Chapter 17 - Fisheries and seafood security under changing oceans

Agriculture production is directly dependent on climate change and weather. Possible changes in temperature, precipitation and CO2 concentration are expected to significantly impact crop growth and ultimately we lose our crop productivity and indirectly affect the sustainable food availability issue. The overall impact of climate change on worldwide food production is considered to be low to moderate with successful adaptation and adequate irrigation. Climate change has a serious impact on the availability of various resources on the earth especially water, which sustains life on this planet. The global food security situation and outlook remains delicately imbalanced amid surplus food production and the prevalence of hunger, due to the complex interplay of social, economic, and ecological factors that mediate food security outcomes at various human and institutional scales. Weather aberration poses complex challenges in terms of increased variability and risk for food producers and the energy and water sectors. Changes in the biosphere, biodiversity and natural resources are adversely affecting human health and quality of life. Throughout the 21st century, India is projected to experience warming above global level. India will also begin to experience more seasonal variation in temperature with more warming in the winters than summers. Longevity of heat waves across India has extended in recent years with warmer night temperatures and hotter days, and this trend is expected to continue. Strategic research priorities are outlined for a range of sectors that underpin global food security, including: agriculture, ecosystem services from agriculture, climate change, international trade, water management solutions, the water-energy-food security nexus, service delivery to smallholders and women farmers, and better governance models and regional priority setting. There is a need to look beyond agriculture and invest in affordable and suitable farm technologies if the problem of food insecurity is to be addressed in a sustainable manner. Introduction Globally, agriculture is one of the most vulnerable sectors to climate change. This vulnerability is relatively higher in India in view of the large population depending on agriculture and poor coping capabilities of small and marginal farmers. Impacts of climate change pose a serious threat to food security. “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (World Food Summit, 1996). This definition gives rise to four dimensions of food security: availability of food, accessibility (economically and physically), utilization (the way it is used and assimilated by the human body) and stability of these three dimensions. According to the United Nations, in 2015, there are still 836 million people in the world living in extreme poverty (less than USD1.25/day) (UN, 2015). And according to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), at least 70 percent of the very poor live in rural areas, most of them depending partly (or completely) on agriculture for their livelihoods. It is estimated that 500 million smallholder farms in the developing world are supporting almost 2 billion people, and in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa these small farms produce about 80 percent of the food consumed. Climate change threatens to reverse the progress made so far in the fight against hunger and malnutrition. As highlighted by the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC), climate change augments and intensifies risks to food security for the most vulnerable countries and populations. Few of the major risks induced by climate change, as identified by IPCC have direct consequences for food security (IPCC, 2007). These are mainly to loss of rural livelihoods and income, loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, livelihoods loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems and food insecurity (breakdown of food systems). Rural farmers, whose livelihood depends on the use of natural resources, are likely to bear the brunt of adverse impacts. Most of the crop simulation model runs and experiments under elevated temperature and carbon dioxide indicate that by 2030, a 3-7% decline in the yield of principal cereal crops like rice and wheat is likely in India by adoption of current production technologies. Global warming impacts growth, reproduction and yields of food and horticulture crops, increases crop water requirement, causes more soil erosion, increases thermal stress on animals leading to decreased milk yields and change the distribution and breeding season of fisheries. Fast changing climatic conditions, shrinking land, water and other natural resources with rapid growing population around the globe has put many challenges before us (Mukherjee, 2014). Food is going to be second most challenging issue for mankind in time to come. India will also begin to experience more seasonal variation in temperature with more warming in the winters than summers (Christensen et al., 2007). Climate change is posing a great threat to agriculture and food security in India and it's subcontinent. Water is the most critical agricultural input in India, as 55% of the total cultivated areas do not have irrigation facilities. Currently we are able to secure food supplies under these varying conditions. Under the threat of climate variability, our food grain production system becomes quite comfortable and easily accessible for local people. India's food grain production is estimated to rise 2 per cent in 2020-21 crop years to an all-time high of 303.34 million tonnes on better output of rice, wheat, pulse and coarse cereals amid good monsoon rains last year. In the 2019-20 crop year, the country's food grain output (comprising wheat, rice, pulses and coarse cereals) stood at a record 297.5 million tonnes (MT). Releasing the second advance estimates for 2020-21 crop year, the agriculture ministry said foodgrain production is projected at a record 303.34 MT. As per the data, rice production is pegged at record 120.32 MT as against 118.87 MT in the previous year. Wheat production is estimated to rise to a record 109.24 MT in 2020-21 from 107.86 MT in the previous year, while output of coarse cereals is likely to increase to 49.36 MT from 47.75 MT. Pulses output is seen at 24.42 MT, up from 23.03 MT in 2019-20 crop year. In the non-foodgrain category, the production of oilseeds is estimated at 37.31 MT in 2020-21 as against 33.22 MT in the previous year. Sugarcane production is pegged at 397.66 MT from 370.50 MT in the previous year, while cotton output is expected to be higher at 36.54 million bales (170 kg each) from 36.07. This production figure seem to be sufficient for current population, but we need to improve more and more with vertical farming and advance agronomic and crop improvement tools for future burgeoning population figure under the milieu of climate change issue. Our rural mass and tribal people have very limited resources and they sometime complete depend on forest microhabitat. To order to ensure food and nutritional security for growing population, a new strategy needs to be initiated for growing of crops in changing climatic condition. The country has a large pool of underutilized or underexploited fruit or cereals crops which have enormous potential for contributing to food security, nutrition, health, ecosystem sustainability under the changing climatic conditions, since they require little input, as they have inherent capabilities to withstand biotic and abiotic stress. Apart from the impacts on agronomic conditions of crop productions, climate change also affects the economy, food systems and wellbeing of the consumers (Abbade, 2017). Crop nutritional quality become very challenging, as we noticed that, zinc and iron deficiency is a serious global health problem in humans depending on cereal-diet and is largely prevalent in low-income countries like Sub-Saharan Africa, and South and South-east Asia. We report inefficiency of modern-bred cultivars of rice and wheat to sequester those essential nutrients in grains as the reason for such deficiency and prevalence (Debnath et al., 2021). Keeping in mind the crop yield and nutritional quality become very daunting task to our food security issue and this can overcome with the proper and time bound research in cognizance with the environment. Threat and challenges In recent years, climate change has become a debatable issue worldwide. South Asia will be one of the most adversely affected regions in terms of impacts of climate change on agricultural yield, economic activity and trading policies. Addressing climate change is central for global future food security and poverty alleviation. The approach would need to implement strategies linked with developmental plans to enhance its adaptive capacity in terms of climate resilience and mitigation. Over time, there has been a visible shift in the global climate change initiative towards adaptation. Adaptation can complement mitigation as a cost-effective strategy to reduce climate change risks. The impact of climate change is projected to have different effects across societies and countries. Mitigation and adaptation actions can, if appropriately designed, advance sustainable development and equity both within and across countries and between generations. One approach to balancing the attention on adaptation and mitigation strategies is to compare the costs and benefits of both the strategies. The most imminent change is the increase in the atmospheric temperatures due to increase levels of GHGs (Green House Gases) i.e. carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) etc into the atmosphere. The global mean annual temperatures at the end of the 20th

