Aquaculture and society in the 21st century

Full text

Aquaculture and Society in the New Millennium1
Randall E. Brummett
WorldFish Centre-Cameroon
r.Brummett@cgiar.org
Aquaculture as we know it at the beginning of the 21st century is a consolidation of more or less
independent experiences. Pharonic carvings indicate that the Egyptians were cultivating fish at
least 2500 years ago. The Chinese claim to have been growing fish for centuries. The Romans
had fishponds (piscinae). In the 14th century, the emperor Charles IV ordered all towns to build
fish ponds to produce food, enhance the local environment and protect watersheds. Paleolithic
Hawaiian Islanders isolated embayments for rearing fish in the sea. Whatever the original
objective of these aquaculture initiatives, from each evolved a set of concepts that until quite
recently, strongly influenced how aquaculture interacted with local society and the environment.
One could argue that modern, global aquaculture arose from these different local traditions only
in the second half of the 20th century. Scientific evaluation of the integrated agriculture-
aquaculture systems that had evolved in China began in the 1960’s. The publication of two books
in the 1970’s, Traité de Pisciculture, Fourth Edition (Huet 1970) and Aquaculture: The Farming
and Husbandry of Freshwater and Marine Organisms (Bardach et al. 1972) for the first time
brought together for analysis and comparison the range of global aquaculture experiences. The
World Aquaculture Society and the European Aquaculture Society were formed in the 1970’s.
The journal Aquaculture began in 1972. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) began separate reporting of aquaculture statistics from capture fisheries statistics
in the early 1980’s.
These initiatives created, from disparate and isolated experiences, the international research and
development (R&D) community that has worked together with industry to solve problems and
produce average annual industrial growth rates of about 10 percent over the last 15 years, making
aquaculture the fastest growing animal production sector in the world.
However, the environmental, social and economic landscape within which aquaculture has
performed well up to now is changing. In particular, competition will increase as barriers to
trade decline through the process of economic globalization. In addition, the negative
environmental and social impacts of aquaculture that occur in some situations will increase
public scrutiny and criticism that could well alter the policies that have so far fostered growth.
In addition to the regular status reports and prognostications produced by FAO, New (1999),
Pedini (2000) and Masser (2000) have recently reviewed the major trends in aquaculture over the
last decades and attempted to project these trends into the future. From these analyses, it is clear
that changing dietary preferences, population growth and economic development will create a
strong demand for aquaculture products for the foreseeable future. Inasmuch as the principal
dataset for these analyses is the same (FAO), and because all of these reviews resulted in similar
1 World Aquaculture 34(1):51-70.

predictions and concerns for the future, I shall not revisit in depth the fish production statistics.
Instead, I will focus on how trends in aquaculture development effect the lives of consumers and
producers, and try to draw conclusions that might guide aquaculture development policy for the
future.
Aquaculture and Food
Agriculture in general is different than most businesses because, in addition to generating jobs
and income, it produces the food we absolutely must have to survive. Modern agriculture
produces enough food to feed the world. The problem is distribution, or more precisely, the
inequitable distribution of the financial resources necessary to obtain food.
Although globally fish are one of the most widely consumed sources of animal protein, in
industrialized countries seafoods are generally regarded as luxury or specialty products. Prices
for salmon, seabass, shrimp, oysters and other such high value commodities can rise or fall and
the effects are on producer profit margins. In poorer countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America,
fish are often a critically important part of the daily diet and in its absence people suffer from
malnutrition, particularly protein deficiencies. Increasing population on these continents, coupled
with declines in capture fisheries resulting from over-exploitation and environmental
degradation, have rendered these people vulnerable to even minor perturbations in fish supply.
Having said that, demand for fish, unlike agriculture of staple crops, is seldom a matter of life or
death, but rather an opportunity for profitable aquaculture.
Because of generally high demand, aquaculture is theoretically profitable in most countries
where enterprise budgets have been calculated (Hatch and Hanson 1992). However, investors
and farmers want to maximize their returns, not just profit margin. There are two general
strategies for maximizing returns:
1. Produce a relatively small quantity of a high profit margin product (e.g., luxury seafood),
2. produce a large quantity of a cheap product (what I call “commodities” in this paper).
In Africa and South Asia, over 40% of the population lives on less than one US dollar per day; in
East Asia and Latin America the figure is about 25% (World Bank 2000). To mass produce low-
value species at the lowest possible cost to feed these people, one would need to use systems
based on low-cost inputs. Without chemicals, machinery, electricity and feeds, one could safely
anticipate standing stocks at harvest of no more than 3,000 - 5,000 kg/ha depending on the
species grown. To produce 14 kg of fish per person per year for the 10.5 million people who live
in the African country of Malawi, for example, with such a system would require between
28,000 and 46,000 hectares of land. If the 80% of the Malawian population that makes less than
200 USD per household per year were able to spend 10% of total income on fish, a fish farmer
could expect to gross about $1,500 per hectare. The same farmer, with the same system but
targeting the wealthiest 10% of the population that lives in cities (average annual income of
$12,000 per household), could theoretically gross some $60,000 per hectare (World Bank 1996).
This competition with wealthier markets, both locally and internationally, works against the
production of cheap fish for the poor (Street and Sullivan 1985). For example, low-tech tilapia
2

