Vulnerability of overexploited fish stocks & the overcapacity in fisheries management in the context of future climate variability

Currently, the global opinion of oceanic resources is based on utilitarian views, believing fish stocks to be inexhaustible and ‘renewable’ (Clover 2006). This can be highlighted through the overconsumption and widespread reliance on fish as a major source of protein in the diets of developing and developed nations alike (Allison et al. 2009, FAO 2014). Today, global fisheries management has aimed to regulate exploitation rates of targeted species by implementing total allowable catches (TACs), exclusive economic zones (EEZs), marine protected areas (MPAs) and individual transferable quotas (ITQs). However, the industry still experiences major challenges, including illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, overexploitation and overcapacity (FAO 2014).

The following report aims to investigate whether the overexploitation of marine fisheries will increase the vulnerability of fish stocks in a changing climate. The present study will focus on marine capture fisheries to elucidate issues within the longevity of global resource management. The history of fisheries management will be examined as well as past and current measures and the impacts of climate change to the sustainability of the industry. Australia has been utilised as a case study to contrast local responses to this global problem, with recommendations suggested based on the findings of the present report. Limitations to the following report include broad recommendations, as there are currently many unknowns and gaps within data of fisheries management.

Background

Fish, a natural food source rich in fatty acids, vitamins and minerals (Johnson & Welch 2010), contributes upwards of 50% of the dietary animal protein intake per capita in some of the world’s poorest regions (Ye et al. 2013). Since the early 1960’s pressure has been mounting on global catches due to population growth with average yearly fish consumption increasing from 9.9kg to 19.2kg in 2012 (FAO 2014). In the Western world, this has meant rising strain on grocery stores and restaurants alike to have a continuous fresh supply of seafood, creating further intensifying fishing effort and therefore depleting global fish stocks (Blackford 2009).

Industrial fishing began at the turn of the twentieth century in British waters with early management regulating catches via the implementation of time limits and seasonal restrictions (Blackford 2009). When the fishing industry adopted technologies established in World War II in the 1950’s such as radar and sonar to match the demand for fish, the United Nations responded through regulation of EEZs, TAC’s for each species and Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) for commercial fishing (Blackford 2009).

In the 1990’s fisheries again increased technological efficiencies by adopting remote sensing and global positioning systems to increase the breadth of exploration to the high seas, further strengthening fishing effort (Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008). Improvements in technology coupled with longline catching, increase in ship size and improvements to freezing and refrigeration, ships had the ability to stay at sea for months on end (Blackford 2009), processing fish directly on board during fishing seasons (Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008; FAO 2014). Whilst such advancements have certainly contributed to fishing effort ever increasing since the 1960’s, government subsidies also play an important role in enticing employees into the market, creating overcapacity (Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008,9). To avoid low catches per fisher, fisheries turned to illegal fishing (IUU), misreporting true catches, as local penalties, globally, have been insufficient in deterring illegal activities (Clover 2006; Beddington, Agnew & Clark 2007).

Ye et al. (2013) demonstrated the global economic worth of fisheries has declined from $46 billion in 1989 to $5 billion in 2004 due to overcapacity in fishing fleets which in turn drives overexploitation in target species. Whilst global marine catches have decreased from a peak 86.3million tonnes in 1996 to 79.7 million tonnes in 2012 (FAO 2014), the number of fishers has more than doubled from 12 million in 1970 to 34 million in 2008 and the number of vessels has increased nine-fold over the same time period (Ye et al. 2013).

UNEP highlights that nearly 80% of the world’s fisheries species are considered at or close to harvest capacity (Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008). Overexploitation or high capacity fishing over the past decade has led to other stressors such as habitat loss, invasive species and pollution (Johnson & Welch 2010; IPCCb 2013), as well as continual depletion of target stocks (Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008,2) and loss of biodiversity (Nanola, Alino & Carpenter 2011) through bycatch mortality (Johnson & Welch 2010). The overexploitation of fish can lead to a reduction in age, size, genetic diversity and reproductive success (Johnson & Welch 2010; Nanola, Alino & Carpenter 2011; FAO 2014), forcing populations to be more dependent on annual recruitment, reducing their ability to counter environmental fluctuations (IPCCb 2013). Conversely, however, research shows that stocks that have been moderately fished demonstrate improvements in their resilience and rebuild time (Neubauer et al. 2013).