Evaluating the efficacy of fisheries management strategies in China for achieving multiple objectives under climate change

Background: Food security and safety are becoming major concerns worldwide. Providing food security and safety in hospitals is particularly challenging since their populations are diverse in dietary and nutritional requirements and more vulnerable to foodborne illnesses. The aim of this research is to promote hospital sustainability by addressing food security and food safety. Method: This study uses a quantitative method with a bibliometric study approach. This research has 212 articles from the Scopus database. All the documents were collected simultaneously in August 2022. The selected article encompassed the years from 2017 to 2021, including document type, publication stage, source type, language, and subject area. The data was analyzed using VOSviewer and NVivo analytical tools. Results: The results of the studies on food security and safety increased from 2017-2022 with current trends in hospital sustainability, food waste, and waste management in food. Our study has identified four clusters: hospital food services, hospital sustainability, nutrition, and food safety. Food security is positively correlated with assessment, challenges, measurement, status, and sustainability (Pearson correlation score is 1). Disease control, proper waste management, and environmental health are all associated with food safety (Pearson correlation score ±0.79-0.64). Conclusion: Food safety and security are critical to achieve hospital sustainability, therefore awareness-raising efforts must continue. It is recommended that hospital stakeholders, food service providers; public and private sectors adopt policies and guidelines to disseminate information on food safety and security concerning hospital sustainability.