production can gross over $8,500 per hectare if the fish are sold in the African wholesale market
(Table 1). Exported to Europe, the same fish are worth over twice as much. Producing shrimp for
Europe instead of tilapia for Africa could increase gross receipts by over 9 times. It takes a true
philanthropist to ignore these figures and the investment pattern in Africa shows that
philanthropy is taking a back seat to profits, even in situations where people are literally starving
to death. In 1998, sub-Saharan African production of difficult-to-grow luxury mariculture
products was almost the same, approximately 12,000 metric tons (MT), as that of easy-to-rear
tilapias (FAO 1999).
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 1. Wholesale market value of major aquaculture products grown in 1998 in subSaharan
Africa (SSA) in million US dollars (FAO 1999).
______________________________________________________________________________
MT Value SSA Value Europe
Grown (USD per MT) (USD per MT)
____________________________________
Cyprinids 2921 1880 591
Salmonids 1769 2830 2898
Tilapias 12238 1706 4001
Other Freshwater Finfish 10860 2170 691
Marine Shrimps 5626 7053 15367
Bivalves 3169 2058 1076
Algae 3153 274 346
Other Mariculture 4 3925 6452
______________________________________________________________________________
The role of aquaculture in food security has been a major concern of the industry for some time.
Bridging the gap between fish supply and demand was the theme of the 1999 World Aquaculture
Society annual meeting in Australia. From the point of view of food security, the most important
recent trend in aquaculture has been the convergence of production and market value (Figure 1).
Overall, the driving force behind the relative increase in production and decline in value appears
to be declining prices for luxury (Figure 2a) and commodity (Figure 2b) products as markets are
becoming saturated and competition is increasing. However, as the trend for tiger prawn in
Figure 2a illustrates, these declines are related to specific market situations. The tiger prawn
industry suffered serious technical problems due to self-pollution and disease in the early 1990’s
that reduced production and forced prices significantly higher, and from which the industry has
not yet fully recovered.
Within the luxury products market, the industry’s response to market saturation has been an
attempt at species diversification and the production of more specialized products. In a recent
survey, Abellan and Basurco (1999) found that Mediterranean countries involved in aquaculture
are currently investigating between 5-10 new species each. In addition, new marketing strategies
and value added products are under consideration. With the large profits that are potentially
possible from production of luxury products for wealthy markets, the scramble for technological
3

advantage and market share will most likely produce further consolidation. However,
unavoidable high overheads, such as rental of sites with access to good water, expensive
hatchery technology and the cost of high-protein formulated feeds, will keep prices from
declining to the point where these products can compete with lower value species in commodity
markets for the foreseeable future.
Figure 1. Quantity and value of global aquaculture production from 1984 to 1998 (FAO 1999).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1984
198
5
198
6
1987
198
8
198
9
199
0
1991
1992
199
3
1994
199
5
199
6
1997
199
8
Year
Production (Million MT)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Value (Thousand Million USD)
Quantity
Value
Within the commodity markets, increases in production have brought wholesale prices down to
about $1000 per MT. At this price, lower income consumers may be beginning to benefit from
commercial fish farming. However, most of these gains have come in China and a few other
Asian countries where local demand is high and aquaculture has already become an important
part of the food production system. It is worth noting that China, being the single largest
producer of lower-priced commodity fish, developed most of it’s low-cost aquaculture under the
command economy of the early 20th century, and the sustainability of these production systems
in a globalized economy is questionable. In any case, the spread of the benefits of through
international trade to non-producing countries remain marginal.
In sub-Saharan Africa for example, prices for cyprinids and tilapias remain at about twice the
$1000 per MT level, despite high demand (Table 1). Notwithstanding almost 20 years of
structural adjustment, the per capita economic growth rates of all but 6 of the 48 poorest
countries remains below the theoretical 3% threshold for poverty reduction (World Bank 2000).
This suggests that aquaculture species that are considered as lower priced commodities in some
4

