Part III - Thematic Reviews

Increasing the Contribution of Aquaculture for Food Security and Poverty Alleviation

Albert G. J. Tacon1

The Oceanic Institute, Waimanalo, Hawaii 96795 USA


Tacon, A.G.J. 2001. Increasing the contribution of aquaculture for food security and poverty alleviation. In R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery & J.R. Arthur, eds. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-25 February 2000. pp.63-72. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome.


ABSTRACT: Hunger and malnutrition remain amongst the most devastating problems facing the world’s poor and needy, and continue to dominate the health of the world’s poorest nations. With the world population doubling in size from three to six billion people from 1960 to 1999 and currently growing at 1.33 percent per year (or an annual net addition of 78 million people), and expected to reach 7.3 to 10.7 billion by 2050 (with 8.9 billion considered most likely), there are growing doubts as to the long-term sustainability of many traditional agricultural systems required to meet increasing global demand for food. Nowhere is this more critical than within many of the world’s developing countries, and in particular, within those Low-income Food-deficit Countries (LIFDCs; currently representing over 62 percent of the world’s population) which are net importers of food and lack sufficient earnings to purchase food to cover basic dietary needs.

Of the different global food production systems, aquaculture is generally viewed as an important domestic provider of much needed high-quality animal protein and other essential nutrients (generally at affordable prices to the poorer segments of the community). It also is an important provider of employment opportunities, cash income and valuable foreign exchange, with developing countries producing over 90 percent of total aquaculture production by weight in 1998. However, if aquaculture is to play an even greater role in improving food security and the alleviation of poverty, it is recommended that: 1) the actual and potential contribution of aquaculture to food security and poverty alleviation be fully documented; 2) funding for aquaculture for the poor should be increased, especially for countries where traditional aquaculture practices already exist; 3) aquaculture projects should do no harm to the food supplies of the poor; 4) existing aquaculture activities of the poor should be strengthened through the use of improved farmer/farming participatory systems research and people-centered development/extension approaches; 5) investment be encouraged to support knowledge building for management of sustainable aquaculture practices; 6) participatory production practices be pursued within a framework of sustainable integrated management of natural resources (including their improved use) and different agricultural production systems; 7) the focus should be on low-cost products favoured by the poor; 8) emphasis be placed on improving culture systems for aquatic species feeding low in the food chain; 9) production for local consumers/markets be encouraged; 10) community-based (rather than individual or corporate) production should be encouraged; 11) consumption of aquaculture products from a human nutrition viewpoint should be encouraged and promoted; and 12) food security impacts of aquaculture projects should be monitored.

KEY WORDS: Aquaculture, Malnutrition, Poverty, Food Security

 

 
63

 

The problem: malnutrition, food security and poverty

Malnutrition: the on-going global travesty

Hunger and malnutrition remain amongst the most devastating problems facing the majority of the world’s poor and needy, and continue to dominate the health of the world’s poorest nations (WHO, 2000). Nearly 30 percent of humanity, including infants, children, adolescents, adults and elderly within the developing world, are currently suffering from one or more of the multiple forms of malnutrition. This remains a continuing travesty of the recognised fundamental human right to adequate food and nutrition, and freedom from hunger and malnutrition, particularly in a world that has both the resources and knowledge to end this catastrophe.

The tragic consequences of malnutrition include death, disability, and stunted mental and physical growth and as a result, retarded national socio-economic development. Some 49 percent of the 10 million deaths among under-five children each year in the developing world are associated with malnutrition, iodine deficiency currently being the greatest single preventable cause of brain damage and mental retardation world wide, and vitamin A deficiency remaining the single greatest preventable cause of needless childhood blindness. Moreover, there is also the concurrent epidemic of obesity which is emerging within many industrialised countries, so much so that more than half the adult population in some countries is affected, with consequent increasing death rates from heart disease, hypertension, stroke and diabetes (WHO, 2000).