Preventive Strategy Against Infectious Diarrhea—A Holistic Approach

The last decade has shown that food security is a major problem in the long term. Especially, food insecurity will be higher in poor and developing countries when the rising population needs more food sources. In this point, seafood products seem an alternative solution to achieve food security in the global food market. The Mediterranean region, which has lots of benefits from seafood market and fisheries, gives more attention to seafood security. Achieving seafood security is an important issue for coastal countries. This study aims to explain the importance of seafood security in the Mediterranean region through case of Turkey. The open access data from TURKSTAT (Turkish Statistical Institute) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) were used to determine seafood security conditions in Turkey. The study presents significant findings showing the role of seafood security in Mediterranean region in the context of sustainable development approach.

The last decade has shown that food security is a major problem in the long term. Especially, food insecurity will be higher in poor and developing countries when the rising population needs more food sources. In this point, seafood products seem an alternative solution to achieve food security in the global food market. The Mediterranean region, which has lots of benefits from seafood market and fisheries, gives more attention to seafood security. Achieving seafood security is an important issue for coastal countries. This study aims to explain the importance of seafood security in the Mediterranean region through case of Turkey. The open access data from TURKSTAT (Turkish Statistical Institute) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) were used to determine seafood security conditions in Turkey. The study presents significant findings showing the role of seafood security in Mediterranean region in the context of sustainable development approach.

