Greetings
I am commenting here on the zero draft consultation paper, The Role of Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture for Food Security and Nutrition, dated 18 November 2013. My focus is on issues relating to trade, particularly those discussed in section 3.6 of the draft, at pages 39-45.
At page 93, the draft’s bibliography refers to a publication of mine from 1997. There is no reason to list it twice. There is also a reference to a manuscript of mine dated 2003. I recommend replacing that with a reference to my paper, “Fish Trade, Food Security, and the Human Right to Adequate Food,” available on the FAO website at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4961e/y4961e06.htm
Section 3.6 refers to my assertion in the 1997 paper that “trade tends to move fish away from poor people.” Is the purpose here to question the validity of that statement? If it is, I would like to refer the writers to these other publications of mine:
"The Poor Feed the Rich," Development Forum, Vol. X, No. 4 (May 1982), p. 5; republished in Development Education Forum, No. 5 (June 1982), pp. 3-7.
"Food Trade: The Poor Feed the Rich," Food and Nutrition Bulletin, (United Nations University), Vol. 4, No. 4 (October 1982), pp. 25-33.
"The Pattern of Fish Trade," ICLARM Newsletter, Vol. 6, No. 2 (April 1983), pp. 12-13; republished in Asian-Pacific Environment, Vol. 3, No. 2 (July 1985), p. 2.
"Fisheries and Undernutrition," Ecology of Food and Nutrition, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1985), pp. 281-294.
"Aid, Trade, and Hunger," Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 4 (December 1985), pp. 73-79. http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food/8f074e/8F074E0d.htm
"Fishing in the Solomon Islands: Review of A Japanese Fishing Joint Venture: Worker Experience and National Development in the Solomon Islands," Fisheries Research, Vol. 3, No. 4 (December 1985), pp. 382-383.
"The Industrialization of Fisheries," Peasant Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Winter 1986), pp. 133-143.
"Impacts of Fisheries Policy," Food and Nutrition, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1986), pp. 32-35.
"Fish and Nutrition in India," Food Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2 (May 1987), pp. 161-175.
"Fish and Nutrition in the Pacific Islands," Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1987), pp. 64-73. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/FishNutinPI.pdf
Fish, Food, and Hunger: The Potential of Fisheries for Alleviating Malnutrition, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1987 (ISBN 0-8133-7409-X).
"Improved Use of Fisheries Resources: Alleviating Malnutrition in Southern Africa," Food Policy, Vol. 13, No. 4 (November 1988), p. 341-358.
“’Fish for the Poor’: Competing with Chickens,” The Ecologist, Vol. 25, No. 2/3 (March/April, May/June 1995), p. 48. http://exacteditions.theecologist.org/read/ecologist/vol-25-no-2-3-march-april-may-june-1995-5491/11/2/
“Fisheries, Food Security, and the Poor,” Food Policy, Vol. 22, No. 5 (1997), pp. 393-404. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/fisheriesfoodsecurity.pdf
The zero draft speaks of two polarized narratives:
“On one side, following the general theory on trade, the first narrative claims that international fish trade is good for poverty alleviation and food security. Fish export, it is argued, can act as an engine of growth for developing countries endowed with large fish resources and provide them with important sources of hard cash flow, which can then be used to service international debt, fund the operations of national governments, and import large volumes of (low cost) food to supply the domestic market, thus contributing to national food security.”
“In contrast, the ‘anti-fish trade’ narrative contends that international fish trade impacts negatively food security and livelihood options for the poor by taking away fish from the local economy and the local populations.”
With regard to the question of whether international trade reduces or accentuates food insecurity, p. 39 of the draft says: “Two recent comprehensive reviews conducted independently converged towards the same findings (Allison et al., 2013; Arthur et al., 2013. Their conclusion is: at best, the evidence is unclear and contradicting, and at worse no strong / rigorous evidence exists to substantiate either of the two narratives.”
Section 3.6 of the zero draft began by saying, “One of the key issues which needs to stay central in this whole discussion is the question of ‘food security for whom?’” In this discussion, a distinction must be made between the fishers and others in low income countries. Clearly, people involved in fishing may have improved food security because of their involvement in the business. This benefit is due to their cash income, not their intake of the fish. However, low-income people who are not involved in the business would not have that benefit. If the fishers sell their products mainly to high income people elsewhere, the food security of the local poor is likely to be worse than it would have been if the producers distributed their products locally. The local poor might get some benefit from factory wastes and by-products, but that is meager compensation for seeing most of the local product being shipped away. The global pattern of fish trade clearly is oriented to supplying fish to people with money more than to people with needs. The analysis on pp. 40-41 of the zero draft supports this view.
The pattern of fish in trade flowing from the poor to the rich is strong and clear. Trade improves the food supply of fish for the rich far more than it improves the supply for the poor. Any analysis of fisheries and food security should be attentive to this pattern.
To review what I said in my 2003 paper, the abstract reads:
“In global fish trade, large volumes of fish are exported from poorer countries to richer countries. This trade can affect food security in different ways for different parties, depending on the particular local circumstances. In assessing the impacts of fisheries trade on food security, it is important to distinguish among the impacts on fish workers and their communities, on the general population, and on the poor, who are the most vulnerable to malnutrition. The benefits of fisheries trade are likely to be enjoyed primarily by those whose are already well off. The poor may benefit, but they may also be hurt. At times the harm may be quite direct, as when fish on which they had depended for their diet is diverted to overseas markets. At times the impacts may be indirect, as when export oriented fisheries deplete or otherwise harm fisheries that had traditionally been used to provide for local consumption. Export-oriented fisheries may divert resources such as labor and capital away from production for local consumption. Fish workers may benefit from new export oriented fisheries if they participate in them, but in some cases these workers are simply displaced from their traditional livelihoods. The human right to adequate food is now well articulated in international human rights law. Under this law, national governments and other agencies are required to respect, protect, facilitate, and fulfill the right to adequate food. This means that public agencies that oversee the management of fisheries, including fish trade, are obligated to assure that these activities contribute to the achievement of food security, especially for those who are most vulnerable to malnutrition. To this end, it would be useful for the international community to provide guidance on how this can be done. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries could be elaborated to provide this guidance, giving particular attention to the impacts of fish trade on food security.
The final document on The Role of Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture for Food Security and Nutrition should take these considerations into account.
Aloha, George Kent
George Kent