According to WHO (2000), the current global scale of malnutrition and nutrition-related disease can be listed as follows:

  • intrauterine growth retardation: 30 million (23.8 percent of all births) per year;
  • protein-energy malnutrition: 149.6 million under-five children;
  • iodine deficiency disorders: 740 million;
  • vitamin A deficiency blindness: 2.8 million under-five children;
  • iron deficiency anaemia: 1,480 million women, children and men;
  • obesity: 203 million adults, 21.9 million children;
  • cancer (diet-related): of 10.3 million cases of cancer per year, 3-4 million (30-40 percent) are preventable by feasible appropriate diet and exercise;
 

  • malnutrition of the elderly: 540 million elderly, with well over half having some diet/nutrition-related degenerative disease such as cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, osteoporosis or cancer; and
  • osteoporosis: around 2 million hip/spine fractures per year (80 percent in women), with calcium, vitamin D and exercise being critical for prevention.

Other important and related nutrition issues affecting large population groups

  • 34 percent of infants never exclusively breast-fed between 0-4 months of age;
  • poor complementary feeding practices very widespread and a major cause of childhood malnutrition;
  • scurvy, beriberi and rickets in badly deprived and refugee populations;
  • foliate deficiency in women of childbearing age and adolescent girls causes 75 percent of cases of anaemia and neural tube defects;
  • zinc deficiency in deprived populations causing growth retardation, diarrhoea, immune deficiency and skin lesions; and
  • selenium deficiency widespread in China and Russia.


Food security and poverty: adequate food - a human right

According to Mary Robinson (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights), “few economic rights are violated on such a scale as food and nutrition rights” (Robinson, 1999). Approximately 790 million people in developing countries and 34 million in developed countries, mainly women and children, are not eating sufficient food to meet their basic nutritional needs (FAO, 1999). As a footnote, it is important to mention here that it is national governments (not international organizations) which are the primary agents for the realization of human rights, and that these rights are clearly articulated in national law (Kent, 2001).

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines food security as “access by all people at all times to the food needed for a healthy and active life” (FAO 2000a) However, achieving food security necessitates that food be available on a regular basis and that all those people in need of it can obtain it.

 

64

 

According to FAO, chronic undernutrition and food insecurity are principally caused by a combination of factors, including 1) low agricultural productivity (caused in part by policy, institutional and technological constraints), 2) high seasonal and year-to-year variability in food supplies (often the result of unreliable rainfall and insufficient water for crop and livestock production), and 3) lack of off-farm employment opportunities (contributing to low and uncertain incomes in urban and rural areas).

At present, the main focus of FAO’s programmes is to try to break the vicious circle of poverty and food insecurity by placing food security on the top of its agenda. Programme activities are focused on increasing food production, improving the stability of food supplies, generating rural employment and contributing to more accessible food supplies; ensuring humanity’s freedom from hunger being one of FAO’s main objectives stated within FAO’s Constitution (De Haen, 1999; FAO, 2000b). With this in mind, FAO has launched a Special Program for Food Security (SPFS), focused on Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDCs), the countries least able to meet their food needs with imports.

This approach was endorsed by the World Food Summit (FAO 2000c) held in Rome in November 1996, which called for concerted efforts at all levels to raise food production and increase access to food in 86 LIFDCs, with the objective of cutting the present number of malnourished people in the world by half by the year 2015. The Plan of Action (FAO 2000d] adopted by the Summit concludes that in order to reduce hunger, action is required in the following areas: ensuring enabling conditions, improving access to food, producing food, increasing the role of trade, dealing adequately with disaster and investing in food security.

Poverty is generally consi-dered as one of the major causes of food insecurity, and poverty eradication is essential to improve access to food.

  

The World Bank (WB) defines poverty as a “multidimensional pheno-menon, encompassing inability to satisfy basic needs, lack of control over resources, lack of education and skills, poor health, malnutrition, lack of shelter, poor access to water and sanitation, vulnerability to shocks, violence and crime, lack of political freedom and voice” (World Bank, 2000).

It is estimated that about one-fifth of the world’s population is currently living in extreme economic poverty, defined as living on less than US$1 per day (in 1993 dollars, adjusted to account for differences in purchasing power across countries).


