Dataset Information

Leverage points in the financial sector for seafood sustainability.

ABSTRACT: Can finance contribute to seafood sustainability? This is an increasingly relevant question given the projected growth of seafood markets and the magnitude of social and environmental challenges associated with seafood production. As more capital enters the seafood industry, it becomes crucial that investments steer the sector toward improved sustainability, as opposed to fueling unsustainable working conditions and overexploitation of resources. Using a mixed-methods approach, we map where different financial mechanisms are most salient along a seafood firm's development trajectory and identify three leverage points that can redirect capital toward more sustainable practices: loan covenants, stock exchange listing rules, and shareholder activism. We argue that seafood sustainability requirements need to be integrated into traditional financial services and propose key research avenues for academic, policy, and practice communities. While our study focuses on the role of finance in seafood sustainability, the insights developed are also of high relevance to other extractive industries.

SUBMITTER: Jouffray JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6774725 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Leverage points in the financial sector for seafood sustainability.

Jouffray Jean-Baptiste JB Crona Beatrice B Wassénius Emmy E Bebbington Jan J Scholtens Bert B

Science advances 20191002 10

Can finance contribute to seafood sustainability? This is an increasingly relevant question given the projected growth of seafood markets and the magnitude of social and environmental challenges associated with seafood production. As more capital enters the seafood industry, it becomes crucial that investments steer the sector toward improved sustainability, as opposed to fueling unsustainable working conditions and overexploitation of resources. Using a mixed-methods approach, we map where diff ...[more]

PMID: 31616789

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBenzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-receptor agonists (BDZRAs, often known as "Z-drugs") are commonly used in older adults despite well-documented harms.ObjectiveTo evaluate patterns of benzodiazepine and BDZRA use in Israel, focusing on potential leverage points where quality improvement initiatives might effectively curtail new use or the transition from intermittent to chronic use.Design and participantsWe used national electronic medical data to assess a 10% random sample of adults receiving care in Clalit Health Services, which serves half of Israel's population. The sample included 267,221 adults, of whom 56,808 (21%) were age 65 and older.Main measuresMedication use from 2013 to 2015 was ascertained using pharmacy dispensing data.ResultsIn 2014, 7% of adults age 21-64 and 32% of adults age 65 and older received at least one benzodiazepine/BDZRA, including 49% of adults age 85 and older (P < 0.001). The majority of older users (59%) were long-term users of the drugs, and 21% of older adults who were short-term users in 2014 transitioned to medium- or long-term use in 2015. Older Arab Israelis were much less likely to receive benzodiazepine/BDZRAs than older Jewish Israelis (adjusted OR 0.28, 95% 0.25-0.31), but within each community there was no major variation in prescribing rates across clinics. Depression diagnosis was associated with particularly high rates of benzodiazepine/BDZRA use: 17% of older adults with depression received a benzodiazepine/BDZRA but no antidepressant, and 42% received both. Recent hospitalization increased the risk of new benzodiazepine/BDZRA use (adjusted OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96), but the absolute risk increase was only 3%.ConclusionsBenzodiazepines/BDZRAs are used at exceptionally high rates by older Israeli adults, especially the oldest old. Important leverage points for quality improvement efforts include curtailing the transition from short-term to long-term use, reducing use in older adults with depression, and identifying reasons that explain large differences in benzodiazepine/BDZRA prescribing between different ethnic groups.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Adequate and sustainable funding of national medicine regulatory agencies (NMRAs) is key for assurance of quality, safety and efficacy of medical products circulating in a market. The study aimed to determine factors affecting NMRAs funding in five East African Community (EAC) countries namely: Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania (Mainland and Zanzibar) and Uganda. METHODOLOGY:An exploratory, mixed method design using both qualitative and quantitative data, was employed. Data from six NMRAs was collected through a combination of semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and checklists for the period 2011/12-2014/15 while 2010/11 data served as baseline. Interviews were conducted with heads of NMRAs and monitoring and evaluation experts of the respective agencies. NMRA's financing was assessed using six indicators namely, funding policy, financial autonomy, the total annual budget, actual funding per annum, funds received from various sources, and the NMRA expenditure. RESULTS:The average total annual budget for all the EAC countries during the study period 2011-2015 ranged from USD 824,328.67 to USD 10,724,536.50. The low budget in Zanzibar may be attributed to population and pharmaceutical market size. Uganda's attainment of 98.75% (USD 10,656,704) revenue from industry fees is a result of deliberate government policy change from 100% reliance on donor funding over a period of 10 years (1995-2015). On average, the proportion of revenue against budget per annum is 54.8% (USD 458,970.11), 98.7% (USD 10,302,295.25) and 100% (USD 7,375,802.08) for Zanzibar Food & Drugs Agency (ZFDA), Uganda National Drug Authority (NDA) and Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) respectively. Governments, industry fees and donors are the major sources of funding across all NMRAs in the EAC region, with TMDA and Uganda NDA relying more on industry fees by 73.20% (USD 4,664,777.59) and 98.25% (USD 8,077,238.20) respectively. While Burundi relies solely on government funding, ZFDA, on the other hand, received on average 50.40% (USD 252,557.22) from government and 40.60% (USD 165,303.34) from industry fees and the remaining 9% from donors and other sources. An overall contribution of funds received from donors by each NMRA was the least among other sources of financing. Observation of expenditure patterns indicated operational costs to be the major expense in the majority of the NMRAs, followed by salaries and infrastructure development. The Kenya NMRA has the highest degree of average expenditure across all three categories, with the least average expenditures being marked by Burundi NMRA. The operational costs on average increased considerably in all the NMRAs during the study period. CONCLUSION:Evidence from the EAC suggests that government and industry fees are the main sources of funding while donor contributions vary from country to country. Government policy, legal framework, and fees structure are the key enablers of NMRAs funding sustainability.

Dataset Information

Leverage points in the financial sector for seafood sustainability.

Publications

Leverage points in the financial sector for seafood sustainability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets