Supported by:





Friday, August 8, 2014

08/08/2014: Aquaculture does help the poor

by Stephen Hall at WordFish

Knowing whether aquaculture in developing countries helps the poorest in communities is an important question for development agencies who want to make pro-poor investments.
 

Historically, there have been two arguments that it does not.

http://blog.worldfishcenter.org/2014/08/aquaculture-does-help-the-poor/
Bangladesh - Aquaculture stabilised or reduced the price of both wild caught and farmed fish so that they become more affordable as incomes rise

First, to be a fish farmer you need to have a certain amount of wealth, so the poorest are unable to become producers. Second, aquaculture tends to produce larger, high-value fish that are too expensive for the poorest consumers.


A new study, by Kazi Ali Toufique from the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies and Ben Belton, a WorldFish scientist, shows that the second of these arguments doesn’t hold.
 

What is impressive and unusual about this work is that it separates the pro-poor contribution made by aquaculture from overall reductions in poverty, caused by the broader growth of the economy. It achieves this by using household income and expenditure surveys in Bangladesh to look at how fish consumption has altered over time for different income groups.

The study shows between 2005 and 2010 average per capita fish consumption grew by 28.6 percent, largely because economic growth in general led to increased household income. We know this increased demand for fish was supplied by aquaculture growth because production from wild fisheries fell during this period. In fact, if the supply of fish from aquaculture had remained constant at 2000 levels, average consumption would have fallen to 26 percent by 2010.


Toufique and Belton go on to show that beyond the benefits of economic growth in general, aquaculture growth itself had a strong pro-poor effect because, although non-poor households showed the highest increases in farmed fish consumption, the rate of increase was about twice as large for poor consumers. This result occurred because the expansion of aquaculture stabilised or reduced the price of both wild caught and farmed fish so that they became more affordable as incomes rose.


The messages from this paper provide important insights for development agencies.

  1. First, beyond the broader contributions towards economic growth in rural economies, investing in aquaculture can have important effects on fish prices that keep them within the reach of poor consumers

  2. Second, pro-poor returns of aquaculture investments are greater when other investments to support wider pro-poor economic growth are in place

  3. Third, due to the price stabilizing effect of aquaculture, capture fisheries remain sustainable and productive and can further enhance  pro-poor impact
That’s three good reasons why investments in both fisheries and aquaculture make sense and the solid evidence we need to make sound investment decisions.

Read more HERE.

The Aquaculturists
This blog is maintained by The Aquaculturists staff and is supported by the
magazine International Aquafeed which is published by
Perendale Publishers Ltd

For additional daily news from aquaculture around the world: aquacutlure-news

No comments:

Post a Comment