Reimagining aquaculture risk management beyond the farm

Abstract

List of figures List of tables List of abbreviationsCHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 The emergence of aquaculture risk management beyond the farm 1.2 Managing aquaculture risks beyond the farm 1.2.1 Area-level production risks 1.2.2 From farm-level to area-level risk management 1.2.3 Assurance in aquaculture value chains 1.3 Analyzing risk management beyond the farm 1.3.1 Aquaculture production space(s) 1.3.2 Risks in space 1.3.3 Institutionalizing risk management in space 1.4 Research objective 1.5 Methodology 1.5.1 Research design: case study research 1.5.2 Case study selection 1.5.3 Study areas 1.5.4 Data collection and analysis 1.6 Thesis outline CHAPTER 2 Moving beyond the shrimp farm: Spaces of shared environmental risk? Abstract 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Aquaculture space, environmental risks and social relations 2.3 Methodology 2.4 Contextualizing environmental risks in Kung Krabaen Bay and Kien Vang Forest 2.4.1 Kung Krabaen Bay: an area of closed systems 2.4.2 Kien Vang Forest: an area of open systems 2.5 The spaces of environmental risk management 2.5.1 On-farm risk management practices 2.5.2 Off-farm risk management practices 2.5.3 The spaces between: communication about environmental risks 2.6 Discussion 2.7 Conclusion 10 | CHAPTER 3 Institutionalizing area-level risk management: Limitations faced by the private sector in aquaculture improvement projects Abstract 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Private-led institutionalization of area-level risk management 3.3 Methodology 3.4 Results 3.4.1 Selva Shrimp: a top-down basic AIP 3.4.2 Hainan Tilapia: a bottom-up comprehensive AIP 3.5 Discussion 3.6 Conclusion CHAPTER 4 Territories of state-led aquaculture risk management: Thailand's

Exploring beyond farm management : opportunities to reduce information asymmetry and systemic risks in Vietnamese aquaculture

“…3 are investing in new ways of developing information-systems that both meet the assurance requirements of (often export) markets, while enabling producers to improve the environmental and social performance of their production (Astill et al, 2019;Bottema et al, 2021b;Kruk et al, 2021).…”

“…The most common example of these initiatives, certification standards, have continued to come under scrutiny for their limited capacity to include small-holders because of the cost and the burden of reporting and compliance (Bush et al, 2013;Naylor et al, 2021). Attempts to overcome the information and auditing burden of these initiatives have led to several new self-reporting methodologies (Kruk et al, 2021;Bottema et al, 2021b), of which two are examined here. First, cooperative forms of reporting and auditing, such as ASC group certification, and second, efficiency oriented digital reporting and auditing technologies like VerifiK8.…”

“…Reflecting on the power of these ties built on trust, reciprocity, social relations and a shared understanding of space and risk (Lo and Chan, 2017;Joffre et al, 2019;Bouma et al, 2008), it is clear that these cooperation strategies not only support farmers to address information asymmetry in and beyond their farm (Chapter 2 and 3), but also provide a knowledge platform to reduce systemic risks (Chapter 3 and 4), as well as providing direct opportunities for risk-sharing beyond individual farms (Chapter 5). As argued by Bush et al (2019), along with the endogenous incentives of sociospatial connectivity (Bottema et al, 2021b), having access to risk sharing mechanisms would provide more exogenous incentives for beyond-farm cooperation.…”