392 Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture – Practices, sustainability and implications
processing plants can convert into processed fish products. Often this means that
the fishmeal plants obtain their raw material cheaply. Until a few years ago, the price
hardly ever exceeded US$100 per tonne. This is a price that local consumers, even the
poor, often can afford. Thus, the reason that larger quantities of fish are not consumed
as food is not that the fish are too expensive for the consumer; it is rather that at the
low prevailing prices demand for the fish as food is met, and if the surplus is not used
as animal feed, it could at best be used as fertilizer or pet food. In such situations,
fishers would soon reduce the volumes they bring ashore. At present, they make ends
meet by bringing to fishmeal plants the large volumes of feedfish that they are able to
catch. Thus, as a general rule the argument that existence of feed fisheries has reduced
consumption of cheap fish by the poor does not hold.
The idea of landing large quantities of anchoveta, or sand eel, or most of the other
species used in feed fisheries, and using them to provide food for the poor is a laudable
objective, but unrealistic. By the time the poor can afford to purchase the resulting
canned or cured fish products, they no longer will find themselves referred to as poor.
Also, in the long run the market affects changes. In the middle of the last century
most of the herring landed in Norway was converted into fishmeal; however, by the
beginning of the twenty-first century the proportion had fallen to under 10 percent.
Nevertheless, there is a recurring argument that making fishmeal – and feeding it to
fish – is wrong if the purpose is to maximize food production, as the practice leads to
less food being available^42. In theory, this is correct and would be of relevance for the
poor, if they would have access to the fish supplied as feed (in the form of fishmeal and
fish oil); but, as they do not have that access, the argument is misleading. In addition,
one fish does not equal another. In the eyes of the consumer, they are not identical,
some are strongly preferred (for reasons of taste, smell, appearance, ease of eating, etc.).
So the argument does not give any weight to the economic realities or food preferences
that govern the use of fish. The consequence is that the argument is seldom followed
up by specific recommendations as to what should be done to alter the prevailing use
of fish.
The argument is sometimes expressed as follows: as it takes at least 3 kg of fish
(converted into fishmeal and then incorporated into fish feeds) to produce 2 kg of fish,
the culture of carnivorous fish is self-defeating, as it reduces the supply of fish as an
item of food^43. The argument assumes that the fish that are about to be converted into
fishmeal could in fact be sold to a waiting consumer. In virtually all reduction fisheries,
and particularly in South America, this is not true. Only minute fractions of the large
quantities of fish landed could be sold as food; and, as argued above, if the fish are to
be preserved and transported – especially from one continent to another – they will end
up being sold to the relatively better off – not to the poor.
Any attempt to modify this use of feedfish at a much faster pace than that imposed
by the market will need public intervention to modify existing market forces. In most
situations, such policies will involve a transfer of public funds or access to the benefits
of using public funds, to entrepreneurs – and thus be classified as “subsidies” by those
who prefer a status quo. Given the prevalence of international trade in fish, the use of
subsidies will be scrutinized by competitors (especially by those countries where the
fishing industry exports food products based on low-value pelagics) to see that any
subsidies accorded to convert feed fisheries to food fisheries are WTO-compatible.(^42) In the 1970s, a third argument held sway: fishmeal should be produced to such a quality that it can be
used, if not as a food in its own right, at least as an additive in other foods. FAO and various national
governments (Norway and Peru being two) worked without success to establish such an industry.
(^43) See http://endoftheline.com/