Although there have been significant efforts recently to improve fishery management laws and eliminate overfishing in the United States (e.g., Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorization in 2006), many of our stocks remain overfished or have not been assessed. New collaborative partnerships and innovative business models are sorely needed to bridge the divide among stakeholders and to reform our ailing fisheries. Fishers are subject to increasing regulatory measures and face dwindling revenues. There are still many examples of destructive fishing practices that have significant impacts on marine ecosystems, and our fisheries are not yet managed in a broader ecosystem context. The perceived lack of common ground between the fishing industry and environmental organizations impedes progress in moving toward more sustainable fisheries. This does not have to be our reality. This situation results from two key problems. First, our system of fisheries management relies principally on top-down management that is too complex, relies too little on the best available science, and is too often at the mercy of increasingly constrained state and federal budgets. Second, the high degree of polarization among fishery stakeholders impedes collaborative solutions. Competing interests weaken incentives for improved economic and biological stewardship, which has, in turn, led fishers to overcapitalize and overexploit the resource in a race for fish. Relationships among stakeholders, especially fishers and environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are bitterly adversarial, and fishery managers find themselves paralyzed by their constituents’ extreme polarization. Entrenched positions taken by special interest groups and the threat of lawsuits often provide political cover for regulators to avoid hard decisions. The resulting mess can be termed “fish wars.” The casualties of the fish wars have been the consumer, the environment, coastal communities, and small-scale fishers. Although seafood demand in North America has increased in recent decades, many of our fisheries have experienced significant declines in landings. Americans are increasingly relying on imported fish (with unknown associated environmental and health impacts) and are unable to purchase local, sustainably caught seafood. As a result, we are exporting many of our fisheries management problems to other countries that have even less capacity to address them. Fishery managers have sought to solve the problem of too many boats chasing too few fish by trying to reduce fishing pressure through limiting the number of permit-holding fishers and, sometimes, by buying and retiring some permits to reduce effort. Nevertheless, the pendulum has swung hard in the other direction, fueling consolidation in the industry that favors large fishing corporations and pushes out small-scale fishers. Some fishers, strained by years of difficulty, leave the fishery permanently (and sometimes en masse), and barriers for small-boat fishers—such as the cost to purchase a permit to gain access to the fishery—make it difficult for new entrants to participate. Fishing communities are losing fishing-related jobs, access to the local resource, and infrastructure, and we all are losing a part of our maritime heritage that has existed for generations and helps to fuel coastal tourism. Furthermore, we are losing the knowledge held by those who have spent their lives on the water, as well as the energy and innovation new entrants and small businesses could bring to addressing our ailing fisheries. Many small-scale fishers are outcompeted by larger fishing operations, which is unfortunate because small businesses are likely a more sustainable scale of operation, are more nimble and adaptive, and are more likely to try innovative approaches to gain an edge. The lack of good working relationships among stakeholders represents one of the greatest challenges to effecting change in fisheries management. It often appears that managers and fishers have become insular and resistant to change, while environmental groups have become adept at pointing out problems and assigning blame. Fishing industries are often intransigent and incentivized for short-term profitability, not long-term stewardship of the public resource. If a fishery is depleted, the industry often moves on to the next profitable target. In addition, small-scale fishers and their communities are generally insufficiently organized or unified to influence the regulatory and political process necessary to protect local access to and stewardship of resources. Fishery managers have been hampered by lack of funding, capacity, innovation, and political will and instead have resorted to increasingly rigid and complicated regulation in reaction to lawsuits and stock declines. Fishery scientists struggle to assess even a small portion of the stocks and monitor some of the fishing effort, much less consider cumulative impacts of fishing or ecosystem-scale management of fisheries. Environmental NGOs—driven by concern about the threats fishing can pose, scientific uncertainties in fishery management, and the precautionary approach—have traditionally focused on gaining ecosystem protection and restricting fisheries through lawsuits, closed areas, or adversarial means rather than true collaboration. Each faction is focused only on their issues and lacks the resources or the will to consider the whole. In most fisheries long-term economic viability relies on healthy stocks and healthy marine habitats, which sets the stage for environmental NGOs and fishers to become natural partners in the design of truly innovative solutions around which all parties can rally. Together we must develop and test new fishery management models that will protect ecosystem benefits and preserve fishing opportunities. Fortunately, there are some emerging examples of new on-the-water partnerships and demonstration projects in which NGOs, managers, and fishers are stretching beyond their comfort zones to bridge the divide. Some NGOs are starting to get some “skin in the game” by acquiring fishing permits and, together with partners and the community, using those assets as platforms to test new approaches. These partnerships are accelerating the development of new and innovative fishing business models. In some cases NGOs and fishers are collaborating to create permit, license, or quota banks, which can secure access to adjacent fishing grounds and stocks, foster collaborative research and monitoring, and enable sharing of fishing assets and resources. Another approach involves cooperatives or community-based fishing associations, which would operate according to mutually agreed upon environmental and economic performance standards. These entities could hold fishing permits or quotas and provide medical benefits and other economies of scale for small-scale fishers. These ideas, and others, are being pioneered around North America and serve as crucial learning opportunities for both the industry and the environmental community. In New England the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fisherman's Association is a groundbreaking partnership between commercial fishers and coastal residents that is promoting healthier fish stocks and revitalizing the industry through more sustainable fishing practices. Local fishers, concerned about the issues outlined here, initiated outreach to the community to develop a solution. Together, they now play a key role in fishery reform. In addition to using less-damaging gear, such as hook and line and fish weirs, the association is pioneering the allocation of groundfish to sectors; acquiring groundfish, scallop, and lobster quotas for member fishermen; conducting collaborative research; and engaging in community-based management. On the western coast of British Columbia local groundfishers and Ecotrust Canada have designed and implemented a novel business model that not only seeks to improve the economic viability and sustainability of local fishermen, but also strives to make ownership of permits and quotas affordable to rural fishing communities. Ecotrust and others secured private financing and established a license bank—a corporation owned by the fishers that purchases and holds fishing assets in partnership with outside investors. The collaboration allows fishers with smaller operations to have a more substantive stake in the fishery and, by encouraging them to operate and deliver their products closer to home, helps keep the economic benefits within the community. On California's central coast The Nature Conservancy is collaborating with fishers and regulatory agencies to improve the economic performance of the groundfish fishery, rebuild fish stocks, and protect seafloor habitat. Together they are exploring the potential of transitioning some of the fishery's harvest effort away from bottom trawling, which has created significant environmental and regulatory problems for the fishery. On the basis of recommendations from the National Research Council on abating bottom trawling impacts to seafloor habitats, the Conservancy used private buyouts of trawl permits to leverage habitat protection, reduce trawl effort, and convert traditional trawl effort to more selective, less-damaging gear. By acquiring and assembling a trawl permit bank, the Conservancy is now able to lease its trawl permits to local fishers with legal conservation restrictions, transition trawl effort to hook and line, and test collective harvesting and monitoring approaches. Together the Conservancy and partners are also testing a prototype community-fishing association that could hold and manage permits or quotas and build a foundation for a more-sustainable local fishery. One of the greatest benefits of this project has been the new partnership among NGOs, fishers, and managers, who have agreed to work closely together to test new approaches and to learn from each other. Partnerships like these will also strengthen scientific understanding of fisheries in the broader context of marine ecosystem protection and better inform management approaches at ecologically relevant scales. Fishers crave better science to support fisheries management, and NGOs have the resources and expertise to help fill this gap. Although collaborative fisheries research is not new, it needs to be more strategic in bringing together the right partners to address the most important questions to promote more sustainable management. The Northeast Consortium (at the University of New Hampshire) in partnership with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is one example of an effort to bring local input and strategic vision to collaborative research programs. The partnership is also assessing the effectiveness of that research in informing management decisions, building trust and communication between fishers and scientists, and enhancing economic values. Although they may appear to be unlikely partners, fishers and conservationists have started to realize the potential of collaboration. In some cases it may behoove federal managers to step back and allow fishers, NGOs, and scientists to redesign and restructure a pilot fishery and then support these efforts via the regulatory process. When fishers are empowered and incentivized to better steward their local resources, it may well ease the regulatory burden. Creating opportunities to test collaborative management approaches is key to ultimately bringing about fisheries reform in the United States. To be successful we must look to our shared values—in healthy oceans, economic stability in coastal communities, and supplies of fresh local seafood—and actively encourage all stakeholders to work together. Fishery managers can foster and leverage uncommon partnerships to develop new approaches to fishery management. And NGOs can be more effective partners by admitting that they still have a lot to learn about fishery socioeconomics. In the end it may not be a lack of new ideas and resources that block our road toward fishery reform, but rather the unwillingness of key fishery stakeholders to work together. We must take real steps to avoid this outcome. We must stop the fish wars, stop assigning blame, meet each other halfway, and be willing to learn from each other. Only then will we be able to create a brighter future for our oceans, our coastal communities, and our seafood supply.