Exposure to climate variability when stocks are recovering can result in sustained change across many levels of marine food web interactions. (Harsem & Hoel 2013) This can result in a decrease in primary productivity (Salinger & Hobday 2013; Hollowed et al. 2013) and top predator and prey species interactions being catastrophically affected (Harsem & Hoel 2013; Salinger et al. 2013), potentially generating dominance switching and ecosystem reorganisation (Hollowed et al. 2013). Furthermore, Hollowed and colleagues (2013) believes that adaptation to climate change may improve through generations of targeted marine life that display a history absent of overexploitation.

After overexploitation has been recorded, most catch reductions are introduced too late (Johnson & Welch 2010; Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008) with the delay prolonging the recovery time and only intensifying pressures of rebuild (Neubauer et al. 2013). Additionally, Ye et al. (2013) and DAFF (2013) revealed that recovery of depleted stocks may take decades to recover in climate variability, even after fishing effort has been removed, compromising their ability to be resilient in times of distress (Johnson & Welch 2010). Recent recovery of globally exploited fish stocks has been slow, with only 1% successfully rebuilt in the last 15 years and the majority still below target biomass levels (Neubauer et al. 2013; Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008).

In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) set targets for fisheries to maintain and restore the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of stocks by 2015 (Ye et al. 2013; Neubauer et al. 2013). In 2008, whilst Ye and colleagues (2013) found 68% of global fisheries were still at or above MSY, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) successfully certified over 135 fisheries as globally sustainable (Smith, Smith & Webb 2012; Blackford 2009). Successful fisheries management is based on a balance between biological, economic, social and political objectives (Beddington, Agnew & Clark 2007; Allison et al. 2009). Unfortunately the management of global fish stocks and allowable catches is based on single-species’ models from over 50 years ago, which doesn’t account for either inter-species relationships, climate change variables or a balance between economic, social, political and biological factors (Beddington, Agnew & Clark 2007).

IPCCa (2013) believes with high confidence that destructive overfishing will amplify and enhance the vulnerability and sensitivity of natural systems to any additional disturbances as a result of climate change. Research indicates global warming will have direct ecological impacts to fish populations such as increased stratification (leading to lower nutrient availability, reduced oxygen levels, and oceanic acidification (Salinger & Hobday 2013; Hollowed et al. 2013), sea level rise, changing ocean currents (Hollowed et al. 2013), increase sea surface temperature (Allison et al. 2009) and change in salinity (Salinger et al. 2013). Such variability in habitat will consequently lead to changes in productivity, population dynamics of species (Salinger et al. 2013) and the availability of sustainable harvests (Hollowed et al. 2013). Exposure to increasing global ocean temperatures and lowering PH levels may potentially affect the physiology, distribution, and life cycle (Adebo & Ayelari 2011; Johnson & Welch 2010) as well as forming issues with the reproductive performance of marine fish (Johnson & Welch 2010). Furthermore, IPCCb (2013) conditions with medium confidence that future catch size will have to be altered due to warming effects of climate change modifying the body size of fish species.

Australia has been recognised globally as implementing strong ecosystem-based management, employing the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy to enforce biomass/catch limits, bycatch policies (Smith, Smith & Webb, 2012; Australian Fisheries Management Authority 2013), and apply stock rebuilding strategies to proactively recover overfished stocks and ensure long term sustainability and productivity (DAFF 2013). Valued at just 1.4billion, (Johnson & Welch 2010) Australia has attempted to improve the economic return by decreasing fishing effort and avoiding overcapacity (Australian Fisheries Management Authority 2013), effectively reducing the amount of overexploited fisheries from 24 in 2005 to 18 in 2008 (Ye et al. 2013), with 53% currently considered as sustainably managed by the MSC (Smith, Smith & Webb, 2012). However, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2013) indicates climate change modeling has not been incorporated in the current management policies and procedures, despite research indicating that predicted increases in ocean temperatures are likely to cause a 35% reduction in economic value of Australian fisheries by 2070.

Discussion

Advanced management systems utilised in countries such as Australia have effectively prevented stock depletion through input measures, such as limiting vessel numbers and restricting fishing seasons, more rapidly than in countries with simple output measures or TACs (Caddy 1998; Beddington, Agnew & Clark 2007). TAC-regulated fisheries have been driven through competition for government incentives, and have subsequently led to overcapacity, resulting in lower catches per fishing effort and reduced economic outcomes for employees (Beddington, Agnew & Clark 2007). ITQs have proven to be a more successful alternative strategy to eliminate high competition and to effectively support conservation measures. However, misreporting and illegal fishing still occurs as only wealthier nations can afford to implement policing of such behaviours (Beddington, Agnew & Clark 2007; FAO 2014). Originally set up to reduce the effects of trawling on seafloor structures (Johnson & Welch 2010; Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008), only ecosystem-based management approaches have successfully targeted the reduction of bycatch through MPAs (Beddington, Agnew & Clark 2007).  

Beddington (cited in Ye et al. 2013) believes that overexploitation has arrived due to open access or ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Caddy 1998) coupled with national government subsidies for fisheries. Incentives for fishing are currently encouraging overfishing and should be redirected towards funding for the regrowth of depleted stock levels (Ye et al. 2013; Clover 2006). UNEP recommends, “Governments need to respond with more urgency” in strategically and sustainably managing fisheries (Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008). Globally, there is an apparent need to introduce additional MPAs to target conservation effort towards protecting biodiversity hotspots (Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008; Clover 2006) and coastal habitats such as coral reefs for life stage development for migratory fish populations (Johnson & Welch 2010).

Both IPCCa (2013) and IPCCb (2013) alike state with high confidence that local measures or global reductions in fishing effort will not be sufficient in offsetting current damages to marine ecosystems. Current population forecasts suggest that only 6 of 22 Pacific Island nations will be able to meet the demand for fish in 2030, suggesting that current consumer and dietary behaviour will have to adjust unquestionably (Smith, Smith & Webb 2012; Clover 2006). In addition, the majority of population growth until 2050 is predicted to occur in nations that currently rely heavily on the protein source of fish (UN-DESA cited in Hollowed et al. 2013), again reiterating the importance of dietary changes to the elimination of pressure on the overexploitation of the fishing industry. Merino et al. (cited in Hollowed et al. 2013) demonstrated that even with improved management, if current consumption continues, collapse of fisheries management is inevitable.

(Ye et al. 2013) considers that fisheries will unfortunately soon be looking more towards high sea fishing due to shallow fishing grounds being depleted, running higher risks of overexploitation due to the life span, reproduction rates and low fecundity of deep sea fish (Nellemann, Hain & Alder 2008; Johnson & Welch 2010).

This study recommends along with Nellemann, Hain & Alder (2008), IPCCa (2013) and IPCCb (2013) alike that there is an inherent need for fisheries management to adopt sustainable ecosystem-based management techniques that remain flexible in the face of climate adversity and aim to reduce and rebuild overexploited stocks (Johnson & Welch, 2010; Harsem & Hoel 2013). Safe biological limits are currently modeled around outdated and narrow focused data that is only further disillusioning public perceptions on the state of the world’s fisheries (Beddington, Agnew & Clark 2007).   It is subsequently recommended for fisheries scientists and climate change experts to collaborate in order to establish holistic models for sustainable catches.    

