Aquaculture Big Numbers PDF

FAO
ISSN 2070-7010
FISHERIES AND
AQUACULTURE
TECHNICAL
PAPER
601
Aquaculture Big Numbers

Cover photographs:
Left: Women in Aquaculture in Nepal: Members of a community fish production and marketing
cooperative in Nepal harvesting fish. Photo credit – J. Pant. (WorldFish); Top Right: Sampling of fish
growth performance in a pond by field researchers in Bangladesh. Photo Credit – Mark Prein. (GIZ);
Middle Right: Harvesting fish in a small-scale aquaculture operation in Malawi. Photo Credit – Randy
Brummett. (World Bank); Bottom Right: Harvest of Indian major (rohu, catla and mrigal) and exotic
(silver, grass and common) carps from a semi-intensive polyculture pond in Mymensingh, Bangladesh.
Photo Credit – FAO/Mohammad R. Hasan.
Aquaculture Big Numbers FAO
FISHERIES AND
AQUACULTURE
TECHNICAL
PAPER
601
by
Michael Phillips
WorldFish
Penang, Malaysia
Rohana P. Subasinghe
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Rome, Italy
Nhuong Tran
WorldFish
Penang, Malaysia
Laila Kassam
Amaranth Sustainable Development LLP
London, United Kingdom
and
Chin Yee Chan

WorldFish
Penang, Malaysia
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2016
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies
or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have
been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not
mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views or policies of FAO.
ISBN 978-92-5-109466-2
© FAO, 2016
FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except
where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and
teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate
acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of
users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.
All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be
made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to copyright@fao.org.
FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be
purchased through publications-sales@fao.org.
iii
Preparation of this document
This document has been developed through a collaborative programme involving

FAO and WorldFish, and financed by the Swedish International Development
Agency (SIDA). It contributes to FAO’s efforts to enhance understanding
of the contribution of aquaculture to poverty alleviation, food security and
towards improving the livelihoods of many rural communities engaged in aquatic
production. The authors thank SIDA for its generous support.
PLATE 1
Weighting Pangasius fish.
Photo credit: Nesar Ahmed
v
Abstract
The “Aquaculture Big Numbers” research project seeks to: provide baseline
information on the present status of the aquaculture sector from a human
development perspective; identify the types and numbers of people employed by the
sector; and explore the role of aquaculture in providing social and economic services
at a global level, with a particular emphasis on small-scale stakeholders. The research
findings presented here are based on a global synthesis of information from various
sources and 9 country case studies undertaken in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The findings suggest that previous employment estimates of the global aquaculture
sector based on official statistics are likely to be underestimates. Employment
generated at farm level is found to be much higher than employment at other links
in the value chain. The majority of fish farms are small-scale, integrated, household
operations, and value chains oriented around small-scale producers are estimated
to generate more employment than those from medium- and large-scale producers.
Farm-level employment is found to be much higher in small-scale compared with
medium- and large-scale value chains, while employment at other links along small-
scale value chains is much lower than that for medium- and large-scale value chains.
Employment from domestic-oriented aquaculture value chains is estimated to be
much higher than employment from export-oriented value chains. Aquaculture,
particularly small-scale aquaculture, is found to generate important social and
economic services in the form of direct employment in production activities and
indirect employment along the value chain. The findings highlight the limited
nature of available “official” data. It is important therefore that more comprehensive
data become available to enable successful monitoring of the sector and to inform
aquaculture planning and policy in the future. Some indicators to monitor social
and economic services from aquaculture at both the national/local and household
levels are suggested. An important priority, particularly for developing countries,
should be the inclusion of poor and small-scale stakeholders in the development
of the aquaculture sector, both directly and indirectly. While the globalization of
value chains and demands for certification appear to be marginalizing small-scale
farmers, significant social and economic benefits could be generated by a small-scale
sector that can participate effectively in certified export value chains. Thus, a key
recommendation is that small-scale farmers should be involved in the development
of certification procedures and standards and policies should be developed to
support small-scale farmers to become certified. One approach that has had success
in a number of countries is to support and promote group certification of farmers
organizations or clusters of farmers. Supporting the small-scale sector to access
services, technical knowledge and training to utilize better management practises is
required in order to develop a sector that is productive and sustainable.
FAO. 2016. Aquaculture Big Numbers, by Michael Phillips, Rohana P. Subasinghe,

Nhuong Tran, Laila Kassam and Chin Yee Chan.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 601. Rome, Italy.
vi
Contents
Preparation of this document iii

Abstract v
Acknowledgements ix
Abbreviations and acronyms x
Executive summary xi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. GENERAL OVERVIEW AND STUDY APPROACHES 3
2.1 General overview of social and economic services of global
aquaculture 3
2.1.1 Aquaculture and stakeholder classifications 3
2.1.2 Social and economic services from global aquaculture 4
2.2 Study approaches 6
2.2.1 Value chain approach 6
2.2.2 Country case studies 6
2.2.3 Terminology and Definitions 7
2.2.4 Study constraints and limitations 8
3. SUMMARY OF COUNTRY CASE STUDIES 9

3.1 Aquaculture numbers in Asia 9
3.2 Aquaculture numbers in Africa 14
3.3 Aquaculture numbers in Latin America 16
4. GLOBAL SYNTHESIS 21
4.1 Employment along aquaculture value chains 21
4.1.1 Aquaculture sector value chains 21
4.1.2 Type of people employed by the aquaculture sector 22
4.1.3 Number of people employed in the aquaculture sector 23
4.1.4 Small-scale stakeholders and women employed in aquaculture 26
4.1.5 Aquaculture value chains 28
4.2 Social and economic services of aquaculture 30
4.2.1 Aquaculture and poverty alleviation 30
4.2.2 Aquaculture and women 32
4.2.3 Aquaculture and food fish supply and nutrition 32
4.2.4 Other social and economic services of aquaculture 33
4.3 Major aquaculture development trends and influences 34
4.3.1 Major trends in the global aquaculture sector 34
4.3.2 Transformation of global aquaculture production and trade 36
vii
4.3.3 Dynamic development at local level 37

4.3.4 Climate change and other factors 38
5. DISCUSSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 41

5.1 Summary of key findings 41
5.2 Major trends influencing small-scale employment generated
through aquaculture value chains 43
5.3 Implications for future aquaculture planning and policy formulation 46
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51
REFERENCES 53
APPENDIXES 57
Appendix 1. Summary of aquaculture production and employment in
case study countries and worldwide 57
Appendix 2. Methodology for estimating the number of people employed
in global aquaculture value chains 59
BOXES
Box 1. Tilapia value chain in Thailand 29
Box 2. Players involved in the brackish-water shrimp value chain in
Bangladesh 30
TABLES
Table 1. Top global aquaculture producers and countries selected for the study 7
Table 2. Type and number of stakeholders participating in aquaculture value
chains from case study countries 22
Table 3. Estimated production and employment in aquaculture value chains
in case study countries 24
Table 4. Aquaculture labour productivity in case study countries 25
Table 5. Employment (full and part time) in aquaculture in case study
countries by scale of operation 27
Table 6. Employment generation along domestic and export-oriented value
chains 30
Table 7. Indicators for monitoring social and economic services from
aquaculture at the national level 47
Table 8. Indicators for monitoring the social and economic services of
small-scale aquaculture to sustainable rural development 48
viii
PLATES
Plate 1. Weighting Pangasius fish iv
Plate 2. Harvest from small-scale seaweed culture in Indonesia xvi
Plate 3. Small-scale mollusc culture operation in Viet Nam 20
Plate 4. Harvesting fish in a small-scale aquauclture pond in Bangladesh 40
Plate 5. Rice-fish culture in Indonesia 50
Plate 6. Mollusc culture in Viet Nam 58
ix
Acknowledgements
This collaborative work of FAO and WorldFish is funded by FAO with some
support from the CGIAR Research Program on Policy, Institutions and Markets.
The authors thank SIDA for its generous support.
x
Abbreviations and acronyms
FTE full-time equivalent

GDP gross domestic product
IAA integrated agriculture–aquaculture
NGO non-governmental organization
SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises
SSA sub-Saharan Africa
VAC garden, pond, livestock (system in Viet Nam)
xi
Executive summary
INTRODUCTION
Global aquaculture production has been increasing steadily since the early 1950s
and 50 percent of total global food fish now comes from aquaculture. Developing
countries account for about 80 percent of world aquaculture production.
Aquaculture provides important social and economic services to people in many
developing countries. A number of external drivers, such as increasing pressure on
available land and water resources, climate change, and increasing globalization,
is threatening the sector and the livelihoods of small-scale stakeholders in poor
and vulnerable communities. Moreover, while the importance of small-scale
aquaculture is widely promoted, its significance cannot be estimated due to lack of
available and accessible data.
To address these issues, FAO and WorldFish have collaborated on the
“Aquaculture Big Numbers” project. This research project, the results of which are
presented in this report, is intended to: provide baseline information on the present
status of the aquaculture sector from a human development perspective; identify
the types and numbers of people employed by the sector, estimate employment
(using a value chain approach); and understand the role of aquaculture in providing
social and economic services at a global level, with a particular emphasis on small-
scale stakeholders in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
STUDY APPROACH
The research for this study was conducted through a global synthesis of information
available from various sources and nine country case studies combined with
in-depth community level consultations where possible. Case studies in Africa,
Asia and Latin America were chosen to represent countries where aquaculture
plays a significant role in providing social and economic services. Case studies were
conducted for: Bangladesh, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand,
Viet Nam and Zambia. Secondary data from China were also reviewed.
GLOBAL SYNTHESIS
In total there were about 10 million “units” directly involved in aquaculture value
chains in the 9 case study countries, which account for about 16 percent of global
aquaculture production. Most of this number are grow-out production operations
(9.1 million) dominated by households who have ponds and operate aquaculture as
an integrated component of their farming systems. Roles played by small-scale and
poor stakeholders vary along and between value chains. The present study indicates
that 11.4 million jobs were generated by aquaculture in the 9 case study countries,
most of which come from 3 top world aquaculture producers where small-scale
aquaculture dominates, namely Bangladesh, Indonesia and Viet Nam.
xii
The data now available suggest that previous estimates of global aquaculture
employment are likely to be underestimates. Using findings from case study
countries to extrapolate the number of people employed in global aquaculture
suggests that total jobs (both full and part time) in global aquaculture value chains
could be as high as 56.7 million. However, this projected global employment
estimate might be an overestimate, as further information on employment from
other major aquaculture producers, especially China, is lacking. As such, this study
also estimates a lower bound for global aquaculture employment (27.7 million, of
which 20.1 million generated on farm and 7.6 million from other links in the value
chain), based on a lower employment estimate for China. Thus, it is estimated that
total global aquaculture employment lies somewhere between 27.7 and 56.7 million
full- and part-time jobs.
SMALL-SCALE STAKEHOLDERS AND WOMEN EMPLOYED IN AQUACULTURE

Of the about 11.4 million people employed in aquaculture value chains in the 9 case
study countries, 6.5 million are employed in small-scale aquaculture value chains,
compared with 4.9 million employed in medium- and large-scale value chains. The
number of people employed at farm level in small-scale value chains (5.3 million) is
much higher than that of those employed at farm level in medium- and large-scale
aquaculture (2.9 million). It is estimated that 3.1 million people are employed at
other links along aquaculture value chains in the case study countries (1.2 million
for small-scale chains and 2 million for medium- and large-scale chains).
While small-scale aquaculture value chains generate higher overall levels of
employment, small-scale aquaculture contributes less than 30 percent to total
aquaculture production in the case study countries (3.4 million tonnes from
small-scale production versus 8.3 million tonnes from medium- and large-scale
production). Consequently, the labour productivity of small-scale aquaculture
producers is lower than that of medium- and large-scale producers.
The case studies show that women play a significant role in aquaculture value
chains. Employment of women in aquaculture value chains in Indonesia, Viet Nam
and Zambia was estimated to range between 40 and 80 percent and women were
found to be active in post-harvest activities in aquaculture value chains in many
countries and to assume important roles in household-based aquaculture such as
feeding, managing ponds and marketing products.
AQUACULTURE VALUE CHAINS

The case studies revealed that freshwater aquaculture value chains are structured
around diverse products grown in earthen ponds, paddy fields, cages, net
enclosures, and pens in floodplains, reservoirs, lakes and rivers. Freshwater
aquaculture value chains for domestic markets consist of a variety of carps and
catfish produced in integrated aquaculture–agriculture systems. A substantial
portion of freshwater aquaculture production also enters value chains for export
markets e.g. entrepreneurial and monoculture catfish and tilapia value chains from
Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam. Value chains from integrated aquaculture
xiii
systems are simpler and contain fewer segments compared with monoculture value
chains producing products for export markets.
Brackish-water aquaculture value chains are structured around a few commodities
such as shrimp, milkfish and mud crab. The most important brackish-water
aquaculture value chain observed in the nine country case studies is the shrimp
value chain. The case studies showed that, in general, brackish-water shrimp value
chains are buyer-driven and export-oriented, with unequal power relationships
among actors involved in the various chain segments. Employment generated by
domestic and export-oriented aquaculture value chains in the case study countries
is estimated to be about 73 and 27 percent, respectively.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SERVICES OF AQUACULTURE

The case studies show that a large number of small-scale stakeholders, including the
poor, are directly involved in various kinds of freshwater aquaculture production
such as: subsistence farming in Zambia; homestead aquaculture in Bangladesh; and
the integrated garden, pond, livestock farming system in Viet Nam. Freshwater
aquaculture directly contributes to poverty alleviation by generating employment
and income for the poor. In Latin America, aquaculture is commonly practised by
medium- and large-scale operators; nonetheless, findings from Chile and Ecuador
show that a growing number of small producers are currently operating seaweed
and freshwater aquaculture ponds.
The case studies revealed that aquaculture also contributes to poverty alleviation
indirectly via the involvement of poor and small-scale stakeholders in various
activities along aquaculture value chains. In Bangladesh, many poor people work as
fry collectors and in seafood processing plants. In Indonesia, Viet Nam and other
countries, rural poor people are employed in processing plants and as labourers for
various aquaculture-related activities. The case studies suggest that there are high
numbers of small-scale actors directly involved in various value chains. Many of
these actors are not poor but are likely to be vulnerable, engaging in aquaculture
production, along with other livelihood activities, as a small-scale rural enterprise
for income generation. Women were found to be actively involved in aquaculture,
especially in Asia.
Per capita fish consumption has been increasing in most countries investigated
despite the stagnation or decline of production from capture fisheries. The
increasing rate of fish consumption has been supported by the increase in annual
aquaculture production. The majority of rising aquaculture production comes from
entrepreneurial and commercial aquaculture operated by small-, medium- and large-
scale producers.
MAJOR AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND INFLUENCES

The rapid growth of the sector in terms of both production and trade of aquaculture
products provides significant opportunities in all regions under analysis. Key
drivers of change include the increasing consolidation and vertical integration of
export-oriented value chains, driven in part by increasing stringency in product
xiv
quality, trading standards and increasing demands for certification of aquaculture

products. Dynamic local development trends are also important, and climate
change and variability is creating both threats and opportunities for the sector.
MAJOR TRENDS INFLUENCING SMALL-SCALE EMPLOYMENT GENERATED

THROUGH AQUACULTURE VALUE CHAINS
Findings from the case studies on the impacts of these trends on small-scale
stakeholders are mixed. For example, the China review found that, while
employment in agriculture and fisheries has been decreasing, the number of people
engaged in aquaculture has been increasing rapidly. However, findings from other
countries such as Thailand show that employment in certain global value chains
has been decreasing, and that it is very difficult for the poor to benefit from
involvement in commercial and vertically integrated aquaculture value chains other
than in insecure and unstable jobs such as on-farm labourers or as workers in
processing factories. It is unclear whether employment generation along the value
chain from larger-scale commercial production can make up for the displacement
of small-scale farmers.
A related trend and driver of change is the increasing demand for certification of
aquaculture products. While these international standards may appear not to affect
smallholder systems in countries where domestic and regional trade dominate, such
as in sub-Saharan Africa, there is an increasing risk that they could create substantial
barriers to development, by denying them access to wider markets. Several of the
case studies from Asia highlighted the risks and challenges of small-scale farmers
being able to comply with these international standards and the overall uncertainty
in their ability to do so.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AQUACULTURE PLANNING AND POLICY

FORMULATION
The data available to monitor the social and economic services generated by
aquaculture are limited. It is uncertain how the development trends occurring in
the aquaculture sector will affect the services generated from aquaculture such as
value-chain employment, and the livelihoods of small-scale and poor stakeholders.
Therefore, it is important that more-comprehensive data become available to
enable successful monitoring of the sector and to inform aquaculture planning and
policy in the future. Some indicators to monitor these social and economic services
from aquaculture are suggested, distinguishing between macro- and micro-level
indicators that can be applied at national/local and household levels. The proposed
indicators also incorporate indicators to monitor social and economic services
generated by the aquaculture sector generally and those that can be used specifically
to monitor the services generated by small-scale aquaculture development. While
the national-level indicators are “traditional” social and economic indicators, the
indicators for monitoring small-scale aquaculture are “sustainability” indicators.
xv
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study has found that previous estimates of global aquaculture employment
based on official statistics are likely to be underestimates. The findings also
suggest that employment generated at farm level is likely to be much higher than
employment at other links in the value chain, and that the majority of fish farms
are small-scale, integrated, household operations. Value chains oriented around
small-scale producers were estimated to generate more employment than value
chains from medium- and large-scale producers. Employment at farm level was also
found to be much higher in small-scale value chains than medium- and large-scale
value chains although employment at other links along the former is much lower
than for the latter.
Overall, the findings indicate that aquaculture, particularly small-scale
aquaculture, generates important social and economic services in the form of
direct and indirect employment. These findings also highlight the importance
of understanding the social and economic services generated throughout the
whole value chain and not just at the production level. The study highlights the
limited nature of available “official” data. Without accurate data, aquaculture
planning, policy development and resource allocation are unlikely to provide the
appropriate support to enable the sector to maximize its impacts, especially those
generated by and beneficial to the small-scale aquaculture sector. The indicators
suggested here provide a sound basis for data collection in the aquaculture sector.
An important priority should be to ensure the inclusion of poor and small-
scale stakeholders in the development of the aquaculture sector, either directly
through production or indirectly through value-chain employment. While the
globalization of value chains and increasing demands for certification appear
to be marginalizing small-scale farmers in many countries, significant benefits
could be generated by a small-scale sector that is able to participate effectively
in certified export value chains. Thus, a key recommendation is that small-scale
farmers should be involved in the development of certification procedures and
standards, and policies should be developed to support small-scale farmers to
become certified. A successful approach in a number of countries has been to
support and promote group certification of farmers organizations or clusters.
Supporting the small-scale sector to access services, technical knowledge and
training to utilize better management practices is required in order to develop a
sector that is productive and sustainable.
PLATE 2
Harvest from small-scale seaweed culture in
Indonesia. Photo credit: Rohana Subasinghe
1
1. Introduction
With capture fishery production relatively static since the late 1980s, aquaculture
has been responsible for the impressive growth in the supply of fish for human
consumption. Whereas aquaculture provided only 7 percent of fish for human
consumption in 1974, this share had increased to 26 percent in 1994 and 39 percent
in 2004. China has played a major role in this growth as it represents more than
60 percent of world aquaculture production (FAO, 2016). About 50 percent of total
global food fish production now comes from aquaculture and most aquaculture
growth takes place in developing countries, which account for about 80 percent of
world aquaculture production. It is estimated that by 2030, the world will require
the production of an additional 27 million tonnes of fishery products to satisfy the
growing demand for food fish. Given the limited opportunities for growth, and
possibly even a decline in capture fisheries, this increasing demand must be met by
additional production from the aquaculture sector.
Aquaculture provides important trade and livelihood opportunities for rural
people in many developing countries. Social and economic services are provided by
aquaculture through: contributing to global and national food security; providing
self-employment and paid employment for rural and peri-urban households
and communities; creating employment along fish and seafood value chains;
generating economic multiplier effects; contributing increasingly to national and
international trade; and generating income at household, community and national
levels. Nonetheless, aquaculture development today faces a number of serious
challenges to meet future demand and to continue to provide its important social
and economic services. A number of overarching external drivers are threatening
the sector, and particularly the livelihoods of small-scale stakeholders in poor
and vulnerable communities. These factors include, for example: increasing
competitive pressure on available land and water resources for aquaculture
expansion, pollution, climate change, natural disasters, and local risks associated
with increasing globalization and others. Moreover, the importance of small-scale
aquaculture to the sector as a source of income, food, and employment for many
poor people is widely promoted, yet its significance cannot be estimated due to
the lack of available and accessible data. It is also not certain whether a focus solely
on small-scale aquaculture development will deliver the significant improvements
in productivity and management required in order to secure the sector’s future
contribution to food security and poverty alleviation.
Recently, there have been attempts to better understand the contribution of
capture fisheries to local and global economies through a “Big Numbers Project”,
implemented through a partnership involving the World Bank, FAO, WorldFish
and others. The objective of this project was to better understand the social and
economic values of the capture fisheries sector through generation of data on the
2 Aquaculture Big Numbers
people involved in the sector and the trends and role of the sector in national and
global economies. Despite the recent rapid expansion of aquaculture, involving
many millions of small-scale farmers and poor people globally across multi-
national supply chains, no similar information or understanding exists. Without
better understanding of the aquaculture sector, the numbers of people involved,
and other factors, there will remain a poor basis for future planning.
To address these issues, FAO and WorldFish are collaborating on an
“Aquaculture Big Numbers” project. This research project is intended to provide
baseline information on the present status of the aquaculture sector from a human
development perspective and an understanding of the role of aquaculture in
providing social and economic services at a global level, with a particular emphasis
on small-scale stakeholders in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
More specifically, the research is intended to:
• explore aquaculture industry structures (species, farming systems, value
chains, scale of production, etc.);
• identify the types and numbers of people employed by the sector, using a
value-chain approach to estimate employment from farm to market or point
of export;
• analyse social and economic services provided to society from aquaculture
structures, with an emphasis on small-scale stakeholders and the poor;
• identify major trends and influences on small-scale aquaculture farmers and
poor people involved in aquaculture production and associated value chains;
• recommend a set of indicators for monitoring social and economic services
of aquaculture for consideration in future aquaculture planning and policy
development.
3
2. General overview and study

approaches
2.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SERVICES OF

GLOBAL AQUACULTURE
The research for this study was conducted through a global synthesis of
information available from various sources and selected country case studies
combined with more in-depth community-level consultations where possible.
2.1.1 Aquaculture and stakeholder classifications

This section provides a conceptual overview of aquaculture including its definition
and classifications.
Aquaculture is defined by FAO as the process of farming aquatic organisms
such as fish, shellfish and aquatic plants. Different criteria can be used to
classify aquaculture, for example: cultured species (shrimp culture, fish culture,
seaweed culture, etc.); cultured environments (e.g. freshwater, brackish water,
marine culture); culture technologies (e.g. extensive, semi-intensive, and intensive
aquaculture); scale of operation (e.g., small-, medium- and large-scale); and culture
objectives (e.g. subsistence, commercial production). The study gives an emphasis
on social and economic services of aquaculture, the types of people involved, as
well as aquaculture systems and value chains.
From the review, it emerges that definitions of aquaculture systems based
on the scale of operation are not widely agreed upon. Conventionally, there is
a continuum of aquaculture systems ranging from small- to medium- and large-
scale regarding land size, use of hired labour, capital investment, and level of
technological sophistication. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), small-scale aquaculture
often equates with subsistence farming, whereas in Asia it is commonly associated
with a wide spectrum of subsistence and integrated farming through to small
farm enterprises with various degrees of household specialization. Small-scale
aquaculture is globally varied with regard to social organization, employment, as
well as technological application, knowledge, species, and input use. Small-scale
producers typically use low-input farming methods and a large percentage of farm
labour is provided by household members. Its operations are commonly family-
owned and highly vulnerable to external shocks induced by, among other drivers,
global market consolidation (e.g. transforming global aquaculture production into
buyer-driven value chains), climate change, and multiple pressures from local and
domestic urbanization and industrialization.
The literature on small-scale aquaculture has largely been dominated by
biologists who frame it as a productive activity having positive implications for
rural development (Belton and Little, 2011). In the early 1990s, FAO coined
the concept of rural aquaculture, which was later elaborated by Edwards and
Demaine (1997) as “the farming of aquatic organisms by small-scale farming
households or communities, usually by extensive or semi-intensive, low-cost
production technology appropriate to their resource base”. This concept is often
used interchangeably with the concept of small-scale aquaculture. However, it is
important to note that, by the concept of rural aquaculture, the authors emphasize
the promotion of aquaculture systems appropriate to the resource base of small-
scale farming households for poverty alleviation in rural areas. Rural aquaculture
emphasizes the use of aquaculture as an important component for poverty
alleviation and sustainable rural development (Edwards, 1999). It is characterized
by aquaculture farming systems with low and on-farm inputs, low-cost and simple
technologies accessible to the poor, aiming at improving farmers’ living standards
and food security. Rural aquaculture can be operated as a single farming activity;
however, it is commonly integrated with other farm subsystems, referred to as
integrated agriculture-aquaculture (IAA), such as the garden, pond, livestock
(VAC) systems found in Viet Nam.
This study attempts to take a wider approach to the aquaculture sector,
identifying the types and numbers of people employed by the sector, using a value-
chain approach. The purpose of using such an approach is to trace employment
through the production systems, from farm to market. This approach, while
conceptually appealing, is difficult to implement in practice because of limitations
in the way data is collected in the aquaculture sector. Stakeholder classification
is equally problematic, and various countries and studies use different ways of
classifying types of people involved. This study has used existing in-country
classifications, such as “small-scale”, “household” and other existing forms used
in each country, rather than developing a new system. Nevertheless, the approach
is problematic, and varied use of different classifications makes cross-country and
global comparisons difficult.
2.1.2 Social and economic services from global aquaculture

It is widely considered that aquaculture contributes to global and regional
food supplies, improves national food security, generates household income,
contributes to national and global gross domestic product (GDP), creates direct
and indirect employment for rural populations, and contributes to national and
international trade. Aquaculture development, especially small-scale aquaculture,
can contribute to rural development, for example through efficient use of water,
efficient use of farm products and other resources, diversifying livelihoods,
utilizing family and rural labour, and enhancing social harmony and gender equity
(Edwards, 1999).
Applying an ecosystem-based approach (MEA, 2005), social and economic
services from aquaculture development can be categorized as follows:
Provisioning services: Aquaculture generates employment, livelihood
opportunities, income, GDP, export revenue, and fish food supply, and contributes
to poverty alleviation and increases farm productivity and efficiency.
General overview and study approaches 5
At the individual and household level, available literature has established that
aquaculture can improve livelihoods of the poor through improved food supply,
employment and income (Edwards, 2000). The contribution of aquaculture to
rural development has long been recognized; however, there have been limited
hard data to justify this claim (Bondad-Reantaso and Prein, 2009). Income from
aquaculture is often reported to be higher than that from conventional agriculture
or other alternative livelihood options.
At the aggregate level (community, national, regional and global level),
aquaculture provides important provisioning services such as supplying food
fish and providing employment opportunities. With regard to employment, the
estimated level of employment created by the global aquaculture sector varies
from report to report and is influenced by aquaculture statistics compiled by FAO
from national aquaculture statistics submitted by FAO Members. Valderrama,
Hishamunda and Zhou (2010) recently collated information on aquaculture
employment using FAO data. Their findings suggest that aquaculture has created
about 23 million jobs. Most employment was found to be generated in Asia,
with East Asia (plus India) accounting for 94 percent (15.6 million) of direct
employment (16.7 million) and 92 percent (21.5 million), which approximately
matches its share of world aquaculture production (91 percent). The findings
generally support the broad understanding that high employment is created in
regions with high aquaculture production. With regard to scale of production,
total numbers of small-scale producers have been variously estimated by FAO
as about 70–80 percent of total producers. This implies that total smallholder
numbers are about 11.7–13.4 million. However, the present study shows that this
could be an underestimate.
Aquaculture can be a vehicle for improving food and nutrition security as
well as alleviating poverty in rural areas in developing countries. Aquaculture
contributed 50 percent of fish for human consumption in 2015 (FAO, 2016), and
is a major engine to meet increasing demand for fish and seafood. The Bangladesh
case study, for example, notes that small-scale household aquaculture can act as a
buffer to stop people falling back into poverty.
Sociocultural services: In some countries, farmed aquaculture products are used

for ritual services. Having aquaculture ponds can also show prestige and status of
the owner (e.g. in Ghana, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and Nepal). In
many countries, a certain proportion of fish from small-scale ponds is gifted to
family, friends and neighbours in the community at harvest, thus increasing social
capital and often increasing fish farmers’ direct and indirect access to labour, food,
money and social support from community members. Aquaculture can also be a
vehicle for empowering women through job creation and encouraging men and
women in households to work together to take care of aquaculture operations.
In some countries selected for study, such as Bangladesh and Viet Nam, women
dominate jobs at certain links along aquaculture value chains.
Regulating services: Aquaculture can provide waste assimilation and

environmental cleaning, water storage and drought releases. Nutrient recycling in
integrated aquaculture systems and integrated pest management can be viewed as
regulatory services provided by aquaculture. Integrated fish culture systems such
as rice–fish culture benefit poor and small-scale households and also have positive
environmental impacts via nutrient recycling and reducing pesticides used for rice
culture. In well-known VAC systems observed in Viet Nam, in addition to their
main function of growing fish, fish ponds also play an important role in crop and
livestock production in terms of nutrient recycling and waste assimilation.
2.2 STUDY APPROACHES

2.2.1 Value chain approach
Much attention on aquaculture and employment focuses on the production stage,
but in reality there is a diverse array of stakeholders involved in aquaculture value
chains from input supplies and services, through to producers and consumers.
Among these are many small-scale stakeholders, and more broadly landed
and landless poor, both directly involved in production as small farmers, or
employed throughout the value chain. Social and economic services of aquaculture
development generated along aquaculture value chains are not fully understood.
Therefore, this study adopts the value chain analytical framework to evaluate the
socio-economic contribution of aquaculture development, in particular the level
of employment it generates. Secondary data for the analysis were collected from
various available publications generated by international and national agencies
as well as development projects. Primary data are mainly from the country case
studies selected for the analysis.
As this study focuses on analysing social and economic services of aquaculture,
especially in terms of job and employment generation, it adopts Tool 8: Analyzing
Employment Distribution, of the “Making value chains work better for the
poor” toolbook (M4P, 2008). The employment distribution analysis suggested in
the toolbook involves a number of steps, beginning with defining the categories
of actors involved and mapping out the value chain. In the following steps, the
analysis focuses on determining and estimating employment at each level of the
value chain and analysing employment distribution at different links of the chain.
The estimation and calculation of employment along the value chain depend on
available secondary information, results of surveys and fieldwork, and relevant
assumptions made by the authors.
2.2.2 Country case studies

This section describes how countries were selected for the study and the research
activities and components included in the selected case studies.
Study countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America were chosen to represent
countries where aquaculture plays a significant role in providing social and
economic services. National studies were contracted by WorldFish and/or FAO to
suitable partners in the selected countries in October and November 2010.
General overview and study approaches 7
Table 1 presents aquaculture production of the major aquaculture producing

countries globally, as available during the time of the study, and indicates those
countries included in this study. Total aquaculture production from the countries
listed in Table 1 was estimated at 45.5 million tonnes with a farm gate value of
US$71 million, accounting for 86 percent of total world aquaculture production,
and 72 percent of world aquaculture production value in 2008, respectively. These
percentage figures remain almost unchanged as of 2014.
TABLE 1
Top global aquaculture producers and countries selected for the study
Selection for Production Production value World
No Country
study (tonnes) (US$000) rank
1 China Yes 32 735 944 50 638 540 1
2 India No 3 478 690 5 043 749 2
3 Viet Nam Yes 2 461 700 4 599 850 3
4 Indonesia Yes 1 690 121 2 813 673 4
5 Thailand Yes 1 374 024 2 202 075 5
6 Bangladesh Yes 1 005 542 1 766 182 6
7 The Philippines No 741 142 1 576 141 9
8 Egypt Yes 693 815 1 251 119 11
9 Zambia Yes 5 640 16 313 -
10 Nigeria No 14 3207 374 770 27
11 Chile Yes 843 142 4 502 789 8
12 Ecuador Yes 172 120 765 297 22
13 Mexico Yes 159 309 565 705 25
14 Nicaragua No 16 078 60 148 -
Total 45 520 474 76 176 351
Share of world aquaculture production and 72
value (%) 86
Source: FAO (2012b).
Each country case study contains two major elements: (i) a national-level review;
and (ii) a more focused community-level and value-chain analysis. Community
consultations were conducted to provide community views and experiences on the
social and economic services of aquaculture and provide insights on community
impacts and influences related to aquaculture development. The country case
studies are used to estimate the number of people involved in the aquaculture
sector in each study country.
2.2.3 Terminology and Definitions

