Louise Teh’s research while affiliated with University of British Columbia and other places

Commercial bottom trawl and dredge fisheries are active across much of Europe, and their geographic footprint is extensive. More than half of seabed area is trawled every year in some parts of Europe. But these fisheries remain contentious; significant ecological and economic damages have been well documented. Yet, they remain a source of food and provide jobs and economic revenue. Considering recent pushes to ban or limit bottom trawling in European countries, we explore how the costs associated with this practice compare to the benefits it provides. We find that society is losing out to the private sector, largely because of the significant climate impacts associated with the churning of the seafloor sediment by bottom trawling. Further, we show that bottom trawling occurs in a significant portion of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) across Europe. We argue that phasing out bottom trawling in MPAs could yield meaningful net benefits.

The natural resources on which small-scale fishing communities in Sub-Saharan Africa depend are crucial for both their economic sustainability and as a nutritional resource in challenging times. Yet, the widespread depletion of fish stocks across the continent results in numerous adverse socio-economic and developmental consequences, including abusive labour conditions, food and nutrition insecurity, harmful fishing practices, and fish-for-sex exchanges.

Eradicating poverty and harmful fisheries subsidies are two pressing challenges frequently addressed in international agendas for sustainable development. Here we investigate a potential solution for addressing both challenges simultaneously by asking the hypothetical question: to what extent can harmful fisheries subsidies provided by a country finance the cost of lifting fishers out of poverty? Focusing on 30 coastal least developed countries, we find that fishers in 87% of these countries do not earn sufficient income to satisfy the extreme poverty line income of USD 1.90/person/day, and that it would cost an estimated USD 2.2 to 2.6 billion to lift these fishers to different levels of poverty line incomes. Our analysis further suggests that at the country level, redirected harmful fisheries subsidies can cover the entire cost of covering the poverty income gap for between 37 to 43% of assessed countries. Our results provide quantitative evidence that can be used to support simultaneous progress towards achieving several Sustainable Development Goals, including those dealing with poverty reduction, food insecurity, and ocean sustainability.

Despite these diverse contributions of small-scale fisheries, most small-scale fishing communities encounter international market pressures, fisheries privatisation, and competition from other economic activities in ocean space and for marine resources

Fisheries contribute extensively to the food security, culture, livelihoods, and well-being of hundreds of millions of people in Global South countries. A significant amount of fish from small-scale capture fisheries is harvested and consumed because of their nutritional composition and ease of access for the well-being of coastal communities. Despite these diverse contributions of small-scale fisheries, most small-scale fishing communities encounter international market pressures, fisheries privatization, and competition from other economic activities in ocean space and for marine resources.

Harmful fisheries subsidies contribute to overfishing leading to environmental and societal impacts. If only fisheries and ecosystems within the subsidising nations' jurisdiction were affected, then unilateral actions might be sufficient to help safeguard our ocean and the people reliant upon it. However, just as fish move between jurisdictions, so too do the subsidised fishing fleets that target them. As such, the impacts and solutions to subsidies-induced overfishing are often matters of international concern. Mapping the distribution and flows of harmful subsidies is therefore key to understanding these concerns, informing multilateral reform, and empowering impacted nations to strengthen the terms of access to their waters and resources. Here we quantify the amount of harmful fisheries subsidies that supports fishing in the high seas, domestic and foreign waters. We estimate that between 20% and 37% of all harmful fisheries subsidies support fishing in foreign waters or the high seas, that is outside the jurisdictions of the subsidising nations. We show that harmful subsidies primarily originate from nations with high-Human Development Index (HDI), strong fisheries management capacity and relatively sustainable fish stocks, yet disproportionately impact nations with low or very low-HDI, lower management capacity and more vulnerable fish stocks-40% of the harmful subsidies that support fishing in very low-HDI nations waters originate from high-HDI and very-high HDI nations. We show that Asia, Europe, and North America, are net subsidy sources; they provide more harmful subsidies to their fishing fleets than their respective ecosystems are impacted by; while Africa, South, Central America and Caribbean, and Oceania are net subsidy-sinks. This discrepancy between the source of harmful subsidies and the nations that are ultimately impacted is unsustainable and unjust. Prohibiting all harmful subsidies to distant-water fishing and fishing in the high seas-with narrow exceptions for Small Island Developing States-should be prioritised to support the advancement of sustainable and equitable fisheries worldwide.

Eradicating poverty and harmful fisheries subsidies are two pressing challenges frequently addressed in international agendas for sustainable development. Here we investigate a potential solution for addressing both challenges simultaneously by asking the hypothetical question: to what extent can harmful fisheries subsidies provided by a country finance the cost of lifting fishers out of poverty? Focusing on 30 coastal least developed countries, we find that fishers in 87% of these countries do not earn sufficient income to satisfy the extreme poverty line income of USD 1.90/person/day, and that it costs an estimated USD 2.2 to 2.6 billion to lift these fishers to different levels of poverty line incomes. Our analysis further suggests that at the country level, redirected harmful fisheries subsidies can cover the entire cost of covering the poverty income gap for between 37 to 43% of assessed countries. Our results provide quantitative evidence that can be used to support simultaneous progress towards achieving several Sustainable Development Goals, including those dealing with poverty reduction, food insecurity, and ocean sustainability.

Extreme events, such as those caused by climate change, economic or geopolitical shocks, and pest or disease epidemics, threaten global food security. The complexity of causation, as well as the myriad ways that an event, or a sequence of events, creates cascading and systemic impacts, poses significant challenges to food systems research and policy alike. To identify priority food security risks and research opportunities, we asked experts from a range of fields and geographies to describe key threats to global food security over the next two decades and to suggest key research questions and gaps on this topic. Here, we present a prioritization of threats to global food security from extreme events, as well as emerging research questions that highlight the conceptual and practical challenges that exist in designing, adopting, and governing resilient food systems. We hope that these findings help in directing research funding and resources toward food system transformations needed to help society tackle major food system risks and food insecurity under extreme events.