As we exhaust traditional natural resources upon which we have relied for decades to support economic growth, alternatives that are compatible with a resource conservation ethic, are consistent with efforts to limit greenhouse emissions to combat global climate change, and that support principles of integrated coastal management must be identified. Examples of sectors that are prime candidates for reinvention are electrical generation and seafood production. Once a major force in global economies and a symbol of its culture and character, the fishing industry has experienced major setbacks in the past half-decade. Once bountiful fisheries were decimated by overfishing and destructive fisheries practices that resulted in tremendous biomass of discarded by-catch. Severe restrictions on landings and effort that have been implemented to allow stocks to recover have had tremendous impact on the economy of coastal communities. During the period of decline and stagnation in capture fisheries, global production from aquaculture grew dramatically, and now accounts for 50% of the world’s edible seafood supply. With the convergence of environmental and aesthetic concerns, aquaculture, which was already competing for space with other more established and accepted uses, is having an increasingly difficult time expanding in nearshore waters. Given the constraints on expansion of current methods of production, it is clear that alternative approaches are needed in order for the marine aquaculture sector to make a meaningful contribution to global seafood supply. Farming in offshore marine waters has been identified as one potential option for increasing seafood production and has been a focus of international attention for more than a decade. Though there are technical challenges for farming in the frequently hostile open ocean environment, there is sufficient rationale for pursuing the development of offshore farming. Favorable features of open ocean waters include ample space for expansion, tremendous carrying and assimilative capacity, reduced conflict with many user groups, lower exposure to human sources of pollution, the potential to reduce some of the negative environmental impacts of coastal fish farming (Ryan 2004; Buck 2004; Helsley and Kim 2005; Ward et al. 2006; Langan 2007), and optimal environmental conditions for a wide variety of marine species (Ostrowski and Helsley 2003; Ryan 2004; Howell et al. 2006; Benetti et al. 2006; Langan and Horton 2003). Those features, coupled with advances in farming technology (Fredheim and Langan 2009) would seem to present an excellent opportunity for growth, however, development in offshore waters has been measured. This has been due in large part to the spill over from the opposition to nearshore marine farming and the lack of a regulatory framework for permitting, siting and managing industry development. Without legal access to favorable sites and a “social license” to operate without undue regulatory hardship, it will be difficult for open ocean aquaculture to realize its true potential. Some parallels can be drawn between ocean aquaculture and electricity generation. Continued reliance on traditional methods of production, which for electricity means fossil fuels, is environmentally and economically unsustainable. There is appropriate technology available to both sectors, and most would agree that securing our energy and seafood futures are in the collective national interest. The most advanced and proven renewable sector for ocean power generation is wind turbines, and with substantial offshore wind resources in the, one would think there would be tremendous potential for development of this sector and public support for development. The casual observer might view the ocean as a vast and barren place, with lots of space to put wind turbines and fish farms. However, if we start to map out existing human uses such as shipping lanes, pipelines, cables, LNG terminals, and fishing grounds, and add to that ecological resource areas that require some degree of protection such as whale and turtle migration routes, migratory bird flyways, spawning grounds, and sensitive habitats such as corals, the ocean begins to look like a crowed place. Therefore, when trying to locate new ocean uses, it may be worthwhile to explore possibilities for co-location of facilities, in this case wind turbines and fish and shellfish farms. While some might argue that trying to co-locate two activities that are individually controversial would be a permitting nightmare, general agreement can probably be reached that there are benefits to be gained by reducing the overall footprint of human uses in the ocean. Meeting the challenges of multi-use facilities in the open ocean will require careful analysis and planning; however, the opportunity to co-locate sustainable seafood and renewable energy production facilities is intriguing, the concept is consistent with the goals of Marine Spatial Planning and ecosystem based management, and therefore worthy of pursuit.