The following definitions are used for the study:
Aquaculture: the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs,
crustaceans and aquatic plants that occurs in both inland (freshwater) and coastal
(brackish-water, seawater) areas.
Aquaculture sector: general classification of aquaculture based on environment:
freshwater, brackish-water and marine culture.
Aquaculture commodity: a specific species such as tiger shrimp, tilapia, seaweed,

sea cucumber, etc.
Value chain/supply chain: overall product flow from supplier to the end
consumer. In this study, the value chains for aquaculture products that are
processed and exported are analysed only to the point of export.
Value-chain segment: a fraction of a product flow chain. For example, farm
segment, wholesale, processing, retailing, etc.
Stratified value-chain segment: value-chain segment based on defined
characteristics, for example, this study explores different categories, such as small,
medium- and large-scale aquaculture producers and systems.
Harvest and post-harvest activities: activities done after harvesting that are
limited to those activities carried out at the farm area such as sorting, drying,
grading, labelling, etc.
Processing: although this can be considered as part of postharvest activity, in this
study processing refers to the industrialized processing of aquaculture products,
which covers household scale and industry/company scale.
Subsistence aquaculture farm: poor aquaculture farms that operate and target
their production for direct household consumption.
Small-scale: aquaculture systems with low annual production levels. In this
study, the definition of small-scale is determined in the country case studies using
multiple variables. The scales of these identified variables vary among the case
study countries.
2.2.4 Study constraints and limitations

The limitations of the study result mainly from limited data available on the
aquaculture sector in different countries. Thus, not all aquaculture-producing
countries are represented in the Global Synthesis in Chapter 3, which is primarily
based on the country case studies commissioned for this study. Constraints
were also faced in estimating employment in the country case studies due to the
difficulty in obtaining disaggregated data on employment in different aquaculture
value chains, especially given the fragmentation of some value chains and the
integration of others. Difficulties were also encountered in: estimating full-time
equivalent (FTE) employment; and scaling up and extrapolating employment
in aquaculture value chains to the national and global levels. In addition, the
various definitions of small-scale farmers and poverty used by different countries
make cross-country comparisons of the types of people involved in different
aquaculture systems very difficult.
9
3. Summary of country case

studies
3.1 AQUACULTURE NUMBERS IN ASIA

Case studies from Asia were conducted for Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand and
Viet Nam. Secondary data were also reviewed from China. This section presents
brief summaries of the aquaculture sectors and employment created along
aquaculture value chains in the case study countries, with full country case study
reports available from WorldFish and/or FAO. A summary table presenting data
from the country case studies on production and employment in aquaculture
value chains is provided in Appendix 1.
Bangladesh
Aquaculture has been developing rapidly in Bangladesh in recent decades.
Stakeholder interviews conducted by the study team revealed that a decade ago,
aquaculture contributed about 30–40 percent of total national fish production.
However, the contribution of aquaculture has increased to 60–70 percent of total
fish production. Between 1984 and 2009, the aquaculture sector experienced an
impressive annual growth rate of 9 percent. By 2009, total aquaculture production
was estimated to be about 1.3 million tonnes of which about 399 000 tonnes of
fish were produced from homestead ponds; 390 000 tonnes from commercial
semi-intensive carp culture; 395 000 tonnes from pellet fed intensive systems;
and 98 000 tonnes from shrimp and prawn production (Belton et al., 2011).
Triangulating data from various sources, the country case study reveals that
aquaculture production estimated by official fisheries statistics of Bangladesh
is underestimated by about 27 percent (1.06 million tonnes versus 1.35 million
tonnes). The difference is mainly explained by the fact that national fisheries
statistics are based on an old survey design that does not fully account for the
recent dynamic development in the aquaculture sector such as the growth of
intensive entrepreneurially operated systems.
Extensive and highly diversified water and fisheries resources have generated
diverse aquaculture farming systems in the country: homestead pond aquaculture,
entrepreneurial pond culture, seasonal floodplain culture, rice–fish culture, cage
aquaculture, and “gher” culture. Pond culture systems dominate aquaculture
production in Bangladesh, accounting for about 86 percent of total reported
aquaculture production. Homestead pond aquaculture is operated by rural
households who make opportunistic use of existing homestead ponds that are
typically small in size. Homestead aquaculture is practised as a component of the
larger household agriculture farming system, involving about 4.3 million rural
households (20 percent of rural inhabitants), covering an area of about 265 000 ha
of ponds. About 25–50 percent of aquaculture production from homestead culture

is used for home consumption and the remainder is sold to the domestic market
for cash income. The case study indicates that homestead aquaculture is more
likely to be practised by wealthier households. However, many fishpond owners
that are categorized as relatively better-off among rural households are still poor.
For example, 26 percent of those with moderate access to land, including fish
ponds, of 0.61–1 ha, are under the poverty line. People employed along the value
chains structured around homestead aquaculture are small-scale stakeholders.
Entrepreneurial/commercial aquaculture is a stand-alone aquaculture enterprise
and involves significant capital investment and operates in semi-intensive and
intensive farming systems. The two commodities/species that dominate this
form of pond aquaculture in Bangladesh are Pangasius and Nile tilapia. Most
output from commercial pond aquaculture is consumed domestically, although a
small number of entrepreneurial producers are exploring opportunities to export
Pangasius and tilapia to foreign markets. The commercial aquaculture value chain
in Bangladesh involves more than 600 000 people including farmers and service
providers such as traders and processors (USAID, 2006). The country case study
shows that commercial aquaculture is playing a much more important role in
alleviating poverty, through employment generation (on farm and along the value
chain) and meeting national fish and seafood consumption needs, than previously
understood (Belton et al., 2011).
Gher culture involves shrimp and freshwater prawn production conducted in
converted rice fields. The shrimp sector of Bangladesh grew rapidly from the 1970s
until the mid-1990s. In 2009, the total land under shrimp and prawn production
was about 244 300 ha, producing about 97 700 tonnes of tiger shrimp and giant
freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), of which the freshwater prawn’s
share was about one-quarter, with a total export value of about US$380 million
(DOF, 2010). Shrimp and prawn culture create export-oriented and buyer driven
value chains linking stakeholders in Bangladesh to export markets. Producers,
particularly small-scale producers, have little ability to influence prices and are
frequently locked into contracts that limit the price they receive. Shrimp and
prawn value chains employ over 1.2 million people in all stages of production,
processing and marketing activities. Of these 1.2 million people, 400 000 work in
prawn and shrimp fry fishing, many of whom are women and children (USAID,
2006), and an estimated 20 000 women work in shrimp processing factories. Other
inland aquaculture systems such as floodplain aquaculture, cage aquaculture and
rice fish culture are less important than pond farming; however, they may play
significant roles in the future.
Aquaculture provides important social and economic services to Bangladesh.
The total number of people involved in various aquaculture value chains in
the country ranges from 6.0 to 6.4 million people (assuming each homestead
aquaculture household has one person involved in aquaculture, which may be an
underestimate). However, this number should not be interpreted as the number
of FTE jobs as many homestead pond operators spend only a few hours a day
Summary of country case studies 11
operating their fish ponds. In terms of FTE jobs generated in aquaculture value
chains, it is estimated that there are about 3.15 million jobs at the farm segment
(grow-out and hatchery production) and 642 000 jobs generated at other links,
making the total number of FTE jobs generated along the overall aquaculture
value chain about 3.8 million. Homestead aquaculture value chains associated with
small-scale operations with an average pond size of 0.06 ha generate the largest
number of jobs. A significant number of small-scale operators also participate
in various nodes of the commercial fish and shrimp/prawn value chains. Social
and economic services provided by homestead ponds include increased home
consumption of fish and insurance to fish-farming households, via the ability
to convert stocks of fish into cash, which can reduce vulnerability and enhance
resilience to shocks and circumstances likely to precipitate poverty.
Fish is by far the most important and frequently consumed animal source food
in Bangladesh. Fish provides about 66 percent of total animal protein intake to
Bangladesh or about 14 percent of total protein intake. Data from the Household
Income and Expenditure Survey 2005 (BBS, 2007) indicates that Bangladesh’s fish
consumption showed a strong upward trend between 2000 and 2005. However,
there is a growing division in fish consumption between urban and rural citizens
(18.1 kg and 14.5 kg per capita fish consumption respectively, compared with a
national average of 15.4 kg). The country case study shows that there is also a
substantial difference in fish consumption between social strata, ranging from 15 g
to 96 g per day, or from 5.5 kg to 35 kg per person per year. On average, the poor
consume 39 percent of the fish consumed by an average rich consumer.
Indonesia
Aquaculture plays an increasingly significant role in Indonesia’s economy, and
it has been accepted by government and others as a viable alternative livelihood
for fishers engaged in capture fisheries. Aquaculture in the country is practised in
freshwater, brackish-water and marine water environments using various species
and production technologies. The most common commodities from freshwater
aquaculture in Indonesia are common carps, catfish, and Nile tilapia. Brackish-
water farmed commodities are dominated by shrimp and milkfish, and marine
water commodities/species are dominated by groupers and seaweed. Aquaculture
in Indonesia is practised in small-, medium- and large-scale operations. Small-scale
is interpreted as farms of less than or equal to 2 ha operating in extensive, semi-
intensive or intensive aquaculture systems. It is noted that small-scale farms may
require different levels of investment and management skills.
Aquaculture in Indonesia has been increasing steadily in recent decades.
Production from aquaculture increased from 2.1 million tonnes in 2005 to
3.2 million tonnes in 2007 and to 4.78 million tonnes in 2009. Of the 4.78 million
tonnes produced in 2009, 2.44 million tonnes came from marine aquaculture,
1.18 million tonnes from brackish-water aquaculture, 0.59 million tonnes from
freshwater pond aquaculture, 0.336 million tonnes from floating net aquaculture,
0.085 million tonnes from rice–fish culture, and 0.063 million tonnes from
cage culture in freshwater waterbodies. Aquaculture production accounted for