countries, will continue to be available only to a relatively wealthy minority in others: remaining
out of reach for the foreseeable future for some sectors of the population with greatest need.
Figure 2. Reported value of global aquaculture production (usd/MT) in 1998 for luxury seafood
products (a) and commodities (b) after FAO (1999).
a.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
Year
Value (USD/MT)
at lan tic salm o n
giant tiger prawn
b.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
Year
Value (USD/MT)
common carp
Nile t ilap ia
sliver carp
In the meantime, people need to eat, and since most of the poor people in the world eke a living
from smallscale family farms, it seems important to determine in which ways these production
systems can be made more productive. Because these farms produce food primarily for the
family and only secondarily for sale in the cash economy, smallscale farmers tend to manage for
minimal costs and risks, rather than maximum production. Systems that return a profit from
5

locally-marketed fish grown in small ponds fed with agricultural by-products may be attractive
to this group of farmers. Cost of production of these fish is low because most inputs are wastes
and in most developing countries, where under-employment runs up to 80 percent, there are no
realistic opportunities on the labor used for pond construction and feeding (Stewart 1993). In
Malawi, Ghana and the Philippines, such systems have been able to double production and treble
the cash income of small farms (Brummett and Noble 1995; Prein et al. 1996, Prein et al. 1999).
Figure 3. GIS assessment of potential for small-scale aquaculture in Africa (from Aguilar-
Mangarrez and Nath 1998).
6

In addition, case studies from southern Africa indicate that, if done properly, fish farming of this
type can be transferred into a broad range of smallscale farming systems (Brummett and Noble
1995, van der Mheen 1995). Using very conservative figures, FAO has recently estimated that 37
percent of sub-Saharan Africa, the continent with the poorest aquaculture and, arguably, the
greatest need, is suitable for smallscale fish farming (Figure 3) (Aguilar-Manjarrez and Nath
1998). If production figures from relatively recent development projects are used, 35 percent of
Africa's projected increased fish need up to the year 2010 could be met by smallscale fish
farmers on only 0.5 percent of the total area potentially available.
Aquaculture and the Environment
Agriculture, more than any other human activity, determines what the rural environment will
look like. There are many possible scenarios, but at one extreme are relatively small, traditional
family farms working land that has been in more or less continuous production for hundreds of
years to produce a wide range of products for local markets. At the other end of the spectrum are
industrialized, monocropping estates that cover thousands of contiguous hectares and operate on
3-5 year planning horizons to produce bulk products for international markets. In an unregulated
market economy, the industrial agriculture end of the spectrum has a clear advantage in terms of
profit margins and productivity and this has been reflected in the trend away from family farms.
However, human economics is an imperfect distributor of costs and benefits and any form of
agriculture which pushes environmental and social limits in order to be profitable, cannot be
sustainable in the long term.
For example, thorough cost-benefit analyses of shrimp farms built in mangrove areas show
strong negative returns to society (Primavera 1997). Such investments have resulted not only in
destruction of sensitive mangrove forests, but also in significant loss of jobs and income, and
sometimes even homes and livelihoods. Kautsky et al. (1997) cite a typical example from
Thailand where the destruction of 100,000 hectares of mangroves for shrimp ponds caused an
estimated loss in capture fisheries production of 800,000 MT over 5 years while only producing
120,000 MT of shrimp.
In countries with the wherewithal to pay, huge subsidies have been made to produce the sort of
agriculture that society finds acceptable, such as the traditional farming communities one still
sees in much of rural Europe. For the case of the US dust bowl, the federal government took
sweeping action to curtail destructive practices and provide high-quality technical expertise to
agriculture to prevent future abuses. The US Soil Conservation Service and the Tennessee Valley
Authority were created. Land was set aside for hedgerows and barrage ponds to reduce soil
erosion, as advised by Charles IV 600 years ago. Large investments were made in agricultural
education, research and extension to help generate and transfer more productive and sustainable
technology.
However, globalization is working against this system. Increasing competition and the specter of
decreasing protection and/or other subsidies forces farmers to operate on smaller profit margins
and larger volume. Often this means increased use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and
reduction in methods which could limit soil erosion, including hedgerows, water storage
7

reservoirs and fallows. In effect, environmental goods and services, as well as the public health,
are the new agriculture subsidies. Rather than paying taxes to support sustainable agriculture, we
are now paying higher recreation and medical fees. We may also be mortgaging the land and
water resources that future generations will need to feed themselves.
Environmental legislation alone is not a solution to these problems. Harsh penalties for
environmental destruction fall disproportionately on smaller, family farms that cannot afford to
comply with complex rules nor engage lawyers and lobbyists to fight regulation. As the marginal
profitability of smallscale agriculture declines, operators have increasing difficulty buying more
expensive and productive technology. In industrialized countries, subsidy programs have been
altered to maintain cosmetic compliance with free trade rules, but still help family farms out of
this conundrum.
In developing countries that cannot afford lavish subsidies, the situation is somewhat different.
Rather than being urban consumers, most of the populations in Africa, Asia and Latin America
are rural, smallholding farmers. The bulk of the environmental degradation resulting from bad
agriculture on these continents is the fault of people who are, in many cases, struggling less to
increase their marginal profits, than to merely survive. Even if governments have the will to
legislate against destructive farming practices, low operating budgets for agriculture support
agencies mean there is little ability to enforce the law or even explain the problem to farmers in
order to seek voluntary compliance. Miniscule public sector support also produces ineffective
R&D institutions which, in consequence, can provide productive and environmentally friendly
technology to neither smallholders nor corporate agriculture. In the extreme case, the resulting
decreased per capita food production increases political pressure in favor of any type of
agriculture, no matter how destructive, just to avoid famine in the short term.
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2. Major negative environmental impacts of global aquaculture.
______________________________________________________________________________
Continent Major Negative Environmental Impact
______________ _____________________________________________________
North America Eutrophication of freshwaters; escape of exotic species
South America Eutrophication of estuaries receiving shrimp farm effluent;
mangrove destruction; escape of exotic species
Asia Eutrophication of fresh and estuarine waters; extensive mangrove
Destruction; escape of exotic species
Europe Eutrophication of freshwaters; sedimentation and fouling of seabed
under marine cages; escape of exotic species
Africa Escape of exotic species
Australia Escape of exotic species
Oceania Escape of exotic species
______________________________________________________________________________
8

Consequently, examples of unsustainable agriculture are widespread. In Latin America, over 10
million hectares of rainforest have been cut and transformed into very marginally productive
cattle ranches (Barbier et al. 1995, McNeely et al. 1995). In Asia, over 30 million hectares of
forest have been destroyed to make way for unsustainable shrimp farms (McNeely et al. 1995).
The environmental situation in Asia is so bad that the aquaculture sector alone has auto-polluted
itself into estimated annual revenue losses of over $3 billion (ADB/NACA 1996) to say nothing
of the destruction of natural aquatic ecosystems. Slash and burn cropping now contributes to the
1 million hectares of deforestation that is estimated to occur each year in Africa. One hundred
and forty-two million hectares of rainfed cropland in sub-Saharan Africa have become
desertified as a result of agriculture. Salinization of irrigated land affects another 5 million
hectares (WRI/IIED, 1988). Compared to other agriculture sectors, the contribution of
aquaculture to environmental degradation is small, but it may be growing (Table 2).
In an attempt to address these problems without disrupting flows of food and money, farmers
with the financial wherewithal will invest in marginal improvements in efficiency that lead to
increased competitiveness and decreased environmental impact. The trends that have been
identified in recent reviews of the environmental impacts of aquaculture will probably be:
• Decreased reliance upon fishmeal in diets,
• Increased efficiency in feed formulation in terms of pellet stability and nutritional content,
• Containment and recycling of wastes in cages and flow-through systems,
• Increased water and land use efficiency in land-based systems,
• Changes in the type, and reductions in the extent of chemical use,
• Containment and genetic manipulations to minimize the effects of escapees on indigenous
fish populations.
An additional step that could be taken to minimize environmental impacts and increase the
positive image of aquaculture would be to shift away from the luxury products that have
heretofore dominated the aquaculture industry outside of some Asian countries, towards fish that
feed lower on the food-chain and might be affordable by lower income consumers. The
production of such species in integrated farming systems that recycle agricultural by-products
through fish ponds would further lower costs and increase environmental sustainability
(Brummett and Noble 1995, Kautsky et al. 1997).
Another choice that would reduce negative environmental impacts would be to focus on
indigenous species for culture. While most successful aquaculture industries are based on local
species, many poor countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America have been searching for quick
fixes to their aquaculture development problems by importing exotic species from locations
where their farming is already established. These fish routinely escape from their culture units,
often replacing indigenous species or severely altering local ecosystems (McNeely et al. 1995,
Lever 1996). With increasing local and international pressure to safeguard biodiversity, I
anticipate an increased interest in the development of indigenous species for aquaculture as more
countries come into compliance with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995)
and the Convention on Biological Diversity (1994).
9

Aquaculture and the Economy
Even if the ecological consequences of aquaculture escapees do not affect government policy,
the track record of aquaculture-related introductions shows that bringing in exotic species to get
quick results seldom produces the desired result. Of 212 international introductions into Africa of
freshwater fishes for aquaculture, only 33 (16 percent) were found to have resulted in the
establishment of an industry with output of more than 10 MT per year in 1997 (FAO 1999). Of
these, 10 (30 percent) were of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) from Asia and Europe and 7 (21
percent) were of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) from other African countries. The case of
Zambia, where 39 introductions resulted in sustained aquaculture of only Nile tilapia and
common carp (Thys van den Audenaerde 1994), is typical. Production of these two species in
1997 was only 133 and 275 T, respectively, compared to 2680 and 1010 T for the indigenous
Oreochromis andersonii and Tilapia rendalli, respectively. In total, exotic species account for
only 15 percent of African aquaculture output (Bartley and Casal 1998). In Asia, the powerhouse
of world aquaculture, 517 introductions have resulted in a total contribution of only 5 percent to
total output (Garibaldi 1996).
The main reason why exotics have failed to produce rapid growth of the aquaculture sector in
developing countries is because the germplasm being cultivated is only one, and not usually the
most important, constraint to development. Far more important than lack of species are:
• Poor infrastructure, such as bad telephones, bad roads, irregular air service and
unreliable electricity (Coche et al. 1994).
• The lack, or volatile prices, of essential inputs such as feeds, fertilizers, chemicals,
fuel and spare parts (Williams 1997).
• Inequality of incomes and consequent political instability (UNDP 1998).
• Poor market development and marketing infrastructure (Hecht 1997, Masser 2000).
• The lack of the necessary R&D to backstop industrial growth (Lazard et al. 1991).
In addition to having basic infrastructure and more-or-less stable government, countries where
aquaculture has been successful have a history of strong direct linkage between research and
farmers. Since the internationalization of aquaculture R&D in the 1970’s, there has evolved a
high degree of uniformity and specialization within specific agroecological zones. States on cold
oceans with sufficiently protected areas along their shores produce salmon. Tropical countries
with suitable coastal areas produce shrimp. Throughout the Mississippi delta in the US, farmers
with bottomland are growing channel catfish. Concomitant with specialization has been a
convergence of technology so that systems vary little from place to place. Typically, pioneering
entrepreneurs and R & D institutions supported by public funds have worked together to
overcome technological and marketing problems. Once technology is standardized and shown to
be profitable, investors pour in.
Inasmuch as all investors are competing in very similar, if not the same markets, economic
viability comes to rely increasingly on smaller and smaller profit margins. Such cycles have
resulted in large numbers of dropouts as ventures with comparative advantage for a particular
species increase production and push prices below the break-even point for others. While some
go out of business as a result of production inefficiency, many others are simply victims of
10

circumstance. Increasing efficiency and reduced numbers of farms means fewer jobs. Some
bankrupt installations are sold to competitors, but others are simply abandoned for lack of a
buyer in a saturated market. The Norwegian Atlantic salmon and the US channel catfish
industries have followed this general pattern, as, indeed, have many other agrobusinesses
(Forster 1999).
The Israeli common carp industry provides an example of such change (Figure 4). Until 1965,
virtually all of Israel’s aquaculture production was of common carp. From 1965 to 1991,
efficiency increases led to improvements in average yield, which, in turn, precipitated a decline
in total area under water of 2200 hectares and a decline in the number of farming businesses
from 88 to 55. During the entire period of declining participation, production steadily increased
from 10000 to 15000 MT.
Figure 4. Level of investment in Israeli aquaculture (indicated by pond surface area) relative to
the diversity of species grown. From 1939 to 1953, common carp was the sole culture species.
From 1955 to 1969, tilapias and mullets were added to the basic common carp system to improve
efficiency in a market that was becoming increasingly competitive (the number of farmers
declined from 88 in 1967 to 60 in 1985. From 1971 to 1985, additional species of carp were
added. With the introduction of salmonids and striped bass in the late 1980’s, level of investment
and number of farmers once again began to rise up to 72 in 1997 (data from Dill and Ben Tuvia
1988, Sarig 1989 and 1996, Snovsky and Shapiro 1999).
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983
1987
1991
1995
Year
Hectare
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Percent
Pond Surface Area
Percentage Common Carp
11