Aquaculture: a sustainable food and income source for the poor?

Global aquaculture production

Of the different global food production systems, aquaculture (the farming of aquatic plants and animals) is widely perceived as an important weapon in the global fight against malnutrition and poverty, particularly within developing countries. Aquaculture is regarded as an important domestic provider of much needed high-quality animal protein and other essential nutrients (generally at affordable prices to the poorer segments of the community) and/or a provider of employment opportunities and cash income. In view of these positive characteristics, it is perhaps not surprising that aquaculture has been the world’s fastest-growing food production sector for nearly two decades. The sector has exhibited an overall growth rate of over 11.0 percent per year since 1984, compared with 3.1 percent for terrestrial farm animal meat production and 0.8 percent for landings from capture fisheries (Figures 1 and 2).

By economic country-grouping, approximately 90.0 percent and 82.2 percent of total world aquaculture production in 1998 was produced within developing countries (35.49 million mt).

     

 

 
65

 

   and, in particular, within LIFDCs (32.41 million mt; LIFDCs having an average per capita income <US$1 505/annum in 1996, and including: Africa - Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo Democratic Republic, Congo Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Zambia; North America - Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua; South America - Bolivia, Ecuador; Asia - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Korea DPR, Kyrgzstan, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; Europe - Albania, Macedonia [World Bank, 2000), respectively. Moreover, whereas the developing country share of aquaculture production has increased from 72.6 percent (7.37 million mt) of total aquaculture production in 1984 to 90 percent (35.49 million mt) in 1998, the share of production from developed countries has decreased from 27.4 percent (2.78 million mt) in 1984 to 10 percent (3.93 million mt) in 1998 (Figure 3). Aquaculture production within LIFDCs has been growing over five times faster (13.7 percent per year since 1984) than within developed countries (2.7 percent per year since 1984), with aquaculture production within developing countries displaying an average growth rate of 12.8 percent per year between 1984 and 1998.

 

66

 
 

By region, Asia produced over 90.8 percent of total global aquaculture production by weight in 1998 (35.81 million mt), with mainland China reporting a total aquaculture production of 27.1 million mt or 68.6 percent of total global aquaculture production in 1998. Apart from mainland China, all of the world’s top ten aquaculture-producing nations were found in Asia in 1998, and included India (2.03 million mt), Japan (1.29 million mt), Philippines (0.95 million mt), Indonesia (0.81 million mt), Korea Republic (0.80 million mt), Bangladesh (0.58 million mt), Thailand (0.57 million mt), Viet Nam (0.54 million mt), and Korea DPR (0.48 million mt). These top ten producing countries represented 89.1 percent of total global aquaculture production by weight (see Table 1).

The next major region in terms of production by weight, was Europe (4.97 percent or 1.96 million mt): Norway (0.41 million mt), Spain (0.31 million mt), France (0.27 million mt), Italy (0.25 million mt), the United Kingdom (0.14 million mt), and the Netherlands (0.12 million mt); followed by South America (1.70 percent or 0.67 million mt): Chile (0.36 million mt), Ecuador (0.15 million mt), Brazil (0.095 million mt), and Colombia (0.046 million mt); North America (1.66 percent or 0.65 million mt): the United States (0.44 million mt), Canada (0.090 million mt), Mexico (0.041 million mt), and Cuba (0.038 million mt); Africa (0.48 percent or 0.19 million mt): Egypt (0.14 million mt), Nigeria (0.020 million mt), Madagascar (0.0069 million mt), South Africa (0.0052 million mt), and Zambia (0.0042 million mt); and Oceania (0.36 percent or 0.14 million mt): New Zealand (0.094 million mt) and Australia 0.028 million mt (FAO, 2000e).

 

   Interestingly, analysis of global aquaculture production excluding mainland China showed a moderate growth rate, with production doubling from 6.32 million mt in 1984 to 12.36 million mt in 1998, and the sector growing at an average rate of 5.3 percent per year since 1984 (Figure 4). In general terms, aquaculture’s contribution to total world fisheries landings has increased three fold since 1984, aquaculture production increasing from 10.15 million mt or 11.4 percent of total fisheries landings in 1984 to 39.43 million mt or 31.1 percent of total fisheries landings in 1998 (Figure 1). By continent, aquaculture supplied 45.3 percent of total fisheries landings in Asia (up from 21.1 percent in 1984), 10.9 percent of total landings in Oceania (up from 3.7 percent in 1984), 10.2 percent in Europe (up from 6.9 percent in 1984), 8.0 percent in North America (up from 4.5 percent in 1984), 5.7 percent in South America (up from 0.5 percent in 1984) and 3.2 percent in Africa (up from 0.9 percent in 1984 (FAO, 2000e).

At a species-group level, finfish contributed over half of total aquaculture production by weight in 1998 (20 million mt or 50.8 percent), followed by molluscs (9.1 million mt or 23.2 percent) and aquatic plants (8.5 million mt or 21.7 percent (see Figure 5). The growth of the different major specific groups over the past decade has been rapid, with most groups exhibiting double-digit growth rates over the period 1984 to 1998, including finfish (12.3 percent per year, with production up by 6.7 percent since 1997), molluscs (11.5 percent per year, with production up by 6.5 percent since 1997), aquatic plants (7.7 percent per year, with production up by 18.9 percent since 1997), and crustaceans (16.0 percent per year, with production up by 13.9 percent since 1997) (Figure 6).

 

 
67

 

  

Global food fish supply

In terms of per capita availability of “food fish” from aquaculture (i.e. the production of farmed aquatic finfish and shellfish on a whole live weight basis, and excluding farmed aquatic plants; 30.86 million mt in 1998) has increased by 261 percent from 1.45 kg in 1984 to 5.23 kg in 1998, with supply growing at an average rate of 10.4 percent per year. By contrast, per capita availability of “food fish” from capture fisheries (i.e. 62.45 million mt - excludes captured fish destined for reduction into fishmeal) has remained static, decreasing from 10.88 k

in 1984 to 10.58 kg in 1998. On the basis of the above data, over 33.1 percent of total global “food fish” supplies was supplied by aquaculture in 1998. Aquaculture currently ranks fourth in terms of global farmed meat production (19.5 million mt in 1998; after gutting/shelling), with pig first (88.0 million mt), beef and veal second (55.3 million mt) and chicken third (52.1 million mt) (Figure 7).

Globally, more “food fish” is consumed on a per capita basis than any other type of meat or animal protein (16.0 kg per capita supply in 1998, up from 12.5 kg in 1984), followed by pig meat (14.9 kg in 1998), poultry meat (10.1 kg in 1998), beef and veal (9.8 kg in 1998), eggs (7.8 kg in 1998) and mutton and goat (1.9 kg in 1998) (FAOSTAT, 2000). Although developing countries produced over two-thirds of total food fish supply in 1998, per capita supply was highest in developed countries (23.2 kg in 1998, down from 25.6 kg in 1984), followed by developing countries (14.0 kg, up from 8.0 kg) and LIFDCs (13.6 kg, up from 6.9 kg). By region, per capita supply was highest in Oceania (20.2 kg, down from 21.3 kg), followed by Europe (19.7 kg, up from 17.8 kg), Asia (17.6 kg, up from 10.5 kg), North and Central America (16.8 kg, up from 16.6 kg), South America (9.8 kg, up from 7.9 kg), and Africa (7.0 kg in 1998, down from 8.1 kg in 1984) (FAOSTAT, 2000). In terms of animal protein supply, food fish represented 16.5 percent of total supply in 1997 (total global animal protein supply was reported as 27.1 gm per capita in 1997), followed by pig meat (14.7 percent), beef and veal (13.6 percent), and poultry meat (12.5 percent). It is interesting to note here that farmed aquatic meat production in China currently ranks second to pig meat (Figure 8); the per capita availability of food fish in China increasing from 6.3 kg in 1984 to 25.5 kg in 1998 (FAOSTAT, 2000). In general, people living within Asia and Africa (including LIFDCs) are much more dependent on fish as part of their daily diets than people living within most developed countries and other regions of the world (Figure 9).