20-25 percent of the total fish production in the country in 2005 and increased to
47.5 percent in 2009.
Aquaculture provides an important source of employment for Indonesians.
Official estimates of Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (2009) suggest that
aquaculture created 2 797 000 jobs at the farming stage, and about 1 215 000 jobs
were generated at the processing and marketing stages in 2009. The official
statistics reveal that the aquaculture industry created more than 4 million jobs
for Indonesia in 2009. This number is probably an underestimate of the current
employment levels in the aquaculture sector because it does not cover all
employment opportunities generated along the entire value chains of different
aquaculture commodities.
In terms of employment structures, there were about 2.4 million households
involved in the aquaculture industry in 2009, representing about 40 percent of the
total number of people employed in the fisheries sector. Freshwater pond farming
makes up 54 percent of total aquaculture households – about 1.3 million people,
of which 64 percent of households in fish farming own less than 0.1 ha of land
and only 5 percent of households own more than 0.5 ha. Rice–fish farms make up
24 percent (550 000 households), and brackish-water ponds account for 16 percent
(400 000 households). About 55 percent of the households involved in fish farming
have less than 2 ha (which is commonly considered small-scale) and only 6 percent
have more than 10 ha of land. There are about 150 000 households involved in
marine culture (seaweed and marine fish). These figures suggest that aquaculture
in Indonesia is dominated by small-scale operations.
Aquaculture provides significant social and economic services to Indonesia
such as improving household food security, generating valuable foreign exchange
and domestic revenues, and increasing the living standards and income of poor
rural communities. Per capita fish consumption in the country was estimated at
12.8 kg/year in 1982, which increased to 22.67 kg/year in 2005 and to 30.17 kg/year
in 2009. On average, per capita fish consumption increased by 2.7 percent annually
from 1994 to 2005 and by 6 percent from 2005 to 2009. According to the official
statistics of Indonesia, farmed fish production was projected to contribute about
7.7 kg/capita annually in 2009 and per capita farmed fish consumption tripled
between 2005 and 2009 (GAIN, 2010).
Aquaculture provides an alternative source of income for coastal rural
communities and supports sustainable rural development in Indonesia. In 2002,
there were 8 090 coastal villages nationwide occupied by 16.4 million people or
3.9 million households, of which 5.3 million or 32 percent were classified as poor.
The number of poor people in rural villages in the country dropped substantially
from 25.1 million to 23.6 million between 2002 and 2007. Nonetheless, there is still
a high percentage of poor people living in rural communities where aquaculture
development could be a suitable livelihood for them to improve their living
standards.
Thailand
Aquaculture in Thailand is practised in freshwater, brackish-water and marine
water environments. Most freshwater aquaculture is practised in the form of
pond aquaculture, and 90 percent of freshwater aquaculture farmers are classified
as small- and household-scale by the government (operating a farm of less than
5 ha). The contribution of freshwater aquaculture to the total value of fisheries
production has ranged from 46 to 64 percent over the last decade. Freshwater
aquaculture contributes more than one-third of fish consumed by Thai people,
which is estimated at 30 kg/capita annually. Marine fish culture has been present
in Thailand since the 1980s and is currently practised by both small- and large-
scale farmers, however with limited production (Sheriff, Little and Tantikamton,
2008). Coastal aquaculture production in Thailand is dominated by shrimp and
shellfish culture.
Aquaculture is viewed both as a commercial activity and also an important
means for rural development and poverty alleviation in Thailand. Aquaculture
is a highly successful agrifood-producing sector, providing significant livelihood,
employment and other social and economic services to Thai people. Overall,
aquaculture contributed about 44 percent to total fish consumption in Thailand in
2009. With the recent transformation of the aquaculture industry in the country
(increased vertical integration and large farms taking over small farms), the number
of jobs generated by the Thai aquaculture industry has decreased and is estimated
by the case study at about 352 600 in 2010. Previous estimates of the employment
generated by aquaculture in Thailand are mixed. The FAO National Aquaculture
Sector Overview for Thailand (FAO, 2005–2014) indicates that 662 000 people
were employed in the aquaculture industry in Thailand in 2005, of whom 400 000
were employed in freshwater aquaculture production, 78 000 were employed in
brackish-water aquaculture production, and 184 000 were employed in processing
and related industries. FAO (2009) reports that about 600 000 people were
employed in the aquaculture sector in Thailand in 2008. Data from Thailand’s
Department of Fisheries for 2010 (DOF, 2011) reported in the case study suggest
that there were about 660 000 people engaged in the aquaculture sector and that
many of them were small-scale farmers practising aquaculture as a part-time and
supplemental livelihood. Official statistics of Thailand for 2010 suggest that about
428 000 people were employed in the fisheries sector, of whom about 179 000 were
in the aquaculture sector (NSO, 2011).
Shrimp farming is the most important coastal aquaculture business in Thailand.
Taking a value-chain approach, Giap, Garden and Lebel (2010) suggest that about
390 000 FTE jobs were created in shrimp aquaculture and related industries
along the shrimp value chain in Thailand. As noted above, participation of small-
scale producers in shrimp farming has been declining in recent years. In recent
years, there has been a strong structural transformation in Thailand’s shrimp
farming industry, with black tiger shrimp being gradually replaced by exotic
white shrimp. Concurrent with the shift to white shrimp culture is a process
of vertical integration. The shift in farmed shrimp species has enhanced the
competitive capacity of Thailand’s shrimp industry in international markets and

has also helped the industry to cope with stringent food safety, traceability and
sustainability standards required by global markets. However, this structural
transformation has put small-scale stakeholders in a disadvantageous position,
and they are consequently being displaced from the shrimp farming sector. Large
farms are taking over small farms, forcing small farmers to move into the fish and
seafood processing industry as unskilled workers, earning lower incomes. The
small-scale farmers who have remained in shrimp production face difficulties in
complying with the complicated requirements of shrimp export value chains.
Viet Nam
Viet Nam has a dynamic and rapidly growing aquaculture sector involving
diversified aquaculture farming systems. From 2000 to 2009, the aquaculture
sector experienced an impressive average growth rate of 23 percent per year,
reaching a total production of 2.6 million tonnes in 2009. Aquaculture in the
country is dominated by brackish-water shrimp and freshwater catfish production
systems, accounting for more than two-thirds of the country’s annual total fish
and seafood exports, estimated at US$4.5 billion per year in recent years. There
are about 2.4 million households undertaking aquaculture production, of which
almost 2 million are involved in fish culture and 337 600 practise marine, brackish-
water and freshwater shrimp production. With the exception of those involved
in capital-intensive catfish farming, for the majority of fish farmers in Viet Nam
aquaculture is just one integrated component of their livelihoods (such as in the
VAC system) rather than a main occupation.
The number of people involved in aquaculture and related activities along the
aquaculture value chain in Viet Nam ranges from 3.2 to 4.2 million, of whom about
1.6 million are employed in shrimp value chains, 240 000 are employed in catfish
value chains and between 1.5 and 2.2 million are engaged in traditional freshwater
aquaculture (VAC) and other aquaculture systems. Except for freshwater catfish
aquaculture (which has recently become controlled by large-scale production),
aquaculture in the country, including traditional freshwater aquaculture, and
brackish-water and marine aquaculture, is primarily small-scale in nature. About
75 percent of the 2.4 million households engaged in aquaculture production are
small-scale producers, with farm sizes of less than 2 ha, and 90 percent of these
households have farm sizes less than 3 ha.
3.2 AQUACULTURE NUMBERS IN AFRICA

Aquaculture is underdeveloped in Africa despite its high biological and natural
resource potentials suitable for aquaculture development, as well as its apparent
need for new supplies of aquatic animals for food and nutrition. Currently, African
aquaculture contributes less than 1 percent to global aquaculture production and
significant quantities of farmed products are produced in Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria
and Zimbabwe in large-scale operations (Brummett, Lazard and Moehl, 2008).
Case studies in Africa were conducted in Egypt, where aquaculture is dominated
by large-scale producers, and in Zambia, where the majority of aquaculture

stakeholders are small-scale and subsistence farmers.
Egypt
Egypt is the largest aquaculture producer in Africa, and globally ranks as the
eleventh largest, producing mainly tilapia and mullet for domestic markets.
Traditional aquaculture, known as “hosha”, was commonly practised for many
centuries in Egypt. However, modern aquaculture began in the mid-1930s.
The rapid development of modern aquaculture began in Egypt two decades
ago. Extensive and semi-intensive production systems in earthen ponds are the
dominant forms of fish farming in the country. Aquaculture production in Egypt
increased from 212 025 tonnes in 1999 to 693 815 tonnes in 2008. Consequently,
the relative importance of Egyptian aquaculture to total fisheries production
increased from 34 percent in 1999 to 65 percent in 2008, making aquaculture the
largest single source of fish supply in Egypt (GAFRD, 2000–2009).
The structure of the fish farming sector in Egypt is changing rapidly with
increasing intensive aquaculture in earthen ponds and tanks and application
of modern technologies to respond to increasingly limited land and water
availability. The area of earthen pond fish farms increased from about 41 400 ha in
1999 to 151 000 ha in 2008. Private fish farms have increased from about 36 400 ha
in 1999 to 143 500 ha in 2008, while state-owned farms only increased from almost
5 000 ha in 1999 to 7 440 ha in 2008. It is predicted that aquaculture in Egypt
will continue to grow to meet increasing domestic consumption and future food
security needs.
Among cultured species, tilapia is the most important, with a production of
390 300 tonnes in 2009, accounting for more than 55 percent of the country’s total
aquaculture production in that year. Mullet and carp production accounted for
30 and 10.5 percent, respectively. Production of other species including catfish,
sea bass, sea bream, and shrimp represented 4.5 percent of total aquaculture
production in 2009.
Currently, aquaculture production in Egypt is dominated by medium- and
large-scale enterprises. There are no reliable statistical data on the number of
people employed in the overall aquaculture sector and related industries. Based on
fieldwork and a review of the literature, the case study estimates that employment
along the aquaculture value chain in Egypt ranges from 139 000 to 237 000. For
the low estimation of 139 000 FTE jobs in the aquaculture sector, the tilapia value
chain is estimated to provide about 84 000 direct and indirect jobs, the mullet value
chain about 42 000 FTE jobs, and the carp value chain about 10 000 FTE jobs.
About 11 percent of the total labour force employed in aquaculture is associated
with small-scale enterprises.
Zambia
Aquaculture in Zambia is exclusively of freshwater crustaceans, reptiles and fish.
The most commonly farmed species are the indigenous Oreochromis andersonii
(three-spotted bream), O. macrochir (green-headed bream), Tilapia rendalli (red-

breasted bream), and the introduced O. niloticus (Nile bream). Three government
research stations are also conducting studies on the indigenous O. tanganicae as a
candidate species for culture. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio), introduced to the
country for aquaculture purposes in the 1950s, is still farmed in small quantities by
a few farmers. According to FAO (2006–2011) and the Department of Fisheries of
Zambia, aquaculture production in the country grew from less than 1 500 tonnes
in 1990 to 5 640 tonnes in 2008, increasing by almost 8 percent per year since 1990.
By 2010, aquaculture production was estimated at 10 000 tonnes. However, the
case study findings suggest that annual aquaculture production was between 2 650
and 3 130 tonnes in 2010.
The aquaculture sector in Zambia involves two main types of farming namely,
subsistence and commercial farming. The size of the operation, the amount of
inputs, the number of employees needed and the yields produced vary greatly
within each category of enterprise. Subsistence aquaculture activity is primarily a
means of food security for the poor and vulnerable in rural areas where access to
jobs and food sources are limited. Commercial aquaculture activity provides jobs
for the poor and vulnerable in urban areas as well as food in these same areas where
farming activities are limited.
In terms of aquaculture industry structure, aquaculture in Zambia involves
about 5 000–13 000 subsistence farmers, 500 small-scale enterprises, 14 medium-
scale enterprises, 1 large-scale enterprise, and 3 large traders/wholesalers that work
with 450 smaller traders. For subsistence farmers, fish farming is just one aspect of
their livelihood and productivity of their ponds tends to be low, producing about
2 tonnes/ha each year. Small-scale enterprises tend to have 2–3 part-time employees
and annual yields of less than 3 tonnes/ha. Medium-scale enterprises have significant
landholdings, produce their own single-sexed fingerlings, and employ 5–20 people
to work full-time on the aquaculture venture along with other employees engaging
in other activities present on the landholding. Annual yields from these medium-
scale systems are less than 10 tonnes/ha.
In total, there are about 6 700–15 400 people employed in aquaculture farms and
related links along aquaculture value chains in Zambia, about 45 percent of whom
are women. Most women labourers in aquaculture concentrate on subsistence
farming systems where they actively participate mostly in the feeding, cleaning
and harvesting of ponds. Women in Zambia are also active in aquaculture trading
activities, and of the 450 people employed by the 3 large traders/wholesalers in the
aquaculture value chain about 400, or 88 percent, are women.
3.3 AQUACULTURE NUMBERS IN LATIN AMERICA

Aquaculture in Latin America is characterized by a mix of large- and medium-
scale enterprises, but also smaller producers in some countries, often not captured
by official statistics. Brazil, Paraguay, Ecuador and Chile are considered to have
the highest number of small-scale producers, engaged in farming of several
commodities, including tilapia and pacú (Piaractus mesopotamicus) in the case of
the first three countries, and the culture of marine macrophytes, chiefly Gracilaria
chilensis and mussels in Chile. Export-oriented shrimp tends to be produced in
larger quantities by medium- and large-scale enterprises, although significant
numbers of people classified as smallholders are also involved. Case studies from
Latin America were conducted in Chile, Ecuador and Mexico.
Chile
Aquaculture in Chile is based on production of finfish (mainly salmonids), molluscs
(mainly mussels) and algae. In 2009, the national aquaculture sector, including
large-scale and small-scale production centres, was comprised of 3 285 licensed
farms representing a total authorized area of 33 000 ha. Industrial or large-scale
aquaculture contributes more than 90 percent of total production. Nevertheless,
small-scale aquaculture farms represented 40 percent (1 330 farms) out of the total
number of existing aquaculture farms in the country in 2009, covering 11 percent
(3 523 ha) of the total area authorized for aquaculture nationwide. Small-scale
aquaculture in Chile is conducted by three types of stakeholders, namely,
individuals, individuals organized in formal micro or small businesses (i.e. legal
persons), and organizations of individuals (unions, cooperatives, etc.).
Small-scale aquaculture farms in Chile are mainly oriented to the culture of
Gracilaria algae (practised by 58 percent of the 1 330 small-scale farms), mussels
(37 percent of small-scale farms) and other molluscs (scallops and oysters) and
macroalgae (5 percent of small-scale farms). Small-scale aquaculture has a low
level of capital concentration, and 75 percent of small-scale aquaculture farms
are household enterprises, averaging 1.9 ha each. Between 2000 and 2008, small-
scale aquaculture represented 5–9 percent of total annual national aquaculture
production, and grew by 262 percent from 22 000 tonnes in 2000 to about
80 000 tonnes in 2008. The most productive small-scale aquaculture farms are
those culturing Chilean mussel, Gracilaria algae and Peruvian calico scallops.
Based on statistical data of the national fisheries service of Chile (2008), it is
estimated that 49 255 people were employed in the aquaculture sector in Chile,
of whom 3 131 people (6 percent) were employed by small-scale aquaculture
farms. Employment in small-scale aquaculture in Chile includes both permanent
and temporary labour. The country case study reveals that permanent labour
employed in small-scale aquaculture between 2000 and 2008 reached on average
a total 1 870 people per year. Gracilaria algae and mussel farms are the most
intensive in use of permanent labour accounting for about 68 percent and
21 percent of all those annually employed in this category, respectively. During
the same period, temporary labour employed in small-scale aquaculture averaged
a total of 1 700 persons per year. For this same period, Gracilaria algae, Chilean
mussel and Peruvian calico scallop production centres hired 62, 24 and 7 percent,
respectively of the temporary workforce used in small-scale aquaculture. In 2008,
nonetheless, Chilean mussel centres hired 50 percent of the temporary workforce,
and Gracilaria algae and Peruvian calico scallops centres another 44 percent of
this workforce.
Ecuador
White shrimp is the most important cultured species in Ecuador; however. finfish
species, especially tilapia, trout, cachama and chame, are rapidly gaining importance
in terms of the number of stakeholders and production in all regions, especially
in the Amazonian region (Burgos, 2009). Ecuador’s aquaculture production
was estimated at 160 000 tonnes in 2009, of which white shrimp constituted the
dominant share (143 000 tonnes) followed by tilapia (about 15 000 tonnes).
About 205 900 jobs were generated by aquaculture and related industries in
Ecuador in 2009, of which about 95 percent were in the coastal region. Including
hatcheries, export farms, local farms and processing plants, the coastal region
has a total of 2 938 units providing 195 645 direct and indirect jobs; the Andean
Highland region has 377 units employing 640 people, and the Amazon region has
2 469 units employing 9 620 people.
Aquaculture makes a significant contribution to socio-economic development
in Ecuador. Seafood production represents the coastal region’s economic power
and nationally ranks the third in terms of foreign exchange earnings in Ecuador
(BCE, 2010). The contribution of aquaculture to Ecuador’s GDP ranges from 1.5
to 4 percent. Women account for about 19 percent of the labour force and are
active in post harvesting activities such as working in seafood processing plants
and in seafood business management.
The importance of small-scale aquaculture is growing in Ecuador, particularly
in inland regions. Export-oriented aquaculture in Ecuador, such as shrimp and
tilapia farming, involves medium- to large-scale farmers and enterprises producing
products largely for export markets. Within this export group there are however
smaller-scale farmers. For example, small-scale producers (with farm sizes less
than 50 ha) make up about 1 720 farms, or more than 50 percent of shrimp farms
in Ecuador. Domestic market-oriented aquaculture involves small- to very small-
scale farmers (in terms of farming area), producing aquaculture products for local
markets.
Mexico
Mexico ranks fifteenth among the major fish producers in the world and fourth in
the Americas behind Peru, the United States of America and Chile (FAO, 2010). In
2009, total aquaculture production in Mexico accounted for 14 percent in volume
(285 019 tonnes) and about 30 percent in value of total fisheries production. About
50 percent of aquaculture production comes from semi-intensive brackish-water
shrimp farming.
The Economic Census of Mexico (Inegi, 2011) reports that in 2009 there
were 19 443 economic units in the fisheries and aquaculture sector employing
180 083 people. About 1 905 economic units were engaged in aquaculture, of
which 403 were undertaking shrimp farming and 1 502 were involved in farming
other aquaculture species. On average, each aquaculture and fisheries production
unit provided employment to 9.3 people. Aquaculture employed 22 582 people,
the majority of whom were men, with women making up only 8 percent of the
total workforce. However, Conapesca (2010) estimated that the fisheries and
aquaculture sector in Mexico employs 273 266 people directly, of whom 30 690
are in aquaculture production. About 56 percent of those employed in aquaculture
activities are engaged in shrimp farming.
In 2009, there were about 2 044 aquaculture farms in Mexico, including post-
larval shrimp and molluscs seed production labs, covering about 119 606 ha of
water surface. When considering only the main cultured species, 42 percent of the
aquaculture farms produce tilapia, 20 percent produce trout, 19 percent produce
carp, and 11 percent produce shrimp. However, when analysing the area dedicated
to the culture of all species, 68 percent is devoted to shrimp farming, 21 percent to
carp, 5 percent to trout, and 5 percent to tilapia. These figures indicate that while
the number of shrimp farms is much smaller, the surface of their tanks is much
larger than those dedicated to farming other species. Tilapia farms commonly
apply semi-intensive and intensive farming systems while shrimp farms are
extensive and semi-intensive.
Fisheries and aquaculture contribute only 0.18 percent to GDP and 3.7 percent
to agricultural GDP. Nonetheless, aquaculture and fisheries are important sources
of food, employment and income in marginal communities in Mexico. Those
involved in fisheries and aquaculture received the lowest incomes compared with
those from all other national productive sectors, with an average annual salary of
MXN31 600 per person, one-third of the average salary for all other activities.
PLATE 3
Small-scale mollusc culture operation in
Viet Nam. Photo credit: Rohana Subasinghe
21
4. Global synthesis
The main objective of this study is to assess social and economic services of global
aquaculture from a human development perspective, especially the employment
generated by the aquaculture industry – or the “numbers” of people involved.
This chapter reports on the types and number of people employed in aquaculture,
based on the findings of the country case studies, and analyses the structure of the
global aquaculture industry. It then examines: the multiple social and economic
services generated by aquaculture; how aquaculture development affects small-
scale stakeholders and the poor; the status of women’s participation in global
aquaculture value chains; and how aquaculture can empower women and enhance
gender equity. The chapter finishes by looking at some of the key development
trends occurring in the global aquaculture sector, many of which have significant
implications for poor and small-scale players involved in aquaculture production
and associated value chains.
4.1 EMPLOYMENT ALONG AQUACULTURE VALUE CHAINS

4.1.1 Aquaculture sector value chains
Aquaculture value chains vary considerably between the different countries,
farmed products, farming systems and environments studied. Figure 1 provides
an example of a value-chain mapping exercise completed for Viet Nam’s Pangasius
industry. In other countries, there are significant variations depending on the
above-noted variables. Consequently, the numbers of people involved along
different value chains also varies with the associated degrees of complexity, from a
simple household subsistence aquaculture operation through to a globalized value
chain involving catfish or shrimp.
FIGURE 1
An example of volume mapping in the catfish value chain, Viet Nam
Source: M4P (2008).

4.1.2 Type of people employed by the aquaculture sector

Findings from the country case studies show that various types of stakeholders
are employed along aquaculture value chains (Table 2). These stakeholders play
different functions in the value chains: providing inputs to aquaculture production
(e.g. veterinary drugs, chemicals); engaging in the industry as feed mill owners
and workers; operating hatcheries and grow-out aquaculture facilities; processing;
and distributing and exporting final fish and seafood products to consumers. In
total, there were about 10 million “units” directly involved in aquaculture value
chains in the 9 case study countries, which account for about 16 percent of global
aquaculture production. Most of this number are grow-out production operations
(9.1 million) dominated by households that have ponds and operate aquaculture as
an integrated component of their larger agriculture farming systems.
TABLE 2
Type and number of stakeholders participating in aquaculture value chains from case study
countries
Type of stakeholder Number of Major entry points for poor and small-scale stakeholders
“units”
Hatcheries and nurseries 30 962 Employees

Aquaculture farms/ 9 105 676 Employees in commercial farms, services (e.g. harvesting
households teams), direct engagement in household oriented
aquaculture
Feed mills 307 Employees
Input suppliers 7 108 Employees
Middle traders 80 534 Employees
Processing plants 16 467 Employees, significant in several export oriented industries
Exporters and domestic 776 053
distributors
Total 10 017 107
The poor and “small-scale” stakeholders are not easy to classify from the data
provided, but they appear to enter aquaculture value chains at different links,
including hatchery and nursery production, grow-out production, middle trading,
and processing and packaging stages. Roles played by such stakeholders vary
along and between value chains. At the seed-providing stage, they mainly work as
employees or fry collectors, e.g. in Bangladesh, while at the grow-out production
stage; many small-scale stakeholders operate IAA systems, as evidenced in the
Viet Nam and Bangladesh case studies. Middle trading and processing segments of
aquaculture value chains are also important for poor and small-scale stakeholders
where they are employed as workers in processing plants or operate family based
businesses collecting aquaculture products from the farm and selling to larger
middle trading establishments or processing plants. Processing plants represent
a significant employer in several countries with export-oriented aquaculture,
including the Vietnamese Pangasius industry, and the shrimp aquaculture sector
in several Asian countries.
Global synthesis 23
4.1.3 Number of people employed in the aquaculture sector

Aquaculture is an important source of employment for millions of people
all over the world, especially those living in rural communities in inland and
coastal areas where there may be more limited employment options. Despite
its importance, there are limited data and studies on employment in the global
aquaculture industry (Ahmed and Lorica, 2002; FAO, 2010a). This section presents
employment estimates in the aquaculture sector from the case study countries. As
the case study countries account for only about 16 percent of global aquaculture
production, some extrapolations and use of secondary data are necessary to arrive
at more global figures.
Table 3 presents the number of people employed (both FTE and part-time) in
the aquaculture sector in the nine case study countries. Employment at farm level
includes people operating hatcheries, nurseries, grow-out production facilities,
and part-time and occasional labourers hired to work for aquaculture production
at farm level. Employment at other links along aquaculture value chains includes
people working as input suppliers, middle traders and domestic fish distributors,
processors and exporters. It is estimated that there were about 11.4 million people
employed in aquaculture value chains in the nine case study countries, of whom
about 8.3 million employed at farm level and 3.1 million employed at other links
along aquaculture value chains up to the exporting stage (Table 3). Not all country
case studies were able to separate full- and part-time equivalent employment. Part-
time and full-time employment covers a wide range of employment types from,
for example, small-scale farms in Bangladesh (where household members work on
a part-time basis, as one of a number of household activities that may involve men,
women or children), to estimates of full- time salaried employment in large-scale
commercial farms in Thailand. Data provided by countries are not fully accurate
on such aspects; hence, these figures should be treated as estimates. Where possible,
this study estimates the number of people employed in global aquaculture based
on FTE jobs per year. For aquaculture producing countries where small-scale
integrated producers are dominant, such as Bangladesh and Viet Nam, the actual
number of people “involved” full- and part-time in aquaculture is higher than total
employments in the aquaculture value chains reported in Table 3.
Most of the people employed in the aquaculture sectors in the nine case study
countries are from Bangladesh, Indonesia and Viet Nam. These countries are
among the world’s ten largest aquaculture producers (FAO, 2010a). Although
Thailand also belongs to this top ten, total employment in its aquaculture value
chains is relatively small (363 000 FTE jobs) compared with that in Bangladesh,
Indonesia and Viet Nam. The difference can be partly explained by the fact that
Thailand’s aquaculture industry is perhaps now more highly vertically integrated
and has more large-scale operations, with capital-intensive technologies replacing
labour-intensive technologies, which are still dominant in Bangladesh, Indonesia
and Viet Nam. In addition, while Thailand’s employment estimate is based on FTE
jobs, employment estimates from most of the other country case studies are based
on both full- and part-time employment and, thus, overestimate FTE employment.
TABLE 3
Estimated production and employment in aquaculture value chains in case study countries
Case study country Aquaculture Employment at farm Employment at other Total employment
production (including grow out value chain links
(tonnes) and hatchery)
Vietnam** 2 233 000 1 744 900 900 056 2 644 956

Bangladesh* 1 305 048 3 153 120 641 805 3 794 925
Thailand* 1 370 000 217 883 145 190 363 073
Indonesia** 4 780 100 2 797 005 1 215 258 4 012 263

Chile** 870 000 49 694 27 375 77 069
Ecuador* 159 976 109 085 96 820 205 905
Mexico* 285 019 30 690 18 107 48 797
Egypt** 705 490 157 991 79 000 236 991
Zambia** 3 130 14 865 450 15 315
Total 11 711 763 8 275 233 3 124 061 11 399 294
Notes: * Employment estimates based on FTE jobs

** Employment estimates based on full and part time jobs (total number of people employed).
The number of people employed in global aquaculture varies from country to

country, but the data suggest that previous values based on data reported to FAO
are likely to be underestimates. FAO (2010a) indicates there were about 10.7 million
people “involved” in aquaculture in 2008, the majority from developing countries,
accounting for about 96 percent of people involved. Deriving data from FAO
fisheries statistics and other sources, Valderrama, Hishamunda and Zhou (2010)
estimated about 23.4 million FTE jobs were generated by global aquaculture and
related activities in 2005 (16.7 million direct and 6.8 million indirect jobs).
For comparison, findings from case study countries are used to extrapolate the
number of people employed in global aquaculture (see Appendix 1 for estimates,
and Appendix 2 for method and details of estimation). This extrapolation suggests
that total jobs (both full and part time) in global aquaculture value chains could
be as many as 56.7 million. The present study indicates that 11.4 million jobs are
generated in the case study countries, most of which come from three of the world’s
top aquaculture producers, namely, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Viet Nam, where
small-scale aquaculture dominates. However, the projected global employment
estimate might be an overestimate, as the study did not have further information
on employment from other major aquaculture producers, especially China. Given
this, the study also estimated a lower bound for global aquaculture employment
(27.7 million jobs, of which 20.1 million generated on farm and 7.6 million from
other links in the value chain), based on a lower employment estimate for China
(see Appendix 2 for details). Thus, it is estimated that total global aquaculture
employment lies somewhere between 27.7 and 56.7 million full- and part-time
jobs.
The difference between these new data and previous studies could be explained
by the fact that the figure in this study was estimated using information from case
study countries taking value chain approaches whereas the previous estimates by
Global synthesis 25
FAO (2010a) and Valderrama, Hishamunda and Zhou (2010) were derived from
FAO and national government employment statistics that may be underestimated
and may also not take full account of employment at all links of the value chain.
The estimate by Valderrama, Hishamunda and Zhou (2010) is also based on FTE
employment, whereas the estimates in this study are based on both full- and part-
time employment and so likely to lead to higher relative employment estimates.
The country case studies found a substantial number of people working in
aquaculture as an integral component of farm production was not reported in
official government statistics reported to FAO for global aquaculture statistics
purposes. For example, in Viet Nam the country case study team found that,
according to an agricultural census survey of national statistical office of
Viet Nam carried out in 2007, there were about 2 million rural households
practising aquaculture production. Of these, about 1.56 million were operating
IAA systems in the form of the VAC model. However, the level of employment
in the aquaculture sector was estimated at about 700 000 people by the former
Ministry of Fisheries of Viet Nam, and this number was then reported to FAO.
Another example is that reported by the Bangladesh case study team, which
found that there were about 4 million rural households operating homestead
pond aquaculture compared with 3.08 million fish farmers reported to FAO by
the Department of Fisheries (DOF, 2003). While the new findings are partly a
reflection of continued growth of aquaculture, they also clearly indicate the need
for better and more comprehensive data at more “official” levels.
Labour productivity is an important indicator showing the performance of
the aquaculture industry. Table 4 presents aggregated labour productivity at
case-study-country-level measured by total labour productivity (taking into
account direct employments in aquaculture value chains) and farm-level labour
productivity (taking into account only employment at farm-level links). Labour
TABLE 4
Aquaculture labour productivity in case study countries
Country Total labour productivity (tonnes/ Farm level labour productivity (tonnes/
worker) worker)
Vietnam** 0.84 1.28
Bangladesh* 0.34 0.41

Thailand* 3.77 6.29
Indonesia** 1.19 1.71
Chile** 11.29 17.51
Ecuador* 0.78 1.47
Mexico* 5.84 9.29
Egypt** 2.98 4.47
Zambia** 0.20 0.21
Average 1.03 1.42
Notes: * Employment estimates based on FTE jobs.

productivity as reported in Table 4 is underestimated because not all case-study

employment data are in FTE. Among case study countries in Asia, top aquaculture
producers that have high employment levels in aquaculture value chains, such as
Bangladesh, Indonesia and Viet Nam, have lower labour productivity. On the
other hand, Thailand, also a top producer, has lower employment levels due to
more industrialized aquaculture systems, characterized by high levels of vertical
integration, and higher average labour productivity. Due to data constraints,
labour productivity may be under- or over-estimated for countries where FTE
jobs are unknown.
4.1.4 Small-scale stakeholders and women employed in aquaculture

Qualitatively, it has been established in the literature that small-scale aquaculture
provides important social and economic services and can be an important vehicle
for poverty alleviation in developing countries (e.g. Edwards and Demaine, 1997;
Edwards, 2000; De Silva and Davy, 2010; Allison, 2011). Small-scale stakeholders
dominate the number of jobs generated by the aquaculture industry in Asia, where
aquaculture is locally operated by rural communities. To date, aquaculture in
Latin America is still dominated by larger-scale operations. However, there is an
increasing role for small-scale producers in aquaculture production as evidenced
by increasing involvement of individuals involved in seaweed production in Chile
reported by the country case study team. For Africa, Brummett, Lazard and
Moehl (2008) suggest that more than 90 percent of African fish farmers operate
one or a few earthen and family owned ponds with a surface area less than 500 m2,
with annual production of 300–1 000 kg of fish per hectare or 15–50 kg per crop.
The number of small- and medium-scale fish producers in Africa is increasing and
this development will produce more benefits for more individual farmers, but the
contribution of different enterprise scales to overall food security remains to be
better understood (Brummett, Lazard and Moehl, 2008).
It is important to emphasize that categorizing aquaculture in terms of scale of
operation has been used to guide aquaculture policy and development interventions
(Belton and Little, 2011). However, the concept of small-scale aquaculture/
stakeholders varies from country to country and embraces different criteria, of
which farm size is the most common indicator. With a single indicator such as farm
size, small-scale definitions also vary between farming systems with regard to farmed
species and applied technology. Table 5 presents the number of people involved in
aquaculture value chains in the nine study countries by scale of operation in order
to estimate the contribution of small-scale aquaculture chains to total employment.
In categorizing small-scale versus medium- and large-scale numbers, various criteria
are taken into account such as farming environment, farmed species, and farming
technology as well as case study country development contexts. For example,
small-scale aquaculture can be categorized as subsistence aquaculture in Zambia,
integrated aquaculture in a VAC system and small extensive and semi-intensive
shrimp aquaculture in Viet Nam, homestead pond aquaculture in Bangladesh, or
aquaculture farms with farm size less than 50 ha in Ecuador and Chile.
Global synthesis 27
TABLE 5
Employment (full and part time) in aquaculture in case study countries by scale of operation
Scale of
Small-scale Medium- and large-scale
operation
Culture Total
environment Freshwater Brackish & marine water Freshwater Brackish& marine water
Sub-total Sub-total
Species/ Shrimp & Shrimp &
Fish Shellfish Seaweed Fish Shellfish Seaweed
commodities prawns prawns
Total 1 275 152 607 694 484 650 1 036 995 3 404 491 4 909 889 1 047 697 805 287 1 544 400 8 307 273 11 711 763
production
(tonnes)
Number of 7 143 861 464 171 51 143 181 972 7 841 147 790 004 284 984 180 004 9 537 1 264 529 9 105 676
households
Number of 3 868 015 1 052 126 143 859 261 928.30 5 325 928 1 525 168 999 266 378 911 45 960 2 949 305 8 275 233
employments
at farm level
Employment 435 450 719 055 1 154 505 297 450 1 078 583 593 523 1 969 556 3 124 061
at other links
Total 4 303 465 1 771 181 143 859 261 928 6 480 433 1 822 618 2 077 849 972 434 45 960 4 918 861 11 399 294
employments
As presented in Table 5, of the about 11.4 million people employed in

aquaculture value chains in the 9 case study countries, the number of people
employed in small-scale value chains was 6.5 million, compared with 4.9 million
employed in medium- and large-scale value chains. The number of people
employed at farm level and related jobs in small-scale aquaculture value chains
(5.3 million) is much higher than the number of people employed in medium- and
large-scale aquaculture and related jobs needed for farm production (2.9 million).
At farm level, the number of people (or households) involved in small-scale
aquaculture is likely to be higher than the number reported as some case study
estimates are based on FTE jobs.
Classifying employment at other links along aquaculture value chains into
small-, medium- and large-scale sectors is challenging, as beyond the farm
production level, value chain actors can work with both small-scale, and medium-
and large-scale aquaculture farms and products. The tentative numbers in Table 5
suggest that there are 3.1 million employed at other links along aquaculture value
chains in the case study countries. The number associated with other links along
small-scale chains (1.2 million) is much lower than the number for medium- and
large-scale aquaculture chains (2 million). While small-scale aquaculture value
chains generate higher overall levels of employment, small-scale aquaculture
contributes less than 30 percent to total aquaculture production documented in
the 9 case study countries (3.4 million tonnes from small-scale production versus
8.3 million tonnes from medium- and large-scale production). Consequently, the
labour productivity of small-scale aquaculture producers is lower than that of
medium- and large-scale producers of the same farmed species.
Women’s roles and participation in aquaculture value chains can be higher than
those in capture fisheries (Weeratunge and Snyder, 2009). The FAO/WorldFish/
World Bank Big Numbers case studies in capture fisheries suggested that of the
34.7 million people employed full-time and part-time in fishing and post-harvest
activities, 46 percent were women. Fisheries statistics in the nine case study
countries do not disaggregate employment in aquaculture by gender; thus, it is
not possible to estimate the percentage of women employed in aquaculture value
chains. However, our country case studies show that women play a significant role
in aquaculture value chains. Employment of women in aquaculture value chains in
Indonesia, Viet Nam and Zambia was found to range between 40 and 80 percent and
women were found to be active in post-harvest activities in aquaculture value chains
in many countries and to also assume important roles in integrated and household-
based aquaculture such as feeding, managing ponds and marketing products.
4.1.5 Aquaculture value chains

