This item of the agenda was introduced by the Technical Secretary who explained the origin of the working paper entitled “A study of methodologies for forecasting aquaculture development”. The paper was the result of a study contracted by the Fisheries Department to three persons to:
Review trends in the development of aquaculture in those countries where there is sufficient information available, and determine what significant differences exist, if any, among countries and/or among regions in their rates of development with particular reference to growth in production;
Advance hypotheses which might explain such differences as are found, considering ecologic and economic factors, the attitude of government toward aquaculture, and measures taken to promote and regulate its development;
Elaborate one or more strategies for developing medium to long range forecasts of the growth of production of fish and related aquatic products through aquaculture, which would be usable and useful for planning at national and global levels;
Suggest efficient and practical means of acquiring the data/information needed for making and improving such forecasts.
The resulting paper reviewed the available data on aquaculture production and related statistics, and attempted in several ways to analyse the reasons for change in aquaculture production of individual countries in the period from about 1975 to 1980. It pointed to the varying reliability of aquaculture data from one country to another, concluding that considerable priority should be given to improving the quality of aquaculture statistics.
The report made a useful distinction between countries which are “aquaculturally developed” and those where aquaculture is in an early development stage. It noted that, on the average, growth rates (measured in terms of production in weight of product) were increasing faster in the “aquaculturally developed” countries than in those where aquaculture is less established. This implies a kind of threshold of aquaculture development (at around 50/100 grams fish/capita/year) between the initial phase and one of rapid growth of the industry.
Based on subjective, but statistically consistent evaluations by FAO staff of the factors influencing the development of aquaculture in countries with which they were familiar, the study attempted to identify the more important constraints and/or promoting factors to aquaculture growth. While emphasizing the limitation of the data available, an initial separation of important and less important factors could be made. Finally, the group tried to compare aquaculture growth with that of capture fisheries and of agriculture, and, by means of an econometric model, to try to assign predictive weight to economically promoting or restraining factors. In the first instance, available time was the chief factor which limited the study, whereas the limited availability of both production and economic data covering a reasonable time period and/or a large enough sample of countries, prevented a usable econometric analysis. The study group's conclusions were that a variety of methodologies were available to usefully analyse trends and constraints, but that, for the most part, adequate data were not yet available to achieve any but very general results.
In the ensuing discussion of this study, the Working Party agreed that the project had been helpful. It was noted that such analyses were useful for a variety of purposes, particularly in the preparation of requests for funding at both national and international levels. One member emphasized that the lack of adequate and reliable data had resulted in the failure of many aquaculture development projects.
The Working Party, however, questioned some aspects of the report, nothing, on the one hand, that the analysis of constraining factors to aquaculture development depended in part upon the selection of one of several possible different sets of factors for its conclusions. It was emphasized that social factors as well as those concerned with the physical environment are important and were not well differentiated in the study. An alternative analysis, based on subjective weighting factors, was presented to illustrate how constraints could be rated according to the relative importance of extensive, semi-intensive and intensive aquaculture in each country's policies.
In concluding the discussion of the paper, the Working Party agreed that the paper should be widely distributed by FAO, but that the section on “econometric analysis” should be omitted because of its more academic interests, with little potential for application until more data become available. The Working Party also felt that the section comparing growth of aquaculture production with that of capture fisheries on the one hand, and agricultural growth on the other, should either be strengthened or omitted. It was agreed, however, that such comparisons were a potentially fruitful avenue of further work. Finally, it was suggested that the rating tables on constraints be altered so that individual countries would not be named, while still demonstrating the consistency of the ratings obtained.
The group then considered other possible apporaches to this problem, noting particularly the “case history” approach being explored by ICLARM. It was agreed that a wide variety of approaches was needed. It was mentioned that fish product demand could be usefully regarded as another perspective on the problem, along with a more detailed comparison of aquaculture with factors governing changes in the production of other forms of animal protein. Differences between countries and specific goals were again emphasized - in some countries economic decisions require separation of components requiring external funds from those requiring only internal funds. In others, conflicts between agriculture and fish production occur as a by-product of the need for energy in the form of hydro-electric power, etc.
The FAO study on trends in aquaculture should be published with the changes suggested by the Working Party.
FAO should continue to pursue such “trend” studies producing summary reports at perhaps five-year intervals.