 

68

 

For example, figures for 1997 show that while fish represent only 7.3 percent of total animal protein supplies in South America (Brazil - 4.7 percent, Chile - 12.4 percent, Ecuador - 9.0 percent; mean per capita supply 10.0 kg), 7.5 percent in North and Central America (Canada - 9.9 percent, Mexico - 9.5 percent, the United States - 6.8 percent; mean per capita supply 16.7 kg), 9.1 percent in Oceania (Australia - 6.5 percent; mean per capita supply 19.9 kg), and 10.3 percent in Europe (France - 8.6 percent, Greece - 12.1 percent, Italy - 10.8 percent, Norway - 24.8 percent; mean per capita supply 18.5 kg), they provided 17.2 percent of total animal protein supplies in Africa (Benin - 28.5 percent, Burundi - 29.6 percent, Cameroon - 25.0 percent, Cape Verde - 30.6 percent, Congo Democratic Republic - 31.0 percent, Congo Republic - 48.8 percent, Cote d’Ivoire - 36.9 percent, Egypt - 18.4 percent, Equatorial Guinea - 61.9 percent, Ethiopia - 0.8 percent, Gabon - 35.0 percent, Gambia - 61.7 percent, Ghana - 63.2 percent, Guinea - 60.2 percent, Malawi - 37.7 percent, Nigeria - 21.6 percent, Senegal - 47.4 percent, Sierra Leone - 63.0 percent, Tanzania - 33.6 percent, Togo - 50.2 percent, Uganda - 30.0 percent; mean per capita supply 7.1 kg), and over 24.5 percent in Asia (Bangladesh - 48.3 percent, Cambodia - 28.3 percent, China - 23.9 percent, India - 15.3 percent, Indonesia - 53.1 percent, Japan - 45.8 percent, Korea - DPR 55.7 percent, Korea Republic - 43.3 percent, Malaysia - 34.5 percent, Myanmar - 45.4 percent, Philippines - 42.8 percent, Sri Lanka - 54.3 percent, Thailand - 41.5 percent, Viet - Nam 39.4 percent; mean per capita supply 17.9 kg).

In general, the main factor driving the apparent high demand for staple food fish (in particular, low-value farmed freshwater food fish species feeding low on the aquatic food chain), within most developing countries and LIFDCs is their greater affordability to the poorer segments of the community, including the rural poor, compared with other animal protein sources (Philippines - Tacon and Barg, 2001; Fred Yap - pers. comm.; Bangladesh - Lena Westlund Lofvall, M.C. Nandeesha: China - Chen Shuping,

India - M. Sakthivel - pers. comms.). At present, food fish represents the primary source of animal protein (contributing more than 25 percent of the total animal protein supply) for about one billion people within 58 countries world wide, and in particular within developing countries and LIFDCs (value excludes China; FAO, 2000e; Ye, 1999).

  




 

 
69

 

The future: increasing the contribution of aquaculture for food security and poverty alleviation

Current role of rural aquaculture

In general terms, aquaculture may benefit the livelihoods of the poor, either through an improved food supply and/or through employment and increased income; benefits being either direct to a household farming aquatic products or indirect from the increased availability of low-cost fish in local markets, or from employment within the aquaculture sector (Edwards, 1999). However, at present, little or no hard statistical information exists concerning the scale and extent of rural or small-scale aquaculture development within most developing countries and LIFDCs or concerning the direct/indirect impact of these and the more commercial-scale farming activities and assistance projects on food security and poverty alleviation (Edwards, 1999; Tacon et al., 1997). However, it is useful to mention here how contribution of rural aquaculture to poverty alleviation is explained by Edwards (1999): “rural aquaculture contributes to the alleviation of poverty directly through small-scale household farming of aquatic organisms for domestic consumption and/or income; or indirectly through employment of the poor as service providers to aquaculture or as workers on aquatic farms of wealthier farmers; or indirectly by providing low-cost fish for poor rural and urban consumers.”

