This study has described five planning tools which may be useful to the planner in predicting production.
The first, in Section 4, suggest an approach to short-term projections in the form of time-series analysis. In simplist form, this is the extrapolation of recent trends into the future.
The second introduces the concept of aquaculturally developed countries (ADC's) as it may be used to define the production levels that may be achieved where certain general qualitative conditions are also achieved.
The third tool is the consideration of component factors, which may affect aquaculture development. When subjectively quantified some factors show good correlation with the past growth of production on a global basis and promise similar correlations on a regional and species basis.
The fourth tool, developed only conceptually, the econometric approach, offers a general framework for predicting future growth as related to forces which affect the system, especially such forces as population change, income and cost of competing commodities.
The last tool presented, the most subjective of all, simply suggests how aquaculture's relationship to agriculture on one hand and capture fisheries on the other can, if well understood for particular situations, be used to predict production possibilities.
Each tool has its role in planning and ideally all would be used in the evaluation of proposals or in the prediction of production changes. Each tool is limited, however, both in its application and in the demonstration of its relative validity, by a lack of accurate data.
Briefly the data that would be desirable for application of these tools are annual production values by country (and in some cases, country sub-divisions) for various species groups and production techniques; pricing and cost information; and projections of external factors such as population, income and cost of competing products. The specific needs are discussed (or implied) in the specific sections which discuss these tools. However, it seems useful to discuss here the general nature of information which should be available to the planner and which, in part, goes beyond the basic needs of passive prediction.
The shift from the term “data” to “information” is to emphasize the conclusion that simple quantified information (i.e., data) is not enough to predict changes in aquacultural production. There must be an understanding of factors which can never be satisfactorily quantified such as: governmental attitudes, civil disruption, and traditions. There should also be information that will allow conclusions to be drawn as to the effectiveness of resource utilization for aquaculture and its contribution to the producer and his country.
It is on the basis of the above conclusion that the following recommendation for information development is put forth.
FAO should take the lead in providing information on aquacultural production throughout the world, with this information being developed in the following pattern.
1. Definition:
FAO should define the specific nature of the quantitative and qualitative information desired from each country. This implies, first of all, that “aquacultural production” is defined in its various sub-divisions in a manner that will allow data to be collected most effectively.
2. Examples:
For example, if the general definition includes the product of lake stocking programmes, then an analysis of that contribution to the total lake harvest need be made. This might best be done as part of the data collection efforts of the fishery information, data and statistics service. In such a case the FIDSS must make some adjustments in their methods to allow these “mixed” resources to be separately identified until an estimate of aquaculture's contribution can be made. It may also be that the difficulty of such an adjustment will lead to the exclusion of this particular sub-division of production from a general definition of aquaculture. (The same difficulty arises with salmon release programmes.)
An exclusion from the FIDSS system's statistics is recreational fishery harvests. Often, however, stocking makes a major contributor to this form of harvest and using the broad definition, this harvest should be a part of the aquacultural production statistics. This can best be done through agencies that control this form of activity and that generally control the production and release of the stocked fish. Although this form of production is uncounted on an international level, it is thought in areas such as Europe and North America, to constitute a major portion of fish consumption.
Also some production from domestic and subsistence aquaculture is under-reported in countries where market statistics do not effectively collect this form of production. In this case it may be that the best way to gather data may be to rely directly on the well established agricultural data collection activities of the FAO. (This integration will require a major effort to get acceptance of the view that aquatic and terrestrial farming are much the same.)
To summarize, FAO should define “aquacultural production” as a first step toward the collection of data. This definition may need to be limited to some extent by the effort required for data collection.
3. Qualitative Country Information:
The character of qualitative information needs also to be spelled out by FAO, in order that it might effectively be collected.
For example, if large segments of the population, by tradition, do not eat certain forms of fish, this should be part of the country information. Where the government has demonstrated effective support of aquaculture, through, for instance, price controls, this should be noted. These types of factors are all part of “tools” discussed previously.
4. Collection:
Once the basic perameters of “country” information are defined by FAO, the mechanism for its annual collecting processing, and publication should be established. Clearly this relies on a willingness of the various countries to participate and on FAO's ability to provide appropriate support. These aspects may limit the initial effort but if it is to be effective in the long term, it must be officially an FAO effort on a scale of importance similar to data collected for the fishery and production year books.
As a minimum, country efforts should be directed to (1) production values defined in terms of commodity, type of culture, export revenues, market prices, and typical revenues per unit weight to the producer; and (2) in the case of pond, reservoir and pen production, the capabilities in terms of areas under cultivation. (In the last case, in-country efforts may well be augmented by FAO's remote sensing centre's capabilities. This would allow, for example and with appropriate field checking, inventories of pond and reservoir areas using satellite imagery and aerial photography. By correlating this information to specific on-site evaluations, estimates can be made both of production and of unused capability.)
5. Publication:
However, to simply define and collect country information is not enough. FAO should also take the next step. That is to redefine production statistics in terms more consistent with describing aquaculture's nautritional and economic contribution. (Specifically, as a minimum, consumable weights, protein and calorie contributions, domestic and export revenues, and production inputs.)
The publication, on an annual basis, of the minimum information described here will not only assist the planner in evaluating programmes and predicting production but will be a major contribution to the orderly development of world aquaculture.
