Use of wild fish in aquaculture and its effects on income and food for the poor 377
outcomes occur in spite of or because of the way the market economy works. Remedies
are thus possible only if it is accepted that some kind of interference with the market
forces is necessary. In the text, an attempt is made to be explicit about the nature of
such interventions.
Aquaculture that uses fish as feed may cause pollution or transmit illnesses. Such
effects will also affect the poor and undernourished. No attempt is made to estimate
these consequences in this paper.
Neither does the paper attempt to provide any information on “second round”
effects. An example of a positive second round effect would be increased schooling for
children of the poor who earn a living in aquaculture and its consequences. Conversely,
however, the negative outcomes of second round effects can be dramatic. The long-
term consequences of child undernurished are dramatic and tragic at the level of the
individual and also affect economic growth. It is recognized that it is unrealistic to
decide in principle about how to deal with fish as feed without including second-round
effects in the information base for such a decision.
It is important to understand not only the current extent and nature of the problem,
but to identify how it is has come about and formulate best possible projections of
future trends. What are the forces that maintain today’s situation? These forces should
preferably be co-opted into any future solution of the problem. They must, therefore,
be known and are a required part of the problem description. Although this paper is
not intended to identify and prescribe solutions to the “negative outcomes” associated
with the use of wild fish as aquaculture feed, most likely it will be useful for later
research if the outlines of possible solutions could orient the problem description.
“Negative outcomes” are experienced over time by the poor and food insecure. They
either see an already difficult situation degenerate or experience that they have missed
an opportunity to improve their situation. In both cases, the “negative outcome” is
defined by a comparison of what has actually happened with what is believed could
have happened. The study of this kind of problem thus involves comparing actual facts
with an expectation of what could have happened – an imagined situation.
The first task is to establish a sequence of facts that documents the use of wild fish
as aquaculture feed today and provides salient information on how this practice had
developed and spread. To this information should be added information about the
situation of those poor and food insecure who might be or might have been affected
by the practice of using fish as feed.
Once that is done, the second task in this problem identification is to attempt to
establish what most likely would have happened had not the practice of using wild
fish as aquaculture feed developed and become common. This involves speculation,
preferably drawing on information about locations where wild fish have not been used
as aquaculture feed.
This speculation starts by providing a tentative answer to the question “what would
have been the situation for the “target group of poor” if aquaculture had not used wild
fish as feed?” By comparing this situation with the situation as it actually developed,
an idea can be generated about the magnitude and the nature of what would have
happened if fish had not been used as feed in aquaculture. In particular, one can then
ask “how do the benefits (in terms of more cheap fish) stemming from a “no fish as
feed aquaculture” for the poor and undernourished compare with a possible loss of
income (and associated effects) for those poor who obtain a living through shrimp or
finfish culture?”^2
(^2) But the analytical problems do not end here. Assuming that yes indeed, there would be benefits for the
poor (likely some immediate and some long term) from stopping the use of wild fish as feed, is there
a linear relationship between cause and effect? Put simply: does a little use of fish as feed cause a small
problem and a large use of fish as feed cause a correspondingly large problem? Or is some level of use of
fish as feed without harm? (Does the harm only appear after some level of use?)