66 research outputs found

    Analysis 1: SDG5, gender equal fisheries

    Get PDF
    What are the challenges in the path of achieving gender equality in fisheries and what should our priorities be? This article tries to identify these in the context of SDG 5, the Sustainable Development Goal on gender equality

    Progressing gender equality in fisheries by building strategic partnerships with development organisations

    Get PDF
    Gender equality, a universal agreed principle and value, has been adopted widely but implemented to varying levels in different sectors. Our study was designed to contrast how development and fisheries sectors view and invest in gender, and then explore opportunities to strengthen collaborative relationships and networks between the two, with the aim of improving capacity for gender inclusion in practice in fisheries. We conducted key informant interviews with fisheries (n=68) and development (n=32) practitioners (including managers) in Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu between 2018 and 2019. We found three points of divergence between fisheries and development practitioners and/or their organisations when it comes to the inclusion of gender into their work: (1) fundamental differences in organisational motivations for working on gender ‒ (i.e., fisheries organisations viewed gender equality as a means to achieve fisheries objectives (instrumental), while development organisations viewed it as a core value or principle (inherent); (2) fisheries practitioners had comparatively little to no access to qualified gender focal points and training, and limited networks with gender experts; and (3) differences in what each considered successful versus failed approaches to gender integration. Our findings illustrate opportunities, as well as limitations or challenges (e.g. resistance and indifference), to transfer knowledge and capacity to integrate gender into fisheries policies and practice. We suggest using these divergences to ‘pivot change’ in the fisheries sector by building on decades of knowledge, learning and experience from the development sector focusing on four areas for strategic partnership: (1) shifting values; (2) gender mainstreaming; (3) adopting gender best practice; and (4) investing in gender networks and coalitions. We argue that fundamental to the success of such a partnership will be the ability and willingness of fisheries and development practitioners and their organisations to break down silos and work collaboratively towards gender equality in the fisheries sector

    Chapter 1: Assessing a planet in transformation: Rationale and approach of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

    Get PDF
    The challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change, achieving inclusive food, water, energy and health security, addressing urban vulnerabilities, and the unequal burdens of nature deterioration, are not only predicaments on their own right. Because they interact, often exacerbating each other, they create new risks and uncertainties for people and nature. It is now evident that the rapid deterioration of nature, including that of the global environmental commons on land, ocean, atmosphere and biosphere, upon which humanity as a whole depends, are interconnected and their cascading effects compromise societal goals and aspirations from local to global levels. Growing efforts to respond to these challenges and awareness of our dependence on nature have opened new opportunities for action and collaboration towards fairer and more sustainable futures.The global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services (GA) has been designed to be a comprehensive and ambitious intergovernmental integrated assessment of recent anthropogenic transformations of Earth?s living systems, the roots of such transformations, and their implications to society. In the chapters that follow, our mandate is to critically assess the state of knowledge on recent past (from the 1970s), present and possible future trends in multi-scale interactions between people and nature, taking into consideration different worldviews and knowledge systems, including those representing mainstream natural and social sciences and the humanities, and indigenous and local knowledge systems. In doing so, the GA also assesses where the world stands in relation to several international agreements related to biodiversity and sustainable development.Fil: Brondizio, Eduardo. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: DĂ­az, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientĂ­ficas y TĂ©cnicas. Centro CientĂ­fico TecnolĂłgico Conicet - CĂłrdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de BiologĂ­a Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de CĂłrdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas FĂ­sicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de BiologĂ­a Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Settele, Josef. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Ngo, Hien. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: GuĂšze, Maximilien. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Bai, Xuemei. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Geschke, Arne. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: MolnĂĄr, Zsolt. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Niamir, Aidin. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Pascual, Unai. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Simcock, Alan. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Jaureguiberry, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientĂ­ficas y TĂ©cnicas. Centro CientĂ­fico TecnolĂłgico Conicet - CĂłrdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de BiologĂ­a Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de CĂłrdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas FĂ­sicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de BiologĂ­a Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Hien, Ngo,. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Brancalion, Pedro. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Chan, Kai M. A.. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Dubertret, Fabrice. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Hendry, Andrew. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Liu, Jianguo. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Martin, Adrian. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: MartĂ­n LĂłpez, Berta. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Midgley, Guy F.. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Obura, David. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Oliver, Tom. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Scheffran, JĂŒrgen. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Seppelt, Ralf. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Spangenberg, Joachim H.. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Stenseke, Marie. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Turnhout, Esther. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Williams, Meryl J.. No especifĂ­ca;Fil: Zayas, Cynthia. No especifĂ­ca

    Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

    Get PDF
    Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≄18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

    Food from the Water: How the Fish Production Revolution Affects Aquatic Biodiversity and Food Security

    No full text
    The production of food from marine and freshwaters is undergoing a profound revolution—from hunting to farming or from fishing to aquaculture. Fishing and aquaculture exploit and alter the biodiversity on which they are based, each in different but convergent ways. Fishing harvests a much larger range of biodiversity at ecosystem, species and genetic levels than aquaculture. Nearly 400 aquatic species are cultured and more than 5000 species captured in fisheries. Aquaculture and fishing tend to reduce genetic, species and ecosystem diversity, but along different pathways. Fishing reduces genetic and species diversity through selectively removing target individuals with desired characteristics, such as large size, and alters ecosystems. Aquaculture is currently developing across a broad front, using many different species but in inefficient ways. A deliberate program of careful species selection using a broad range of criteria for farming and markets, including food security, should be encouraged, along with research to close the lifecycles of the selected species, improved farm breeds and conservation of germplasm. Aquatic biodiversity for food production receives little policy and management attention but international research provides major support to its sustainable use and conservation
    • 

    corecore