Failler, Pierre

English

Name not available

Nutritional Security, Healthy Marine Ecosystems and Value Added Priorities for
Developing Coastal Countries
Failler P*
Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE), University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom
*Corresponding author: Pierre Failler, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE), University of
Portsmouth, United Kingdom ; Tel: 44-2392 848 505; Fax: 44-2392 844 614; E-mail: pierre.failler@port.ac.uk
Rec Date: Apr 30, 2014; Acc Date: May 2, 2014; Pub Date: May 15, 2014
Copyright: © 2014 Failler P. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
According to FAO estimates, global consumption of fish, currently
140 million tonnes, is likely to reach 200 million tonnes by 2030 [1].
Industrialized countries where households have strong purchasing
power will increase their demand, while developing and emerging
countries will use this as a basis to increase both their aquaculture
production and the number of fish caught for export. Overall, the
demand from international markets will lead to an increase of fish
trade from low income countries to wealthy ones with severe
nutritional consequences for population who rely heavily on fish for
animal proteins.
Considering this, International agencies such as FAO, UNEP,
UNDP and UNIDO, in conjunction with regional and national
institutions have to set up priorities to face this situation and
contribute to the implementation of a more equitable fish trade. Three
priorities can be identified.
The first priority is to ensure a nutritional security for the
population of developing countries that are exporting more and more
fish. The poorest households still need to be able to continue to have
access to animal protein from fish at affordable prices. Developing
countries must therefore find a way to accommodate supplying both
domestic and international markets. Exports must not place a strain
on either the price or the range of goods offered to the local
communities.
The second priority is to stop the degradation of marine
environment. Marine resources are either being over- or fully
exploited in all developing countries. Due to the change in the
structure of ecosystems brought about by climate change, southern
countries must replenish fish stocks to ensure that marine ecosystems
are as resilient as possible to exogenous shocks. As such, foreign
vessels should be granted access to national waters only if there is
proof of a surplus of fish stocks or the existence of a regional
management fishery organization.
The third priority is the increase of the value addition of fishery
products. Since the value of fish primarily depends on its natural
qualities and size, the care taken in catching, handling, storing and
transporting is an important element in distinguishing among top-
quality, second-class and downgraded fish not suitable for export. For
instance, the price difference per ton between top-quality and second-
class fish is around €1,000, and about €3,000 for downgraded fish [2]
in Mauritania. The use of fishing methods that do little to foster
quality results is estimated to lead to €80 million in lost of profits per
year - almost equivalent to the sum of the country’s yearly exports of
fish. Unfortunately, this example is true in other developing countries.
Thus, most of the wealth naturally generated by marine ecosystems is
wasted through carelessness. While such waste had little impact twenty
or thirty years ago, today it is increasingly damaging, both
economically and environmentally. Marine ecosystems are under
severe stress due to the tendency of large and small-scale fishing
vessels to focus on quantity, at the expense of quality. Shifting to
higher quality products would allow fishermen to generate their
current turnover while greatly reducing their catch.
There is a strong case, therefore, for developing countries to opt for
commercial development based on quality products. For fresh,
refrigerated and frozen fish, the care taken by operators is reflected in
a higher selling price. For developed countries importers, this segment
is not only more profitable, but also more promising for the future, as
a result of the gradual shift in consumer preferences from canned to
fresh quality fish [3] (such as fish stored in minus 60oC). In other
words, adding value does not necessarily imply fish processing.
Using the ‘quality’ criteria to determine access to fisheries resources
holds promising prospects for conservation, particularly considering
the failure of current fisheries management systems. In developing
countries, fisheries regulations, which have been modeled on those
applied in developed countries, have often been ignored. The context
is certainly different: the means for implementing policies in
developing countries are scarce and enforcement capacities are
limited. Furthermore, considering for instance the failures of the
European Common Fisheries Policy, despite a €300 million annual
budget, it is unrealistic to expect developing countries with much
more meager budgets to meet the same standards. However, it is
possible to take advantage of the market’s appetite for ‘quality’ and
related criteria (for example, rules of origin, HACCP and ISO
production process certification, fair trade, Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fishing, etc) to improve fisheries management. This
would entail regulating fisheries not by attempting to monitor access
to marine resources but by ensuring that all catches comply with
international quality standards. In practice, it would mean giving up
catches on fish that have not reached the right sexual maturity, as well
as eliminating practices like non-selective fishing, the use of gears that
are damaging to fish, and poor preservation methods that lead to
wastage (see [4] for a presentation of the novel method for assessing
the full cost of fishing practices and fishery policy, from the
environmental, social and economic point of view). Such a mechanism
would be set up and maintained by the fishing industry itself, and
would therefore provide greater accountability by the industry. This is
especially important considering that, over the last thirty years, the
industry has felt increasingly marginalized and excluded from any
decision-making process that affects it, due to governments’ obstinate
insistence on setting up centralized fisheries management systems.
Attempts at initiating participative processes for fisheries management
are indeed promising, but have a long way to go.
Journal of Fisheries & Livestock
Production Failler P, J Fisheries Livest Prod 2014, 2:1http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2332-2608.1000e108
Editorial Open Acess
J Fisheries Livest Prod
ISSN:2332-2608 JFLP, an open access journal Volume 2 • Issue 1 • 1000e108
Trading away fisheries resources to meet economic growth
requirements is hardly conceivable today, especially if the ultimate
objective of national development policies in developing countries is
to reduce poverty. Rather, it is crucial to consider fisheries resources as
a source of economic growth and social development, and in this
regard, the health of marine ecosystems cannot not consider as
jeopardized.
Overall, this demonstrates the need for consensus-building between
policy makers in the areas of fisheries and trade, and to a greater
extent, those operating in the spheres of microeconomics, cooperation
and development. Dialogue between these policy spheres should result
in a consideration of the ways in which trade and fishing interact, as
well as the specific objectives and constraints in each area (the need for
exporting on the one side, and protecting resources on the other). This
dialogue should then contribute to the development of strategies
aimed at optimizing the potential of marine resources. The emergence
of links between fishing and trade policies also offers the merit of
putting the environment at the forefront of the trade agenda.
Ultimately, forging strong links between fishing and trade policies will
contribute to the emergence of good governance in the fishing sectors.
References
1. FAO (2012) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. 
2. Failler P, Diop M, Aliou Dia M, Abdallahi C, Tous P (2002) Évaluation
des stocks et aménagement des pêcheries de la ZEE mauritanienne.
Rapport du 5ème Groupe de travail IMROP, Nouadhibou, Mauritanie,
Rome, Italy.
3. Failler P, Walle GV, Lecrivain N, Himbes A, Lewins R (2008) Future
prospects for fish and fishery products: 4. Fish consumption in the
European Union in 2015 and 2030 - Part 2. FAO publications, Rome,
Italy.
4. www.esoctproject.org
 
Citation: Failler P (2014) Nutritional Security, Healthy Marine Ecosystems and Value Added Priorities for Developing Coastal Countries. J
Fisheries Livest Prod 2: e108. doi:10.4172/2332-2608.1000e108
Page 2 of 2
J Fisheries Livest Prod
ISSN:2332-2608 JFLP, an open access journal Volume 2 • Issue 1 • 1000e108


Nutritional security, healthy marine ecosystems and value added priorities for developing coastal countries

Portsmouth University Research Portal (Pure)

Nutritional security, healthy marine ecosystems and value added priorities for developing 
coastal countries  
Pierre Failler 
Senior Research Fellow 
Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE) 
University of Portsmouth 
St. George's Building 
141 High Street 
Portsmouth, PO1 2HY,  
United Kingdom 
tel +44 (0)2392 848 505 
fax: +44 (0) 2392 844 614 
pierre.failler@port.ac.uk
According to FAO estimates, global consumption of fish, currently at 140 million tonnes, is 
likely to reach 200 million tonnes by 20301. Industrialised countries where households have 
strong purchasing power will increase their demand, while developing and emerging countries 
will use this as a basis to increase both their aquaculture production and the number of fish 
caught for export. Overall, the demand from international markets will lead to an increase of fish 
trade from low income countries to wealthy ones with severe nutritional consequences for 
population who rely heavily on fish for animal proteins.  
Considering this, International agencies such as FAO, UNEP, UNDP and UNIDO, in 
conjunction with regional and national institutions  have to set up priorities to face this situation 
and contribute to the implementation of a more equitable fish trade. Three priorities can be 
identify.   
The first priority is to ensure a nutritional security for the population of developing countries that 
are exporting more and more fish. The poorest households still need to be able to continue to 
have access to animal protein from fish at affordable prices. Developing countries must therefore 
find a way to accommodate supplying both domestic and international markets. Exports must not 
place a strain on either the price or the range of goods offered to the local communities.  
The second priority is the stop the degradation of marine environment. Marine resources are 
either being over- or fully exploited in all developing countries. Due to the change in the 
structure of ecosystems brought about by climate change, southern countries must replenish fish 
stocks to ensure that marine ecosystems are as resilient as possible to exogenous shocks. As 
such, foreign vessels should be granted access to national waters only if there is proof of a 
surplus of fish stocks or the existence of a regional management fishery organisation.  
The third priority is the increase of the value addition of fishery products. Since the value of fish 
primarily depends on its natural qualities and size, the care taken in catching, handling, storing and 
transporting is an important element in distinguishing among top-quality, second-class and 
downgraded fish not suitable for export. For instance, the price difference per ton between top-
1 FAO (2012), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. See 
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e00.htm
quality and second-class fish is around €1,000, and about €3,000 for downgraded fish2 In 
Mauritania. The use of fishing methods that do little to foster quality results is estimated to lead 
to €80 million in lost of profits per year -  almost equivalent to the sum of the country’s yearly 
exports of fish. Unfortunately, this example is true in other developing countries. Thus, most of 
the wealth naturally generated by marine ecosystems is wasted through carelessness. While such 
waste had little impact twenty or thirty years ago, today it is increasingly damaging, both 
economically and environmentally. Marine ecosystems are under severe stress due to the 
tendency of large and small-scale fishing vessels to focus on quantity, at the expense of quality. 
Shifting to higher quality products would allow fishermen to generate their current turnover 
while greatly reducing their catch.    
There is a strong case, therefore, for developing countries to opt for commercial development 
based on quality products. For fresh, refrigerated and frozen fish, the care taken by operators is 
reflected in a higher selling price. For developed countries importers, this segment is not only 
more profitable, but also more promising for the future, as a result of the gradual shift in 