IPCCb (2013), Johnson & Welch (2010), Nellemann, Hain & Alder (2008) and Harsem & Hoel (2013) unanimously agree that the weaknesses of overexploited fish stocks will be further exacerbated in future climate change conditions. There is an apparent need for a combined approach to fisheries management that incorporates best practice sustainable yields, increased focus on the reduction in illegal fishing through higher penalties, decrease in incentive based catches, restoration of depleted stocks through encouragement, as well as stricter harvest policies. Additionally, there is a need to address data-poor and undersampled fisheries so as to better capture a true understanding of global statistics and further predict changes in the marine environment. (Smith, Smith & Webb 2012; Hollowed et al. 2013) 

Conclusion

The present study aimed to elucidate whether overcapacity and overexploitation in fisheries management would lead to increased sensitivity within fish stocks to climate change. Research demonstrated, in summary, there is high confidence that overfishing is enhancing the vulnerability of fish populations to climate disturbances, with current exploited stocks potentially collapsing due to prolonged recovery time in temperature uncertainty (IPCCb 2013; Johnson & Welch 2010; Hollowed et al. 2013). Fisheries have responded to current statistics by moving from depleted shallow fishing grounds to high seas in discovery of new target species to replace overexploited stocks. However, deep-sea fish present higher vulnerabilities to both climate change and overexploitation and such methods will only compound pressures on the sustainable longevity of fisheries (Ye et al. 2013).  

Success has been found in the management of Australian fisheries, which has implemented ecosystem-based management, bycatch policies, harvest strategies and recovery methods for depleted target species on a national scale. Recommendations have revealed the need for progression away from output management strategies such as TAC’s and ITQ’s and toward input measure utilised by Australian fisheries management. These include the limiting of vessel numbers, ship size, restrictions on fishing seasons, implementation of MPAs and reduction of government funding.

Research has highlighted an inherent need to bridge gaps of incomplete data retrieval in order to build truer models to reveal optimum biological sustainable catches. The future and prosperity of natural resource management during climate uncertainty relies on collaboration with climate change experts in order to implement climate variables into such models (Salinger et al. 2013).

To avoid global collapse of fisheries in the somewhat near future, management must also adopt sustainable methods of adhering to MSYs, avoid fishing techniques such as longline fishing that produce bycatch mortality, penalise and police IUU fishing and promote MSC award status. However, this report has also revealed that this, in itself, will not be sufficient in the sustainability of fisheries. There is a major need to lower the pressure from consumer habits of developing nations globally, distributing protein sources evenly within diets.      

Finally, fisheries must create maintain flexible management in order to be adaptable in future climate change. However, this can only be executed if a base understanding of current situations is acquired (Harsem & Hoel 2013; Salinger et al. 2013). Education for stakeholders to comprehend the implications of overfishing to the permanency of fisheries management will help in the sustainability of targeted species and the facilitation and recovery of depleted stocks (Beddington, Agnew & Clark 2007).

Adebo, G.M & Ayelari, T.A 2011, Climate change and vulnerability of fish farmers in Southwestern Nigeria, African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 6, no. 18, pp. 4230-4238.

Allison, E.H, Perry, A.L, Badjeck, M.C, Adger, W.N, Brown, K, Conway, D, Halls, A.S, Pilling, G.M, Reynolds, J.D, Andrew, N.L & Dulvy, N.K 2009, Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries, Fish and Fisheries, Vol. 10, pp. 173-196.

Australian Fisheries Management Authority 2013, Australian Fisheries Management Authority Annual Report 2012-2013, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Beddington, J.R, Agnew, D.J & Clark, C.W 2007, Current Problems in the management of Marine Fisheries, Science, vol. 316, pp. 1713-1716.

Blackford, M.G 2009, Fishers, Fishing, and Overfishing: American Experiences in Global Perspectives 1976-2006, Business History Review, vol. 83, pp. 239-266.

Caddy, J.F 1998, Fisheries management in the twenty-first century: will new paradigms apply?, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 9, pp. 1-43.

Clover, C 2006, The End of the Line: How Overfishing is Changing the World and What We Eat, New Press, New York.

DAFF 2013, Report on the review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Erickson, A.L 2008, Out of Stock: Strengthening International Fishery Regulations to Achieve a Healthier Ocean, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 282-323.

FAO 2014, The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Harsem, O & Hoel, A.H 2013, Climate Change and adaptive capacity in fisheries management: the case of Norway, Int Environ Agreements, vol. 13, pp. 49-63.

Hollowed, A.B, Barange, M, Beamish, R.J, Brander, K, Cochrane, K, Drinkwater, K, Foreman, M.G.G, Hare, J.A, Holt, J, Ito, S, Kim, S, King, J.R, Leong, H, MacKenzie, B.R, Mueter, F.J, Okey, T.A, Peck, M.A, Radchenko, V.I, Rice, J.C, Shrirripa, M.J, Yatsu, A & Yamanaka, Y 2013, Projected impacts of climate change on marine fish and fisheries, ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 1023-1037.

IPCCa 2013, Food Security and Food Production Systems, In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (Porter, J.R, Xie, L, Challinor, A, Cochrane, K, Howden, M, Iqbal, M.M, Lobell, D & Travasso M.A (eds.)), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

IPCCb 2013, Ocean Systems, In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (Portner, H, Karl, D, Boyd, P.W, Cheung, W, Lluch-Cota, S.W, Nojiri, Y, Schmidt, D & Zavialov, P (eds.)), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Johnson, J.E & Welch, D.J 2010, Marine Fisheries Management in a Changing Climate: A Review of Vulnerability and Future Options, Reviews in Fisheries Science, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 106-124.

Nanola, C.L, Alino, P.M & Carpenter, K.E 2011, Exploitation-related reef fish species richness depletion in the epicenter or marine biodiversity, Environ Biol Fish, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 405-420.

Nellemann, C, Hain, S & Alder, J 2008, In Dead Water – Merging of climate change with pollution, over-harvest, and infestations in the world’s fishing grounds, United Nations Environmental Program, GRID-Arendal, Norway.

Neubauer, P, Jensen, O.P, Hutchings, J.A & Baum, J.K 2013, Resilience and Recovery of Overexploited Marine Populations, Science, vol. 340, pp. 347-349.

Salinger, J, Bell, J.D, Evans, K, Hobday, A.J, Allain, V, Brander, K, Dexter, P, Harrison, D.E, Hollowed, A.B, Lee, B & Stefanski, R 2013, Climate and oceanic fisheries: recent observations and projections and future needs, Climate Change, vol. 119, pp. 213-221.

Salinger, J & Hobday, A.J 2013, Safeguarding the future of oceanic fisheries under climate change depends on timely preparation, Climate Change, vol. 119, pp. 3-8.

Smith, D.C, Smith, T & Webb, H 2012, Status of Australia’s commercial fisheries: a global and regional perspective, Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 84-86.

Ye, Y, Cochrane, K, Binachi, G, Willmann, R, Majkowski, J, Tandstad, M & Carocci, F 2013, Rebuilding global fisheries: the World Summit Goal, costs and benefits, Fish and Fisheries, vol. 14, pp. 175-185.

Agricultural past, present & future: How agricultural step changes have altered future societal & environmental responses to food security.

The following essay aims to investigate how agriculture has altered global societies from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to the consumer behaviours of the modern world. The present study will focus on the two major agricultural steps changes throughout history that have altered agro-ecosystem inputs and created consequential environmental responses. Possible pathways for food production environments will be examined in the context of future population predictions. Conservative recommendations have been made due to each productive environment globally requiring assessment on individual merit in order to elucidate the most fitting outcome.

Background

Coalescent study and archaeological evidence suggests that the invention of agriculture is linked to a concurrent fivefold global population increase unnoted in past hunter-gatherer expansions (Gignoux, Henn, & Mountain, 2011). The inception of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago (Cunniff, Charles, Jones, & Osbourne, 2010; Kesavan, 2015) involved the development from an unconscious selection of tough (shatterproof) rachis wild plants toward a conscious propagation of genetically mutated gatherings, ultimately leading to the domestication of crops such as wheat (Reed, 1977). Whilst environmental changes at the end of the Pleistocene glacial period may have largely catalysed the shift in hunter-gatherers to pursue the development of technologies, tool production, and the desire to plant and store grain, evolutionary adaptations and social changes were likewise intrinsic for agricultural development to augment independently around the world (Reed, 1977), in areas such as Mesopotamia, Asia, America and New Guinea (Cunniff et al., 2010; Kesavan, 2015).

Similarly, Kesavan (2015) and Reed (1977) state that agricultural revolution introduced a primary dependence on cereal grains, altering diets on a global scale and subsequently supporting unprecedented population increase. Specifically, hunter-gatherer diets were reshaped, reducing and replacing high meat consumption with an increase of fruit, vegetable and grain, intensifying carbohydrates and starches in order to increase protein and caloric intakes (Diamond, 1987). Furthermore, the domestication of plants and animals enabled nomadic lifestyles to transform into more permanent settlements centralised around concentrated food sources in order to establish avant-garde agricultural surplus. Diamond (1987) further argues that this ability to store food was the facilitator behind societal change, class division and disparity of wealth. Moreover, at the beginning of the 19th Century, when the global population had increased to 950 million from 10 million at the beginning of the 1st Century BCE, Thomas Malthus was already warning of the finite nature of earth’s resources, alerting of the issues that the world may face if continuing the pursuit of agricultural surplus (Reed, 1977; Standage, 2009; Kesavan, 2015).

Nethertheless, in order to sustain higher population densities and a global increase to 1.6 billion people at the beginning of the 20th Century, land use change accelerated, transforming natural ecosystems into large scale farming operations and more recently into intensive agriculture productions. Smil (1999) argues that the 1913 commercial introduction of the Haber-Bosch synthesisation of ammonia for fertiliser usage was one of the most important inventions of the 20th century, revolutionising the dependence on organic waste fertiliser and crop rotations, efficaciously increasing crop production and supporting faster yields. Whilst the connection between the use of synthetic fertiliser and population increase to 6 billion at the close of the 20th century is undoubted, whether such an innovation was either a positive or negative critical step change for the evolution of agriculture is highly debated (Kesavan, 2015). Kesavan (2015) asserts that such processes as the Haber-Bosch have been detrimental to the balance of the nitrogen cycle and the sustainability of agriculture. Most recently Norman Borlaug was at the forefront of “The Green Revolution” in the mid 20th Century, advocating the modernisation of agricultural management to incorporate large-scale irrigation, hybridisation of seeds and the integration of synthetic fertilisers, and pesticides. Contrarily, the recent findings of Kesavan (2015) suggest that the Green Revolution should be rendered as exploitative agriculture, concerned with national economic success rather than global food security.  

Discussion

Despite the growth index decreasing (OECD Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2015), the global population is still projected to increase to 9 billion by the mid 21st century (Reeves, 1999; Ackerman, Conard, Culligan, Plunz, Sutto, & Whittinghill, 2013). According to Reeves (1999) currently over 840 million people are going hungry with another two billion malnourished. Similarly to Diamond’s (1987) previous argument, WHO (2015) calculates over 600 million registered as obese in 2014, and yet one in seven people globally do not receive adequate levels of protein or energy (Godfray, Beddington, Crute, Haddad, Lawrence, Muir, & Toulmin, 2010) displaying that famine and poverty is concurrently prevalent alongside overexploitation and greed.

Agriculture is credited for upwards of 20% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due largely to transport, food processing and land use change, as well as an alarming 56% (2005) of anthropocentric non-CO2 GHG emissions due to ruminant livestock and soil management. However, whilst consequences owing to ruminant livestock emissions are commonly understood, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) caution that overuse of synthetic fertilisers, may soon overtake livestock emissions in less than a decade, growing exponentially at a rate of 3.9% per year (Smith et al., 2014).