From the Chief Executive and <scp>IFST</scp> News

The current situation observed in the seafood industry demonstrates that responsible and certified seafood produced in Asia as well as other developing regions is often exported out to Western markets such as Europe and the US, due to a higher demand and higher willingness to pay. This renders responsible and certified seafood to be shipped out of Asia and results in a market where responsible and certified seafood is systematically underrepresented. Hence, the lack of supply of responsible seafood from regional sources has hindered companies’ efforts to source responsibly, despite a commitment to do so. With Asia’s increasing disposable income and growing awareness by consumers for responsible and certified seafood, greater opportunities can be leveraged upon by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) to increase the supply and demand of responsible seafood in the region. The Responsible Seafood Tool (RESET) is developed as WWF believes that there is opportunity for change in empowering businesses in Asia to source more responsibly, particularly for a local favourite - seafood. Responsible seafood sourcing helps to reduce negative consequences to the environment, in the form of biodiversity loss, seascape degradation, and resource depletion, as well as to reduce lost livelihoods displaced by depleted fishstock or polluted landscapes and seascapes. The tool seeks to lower the barriers for businesses to source for responsible seafood, and to directly mobilize improved management and performance of fisheries and aquaculture in Asia. In a nutshell, RESET aims to provide easy access to the supply of responsible seafood for interested buyers, while also supporting Asian aquaculture and fisheries by providing business incentives for certification. Seafood buyers enjoy the access of a variety of responsible seafood from Asia, at the same time, they enable WWF to propel responsible seafood producers along their journey to achieve Aqualculture Stewardship Council (ASC) or Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification.

Chapter 17 - Seafood Toxins

This article considers the management approaches to designing and adopting a management system to ensure the health &amp; safety of personnel and visitors to a food premises and comparing these to the processes used to develop an effective food safety management system. In some organisations the management systems for health &amp; safety and food safety are distinct and managed separately, whereas in other organisations there is integration of practise and processes in an overarching management system that provides both shared learning and cross-competencies. The management of both health &amp; safety and food safety can only be realised when there is appropriate strategic leadership, an enabling organisational culture and the daily behaviours at all levels of the organisation support a positive and collaborative environment. A failure to deliver this objective can lead to increased organisational risk across all functional areas.