Despite the lack of information concerning the role of rural aquaculture, there is one sure benefit of consuming fish, and that is the nutritional and health benefit to be gained from its valuable nutrient content; food fish having a nutrient profile superior to all terrestrial meats, being an excellent source of high quality animal protein and highly digestible energy, as well as an extremely rich source of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), fat-soluble vitamins (A, D and E) and water-soluble vitamins (B complex), and minerals (calcium, phosphorus, iron, iodine and selenium). In fact, if there is a single food that could be used to address all of the different malnutritional disorders listed at the start of this paper, it is fish - the staple animal protein source of traditional fisherfolk.

 

Increasing the contribution of aquaculture

In line with the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the World Food Summit Plan of Action, and following the recommendations of Kent (1995), if aquaculture is to play a greater role in improving food security and the alleviation of poverty, it is recommended that:

  • the actual and unfulfilled potential of aquaculture to contribute to food security and poverty alleviation be fully documented (Peter Edwards, Mahfuzuddin Ahmed - pers. comm.);
  • funding for aquaculture for the poor should be increased, especially within those fish-eating countries where traditional aquaculture practices already exist (Edwards, 1999; Kent, 1995);
  • aquaculture projects should do no harm to the food supplies of the poor (Kent, 1995);
  • existing aquaculture activities of the poor should be strengthened through the use of improved farmer/farming participatory systems research and people-centered development/extension approaches (Ahmed and Lorica, 1999; Edwards, 1999; Kent, 1995);
  • investment be encouraged in building the institutional capacity and knowledge base concerning sustainable aquaculture practices to manage the sector (Tacon and Barg, 2001; M.C. Nandeesha - pers. comm.);
  • participatory production practices within the framework of the sustainable integrated management of natural resources (including their improved use) and different agricultural production systems be pursued (World Food Summit recommendation as cited by FAO, 2000d); Tacon and Barg,2001; M.C. Nandeesha, Yugraj Singh Yadava, Mahfuzuddin Ahmed - pers. comm.);
  • the focus should be on low-cost products favoured by the poor (Kent, 1995; note: there is a growing school of thought that if aquaculture is to significantly contribute to increased income of poor farmers, that they should not just be restricted to low-value species (Yap, 2001);
  • emphasis be placed on improving culture systems for aquatic species feeding low in the food chain (Tacon and Barg, 1998; M.C. Nandeesha - pers. comm.);
  • production should be for local consumers (Kent, 1995);
  • community production should be encouraged (Kent, 1995);

 

70

 

  • the consumption of aquaculture products from a human nutrition viewpoint should be encouraged and promoted; and
  • that food security impacts should be monitored (Ahmed and Lorica, 1999; Kent, 1995).


Major recommendations of the Bangkok Conference

Aquaculture and fish as food

  • From a nutritional point of view, the production of aquaculture products for human consumption should be encouraged and promoted.
  • Systems for the production of low-value fish affordable for the poor should be promoted.

Aquaculture for rural livelihoods

  • The extension and development approaches used for rural aquaculture need to be improved. These should include:
  • a holistic, farming systems-based approach integrating aquaculture into rural livelihoods;
  • a participatory, needs-based approach that takes full account of the capacity of the poor, the resources available to them, and the risks they face;
  • farmer-led extension and research;and
  • promotion of sustainable, appropriate technologies commensurate with the resources available.
  • Rural aquaculture has to be developed as an entrepreneurial activity that is financially viable, even for small-scale operations. This means that choices regarding the species produced should be based on the best benefits for the producer.
  • Improved information on small-scale rural aquaculture, its role in rural livelihoods and its impact on food security and poverty alleviation need to be developed and understood, and monitoring systems established. This will require the development of better indicators.

Aquaculture and poverty alleviation

  • The involvement of the poor in aquaculture must be based on a careful and realistic assessment of their needs, capacity and access to resources, and the risks they face.
  • Aquaculture development should not adversely affect the livelihoods of poor people. All aquaculture developments should specifically address and minimise any potential adverse impacts on the poor.
  

