CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COFI SUB-COMMITTEE ON FISH TRADE IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND FOOD SECURITY

Helga Josupeit
Fishery Industry Officer
Fish Utilization and Marketing Service
FAO, Fisheries Department
Rome, Italy

Abstract

FAO has carried out already some work in the field of fish trade and food security. Some macro-economic studies showed that increases in fish exports very often go hand in hand with increases in fish for local consumption. The positive impact of increasing exports on domestic fish supply is even true in - Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDC)

1. INTRODUCTION

The FAO E-mail Conference on Fish Trade and Food Security (FTFS) was held between 19 October and 12 December 1998. The Conference had its genesis in a recommendation in 1997 of the FAO Advisory Committee on Fishery Research, which identified three topics as deserving particular scrutiny:

Trade and food security;
The distribution of benefits from trade;
Barriers to international fish trade.

In response, FAO's Fish Utilization and Marketing Service (FIIU) commissioned three papers, one on each of the particular topics, and those papers were put forward as starting points for discussion in the e-mail conference.

The discussion centered quickly on various aspects of globalization and the implications for fish trade and food security. It became clear that there exist varied interpretations of food security, depending on level of aggregation: local, national, international, regional and global. The lack of a clear definition of "trade barrier", with its various implications, was also addressed by many.

2. EXPORT AND FOOD SECURITY

Several participants stated that, in general, international trade could only marginally solve the food security problem, but that fish trade is necessary for food security for many landlocked countries. There is no firm evidence to show that fish exports are detrimental to food security in the exporting country as generally the products exported are different from those consumed locally. At the same time, there is no substantial evidence that fish export revenues substantially alleviate poverty problems in the exporting country. Several participants stated, however, that this aspect is more a problem related to distribution of benefits from trade, rather than a problem inherent in trade as such.

2.1 Effects of Fish Trade in Low-income Markets

Several participants stressed the need for more research into the development of new products to satisfy low-income markets. There was disagreement over whether available processing technologies are insufficient for production of low-cost fish products or whether there are particular causes behind lack of distribution of available products, such as frozen pelagic species. Several participants urged a reduction in use of fish for non-food purposes and a reduction in discards. It was recommended that the FAO consider the possibility of investigating the effects of trade in fish products on those individual countries that are thought to be at risk of uncertain food supplies.

2.2 Impact of Fish Trade on Food Security

The contribution of international trade in fishery products to food security materializes indirectly through higher earnings of fishery product exports, and employment created in the processing industry. According to some analysis this is not necessarily the case. However, baseline data to assess the impact of fish trade on food security in developing countries is scarce, and more studies have to be carried out in order to assess the impact of fish trade on food security.

3. COFI RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIVITIES

COFI FT 7 identified 5 main areas for work of FAO; one was to study further the impact of international trade in fishery products on food security and employment.

During the discussion of the report of COFI FT 7 (February 2001), the Norwegian delegation indicated their interest in collaborating with FAO on the issue of FTFS. The discussion on this collaboration took some time, also because of a change in government in Norway, but finally Norway and FAO agreed on a pilot project.

In the discussion the importance of the work of FAO, the Committee, as examples of desirable future work, delegates mentioned:

Fish trade and food security;
Analytical reviews of international markets of fishery and aquaculture products;
CITES listings;
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) implementation and fish trade;
Consumer protection;
Subsidies;
Distortion of benefits due to IUU, traceability and eco labelling.

Fish trade and food security was thus mentioned as highest priority, and this expert consultation is a follow- up of these indications.

3.1 Findings from COFI/VIII/2002/INF.12.

The study focuses on 19 developing countries where the growth in fish exports as related to fish and animal protein supply, over a 20 years period (from 1976/78 to 1994/97), is analysed based on data collected by FAO. For the purpose these countries are grouped into three categories in accordance with their fish export/import performance during the period:

Group 1 - ‘Mainly exporting' countries including Argentina, Chile, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan Province of China, Thailand;
Group 2 - ´Mainly importing' countries including Brazil, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines;
Group 3 - Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDC), where fish plays an important role as an export commodity. Countries included are Bangladesh, India, Laos, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea.

The rapid growth in exports from the main exporting countries during this 20 years period was clearly seen accompanied by a strong increase in fish supply within these producing countries (I am excluding China, as it distorts especially per capita supply figures). In the seven main exporting countries, exports grew from 1.4 million metric tonnes in 1976-78 to 4.5 million metric tonnes in 1994-97 (the last period for which FAO has calculated supply figures). Total supply in these countries - that is production minus exports plus imports (both in live weight) also grew substantially from five million to almost 10 million metric tonnes.

Fig. 1 EXPORTS and TOTAL SUPPLY (1000 MT) - GROUP 1

* (Argentina, Chile, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan Province of China, Thailand)

Per capita supply of fish in these main exporting countries grew from 18 kg/year in 1976-78 to reach 25 kg/year, which about double the world average. Even though one can see that exports have grown stronger than per capita supply, it is still a noticeable growth. The share of fish in animal protein supply of these major fish exporting countries stayed quite stable at around 31% with a certain increasing tendency.

China is very interesting from a food security point of view. The massive investment in the carp aquaculture industry in the 1980s led to a boost in fish supply. China is today the world’s major exporter in value terms, together with Thailand, but compared with the domestic fish supply, exports are marginal.

Per capita supply in China has reached 24 kg in 1994-97, up from four kg in the 1970s. FAO has some doubts about the magnitude of the domestic production of China, but for the time being, these are the official statistics supplied by the country.

Average animal protein supply has grown in China over the past two decades under review. The share of fish is rather stable around 20%.

Fig. 2: FISH EXPORTS and PER CAPITA FISH SUPPLY - CHINA

The countries of Group 2^[3] rely heavily on imports for their fish supply. This is evident from the marked decrease in per capita fish supply recorded in some West African countries during 1985/87. The fall in supply corresponds to the drop in fish imports during the period following the disintegration of the Russian fleet, which used to supply fish to these countries, particularly Nigeria.

Fig. 3: FISH SHARE in ANIMAL PROTEIN SUPPLY - GROUP 2*

On the other hand, the stabilization of fish imports since 1988 has resulted in an understandable decrease in the per capita fish supply, in tune with the growth in population. Consequently, the share of fish in total animal protein supply also dropped during the same period. Total animal protein supply in countries of group 2 is less than that for countries of group 1. For the countries of group 2, the close relationship between food security and the level of fish trade (imports) is quite obvious.

Fig. 4: FISH EXPORTS, and TOTAL FISH SUPPLY (1000 MT) - GROUP 3*

For the selected LIFDCs^[4] as well, it is clear that the increase in fish exports corresponds to the increase in total and per capita fish supply. The impact of Indian fisheries and population is naturally significant in this group and explains the low per capita supply, even if it is increasing.

The slight increase in per capita fish supply is however not enough to compensate for the steady decline in the total animal protein supply which is alarmingly low in 1995/97, especially when compared to the total animal protein supply of countries in groups 1 and 2. Further, despite signs of declining global food security, it is evident in the case of the countries in the LIFDC group that if fish supply had not increased to such an extent, probably boosted by export opportunities, their food security situation would have been worse.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusions which are of interest to the discussion of this expert consultation are:

Export increases in main exporting countries go together with increased per capita supply of fish;
The positive impact of increasing exports on domestic fish supply is even true in LIFDC;
Major importing countries were hit by disappearance of Russian fleet and foreign exchange crisis;

Though, a problem for fish supply in developing is generally not coming from higher exports. On the contrary, countries that rely heavily on fish imports have suffered a reduction of fish supply, but exporting countries have not.

^[3] Mainly importing' countries including Brazil, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines
^[4] Bangladesh, India, Laos, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea.