Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Ecosystem subsidies to Swedish agricultural consumption, industrial intensification and trade 1962-1994
Stockholms universitet, Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Stockholms universitet, Stockholm Resilience Centre.ORCID-id: 0000-0002-4050-3281
2005 (engelsk)Inngår i: Ecosystems (New York. Print), ISSN 1432-9840, E-ISSN 1435-0629, Vol. 8, s. 512-528Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

Analysis of food consumption and agricultural production trends in Sweden has focused on domestic food production levels and yields, over looking human dependence on ecosystem support. We estimate the ecosystem areas appropriated (ArEAs) for agricultural production (crop and animal feed production and grazing in arable land and marine production for fishmeal used in ani mal feed) to satisfy Swedish food consumption needs from 1962 to 1994. The total agroecosystem areas worldwide supporting Swedish food con sumption (that is, domestic production less ex ports plus imports) have declined by almost one third since the 1960s as a result of consumption changes and agricultural intensification. By 1994, Swedish consumption of domestic food crops was halved and consumers relied on agricultural areas outside Sweden to satisfy more than a third (35%) of food consumption needs. Surprisingly, 74% of manufactured animal feed ArEAs were from im ported inputs. Moreover, marine ArEAs equal to 12% of the total appropriated areas were needed to support fishmeal usage in animal feed. The results show that domestic agricultural areas do not support Swedish food consumption and that the bulk of manufactured feed used in animal products' production in Sweden is supplied by ecosystems of other nations. These are hidden subsidies of nature, not explicit in Swedish na tional agricultural policy. Sweden must recognize its high level of dependence on the capacity of ecosystems of other nations to supply its food needs. Ignorance of ecosystem support may in crease vulnerability.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Springer , 2005. Vol. 8, s. 512-528
Emneord [en]
agriculture; food consumption; agricultural intensification; ecosystem performance; vulnerability; ecological footprint.
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-23304DOI: 10.1007/s10021-005-0035-4OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-23304DiVA, id: diva2:191266
Merknad
Part of urn:nbn:se:su:diva-232Tilgjengelig fra: 2004-09-09 Laget: 2004-09-09 Sist oppdatert: 2022-02-25bibliografisk kontrollert
Inngår i avhandling
1. Global trade, food production and ecosystem support: Making the interactions visible
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Global trade, food production and ecosystem support: Making the interactions visible
2004 (engelsk)Doktoravhandling, med artikler (Annet vitenskapelig)
Abstract [en]

Modern food production is a complex, globalized system in which what we eat and how it is produced are increasingly disconnected. This thesis examines some of the ways in which global trade has changed the mix of inputs to food and feed, and how this affects food security and our perceptions of sustainability. One useful indicator of the ecological impact of trade in food and feed products is the Appropriated Ecosystem Areas (ArEAs), which estimates the terrestrial and aquatic areas needed to produce all the inputs to particular products.

The method is introduced in Paper I and used to calculate and track changes in imported subsidies to Swedish agriculture over the period 1962-1994. In 1994, Swedish consumers needed agricultural areas outside their national borders to satisfy more than a third of their food consumption needs. The method is then applied to Swedish meat production in Paper II to show that the term “Made in Sweden” is often a misnomer. In 1999, almost 80% of manufactured feed for Swedish pigs, cattle and chickens was dependent on imported inputs, mainly from Europe, Southeast Asia and South America. Paper III examines ecosystem subsidies to intensive aquaculture in two nations: shrimp production in Thailand and salmon production in Norway. In both countries, aquaculture was shown to rely increasingly on imported subsidies. The rapid expansion of aquaculture turned these countries from fishmeal net exporters to fishmeal net importers, increasingly using inputs from the Southeastern Pacific Ocean.

As the examined agricultural and aquacultural production systems became globalized, levels of dependence on other nations’ ecosystems, the number of external supply sources, and the distance to these sources steadily increased. Dependence on other nations is not problematic, as long as we are able to acknowledge these links and sustainably manage resources both at home and abroad. However, ecosystem subsidies are seldom recognized or made explicit in national policy or economic accounts. Economic systems are generally not designed to receive feedbacks when the status of remote ecosystems changes, much less to respond in an ecologically sensitive manner. Papers IV and V discuss the problem of “masking” of the true environmental costs of production for trade. One of our conclusions is that, while the ArEAs approach is a useful tool for illuminating environmentally-based subsidies in the policy arena, it does not reflect all of the costs. Current agricultural and aquacultural production methods have generated substantial increases in production levels, but if policy continues to support the focus on yield and production increases alone, taking the work of ecosystems for granted, vulnerability can result. Thus, a challenge is to develop a set of complementary tools that can be used in economic accounting at national and international scales that address ecosystem support and performance.

We conclude that future resilience in food production systems will require more explicit links between consumers and the work of supporting ecosystems, locally and in other regions of the world, and that food security planning will require active management of the capacity of all involved ecosystems to sustain food production.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Stockholm: Institutionen för systemekologi, 2004. s. 28
Emneord
global trade, food production, ecosystem support, resilience, agriculture, ecosystem performance, food consumption, ecological footprint, indicators, aquaculture, agricultural intensification, fishmeal, vulnerability, Sweden, animal feed, critical natural capital
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-232 (URN)91-7265-923-8 (ISBN)
Disputas
2004-10-01, De Geersalen, Geovetenskapens hus, Svante Arrhenius väg 8 C, Stockholm, 13:00
Opponent
Veileder
Tilgjengelig fra: 2004-09-09 Laget: 2004-09-09bibliografisk kontrollert

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

Forlagets fullteksthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25053850

Person

Deutsch, LisaFolke, Carl

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Deutsch, LisaFolke, Carl
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
Ecosystems (New York. Print)

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 608 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf