Search

When we consider the theme of ‘Marine Productivity and Pollution5 within the framework of an International Conference on Environmental Future, we find it necessary to deal in some detail with the topic of how pollution is affecting marine productivity at the present time, before attempting any prediction for the future. In such a prognostication of what in our opinion is most likely to happen in this highly important matter, a clear distinction must be made between the ultimate results that are to be expected from the present trends and the effects of man’s decisions to apply remedial measures—or, practically, between scientific predictions and political decisions. Without legislative and other counter-measures, the present trend would be amenable to prediction with some accuracy (and despondency). However, man’s counter-measures may well result in greatly reduced trends or even in reduction of the eventual pollution. One worthy instance of this nature is the present downward trend of smoke and sulphur dioxide pollution of the air above the United Kingdom (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1971).

When the organizers of this Conference asked me to contribute a paper on sustained biological productivity, I presumed they had in mind the International Biological Programme (IBP) which runs for the decade of 1964–74, with more than sixty countries participating. Its purpose is the world study of ‘biological productivity and human welfare’, and it seemed that the Conference organizers were thinking in terms of sustained biological productivity linked to man’s use thereof. Other speakers were billed to deal with conservation for its own sake, but my first point is that there is no real scientific difference between the two. Whether one considers a biological system of very high productivity (say, a field of cane-sugar or a carp pond), or of very low productivity (say, the arctic tundra or the Dead Sea), the flow of energy through the biological system is sustained, somewhere near the maximum, within the limits imposed by environmental factors. However, when it comes to management to meet human needs, we have to define our objectives carefully, because manipulation of a particular ecosystem is often possible in two quite different and even opposing directions.

International audience; An important yet largely unexamined issue is how the interaction between deforestation and pollution affects economic and environmental sustainability.This article seeks to bridge the gap by introducing a dynamic model of pollution accumulation where polluting emissions can be mitigated and the absorption efficiency of pollution sinks can be restored. We assume that emissions are due to a production activity, and we include deforestation both as an additional source of emissions and as a cause of the exhaustion of environmental absorption efficiency. To account for the fact that the switching of natural sinks to a pollution source can be either possible, and in such a case even reversible, or impossible, we consider that restoration efforts can be either independent from or dependent on environmental absorption efficiency, i.e., state-independent versus state-dependent restoration efforts. We determine (i) whether production or deforestation is the most detrimental from environmental and social welfare perspectives, and (ii) how state-dependent restoration process affects pollution accumulation and deforestation policies and the related environmental and social welfare consequences.

This paper analyzes the behavior of cross-country growth rates with respect to resource abundance and dependence. We reject the linear model that is commonly used in growth regressions in favor of a multiple-regime alternative. Using a formal sample-splitting method, we find that countries exhibit different behaviors with respect to natural resources depending on their initial level of development. In high-income countries, natural resources play only a minor role in explaining the differences in national growth rates. On the contrary, in low-income countries, abundance seems to be a blessing but dependence restricts growth.

16 pages, 4 figures, 2 tables.-- This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, A growing concern is arising to recognize that ecosystem services (ES) production often requires the integration of non-natural capital with natural capital in a process known as coproduction. Several studies explore co-production in different terrestrial ecosystems, such as agriculture or water delivery, but less attention has been paid to marine ecosystems. Coastal activities such as aquaculture, shellfish harvesting, and small-scale fishing deliver important benefits for seafood provision, but are also inextricably linked to cultural and recreational ES. The degree to which co-production can determine the provision of ES in marine systems has yet not been explored. This paper addresses this key topic with an exploratory analysis of case studies where marine ES are co-produced. We look at five small-scale fisheries that range from intensive semi-aquaculture in Galicia (Spain), to wild harvesting in Northern Portugal, and discuss to what extent co-production influences ES delivery. We find that a direct relationship exists between co-production level and ES delivery in the case of provisioning ES (e.g., fish harvest), but not necessarily in the delivery of other ES. We also find that management practices and property regimes may be affecting trade-offs between co-production and ES, LO acknowledges the financial support from Xunta de Galicia I2C program through the Postdoctoral Project ED481B 2014/051-0. EO acknowledges funding from EU H2020 ERC Starting Grant project CLOCK (grant 679812) and Xunta de Galicia (Axuda complementaria aos beneficiarios do programa StG do Consello Europeo de Investigación). CP would also like to acknowledge FCT/ MEC national funds and FEDER co-funding, within the PT2020 partnership Agreement and Compete2020, for the financial support to CESAM (Grant No. UID/AMB/50017/ 2013). EC acknowledges the European Investment Funds by FEDER/COMPETE/POCI, under Project POCI-01- 0145-FEDER-006958 and National Funds by FCT, under the project UID/AGR/04033/2013, for the financial support to CITAB. SV, GM, and CP acknowledge the financial support from the ICES Science Fund project ‘Social transformations of marine social-ecological systems