Conclusions

To attempt to wrap up and conclude all the different angles I have explored throughout this blog would be impossible. However I will discuss some takeaway points and comparisons that I have learnt from both the act of blogging and this topic of water and climatic change and its effects on two water-centric industries.

Fishing wise, there is a greater link to food security and the economy than livestock due to the higher numbers of people affected by that sector both directly and indirectly whether that's people relying on income from the sector or protein intake. The discussion around the multiplier effect confirms this. Livestock owners, although definitely and significantly effected by climate change, don't have as many knock on impacts on other people as there a fewer value chains within the industry compared with marine fisheries.

Both these industries possess similar patterns of territory conflict due to both sharing a similar adaptation technique of migrating to other areas and/or changing species. Focusing mainly on spatial movements most of the fishing conflicts come from external encroachments front he likes of china whereas livestock encroachment conflicts are usually between people of equal size in terms of economic impact. Livestock wise both players are trying to cope with climatic impacts. Fishery wise, one is trying to cope (Africa) and one is causing the climatic impacts (China) yet also exacerbating the end result by impacting the already suffering fishing industry in African countries such as Ghana.

Fishermen seem to be better equipped to adapt to climatic effects than livestock owners. This may be due to several reasons - the fishing industry can be seen as more advanced and lucrative than the livestock industry due to its higher level of economic significance therefore attracting more investment. Furthermore, higher technical commitment needed to run the boast and equipment also means more money is invested by the people employed by fishing so they have more to lose if they don't adapt to climatic changes - thus a greater financial risk incentive is created. However, as mentioned previously, often the government helps fishermen replace/finance boats/equipment meaning the fishermen may have a greater disincentive to adapt in this regard. Whereas the livestock owners  have far less top down support.

An interesting point I thought of was that there may be some interaction between the two industries in a sense that - economic mobility permitting, farmers may change to fishermen and vice versa if one or other if the industries is suffering from lack of adaptive capacity due to climatic changes affecting the water both industries are so reliant upon.

Finally, I observed that in the fishing industry there is a far greater divide between artisinal fishing and more industrial large scale fishing. Therefore there is a distinct observable difference between the two types of industry's abilities to adapt and cope with climatic change in relation to water. In comparison, the lines between large scale and small scale livestock farming are far more blurred and therefore it is very difficult to observe and categorise examples of successful and unsuccessful management of impacts. Not only that but the lack of definition makes it even harder to quantify the extent to which the issues faced are climatically induced or due to another source.