Considering that agriculture is reliant upon direct weather inputs such as rainfall, sunlight and carbon dioxide (CO2) for the photosynthetic process to construct biomass (Criveanu, & Sperdea, 2014), the IPCC further warns that current feedback loops may be accelerating climate change via evapotranspiration and albedo effects, potentially affecting future crop yields (Smith et al., 2014). Interestingly, Kesavan (2015) argues that higher CO2 concentrations may see positive effects for yields, however, subsequent temperature increases from higher atmospheric CO2 levels may adversely effect agricultural processes. As it stands, agriculture is already responsible for 92% of global fresh water usage; suggested future intensification of unpredictable precipitation due to climate change may lead to potential imbalance for global agricultural input requirements.

Smil (2001), although very obstinate that nearly half of the global population owe their existence to the Haber-Bosch process, acknowledges the manufacture of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, retaining an open state nutrient cycle, effectually renders organic manure as obsolete, driving the compounding issue of waste product removal linked to water pollution.

Globally, cereals continue as the principal protein and energy component in cross-cultural diets (OECD, 2015; Wyman, 2013). Within the past half-century more affluent developed countries have exhibited diversification of diet to incorporate higher vegetable and fruit intakes to increase nutritional levels. Such a solution may not be feasible for developing nations, however, OECD (2015) recognises the importance of increasing crop production of low-cost root vegetables such as sweet potato and taro to diversify indigent cultures starch intakes. Moreover, such crop alternatives offer a higher nutritional gain in comparison to wheat, rice or maize, require less land for cultivation and are more tolerant to varying climatic conditions.

Agricultural management will soon need to assess the suitability of irrigating certain crops in areas of unpredictable precipitation, shifting to the use of drought tolerance crop species in order to not exacerbate future threats of depleting fresh water reserves (Wyman, 2015). The future of genetically modified (GM) crops should be geared towards nutrient efficiency so to try and combat this issue (Smil, 2001). Furthermore, Giampietro (1994) suggests that GM has the ability to either help or hinder the current agricultural situation, and hopes that importance is placed on developing productive drought tolerant species or technological improvements to fertilisers to see reversals of current environmental degradation rather than attention placed purely on economic return. Similarly, discussion is required around the suitability and outcome of land use for either crop fields, livestock grazing or for the competition of first generation biofuels or fibre plants (Godfray et al., 2010). Environmental assessments would do well to map whether inputs into each system appropriately meet energy outputs, nutritional gaps, products and global needs.

IPCC’s latest assessment report urges for the reduction of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) emissions from livestock and soil management respectively (Wyman, 2013; Smith et al., 2014). Improved dietary feeding of livestock may potentially reduce enteric fermentation in ruminants, with nutritional shifts to increase perennial grasses in replacement of cereal feed allowing more harvest to be allocated for human consumption rather than livestock.

As previously discussed, there is current competition for land use by first generation biofuels, hoping to cut environmental emissions from the fossil-fuel-dependent transport industry. Likewise, global land area dedicated for cotton farming is increasing on a yearly basis. Both IPCC (Smith et al., 2014) and WWF (2015) highlight current biofuel and cotton farming practices to be incredibly inefficient, and in the latter case, input upwards of 20,000L of water in order to produce 1kg of product (Wyman, 2013). Similarly, current biofuel production involves large-scale irrigation and fertiliser inputs, hence, IPCC have warned that for future food security and reversal of environmental degradation due to overuse, cutbacks of biofuel are essential (Smith et al., 2014). However, such changes alone will not secure a positive food production future and adoptions must be made to conserve carbon stocks by reducing land use change and increasing sustainable intensification.    

After the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s, Cuba underwent a shift towards organic urban farming due to the loss of chemical fertiliser resources and as such experienced a direct reduction in GHG emissions. Such urban farming may also be a solution to reduce food miles, supplement insufficient household incomes of poorer nations, mitigate against the ever-increasing effects of UHI (urban heat islands) and reduce wastage from transport spoilage (Ackerman et al., 2013). Ackerman et al. (2013) additionally discusses the potential to create synergy through fodder legume crop rotations to bridge the loss of synthetic fertilisers, aid in nutrient cycling and support healthier ruminant dietary intakes.  

