1. METHODOLOGY: APPROACH AND CONSTRAINTS

1.1 Selection of countries, collection and analysis of national information

The determination of countries to be included in the sample was initially aimed at ensuring the representation of major producers from all continents (Box 1), and to take into account the production of low value fish in low income food deficit countries (LIFDCs) (Box 2). A list of the 18 major aquaculture producers, totaling a production of 35.7 million tonnes (94.4 percent of world aquaculture output, 82.2 percent excluding China) was thus compiled from a review of individual countries’ contribution to global aquaculture production (Table 1).

In-house information was collected and government officials in fisheries/aquaculture authorities of the above mentioned countries were contacted to request their latest national strategies, plans and forecasts for aquaculture production. With an expected variation in the duration and time-scale of plans, the year for production targets was left open. With a somewhat limited response (not all countries have strategies and development plans for their aquaculture sector and many are currently elaborating them) and delays occurring in the reception of such documents, the sample had to be reduced to those countries for which quantitative aquaculture production projections and targets were available from government sources^[1]. A total of 26 plans and strategies were obtained, out of which 11 contained the quantitative information required for the study. These 11 countries are today’s main aquaculture producers (Table 1), representing 86.5 percent of the world aquaculture production in 2001, thus not compromising the representativeness of the sample.

Box 1: Main aquaculture producers by region in 2002

Figures in brackets indicate production in tonnes (excluding aquatic plants).

Source: FishStat Plus, 2004.

Box 2: Main countries producing low value fish in 2001

Source: FAO Yearbook on Fisheries Statistics, 2001.

Table 1: Selected countries based on contribution to global aquaculture production in volume (top 18). 2001 figures

¹ The Indian plan concerns freshwater aquaculture development only. Yet, this sub-sector represented 37% of the total fish production of the country and 94% of the total aquaculture production in 2001.
Source: FAO Yearbook on Fisheries Statistics, 2001.

1.2 Framework for analysis of the contents of national aquaculture development strategies and plans^[2]

As planning methodologies, assumptions and contents of individual plans varied markedly from one country to the next, each document was assessed against a standard and broad framework, outlined below (Box 3). The framework criteria, inspired from the structure adopted in the Chilean development plan for aquaculture, were chosen to map out the contents of each document in a systematic way.

Box 3: Framework of analysis of national aquaculture strategies and plans

1.3 Evaluation of existing global forecasts (supply and demand) and realism of assumptions for national aquaculture production forecasts

A search of the literature yielded a number of references on anticipated trends and future demand and supply for food fish in forthcoming decades. The formulation of these different sets of projections was analysed and constituted the benchmark against which the realism of national forecasts could be assessed in terms of:

- Profitability - have considerations of markets, consumer preferences and price variations been included in estimates of profitability and potential from envisaged aquaculture operations?

- Technical issues - are technical developments envisaged and choices made congruent with past experience, resources and expertise available in-country (e.g. increases in productivity or increases in space use, diversification versus intensification, high-value versus low-value species, etc.)?

- Constraints - have potential limitations to the activity, of an environmental (e.g. coast line or inland water resources availability, environmental sustainability), economic (e.g. capital and investment) or/and social (e.g. past conflicts over resource use) nature been taken into account in the projections?

- Performance - how do past growth rates of the activity compare with those envisaged?

1.4 Comparison of the "sum" of national forecasts with global projections

The analysis of global forecasts allowed quantification of the quantities required from aquaculture to fill the fish demand gap in the years 2010, 2020 and 2030. Production targets presented in national plans were then summed up, under various scenarios, and compared with global projections of future requirements from aquaculture and specifically answer question 2. Some assumptions on behalf of the authors in manipulating data were necessary. Details of calculations are given where necessary to explain and justify the reasoning behind the analysis performed in Section 3.

1.5 Planning lessons

The detailed examination of country plans and strategies was also indirectly used to evaluate their thoroughness and planning methodologies adopted. It triggered reflections on the wider lessons that could be learnt from the evaluation exercise. These issues have broadened the scope initially envisaged for the study and are explored in more depth in section 4 of the report which presents a list of key factors to make a "successful" plan.

1.6 Limitations of the study

This study was ambitious, especially given the time imparted and the delays faced in the gathering of documents from country governments. With the range of documents collected (from qualitative - visionary - frameworks to quantitative production targets for aquaculture), the analytical assessment of the documents contents was not easy, and their interpretation rested, ultimately, with the authors. As the study will show, a number of different sources were consulted for global forecasts on the future of the sector. Expectedly, these differed from one another as they reflected various methodologies and assumptions used. Efforts were made for the review of existing demand and supply forecasts to be as exhaustive as possible, although unintentional omissions may not have been avoided.

The presentation of the results is structured according to the successive methodological steps described above.