Figure 5 presents a model for how total aquaculture output might be enhanced while keeping
more investors and laborers in the industry. As production and the number of farmers increases,
market limits or increases in efficiency favor some producers who come to dominate the market
for a particular species. Without alternative markets, less competitive producers begin to fall out
with associated loss of employment and waste of developed infrastructure. Equilibrium 1 is the
level of investment supported by a highly efficient, single species industry. With alternative
species and markets, additional investment and employment can be supported (Equilibria 2 and
3), although overlap among producers will probably mean lower overall investment levels for
each new species added. On the other hand, run-in to full market exploitation should become
shorter as more experienced farmers lead the transition to each successive new species.
Figure 5. A theoretical model of how the continual domestication of new species can enhance
levels of employment and investment in aquaculture. Equilibrium 1 is the point where the initial
aquaculture industry stabilizes with the culture of one main species. Equilibrium 2, based on the
domestication of a second species, has taken advantage of existing infrastructure to add quickly
but marginally to investment levels. At Equilibrium 3, even less of an increment has been added,
but opportunities for employment and investment have been further increased.
Time
Number of Investors
Species 1
Species 2
Species 3 Eq 3
Eq 2
Eq 1
Because the markets for many species overlap (Brummett 2000), this model would produce the
greatest benefits if new species actually increase the overall size of the market, access new
markets or in some special cases, replace a high value species for which the capture fishery is in
decline. In Israel, for example, polyculture of cyprinids and tilapias served largely to increase
yield, but did not develop new markets. Only when striped bass and salmonids were introduced
12

did new consumers start to buy fish. This example underscores the importance of market
analysis and planning prior to making major investments in the development of new species.
Another example is the rapid growth and collapse of the South African clariid catfish industry.
Scientists and farmers working together fostered rapid expansion from 10 MT in 1987 to 1200
MT in 1990. The industry, however, collapsed to 150 MT in 1992 due to inadequate market
development (Hecht 1997).
Diversification to support stable industrial development is not a radical idea and has been a
component of successful aquaculture development in many countries (Corbin and Young 1997).
Israel (Figure 4) has been increasing the number of species under cultivation steadily. From 1967
when the decline in farm numbers began, three species were grown on Israeli farms. The decline
reversed in 1991 when government increased its role in R & D and encouraged the domestication
of new species (Mires 1995). By 1998 there were over 14 species being cultured (Dill and Ben-
Tuvia 1988, FAO 1999, Sarig 1989 and 1996) and new investments were being made even while
the carp industry was still consolidating (Mires 1995). When US aquaculture was in its infancy
and no one knew which technologies were going to prove the most successful, research centers
studied at least 16 finfish species, including 8 exotics, for application in US warm-water
aquaculture and numerous others for marine and cold water applications. Since 1985, Norway
has developed successful commercial systems for at least five new species (FAO 1999). At least
26 new species are currently being domesticated for Mediterranean mariculture (Abellan and
Basurco 1999).
Conclusions
Globalization and new standards for environmental and social responsibility on the part of
aquaculture have changed the context in which the industry will function in the next millennium.
These changes will be most noticeable in countries with short histories of democracy, those very
countries in which most new demand for aquaculture products will be generated by increasing
population and economic development.
If aquaculture responds to the deregulation and open markets of the 21st century in the same way
as other agro-industries did in the last century, bigger, more vertically integrated farms will
increase their market share. These farms will focus on larger markets for a limited number of
species in forms that are easy to pack and ship. Ultimately, a small number of very large
producers will produce huge quantities of a few species that can be produced in extensive and
highly automated facilities either far offshore in the oceans or in large tracts of earthen ponds
built in areas with abundant freshwater, some of which might well be located in countries that
are currently not major aquaculture producers. Eventually, these farms may come close to
feeding the masses with fish, possibly even before the end of the century.
Smaller farms, to survive, will have to capture niche and local markets, often by growing and
selling specialty products, such as live fish, or locally favored species. As overall global wealth
increases, the viability and number of these farms and the species they grow will also increase.
These farms will benefit from lower prices of equipment, feeds and other inputs developed by, or
for, the big corporate farms. They will be located near big cities where high profit margins can
be realized through sale of very fresh products to wealthy households, restaurants and hotels.
13

While the bulk of overall employment will be in the processing and marketing of the fish grown
on the large farms, the majority of fish culture jobs will be in the smallscale, specialized sector.
The total fish production from such farms may be modest, but farm-level economic impact
produces wider economic growth. Delgado et al. (1998) reviewed results from Burkina Faso,
Niger, Senegal and Zambia and found that “…even small increments to rural incomes that are
widely distributed can make large net additions to growth and improve food security.”
Winkleman (1998), in a review of agriculture policy impacts in developing countries, identified
interventions that lead to improved incomes at the level of the rural farmer and resource manager
as “having a larger impact on countrywide income than increases in any other sector.”
To make small-scale, market-oriented aquaculture viable will not require a revolution. Rather, it
will require an evolutionary approach that adapts technology to local and idiosyncratic
opportunities, gradually increasing production and efficiency over time. The strategy for
aquaculture development that created the American catfish, the European salmon and the Asia
and Latin American shrimp industries would again serve: a strong and direct linkage between the
international R&D community and entrepreneurial farmers.
Industrial aquaculture, as it continues to specialize and consolidate, may eventually find a way to
sustainably produce large quantities of fish at low cost. If the potential of the lower-income
producers can also be realized through the concerted efforts of policy-makers, scientists and
farmers, both poor and wealthy fish farmers and poor and wealthy consumers can participate in
reaping the benefits of a changing global society.
References
Abellan, E. and B. Basurco, editors. 1999. Marine finfish species diversification: current
situation and prospects in Mediterranean aquaculture. Centre International de Hautes Etudes
Agronomique Méditerranéennes, Paris, France.
ADB/NACA. 1996. Report on a regional study and workshop on aquaculture sustainability and
the environment. Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Network of Aquaculture Centers in
Asia (NACA), Bangkok, Thailand.
Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. and S.S. Nath. 1998. A strategic reassessment of fish farming potential in
Africa. CIFA Technical Paper 32. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy.
Barbier, E.B. , G. Brown, S. Dalmazzone, C. Folke, M. Gadgil, N. Hanley, C.S. Holling, W.H.
Lesser, K.-G. Mäler, P. Mason, T. Panayotou, C. Perrings, R.K. Turner and M. Wells. 1995.
The economic value of biodiversity. Pages 823-914 In V.H. Heywood, editor. Global
Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment Program. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bardach, J.E., J.H. Ryther and W.O. McLarney. 1972. Aquaculture: the farming and husbandry
of freshwater and marine organisms. Wiley-Interscience, New York, USA.
Bartley, D. and C.V. Casal. 1998. Impacts of introductions on the conservation and sustainable
use of aquatic biodiversity. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter 20:15-19.
14

Beveridge, M.C.M., M.J. Phillips and D.J. Macintosh. 1997. Aquaculture and the environment:
the supply of and demand for environmental goods and services by Asian aquaculture and the
implications for sustainability. Aquaculture Research 28(10):797-807.
Brummett, R.E. 2000. Factors influencing fish prices in Southern Malawi. Aquaculture 186:243-
251.
Brummett, R.E. and R. Noble. 1995. Aquaculture for African smallholders. ICLARM Technical
Report 46. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Penang,
Malaysia.
Coche, A.G., B.A. Haight and M.M.J. Vincke. 1994. Aquaculture development and research in
sub-Saharan Africa. CIFA Technical Paper 23. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 1994. UNEP/CBD/94/1. United Nations Environment
Program, Nairobi, Kenya.
Corbin, J.S. and L.G.L. Young. 1997. Planning, regulation and administration of sustainable
aquaculture. Pages 201-233 In J.E. Bardach, editor. Sustainable Aquaculture. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, New York, USA.
Delgado, C.L., J. Hopkins and V.A. Kelly. 1998. Agricultural growth linkages in sub-Saharan
Africa. Research Report 107. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC,
USA.
Dill, W.A. and A. Ben-Tuvia. 1988. The inland fisheries of Israel. Bamidgeh 40: 75-104.
FAO. 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1997. Aquaculture production statistics 1986-1995. Fisheries Circular 815, Revision 9.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1999. FISHSTAT electronic database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy.
Forster, J. 1999. Aquaculture chickens, salmon – a case study. World Aquaculture 30(3): 33-70.
Garibaldi, L. 1996. List of animal species used in aquaculture. Fisheries Circular 914. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Hatch, L.U. and T.R. Hanson. 1992. Economic viability of farm diversification through tropical
freshwater aquaculture in less developed countries. International Center for Aquaculture,
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA.
Hecht, T. 1997. A review of the development of clariid catfish culture in Southern Africa. Pages
26-27 In H.W. van der Mheen and B.A. Haight, editors. Report of the technical consultation
on species for small reservoir fisheries and aquaculture in Southern Africa. ALCOM Report
19. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Huet, M. 1970. Traité de Pisciculture (4th Edition). Editions Ch. De Wyngaert, Brussels,
Belgium.
15