However, such alterations to current practices cannot be achieved independently without government support and subsidiaries and change to policy. In fact, Ringler et al. (2010) identifies that underinvestment in such areas may be a major contributing cause of current trends.

Conclusion

Paradoxically, 20th Century technological advancements once considered as providing food security and surplus, are now painting a Malthusian future, responsible for creating environmental concerns, from overexploitation of finite resources, now threatening future agricultural practices (Reed, 1977; Standage, 2009). In order to create sustainable outcomes for future generations the agricultural sector would do well to return to sustainable irrigation practices, and organic farming. Smil (2001) and Giampetro (1994) alike, suggest that scientific research should be aimed at finding solutions for nutrient efficiency and drought resistant crops to protect against future climatic conditions. However, local, national and global governments and organisations should collaboratively alter policies to shift food wastage, illogical trade and export patterns and the focus on economical gain from the industry in order to meet the future needs of the global human population.   

Ackerman, K., Conard, M., Culligan, P., Plunz, R., Sutto, M. P., & Whittinghill, L. (2013). Sustainable Food Systems for Future Cities: The Potential of Urban Agriculture. The Economic and Social Review, 45(2), 189-206.

Australian Government Department of Agriculture. (2015). Australian food statistics 2012-13. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. 

Criveanu, R. C. & Sperdea, N. M. (2014). Organic Agriculture, Climate Change, and Food Security. Economics, Management and Financial Markets, 9(1), 118-123.

Cunniff, J., Charles, M., Jones, G., & Osbourne, C. P. (2010). Was low atmospheric Co2 a limiting factor in the origin of agriculture?. Environmental Archaeology, 15(2), 113-123.

Diamond, J. (1987). The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race. Discover Magazine, 1987,95-98.

Giampietro, M. (1994). Sustainability and Technological Development in Agriculture: A critical appraisal of genetic engineering. BioScience, 44(10), 677-688.

Gignoux, C. R., Henn, B. M., & Mountain, J. L. (2011). Rapid, global demographic expansions after the origins of agriculture. PNAS, 108(15), 6044-6049.

Godfray, H. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science, 327(1), 812-816.

Kemp, D. R., Michalk, D. L & Virgona, J. M. (2000). Towards more sustainable pastures: lessons learnt. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 40(1), 343-356.

Kesavan, P. C. (2015). Shaping science as the prime mover of sustainable agriculture for food and nutrition security in an era of environmental degradation and climate change. Current Science, 109(3), 488-501.

OECD Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Reed, C. A. (Eds.). (1977). Origins of Agriculture. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Reeves, T. G. (1999). Intensification for the nine billion. Nature Biotechnology, 17, 33-34.

Ringler, C., Biswas, A. K. & Cline, S. A. (Eds.). (2010). Global Change: Impacts on Water and Food Security. New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Smil, V. (1999). Detonator of the Population Explosion. Nature, 400, 415.

Smil, V. (2001). Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch & the Transformation of World Food Production. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Smith P. M., Bustamante, H., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, E. A., Elsiddig, H., Haberl, R., Harper, J., House, M., Jafari, O., Masera, C., Mbow, N. H., Ravindranath, C. W., Rice, C., Robledo Abad, A., Romanovskaya, F., Sperling, & F. Tubiello. (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y., Sokona, E., Farahani, S., Kadner, K., Seyboth, A., Adler, I., Baum, S., Brunner, P., Eickemeier, B., Kriemann, J., Savolainen, S., Schlömer, C., von Stechow, T., Zwickel & J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Standage, T. (2009). An edible history of humanity. New York : Walker & Co.

WHO. (2015). Obesity. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/.

Wyman, R. J. (2013). The Effects of Population on the Depletion of Fresh Water. Population and Development Review, 39(4), 687-704.

WWF World Wide Fund For Nature. (2015). Cotton: a water-wasting crop. Retrieved from: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/freshwater_problems/thirsty_crops/cotton/.