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the contributions made by the following persons (panel members and others) towards preparation of this paper: Peter Edwards, M.C. Nandeesha, Yugraj Singh Yadava, Lena Westlund Lofvall, Alfredo Yap, Mahfuzuddin Ahmed, Denis Bailly, D.K. Chowdhury, Philip Townsley, George Kent, Chen Shu Ping, Uwe Barg and Richard Grainger.


References

Ahmed, M. & Lorica, M. 1999. Improving food security in developing countries through aquaculture development - socioeconomic and policy issues. Abstract, p.9. Book of Abstracts, World Aquaculture ‘99, The Annual International Conference and Exposition of the World Aquaculture Society, Sydney, Australia, 26 April - 2 May 1999.

De Haen, H. 1999. Summary of Statement. In United Nation’s Forum on Nutrition. Administrative Committee on Coordination. Sub-Committee on Nutrition, No. 18, July 1999, 108 pp.

Edwards, P. 1999. Towards increased impact of rural aquaculture. Discussion paper prepared for the First Meeting of the APFIC Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Rural Aquaculture, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAP), Bangkok, Thailand, 20-22 October, 1999.

FAO. 1999.   Food insecurity: when   people must live with hunger and fear starvation.
Rome. 32 pp. (http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/SOFI/home-e.htm)

FAO.2000a. Low-income food-deficit countries.
(http://www.fao.org/spfs/lifdc-e.htm).

FAO. 2000b. Right to food. (http://www.fao.org/Legal/rtf/rtfood-e.htm).

FAO. 2000c. World food summit.
(http://www.fao.org/wfs/homepage.htm).

FAO. 2000d. World food summit plan of action.
(http://www.fao.org/wfs/final/rd-e.htm)

FAO. 2000e. FAO Yearbook. Fisheries statistics: aquaculture production 1998. Vol. 86/2. FAO Fish. Ser. No. 56, FAO Stat. Ser. No. 154. Rome, 169p.

FAOSTAT. 2000. FAOSTAT agriculture data, food balance sheets, 1 June 2000. (http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset= agriculture).

Kent, G. 1995. Aquaculture and food security. Paper presented at the Pacific Congress on Marine Science and Technology, Honolulu, USA, 17 April 1995. In Book of Abstracta.

 

 
71

 

Kent, G. 2001. The human rights approach to reducing malnutrition. UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (in press;

ttp://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/HRApproachJan2000.doc).
Robinson, M. 1999. The human right to food and nutrition, In United Nation’s Forum on Nutrition. Administrative Committee on Coordination. Sub-Committee on Nutrition, No. 18, July 1999, p. 17-18.

Tacon, A.G.J. & Barg, U.C. 1998. Major challenges to feed development for marine and diadromous finfish and crustacean species. In S.S. De Silva, ed. Tropical mariculture, p. 171-207. New York, Academic Press.

Tacon, A.G.J. & Barg, U.C. 2001. Responsible aquaculture development for the next millenium. Paper presented at the Seminar-Workshop on Responsible Aquaculture Development in Southeast Asia, Iloilo City, Philippines, 12-14 October 1999 (in press).

 

Tacon, A.G.J., Collins, J. & Allan, J. 1997. FAO field project reports on aquaculture: indexed bibliography, 1996-1995. FAO Fish. Circ., No. 931, 192 pp.

Yap, W.G. 2001. Developments in marine and brackishwater fish culture in Southeast Asia. Paper presented at the Seminar-Workshop on Responsible Aquaculture Development in Southeast Asia, Iloilo City, Philippines, 12-14 October 1999 (in press).

Ye, Y. 1999. Historical consumption and future demand for fish and fishery products: exploratory calculations for the years 2015/2030. FAO Fish. Circ. No. 946, 31 pp.

WHO. 2000. Malnutrition - the global picture.
(http://www.who.org/nut/welcome.htm).

World Bank. 2000. Poverty.
(http://worldbank.org/poverty/data/trends/index.htm).

 

72