consumer preferences from canned to fresh quality fish3 (such as fish stored in minus 60 °C). In 
other words, adding value does not necessarily imply fish processing. 
Using the ‘quality’ criteria to determine access to fisheries resources holds promising prospects 
for conservation, particularly considering the failure of current fisheries management systems. 
Developing countries fisheries regulations, which have been modelled on those applied in 
developed countries, have often been ignored. The context is certainly different: the means for 
implementing policies in developing countries are scarce and enforcement capacities are limited. 
Furthermore, considering for instance the failures of the European Common Fisheries Policy, 
despite a €300 million annual budget, it is unrealistic to expect developing countries with much 
more meagre budgets to meet the same standards. However, it is possible to take advantage of 
the market’s appetite for ‘quality’ and related criteria (for example, rules of origin, HACCP and 
ISO production process certification, fair trade, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, etc) to 
improve fisheries management. This would entail regulating fisheries not by attempting to 
monitor access to marine resources but by ensuring that all catches comply with international 
quality standards. In practice, it would mean giving up catches on fish that have not reached the 
right sexual maturity, as well as eliminating practices like non-selective fishing, the use of gears 
that are damaging to fish, and poor preservation methods that lead to wastage (see 
www.esoctproject.org for a presentation of the novel method for assessing the full cost of fishing 
practices and fishery policy, from the environmental, social and economic point of view). Such a 
mechanism would be set up and maintained by the fishing industry itself, and would therefore 
provide greater accountability by the industry. This is especially important considering that, over 
the last thirty years, the industry has felt increasingly marginalised and excluded from any 
decision-making process that affects it, due to governments’ obstinate insistence on setting up 
2 Failler P. et al. (2006). Évaluation des stocks et aménagement des pêcheries de la ZEE mauritanienne. Rapport du 
5ème Groupe de travail IMROP, Nouadhibou, Mauritanie, 7-17 décembre 2002, United Nations Organisation for 
Food and Agriculture, Rome, 2004, 203 p. 
3  See on this topic: Failler et al. (2008). Future prospects for fish and fishery products; 4. Fish consumption in the 
European Union in 2015 and 2030 - Part 2. Country projections. FAO Fishery circular No. 972/4 Part 2, 400 p. 
centralised fisheries management systems. Attempts at initiating participative processes for 
fisheries management are indeed promising, but have a long way to go.  
Trading away fisheries resources to meet economic growth requirements is hardly conceivable 
today, especially if the ultimate objective of national development policies in developing 
countries is to reduce poverty. Rather, it is crucial to consider fisheries resources as a source of 
economic growth and social development, and in this regard, the health of marine ecosystems 
cannot not be jeopardised. 
Overall, this demonstrates the need for consensus-building between policy makers in the areas of 
fisheries and trade, and to a greater extent, those operating in the spheres of microeconomics, 
cooperation and development. Dialogue between these policy spheres should result in a 
consideration of the ways in which trade and fishing interact, as well as the specific objectives 
and constraints in each area (the need for exporting on the one side, and protecting resources on 
the other). This dialogue should then contribute to the development of strategies aimed at 
optimising the potential of marine resources. The emergence of links between fishing and trade 
policies also offers the merit of putting the environment at the forefront of the trade agenda. 
Ultimately, forging strong links between fishing and trade policies will contribute to the 
emergence of good governance in the fishing sectors. 


http://www.esciencecentral.org/pdfdownload.php?download=journals/nutritional-security-healthy-marine-ecosystems-and-value-added-priorities-for-developing-coastal-countries-2332-2608-2-e108.pdf&aid=25753

Nutritional security, healthy marine ecosystems and value added priorities for developing coastal countries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

Portsmouth University Research Portal (Pure)