This commentary reviews total aquatic food supply from aquaculture and capture fisheries from 2010 to 2020 at global, regional, and national levels within main producing countries; aquatic animal foods include fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and other invertebrate animals destined for direct human consumption or as fish and seafood by the FAO. Whilst total combined aquatic animal food supply from aquaculture and capture fisheries has increased on a global basis from 18.59 to 20.49 kg/capita over the past decade, the global supply has not kept up with population growth over the same period. Of particular concern was the decrease in fish and seafood food supply within the African region, decreasing from 10.40 to 9.58 kg/capita, whilst population growth increased by 3.12%/year over the same period. Moreover, the Asian region was the only region where per capita fish and seafood food supply exceeded population growth; the bulk of fish and seafood supply being sourced from increased aquaculture production of primarily freshwater fish species, compared with other regions where marine wild fisheries still dominated fish and seafood supply. Fish and seafood supply in leading aquaculture and capture fisheries producing countries between 2010 and 2020, including China, Indonesia, India, Viet Nam, Bangladesh, South Korea, Japan, and USA are presented and demonstrate growth in per capita fish and seafood supply being lower than human population growth in Ecuador, Philippines, Turkey, Chile, Norway, Brazil, Myanmar, the South Korea, and Japan. If aquatic food supplies from aquaculture and inland/marine capture fisheries are to make an increasing global contribution to healthy diets, then the increased production and market availability of these products needs to be promoted by governments and actively encouraged and stimulated, particularly within the African continent.

Safety is one of the most important factors in human nutrition. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has developed a special protocol on food security, according to which the availability of food to all is considered a factor in food security. The FAO's main focus in this protocol is on distribution security. This protocol also provides tips on food safety. On the other hand, the Halal standard, using the teachings of Islam, considers food security and safety as an important indicator for all humans. Since man is a multidimensional being from the point of view of Islam and has body, mind, soul and spirit, so food safety and security from the prespective these dimensions can provide a higher quality index for halal food, than the FAO’s food security program. The halal nutrition system does not view the food itself as the end product of nutrition, but also considers the production chain to consumption and its aspects, so the consumer as one of the important pillars of the food chain could have the necessary food justice and security, and this matter is only achievable through upholding the justice in distribution of sufficient and quality food. In the present article, the proposed indicators of halal food safety and security are compared with the FAO World Food Safety Program, and the quantitative and qualitative differences between food safety and security factors in both programs are judged.

Food security in a just energy transition is a growing debate about designing sustainable food secure networks worldwide. Energy transition, land-use change, and food security are crucial factors for food security and provision. The increased demand for food products and customer preferences regarding food safety provide various issues for the current agriculture food supply chain (AFSC). Along with rising sustainability concerns, strict government regulation, food security, and traceability concerns compel managers, business houses, and practitioners working in AFSC to adopt new tools, techniques, and methodologies to model current food supply chain problems. Thus, in turn, design the food logistics network for food security. Hence, this study investigates the core determinants of food security and supply in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Lebanon over the period of 2010–2019. In order to estimate the objectives of the study, we employ the fully modified ordinary least square (FMOLS) and dynamic ordinary least squares estimators (DOLS) to draw the study findings. However, the estimated results show a negative association of land use with food security and supply. Likewise, energy transition, gross domestic product, and agricultural value added (AVA) contribute to the food security supply. In contrast, urbanization's negative but insignificant contribution to the food supply in selected economies exists. Besides, another core objective of the study is to investigate the moderate role of the energy transition on the gross domestic product, agriculture sector, and land use and find the significant contribution to the food supply. However, the current study also tries forecasting for the next 10 years and employs the impulse response function (IRF) and variance decomposition analysis (VDA). Congruently, this study uses the pairwise panel causality test and finds exciting outcomes. The COVID-19 crisis has posed challenges such as energy consumption and food security issues. On behalf of the results, the current study proposes imperative policies to investigate the desired level of food supply. The findings provide valuable insights for experts, policymakers, and officials to take practical measures for energy use and food security challenges.