101
6 Food Security in the Context of Fisheries and Aquaculture…
those negotiable socioeconomic factors (mainly human behaviour, institutions and
markets) and those non-negotiable ecological factors (sound ecosystem management, which means use and conservation). Responsible human behaviour, effective
institutions and sound ecosystem management maximize and sustain food security
in the face of climatic and other risks. Irresponsible behaviour, ineffective institutions and the degradation of ecosystems diminish food security and amplify risks.
Ineffective institutions for food security derive largely from the persistence of
monosectorial perspectives on food supply. In reality, the agriculture, aquaculture,
fi sheries and livestock sectors share the same ecosystems, but they usually compete
for resources (land, water, investment, feeds, fertilizers, labor, research support, etc.)
and accept little or no accountability for their adverse impacts on others. Most food
is produced amidst sectorial land, water, energy and labor wars, not intersectorial
partnerships. Irrigated crop agriculture receives about 70% of world freshwater withdrawals. Non-food sectors (e.g., forestry, industry, tourism and waste disposal) also
have huge impacts on the resources and ecosystems required for food production.
Sound ecosystem management for food production requires a rapid transition from
unrealistic and unsustainable sector-speci fi c policies and institutions to intersectorial
ones. This would help to hedge against sectorial failures and risks, as extreme weather
events, inexorable climate change and unpredictable pandemics of diseases common
to farm animals and humans have increasingly large and negative in fl uences on food
security. The same intersectorial approach is needed when forecasting the pros and
cons of future reliance on any given food producing sector or subsector.
Delgado et al. ( 2003 ) compared different production and price scenarios (slower
and faster aquaculture expansion, lower production by China, ef fi ciency of use of
fi shmeal and fi sh oil, and ecological collapse), from 1997 to 2020 for low- and highvalue fi n fi sh, crustaceans, molluscs, fi shmeal, fi sh oil, beef, pork, mutton, poultry
meat, eggs, milk, and vegetable meals. They showed well how fruitless it is for any
one food sector or subsector to ignore the rest and for any policymaker to miss the
big picture when seeking to identify best bets. Some of the standardized scenarios of
Delgado et al. ( 2003 ) can be criticized; for example, their ecological collapse scenario was more gradual and milder than some real world examples are likely to be.
Under their ecological collapse scenario, by 2020 all the aquatic food prices would
increase by 26–70% and fi shmeal and fi sh oil prices by 134 and 128% respectively,
while milk prices would reduce by 5% and egg and meat prices increase by 1–7%.
That seems over-optimistic on the livestock front and probably over-pessimistic on
what can be achieved in expansion of the more responsible aquaculture that is less
dependent on fi shmeal and fi sh oil. Accounting for the large in fl uences of China’s
demand for and production of food would also need some recalculation.
Countries that operate distant water fi shing fl eets have long fi shed the rich waters
of other countries, through agreements of varying degrees of equity and sometimes
illegally. As food demand increases and food production and distribution have
become globalized, foreign acquisitions and use of lands and inland waters have
recently increased (Anon 2009 ) . The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is but one
among an increasing number of Asian, Middle Eastern and North African countries
(e.g., South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Libya) that are acquiring lands and waters in
6 Food Security in the Context of Fisheries and Aquaculture…
those negotiable socioeconomic factors (mainly human behaviour, institutions and
markets) and those non-negotiable ecological factors (sound ecosystem management, which means use and conservation). Responsible human behaviour, effective
institutions and sound ecosystem management maximize and sustain food security
in the face of climatic and other risks. Irresponsible behaviour, ineffective institutions and the degradation of ecosystems diminish food security and amplify risks.
Ineffective institutions for food security derive largely from the persistence of
monosectorial perspectives on food supply. In reality, the agriculture, aquaculture,
fi sheries and livestock sectors share the same ecosystems, but they usually compete
for resources (land, water, investment, feeds, fertilizers, labor, research support, etc.)
and accept little or no accountability for their adverse impacts on others. Most food
is produced amidst sectorial land, water, energy and labor wars, not intersectorial
partnerships. Irrigated crop agriculture receives about 70% of world freshwater withdrawals. Non-food sectors (e.g., forestry, industry, tourism and waste disposal) also
have huge impacts on the resources and ecosystems required for food production.
Sound ecosystem management for food production requires a rapid transition from
unrealistic and unsustainable sector-speci fi c policies and institutions to intersectorial
ones. This would help to hedge against sectorial failures and risks, as extreme weather
events, inexorable climate change and unpredictable pandemics of diseases common
to farm animals and humans have increasingly large and negative in fl uences on food
security. The same intersectorial approach is needed when forecasting the pros and
cons of future reliance on any given food producing sector or subsector.
Delgado et al. ( 2003 ) compared different production and price scenarios (slower
and faster aquaculture expansion, lower production by China, ef fi ciency of use of
fi shmeal and fi sh oil, and ecological collapse), from 1997 to 2020 for low- and highvalue fi n fi sh, crustaceans, molluscs, fi shmeal, fi sh oil, beef, pork, mutton, poultry
meat, eggs, milk, and vegetable meals. They showed well how fruitless it is for any
one food sector or subsector to ignore the rest and for any policymaker to miss the
big picture when seeking to identify best bets. Some of the standardized scenarios of
Delgado et al. ( 2003 ) can be criticized; for example, their ecological collapse scenario was more gradual and milder than some real world examples are likely to be.
Under their ecological collapse scenario, by 2020 all the aquatic food prices would
increase by 26–70% and fi shmeal and fi sh oil prices by 134 and 128% respectively,
while milk prices would reduce by 5% and egg and meat prices increase by 1–7%.
That seems over-optimistic on the livestock front and probably over-pessimistic on
what can be achieved in expansion of the more responsible aquaculture that is less
dependent on fi shmeal and fi sh oil. Accounting for the large in fl uences of China’s
demand for and production of food would also need some recalculation.
Countries that operate distant water fi shing fl eets have long fi shed the rich waters
of other countries, through agreements of varying degrees of equity and sometimes
illegally. As food demand increases and food production and distribution have
become globalized, foreign acquisitions and use of lands and inland waters have
recently increased (Anon 2009 ) . The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is but one
among an increasing number of Asian, Middle Eastern and North African countries
(e.g., South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Libya) that are acquiring lands and waters in