Use of wild fish in aquaculture and its effects on income and food for the poor 381
Fish are important as a source of animal protein, especially where other sources
of such protein are scarce. Fish protein accounts for about 18 percent of the animal
protein intake in developing countries (Laurenti, 2007). However, the differences
among countries and among regions within countries are large. In many communities
in small island states, in Africa south of the Sahara and in Asia, the contribution of fish
to nutrition is essential. Fish proteins can provide up to 50 percent and more of the
total supply of animal proteins.
Increasing the availability of fish in the diet increases palatability and leads to
increased consumption of a range of foods, thereby improving overall food and
nutrient intakes (FAO, 2003).
- AQUACULTURE: THE CREATION OF INCOME AND FOOD
4.1 Introduction
Is aquaculture good or bad for the poor and the food insecure? Although most fishery
and aquaculture professionals would probably answer “good” to this question, there
is no one answer. There are too many different forms of aquaculture and too much
variation in the situation of the poor and food insecure for a single answer to be
possible. In fact, even if the question is narrowed down to a particular industry (e.g.
tilapia farming in Central America, shrimp farming in Thailand), observers will differ
about effects.
On the one hand, there are several effects of aquaculture that are positive for the
poor and the food insecure. The industry generates income and produces nutritious
food. On the other hand, the pursuit of aquaculture also creates externalities (usually
effective through alterations of the environment) and undesirable market outcomes. In
this paper “undesirable outcomes” are those that cause either reduced incomes for the
poor or a reduced supply of fish or cheap foods containing animal proteins.
However, there seems to be a consensus among those familiar with the poor and
food insecure in Southeast Asia where family operated aquaculture activities are
common and well-established that their contribution to household income and food
security overshadows the negative outcomes that this type of aquaculture may generate
(see Edwards, 1999; Tung, 2000; Prowse and Admos, 2007). This section of the paper
will consider those features of aquaculture that are positive for the poor and the food
insecure. Negative aspects will be reviewed later.
Worldwide aquaculture production (not including plants) at the producer level
was estimated to have had a value of about US$85.9 billion in 2006 (FAO, 2009a). A
significant share of this accrued to small-scale producers and their employees in Asian
aquaculture. As aquaculture continues to expand, it may become a stronger force for
lifting rural households out of poverty than small-scale fisheries^11.
Commercial, large-scale, aquaculture of shrimp, salmon, tilapia, catfish, grouper,
carps, etc, also generates employment (in production, processing and marketing) and
provides income in rural and urban areas. Tax revenues from commercial aquaculture
enterprises and foreign exchange earnings allow governments to invest in sectors that
may add to the achievement of food security (FAO, 2003).
Aquaculture is now providing about half of the fish consumed by the human
population worldwide (FAO, 2009a). As consumers in developed countries account for
only about 30 percent of the total world fish consumption (Laurenti, 2007), it is evident
that aquaculture supplies a very important part of the fish consumed in the developing
world, but almost exclusively in Asia.
(^11) As capture fishery production stagnates, the role of small-scale fisheries in poverty alleviation will
probably take the shape of poverty prevention (Bené, Macfadyen and Allison, 2007) rather than poverty
reduction, at least as long as substantive numbers of alternative employment opportunities do not
develop for capture fishers.