volatility varies, and some prices are negatively correlated. These patterns hint that regional supply shocks are consequential for seafood prices in spite of the high degree of seafood tradability.

A rapidly growing literature shows that COVID-19 and the measures to contain the spread of the virus can have significant market impacts for seafood. These can be interruptions of production, or reductions in demand directly or indirectly due to supply chain challenges. In this paper we investigate the potential impacts of COVID-19 on seafood exports from Norway, the world's second largest seafood exporter, using highly detailed data from 2016 through May 2021. These data allow us to assess upstream impacts in the seafood supply chain close to the producer level in aggregate and by main sector, impacts on the largest products, and the extent to which export firm structure and export markets served have changed. We find very few impacts in aggregate as well as for individual products, suggesting that the markets and supply chains used by Norwegian seafood exports were sufficiently robust and flexible to accommodate the shocks created by COVID-19. Given Norway's size as a seafood exporter, the impact of COVID-19 has likely been moderate upstreams for a number of seafood sectors around the world, especially those in wealthy nations, with opportunities balancing out challenges, and that the supply chains have been highly resilient.

After opening up of the Interconnector, the liberalized UK natural gas market and the regulated Continental gas markets became physically integrated and the Continental gas price became dominant. However, in an interim period — after deregulation of the UK gas market (1995) and the opening up of the Interconnector (1998) — the UK gas market had neither government price regulation nor a physical Continental gas linkage. We use this period — which for natural gas markets displays an unusual combination of deregulation and autarky — as a natural experiment to explore if decoupling of natural gas prices from prices of other energy commodities, such as oil and electricity, took place. Monthly price data in the period 1995-1998 indicates a highly integrated market where wholesale demand seems to be for energy rather than a specific energy source.

Traceability is critical for achieving seafood sustainability goals. However, trade restrictions highlight challenges for identifying basic information, including country of harvest. We use new seafood trade data to illustrate how trade can elude enforcement using the case of responses following Russian sanctions and quantify pathways through which the US imports Russian-harvested products. We then discuss the current policy landscape for enforcing trade restrictions and highlight priorities for improving seafood traceability.