Frontiers in Food Policy: Perspectives on sub-Saharan Africa is a compilation of research stemming from the Global Food Policy and Food Security Symposium Series, hosted by the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The series, and this volume, have brought the world's leading policy experts in the fields of food and agricultural development together for a comprehensive dialogue on pro-poor growth and food security policy. Participants and contributing authors have addressed the major themes of hunger and rural poverty, agricultural productivity, resource and climate constraints on agriculture, and food and agriculture policy, with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa.

China dominates the global aquaculture industry, most clearly with its massive production and consumption of low trophic-level carp species and its rapidly rising output and exports of tilapia. Although these fish do not require a high percentage of fishmeal in their diets, their large production volumes contribute to China's leading role in global fishmeal consumption. The magnitude of China's dependence on fishmeal supplies – and hence the pressure it places on wild forage fisheries – remains a contentious issue. In this study, we use primary survey data from three provinces in China to examine the current use of aquafeeds in the carp and tilapia sectors and to assess how future demand for fishmeal will likely be affected by the country's shifting patterns of seafood consumption and production. Our results indicate that virtually all carp and tilapia farmers in our survey regions use manufactured feeds containing fishmeal and that median feed conversion ratios (FCRs) are in the range of 1.4 to 1.9. Feeds are poorly targeted on many farms due to widespread polyculture practices, especially the integration of higher-value species into carp ponds to improve farm-level profitability. Our study also suggests that government statistics underestimate household demand for fish by 20–35% because they do not account for out-of-home consumption. As China's demand for fish continues to rise in the future with per capita incomes and urbanization, the co-culture of high-valued species and the use of aquaculture feeds containing fishmeal are also expected to expand.

Distributed irrigation systems are those in which the water access (via pump or human power), distribution (via furrow, watering can, sprinkler, drip lines, etc.), and use all occur at or near the same location. Distributed systems are typically privately owned and managed by individuals or groups, in contrast to centralized irrigation systems, which tend to be publicly operated and involve large water extractions and distribution over significant distances for use by scores of farmers. Here we draw on a growing body of evidence on smallholder farmers, distributed irrigation systems, and land and water resource availability across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) to show how investments in distributed smallholder irrigation technologies might be used to (i) use the water sources of SSA more productively, (ii) improve nutritional outcomes and rural development throughout SSA, and (iii) narrow the income disparities that permit widespread hunger to persist despite aggregate economic advancement.

Abstract:

This paper reflects on the credibility of nuclear risk assessment in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima meltdowns. In democratic states, policymaking around nuclear energy has long been premised on an understanding that experts can objectively and accurately calculate the probability of catastrophic accidents. Yet the Fukushima disaster lends credence to the substantial body of social science research that suggests such calculations are fundamentally unworkable. Nevertheless, the credibility of these assessments appears to have survived the disaster, just as it has resisted the evidence of previous nuclear accidents. This paper looks at why. It argues that public narratives of the Fukushima disaster invariably frame it in ways that allow risk-assessment experts to “disown” it. It concludes that although these narratives are both rhetorically compelling and highly consequential to the governance of nuclear power, they are not entirely credible.