The world's population is currently (1990) increasing at a rate approaching 100 million per annum. Although in the past food production was increasing such that it was able to satisfy rising demands, this has recently ceased to happen and over the last few years food stocks have decreased and/or an increasing number of people are under-nourished, e.g. grain production per person declined in 51 developing countries between 1981 and 1988, with the total number of malnourished increasing from 460 to 512 million (Sadik, 1990). With the world's population likely to quadruple between 1950 and 2025 (Figure 1.1), with it set to more than double before it stabilizes, probably in some 10–12 decades, and with potential agricultural land being already “at a premium”, then increasing food yields per hectare must be maintained. Much of this increase must be in the form of protein. At present the production of meat protein in most areas is an energy wasteful strategy, e.g. the protein conversion ratio from feedstuffs to meat is about 20% (Cox and Atkins, 1979).
Figure 1.1 Changes in World Population Size and Distribution
Given this scenario, conventionally produced meat will become an expensive luxury with alternative forms of meat protein being increasingly pursued. Much of this will have to be supplied in the form of fish. Since there is little evidence that wild-catch fish yields can be expanded, production using fish ranching or aquaculture techniques will increase rapidly (FAO, 1989). Figure 1.2 shows that aquaculture production will probably outstrip wild-catch production, at the world scale, early next century. Since intensive forms of aquaculture, utilizing high protein feeds, are also energy wasteful, it is likely that the output of herbivorous species, utilizing low energy inputs in warm waters, will need to rapidly increase. This strategy will be encouraged since, as well as producing greater quantities of food protein in areas where it is increasingly likely to be needed, the activity is able to provide a thriving and diverse employment base, to increase local incomes and to produce a commodity having export earnings potential (FAO, 1987).
Figure 1.2 Trends in World Fisheries - Production and Consumption
To achieve the output increases inferred in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, both aquaculture and inland fisheries will require secure access and rights to large areas of terrestrial and aquatic “space”. Terrestrial “space” will be mostly in the form of varying sized land parcels sited at the water/land interface - aquatic “space” will be in the form of surface and sub-surface water bodies. The existing availability of both spatial types will show marked variations from country to country or region to region.
The types of, and extent of, “space” required for fish production will vary greatly, not only because of differing local protein requirements, but also because of the complexity and diversity of both the aquaculture and inland fisheries production environments. Table 1.1 gives a simple indication of variations in the production milieu - some of the categories could be in both environments.
| Aquaculture Production Environments |
Tropical v. temperate. |
Intensive v. extensive. |
High v. low capital or inputs. |
Small scale v. large scale. |
Cash v. barter v. subsistence. |
Single species v. multi-species (polyculture). |
Finfish v. crustaceans v. seaweeds. |
Private v. government research and development initiatives. |
Sole farm enterprise v. one of many enterprises. |
Marine v. brackish v. fresh-water. |
| Inland Fishery Production Environments |
Rivers v. lakes v. reservoirs v. floodplains v. ponds. |
Recreational v. food fisheries. |
Seasonal v. permanent water. |
Shore based v. deep water based - (Inshore v. offshore). |
Central government management v. traditional management. |
Complex v. simple bathymetry. |
Artisanal v. industrial. |
Wild stock v. introduced species. |
Natural replenishment v. periodic stocking. |
Single political unit v. Multi-political unit - (National v. international). |
As well as operating in different environments the fish production milieu is interdisciplinary in nature, i.e. requiring data, information, assistance, etc. from the economic, social and physical realms. The production and management systems are also cross-disciplinary in that the producer may have to be an accountant, a biologist, an engineer and a sales-person. Planning and decision-making will necessarily take place in environments ranging from village huts to company boardrooms, and these decisions will emanate from widely varying sociological structures. Additionally the water/land interface used for production is characteristically a diverse and complex ecosystem - one that is likely to be comparatively rare, fragile and environmentally endangered as well as one whose very uniqueness causes it to be highly valued by a large cross-section of the society.
Given that a diverse range of spatial milieux are required for aquaculture or inland fisheries, and that there may be a wide range of activities that threaten the quality of or desire access to this production “space”, then inevitably there will be pressures on the water/land interface. These pressures emanate broadly from leisure, urban agricultural, industrial, military, transportation, conservation and personal/domestic interests. The FAO (1989b) has documented examples of these varying interests at the regional level (for N.W. France), whilst at a community level in rural Africa examples of pressure caused by multiple access demands have been extensively documented by Palm (1987). The predominance, and the degree of pressure, from any one of these interests would clearly vary both regionally and temporally.
The consequences of this pressure cannot be underestimated. In more populated areas this is abundantly clear. In such areas a visit to any water/land interface will reveal resource overuse, perhaps physical and environmental degradation and pollution, as well as varying degrees of social conflict. This frequently results in less access and the necessity for regulations. Even in less populated areas, private ownership or land rights, as well as centralized planning decrees, may place severe limitations on the use of sites at the water's edge. Similarly, environmental degradation is not confined to densely populated areas. Lowered water quality and greater variations in water availability downstream result from deforestation in the more remote upstream areas.
The importance of matching land requirements with needs for food production generally has long been discussed, e.g. Baker (1921) and Beek (1978), and recently many have cited the importance of securing sites specifically for aquaculture or fish production, e.g. Webber (1972), New (1975), Corrie (1979), McAnuff (1979), Henderson (1985), FAO (1989a), FAO (1989c), Petterrson (1989). Yet little practical work is apparently being done to secure fish production “space”. In a recent study (FAO, 1987) of 27 FAO-aided aquacultural projects in developing countries, none of them were concerned with access to water and land, i.e. despite the fact that this had been recognized as a major constraint to rural fish production. This, plus the intense competition for, and pressure on, the limited “space” available for aquaculture and inland fisheries from competitors (see 1.3 above), highlights both the present importance and the urgency of the spatial decision.
From the fish production viewpoint, site selection or location decisions are important initially in the actual securing of production sites, or sites from which to function from. The prospects for securing same will vary greatly depending on existing land/water rights, land use planning controls, availability for purchase or rent, conflicting demands for access, etc. The fish producer will then be concerned to secure sites where environmental parameters can be optimized, preferably in areas where pollution controls or qualitative environmental legislation exists. It is important that sites or locations which allow for economic viability are secured. This could be in areas where optimum sustainable yields can be maintained or in areas where there is at least a reasonable potential for realizing production profits. Sites must also be reserved if future food yields are to be maintained and improved and in order to help the diversification of local employment. Since production requires so many critical physical and economic parameters, and with so many interests competing for the water/land interface “space”, the fish producer will need to compete hard for any potential locations.
From the fishery viewpoint, it is important to spatially define and protect the fishing grounds as well as the resources. The latter are mobile. Through migrations for food or reproduction, fished organisms may pass through many environments all of which have other uses.
From what has been discussed above concerning the diverse fish production environments, the complexity of the water/land interface, the diverse range of pressures on this interface and the ensuing urgency of the site selection decision, it must be apparent that arriving at a final location decision will only result from an extremely complex decision-making process. Yet the complexities do not end here because, in order to arrive at any spatial decision, data must be available and there must be a suitable methodology for handling the vast array of potentially relevant data.
Until recently, both data availability and data handling facilities have been problematic. There are comparatively few countries or regions which have accumulated much raw data on aquaculture or inland fisheries. Though some production figures usually exist, these (and other figures) are frequently poorly aggregated, incomplete, outdated and vary significantly in their reliability. Other factors for which there is sometimes limited data include the number of production units, size and location of units, number of fishing craft at specific ports and numbers employed, plus the volumes of fish handled in various market sectors. Absolute lack of anything but primitive data on aquaculture and inland fisheries is the rule rather than the exception (Mooneyhan, 1985; Anderson, 1989; Bellemans, 1989). Some of the main spatially related factors for which data is lacking are shown in Table 1.2. The main reasons for this deficiency relate to the lack of appreciation of the importance of accurate, up-to-date statistics to plan for development and to manage resources, the difficulty of obtaining efficient, cost-effective methodologies for collecting and analyzing data and the lack of trained personnel and infrastructure to facilitate information collection and dissemination..
| a) | Biological productivity. |
| b) | Distribution of catch and effort. |
| c) | Social and economic characteristics of fisheries. |
| d) | Transportation pathways and markets. |
| e) | The actual existence of many smaller water bodies. |
| f) | The seasonality of water level - changes and surface area inundated. |
| g) | Detailed bathymetry and limnology of coastal or inland waters. |
| h) | Existing levels of retrograde turbidity or pollution. |
Following the perceived need to urgently acquire procurement of “space” at the water/land interface and the need for fish production to occupy carefully selected sites then, in order to expedite this, the proliferation of spatially related (and other relevant) data is now commencing. This proliferation has only been able to occur recently, since we are now in a position to store and handle vast amounts of data through use of the computer - a technology whose very existence is likely to reinforce its own utility through the exponential proliferation of data! Spatial, or location related, decisions are now being handled by that branch of computing known as “Geographic(al) Information Systems” (GIS).
Figure 1.3 shows schematically how the spatial decision-making process can be accomplished in order to best secure optimum sites for fishery production. It represents a structured flow whereby the first three “levels” are all basically processes whereby the data needed for inputs into the location decision-making process are obtained. In the middle is the data, both directly relevant and “proxy”, followed by a further three “levels” which represent the processes that permit location decisions to be made. Clearly the diagram is simplified, e.g. there would be sub-categories of inputs, processes and outputs at all “levels”. We shall structure this study in the same sequence as this, though there will not be a specific “data” chapter and the “location decisions” will be represented by a number of case studies.
Figure 1.3 Schmematic Diagram Showing Stages in Spatial Decision Making
