3.  AQUAGULTURAL PRODUCTION DATA

3.1  Introduction

Review of country and regional aquacultural production and growth required assemblage of a large amount of basic production data. Unfortunately, published information on aquacultural production was often incomplete and/or inconsistent. Thus additional estimates were sought from FAO regional experts and unpublished supplemental reports. In the end, it was determined that fully satisfactory data were not available and that the data that must be used could, in many cases, be described simply as “best guesses” by the staff and consultants involved in this study. This does not suggest that all of the information is not valid. In many cases, the data are clearly reliable. Further, the global and regional trends can be viewed with some confidence, as can trends in many of the countries with well developed production.

Because of fundamental differences among finfish, mollusc and crustacean production these commodities are presented separately. Seaweed data, though reflecting large production values and economic impacts, were excluded from this exercise because of their limited role in nutrition and the small numbers of countries with significant production.

3.2  The Data

Table 3.1 and 3.2 contains the basic production and growth estimates as generated in the data gathering phase on a country by country basis. (The estimates are summarized in Table 4.1.) They are broken down by region, country and commodity group (i.e., finfish, mollusc, and crustacea). The data present snapshots of aquacultural activity between 1975 and 1980. In terms of levels of production, compounded annual growth, tonnes of growth per year, growth in grams per year per capita, and 1980 production in grams per capita.

It should be emphasized once again, that these data are not official statistics but estimates derived for use in this study. Their primary function is to demonstrate the analytical concepts developed here and to express trends and production levels on a global and regional scale. Where these data are used in following sections of this study, this emphasis should be understood though not restated.

The following subsections present comments that relate to specific situations where major adjustments were made or considered on Tables 3.1 and 3.1 to the basic published and/or official data sources. (Note: That these sources are not referenced, emphasizes the “unofficial” nature of these data.)

3.3  Adjustments and Estimates

In two major producing countries, China and India, the magnitude of the non-aquacultural contribution (in land, lake and river harvest) to the available FINFISH data was reviewed.

In China in 1978, using unit production and area values for stocked lakes, reservoirs and other enclosures, and pond area values (Hub De Shane, 1980) and unit production values of 750 kg/ha provided by Z. Song (personal communication), one can derive a production value of 802 731 t for China. While some small portion of the total might derive from natural reproduction, the value is close enough to the recently published value of 813 320 tons to conclude that that value is appropriate for use in this context. (Note: China's statistics as related to Taiwan province are shown as China(T) in tables.)

In the case of production values for India, the situation is not so clear as the statistics were presented in a manner so as to make separation difficult. However, discussions with specialists would suggest that the “discounting” of the available Indian data for non-aquacultural FINFISH production should not be large. Thus, in a regional and global sense, this factor is not of major significance and no adjustment was made to available 1980 information.

1975 values for India's finfish production simply assumed a growth rate to 1980 similar to other Asian countries.

It is not clear if Japan's published finfish values reflect the contribution made by salmon reared in hatcheries and released for later harvest. The current level of this fishery is approximately 10 million salmon, or approximately 50 000 tons or 20 percent of the fin fish values shown. For the sake of simplicity, and as no major conclusions will be affected, this adjustment was not made.

As with Japan, it was not clear if adjustments in other countries should be made for hatchery released salmon. So other than noting that this contribution would be in the 50 000 ton range for the USA and the USSR (and lesser amounts for the Scandinavian countries) no adjustments were made.

In several countries with minor crustacean production, gaps in available data for 1975 were filled by assuming the growth rates to be the same as those of the major producers. Otherwise the production values reflected published data or first hand knowledge.

3.4  Underestimates - General

It has been suggested that statistics for many of the developing countries with significant subsistence aquaculture may be understated due to the difficulty of collecting that data which in some cases is related to the lack of extension services. Similarly, data from some of the developed market countries may be understated for individual economic reasons. These suggestions have not been verified and no estimates were made to reflect them.

3.5  Summary

The basic data of Tables 3.1 and 3.2 will be analysed in other sections of this report. However, it does seem reasonable to comment here, briefly, on the data collection process and the manner in which data are presented.

While one must accept the institutional constraints on “official” data collection, there is a need to find some way to continually collect reliable information on those countries whose need is greatest. Without such data, meaningful analysis is impossible, and judgements which may affect many programmes are made difficult.

It is also clear that there is a need to reach some common grounds on what “aquaculture” is and how the contribution of various types of production should be measured. To treat tilapia, oysters, shrimp and seaweed as part of one production total is not helpful to those trying to understand real impacts. To include shell weight of oysters or water in seaweeds, or even bones in fish is similarly objectionable. To exclude hatchery salmon and include natural lake harvest obscures the opportunities for production gains in real terms. To reject price as a measure of growth ignores a basic motivator for fish farms. To ignore the relative calorie, or protein contributions of various species takes us further from the objectives of the FAO.

These concerns should be addressed as a matter of basic policy by FAO.