Kautsky, N., H. Berg, C. Folke, J. Larsson and M. Troell. 1997. Ecological footprint for
assessment of resource use and development limitations in shrimp and tilapia aquaculture.
Aquaculture research 28(10):753-766.
Lazard, J., Y. Lecomte, B. Stomal and J.-Y. Weigel. 1991. Pisciculture en Afrique
subSaharienne. Ministère de la Coopération et du Développement, Paris, France.
Lever, C. 1996. Naturalized fishes of the world. Academic Press, London, UK.
Masser, M. 2000. The status and future of inland aquaculture. World Aquaculture 31(3):34-62.
McNeely, J.A., M. Gadgil, C. Levèque, C. Padoch and K. Redford. 1995. Human influences on
biodiversity. Pages 711-821 In V.H. Heywood, editor. Global Biodiversity Assessment.
United Nations Environment Program. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Mires, D. 1995. Israel’s aquaculture 1995: recent developments and future prospects. Bamidgeh
47:78-83.
New, M. 1999. Global aquaculture: current trends and challenges for the 21st century. World
Aquaculture 30(1):8-79.
Pedini, M. 2000. Bridging the gap: can aquaculture meet the additional demand for fishery
products? FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Newsletter 24:4-9.
Prein, M., J.K. Ofori and C. Lightfoot (eds). 1996. Research for the future development of
aquaculture in Ghana. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 42, International Center for Living
Aquatic Resources Management, Penang, Malaysia.
Prein, M., M.A.P. Bimbao, T.S. Lopez and R. Oficial. 1999. Upland integrated aquaculture-
agriculture systems in forest buffer zone management. Final Project Report, International
Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Penang, Malaysia.
Primavera, J.H. 1997. Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture. Aquaculture Research
28(10):815-827.
Sarig, S. 1989. The fish culture industry in Israel in 1988. Bamidgeh 41:50-57.
Sarig, S. 1996. The fish culture industry in Israel in 1995. Bamidgeh 48:158-164.
Snovsky, G. and J. Shapiro, editors. 1999. The fisheries and aquaculture of Israel 1998 in figures.
Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Fisheries, Tiberias, Israel.
Stewart, J.A. 1993. The economic viability of aquaculture in Malawi. Institute of Aquaculture,
University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Street, D.R. and G.M. Sullivan. 1985. Equity considerations for fishery market technology in
developing countries: aquaculture alternatives. Journal of the World Mariculture Society
16:169-177.
Thys van den Audenaerde, D.F.E. 1994. Introduction of aquatic species into Zambian waters,
and their importance for aquaculture and fisheries. ALCOM Field Document 24, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
UNDP. 1998. Overcoming human poverty. United Nations Development Programme, New
York, USA.
16

van der Mheen, H.W. and B.A. Haight, editors. 1997. Report of the technical consultation on
species for small reservoir fisheries and aquaculture in Southern Africa. ALCOM Report 19.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
van der Mheen, H. 1995. Report of the technical consultation on extension methods for
smallholder fish farming in southern Africa. ALCOM Report 21. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Winkelmann, D.L. 1998. CGIAR Activities and goals: tracing the connections. Issues in
Agriculture. The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA.
Williams, M.J. 1997. Aquaculture and sustainable food security in the developing world. Pages
15-51 In J.E. Bardach, editor. Sustainable Aquaculture. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
World Bank. 1996. Malawi: human resources and poverty. Report 15437-MAI. Southern Africa
Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 2000. Entering the 21st century: world development report 1999/2000. Oxford
University Press, New York, USA.
WRI/IIED. 1988. World resources 1988-1989: a report by the World Resources Institute (WRI)
and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Basic Books Inc.,
New York, USA.
17