376 Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture – Practices, sustainability and implications
(iv) when fish are obtained through reduction fisheries and converted into fishmeal,
employment onshore is much below what it would be if the fish were destined
for human consumption, and this affects the poor in particular, as much of the
work to be done in preparing fish as food demands only low-skilled labour.Three aspects of these arguments should be noted.
First, the focus of three of the four arguments is on the supply of cheap fish, and
this is surprising, as it is generally recognized by those involved in public programmes
pursuing poverty alleviation – and this will be discussed later in this paper – that
poverty alleviation is achieved primarily when the poor obtain the opportunity to
earn an income. Provision of cheap food is a less effective strategy, and one that poor
societies have difficulties financing in the long run.
The second aspect to be noted is that the arguments do not take issue with the
notion that aquaculture is beneficial for those who undertake it (they earn an income,
especially important for the poor who need to buy food) and for those who eat fish
or shellfish, the nutritional benefits of which are recognized universally. Rather, the
argument against the use of fish as feed is that it is harmful for others than those
directly involved or that harm appears with delay and then possibly also for those
active in aquaculture.
The problem is that the market does not by itself correct the negative impacts
experienced by third parties and they, most of the time, do not have the economic
power to modify prevailing market forces in their favour. Therefore, they need to call
on public authorities to intervene on their behalf. However, frequently, calls for redress
are made not by those who suffer the negative outcomes of the market, who are often
poor and lacking the know-how and access to media needed to make such calls, but
by others.
The third aspect to note is that the first three arguments take as a given that more
fish equals a better world, and a better world also for the poor. However, if it is agreed
that for the poor a higher steady income is more important than cheap fish, then it is
worth finding out if the use of fish as aquaculture feed leads to more and sustained
income for the poor than any alternative use of the concerned fish. If this is so, actions
that maintain such a source of income can be seen as poverty prevention and must be
given due consideration.- INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose, limitations and method
This paper is intended to assist professionals working with poverty prevention and
undernutrition to understand the potential that aquaculture provides for achieving
sustainable solutions to poverty and malnutrition, while focusing on the role that
aquaculture operations that use fish as feed may have in this context. Its purpose is
not to provide standard solutions, but rather to indicate strategies that may be used
to undertake the analysis needed to identify and formulate equitable and sustainable
solutions to issues created by the use of wild fish as aquaculture feed.
The paper also identifies, and where possible, quantifies the issues involved.
Although there are lacunae in the knowledge of the amount of fish used as feed, the
order of magnitude is now known (Huntington and Hasan, 2009). Paradoxically, there
is less information available about the number of individuals directly affected by the
use of fish as feed. In order to develop a quantitative estimate, the paper resorts to
extrapolations using available data to provide some initial estimates of the numbers of
people involved. These estimates need to be verified by surveys in randomly selected
relevant locations.
The paper reviews alternatives for dealing with negative outcomes of using fish and
feed. As most economies today rely on some form of market economy, the negative