An important feature of current aquaculture production is the formation of value/
commodity chains linking different stakeholders together in the process of providing
inputs, producing, processing, distributing and finally consuming final products. A
value chain is structured along a final product/commodity to be produced and
distributed to final consumers. The characteristics, purpose and scale of aquaculture
production create conditions constraining or strengthening the organization and
governance of aquaculture value chains. Overall, aquaculture value chains can be
classified as buyer-driven when buyers represented by retailers and supermarkets
play dominant roles influencing the process of production and distribution of final
products. However when examining inter-relationships between two successive
links along a value chain, there can be a variety of governing and coordinating
mechanisms ranging from free-market relations to network relations to vertically
integrated relations. Industrial and manufacturing value chains are well organized
whereas agriculture and aquaculture value chains may be loosely organized
depending on particular product/species, farming systems, and technological
intensification level as well as markets where final products are sold.
Findings from the nine country case studies revealed that freshwater aquaculture
value chains are structured around diverse products grown in earthen ponds, paddy
fields, cages, net enclosures, and pens in floodplains, reservoirs, lakes and rivers.
Such chains for domestic markets consist of a variety of carps and catfish produced
in IAA systems. A substantial portion of freshwater aquaculture production also
enters value chains for export markets, for example, entrepreneurial and monoculture
catfish and tilapia value chains from Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam. In the
same farming environment (freshwater), value chains from integrated aquaculture
systems are simpler and contain fewer segments compared with monoculture value
chains producing products for export markets. Relationships among stakeholders
involved in small-scale freshwater aquaculture chains for domestic markets are
loose and characterized by market relations. However, more formal or structured
relationships can be developed when small-scale producers enter contracts with
larger firms or input supply or processing plants as documented in Thailand’s case
study on the tilapia value chain (Box 1).
Global synthesis 29
BOX 1
Tilapia value chain in Thailand
Tilapia production grew from 134 000 tonnes to more than 190 000 tonnes between
2004 and 2009, involving 193 000–197 000 tilapia farms in Thailand. Farm production
is conducted in ponds, cages, and paddy fields; however, most products (81 percent)
are produced in ponds. Many small farms enter into contracts with larger farms or
processing plants to purchase inputs, grow marketable products, and/or to sell back
aquaculture products to companies and large firms. From the farm, about 86 percent of
tilapia production is channelled to traders and then to wholesalers, and restaurants and
retailers before reaching consumers in domestic markets. The remaining production
(14 percent) is sold directly to processors, which then export processed products to
export markets or sell to retailers and restaurants for domestic consumption. The
bulk of tilapia production in Thailand (about 94 percent) is consumed domestically.
From input supply to farm production, middle trading, processing, to marketing and
distributing final products, tilapia value chains created 52 839 full-time equivalent
(FTE) jobs in 2009, of which more than 50 percent were generated at farm production
links. Annual labour productivity at farm level and full value chain level was estimated
to be about 3.6 and 7 tonnes per person, respectively.
Brackish-water aquaculture value chains are structured around a few

commodities such as shrimp, milkfish and mud crab. The most important
brackish-water aquaculture value chain observed in the nine country case studies
is the shrimp value chain. The case studies showed that in general, brackish-water
shrimp value chains are buyer-driven and export-oriented with unequal power
relationships among actors involved in the various chain segments. In Asia,
export-oriented shrimp value chains can be highly integrated from input supply to
grow-out production and to processing and exporting segments, as documented in
the Thailand case study, or can be highly fragmented with participation of various
stakeholders ranging from fry collectors, input providers, grow-out producers,
middle traders, processors and exporters as found in the Bangladesh, Indonesia
and Viet Nam case studies. Linkages between successive players along brackish-
water aquaculture value chains range from spot market relationships to network
relationships to vertically integrated relationships (Box 2).
Table 6 shows that employment shares generated by domestic and export-
oriented aquaculture value chains in the 9 country case studies are about 73 and
27 percent, respectively. These estimates are based on a number of assumptions,
due to the lack of disaggregated production and employment data along value
chains. Therefore, they should be treated as broad indicators of the proportion of
employment between domestic and export value chains rather than exact numbers.
Moreover, as data on FTE jobs were not available for all country case studies,
these estimates are based on numbers of people employed both full- and part-time.
Despite the approximate nature of these estimates, the fact that most full- and
part-time jobs in the aquaculture sector appear to be generated in domestic, rather

than export, value chains, reflects global trends of strong and rising domestic
demand for aquaculture products as incomes rise and the demand for animal
protein increases.
BOX 2
Players involved in the brackish-water shrimp value chain in Bangladesh
A pro-poor analysis of the shrimp sector in Bangladesh conducted by Gammage et al.
(2006) found that the shrimp value chain provides significant economic opportunities
to middle- and upper-level stakeholders as well as livelihood opportunities to the rural
poor. The shrimp value chain in Bangladesh is complex and involves various players
at each segment of the chain. It is centred around 150 000 shrimp producers, who are
connected via backward linkages with 426 000 shrimp fry catchers, 118 hatcheries, and
about 22 000 middle traders (Fry Faria, fry Aratda, Commission Agents, and nurseries)
that bring fry to farmers. Producers are also connected via forward linkages to more
than 9 000 middle traders, 35 processors and 85 processor/exporters before reaching
shrimp buyers, mainly in foreign markets. The poor and small-scale stakeholders,
including women and children, participate in a number of segments throughout the
chain such as fry catching, grow-out production and processing. Poor and small-scale
stakeholders have little bargaining power and may be locked into contracts with middle
traders and have little ability to influence the price at which they sell their product.
TABLE 6
Employment generation along domestic and export-oriented value chains
Case study Employment in domestic Employment in export Total
country oriented value chains oriented value chains employment
Viet Nam** 1 232 250 1 412 706 2 644 956

Bangladesh* 2 605 207 1 189 718 3 794 925
Thailand* 208 129 154 944 363 073
Indonesia* 3 918 703 93560 4 012 263
Chile** 33 140 43 929 77 069
Ecuador* 43 851 162 054 205 905
Mexico* 40 160 8 637 48 797
Egypt** 236 991 0 236 991
Zambia** 15 315 0 15 315
Total 8 333 746 3 065 548 11 399 294
Notes: * Employment estimates based on FTE jobs

4.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SERVICES OF AQUACULTURE

4.2.1 Aquaculture and poverty alleviation
Earlier studies by Dey and Ahmed, (2005) have shown that polyculture and
monoculture of carnivorous and omnivorous fish species such as carps and
tilapia are profitable and suitable for poor and small-scale stakeholders. Growing
carnivorous species such as prawns and shrimp yield higher profits; however, they
Global synthesis 31
are often beyond the financial capabilities of poor farmers. Recycling farm-based
inputs in IAA systems increases farm productivity. However, the increase in
farm productivity from recycling farm-based inputs is only effective to a certain
level, beyond which farmers may require purchased feed and fertilizers and turn
into small rural enterprises. Some recent publications show that capital-intensive
forms of aquaculture practised on a larger scale also make significant indirect
contributions to poverty alleviation (Belton and Little, 2011).
The contribution of aquaculture to rural poverty alleviation can be assessed
by examining direct involvement of the poor in aquaculture value chains.
Findings from the nine country case studies show that a large number of small-
scale stakeholders, including the poor, are directly involved in various kinds
of freshwater aquaculture production, such as: subsistence farming in Zambia;
homestead aquaculture in Bangladesh; and the VAC farming system in Viet Nam.
Freshwater aquaculture directly contributes to poverty alleviation by generating
employment and income for the poor. In Latin America, aquaculture is commonly
practised by medium- and large-scale operators. Nonetheless, findings from
Chile and Ecuador show that a growing number of small producers are operating
seaweed and freshwater aquaculture ponds. These findings are in line with those
of previous studies on rural aquaculture (e.g. Edwards and Demaine, 1997;
Edwards, 1999). Further expansion of aquaculture that directly involves the poor
will be constrained by land and water access, as many of the poor do not own
land and waterbodies for aquaculture production. Direct benefits to the poor
from aquaculture development are therefore less than those to other better-off
participants (Belton and Little, 2011).
As revealed by the case study findings, aquaculture also contributes to poverty
alleviation indirectly via the involvement of poor and small-scale stakeholders
in various activities along aquaculture value chains. As documented in the
Bangladesh case study, many poor people work as fry collectors and workers in
seafood processing plants. In Indonesia, Viet Nam and other countries, rural poor
people are employed in processing plants and as labourers for various aquaculture
related activities. The country case studies suggest that there are high numbers of
small-scale players directly involved in various aquaculture value chains. Many of
these players are not poor but are likely to be vulnerable, engaging in aquaculture
production, along with other livelihood activities, as a small-scale rural enterprise
for income generation. Aquaculture often provides higher income compared
with other farming alternatives. Aquaculture can help to improve livelihoods and
protect households from falling into poverty. The complex interaction between
aquaculture and small-scale enterprise and poverty alleviation deserves further
investigation.
Another dimension for understanding the link between aquaculture and
poverty alleviation is fish food security. Fish is the lowest-cost animal protein
and it can be supplied via aquaculture production. With both public-based and
market-based interventions, global aquaculture has been developing rapidly in the
last five decades and now contributes 50 percent of world food fish supply (FAO,
2016). With the exception of some export-oriented commodities, the majority

of aquaculture production in developing countries is consumed domestically.
Aquaculture development can also help to lower fish prices, making fish accessible
to poor and small-scale stakeholders in both rural and urban areas. One important
finding from the country case studies is that a high proportion of aquaculture
production for both domestic and export markets is produced by small-scale rural
enterprises and medium- and large-scale aquaculture farms. While subsistence and
small- scale household-level production involves higher numbers of actors, this
production is much less than commercial production of aquaculture outputs.
4.2.2 Aquaculture and women

Women play critical roles at different stages of aquaculture value chains. The
functions and roles they assume differ between countries, farming systems and
value chains. Women are not often directly involved in hatchery and nursery
operations but are involved more in grow-out aquaculture production and play key
roles in the processing and marketing of aquaculture products. As documented in
the country case studies and previous gender-related studies, women are actively
involved in aquaculture farming in Asia. In many developing countries, especially
those in the South Asia and Southeast Asia regions, it is common for women and
men to work together to improve their household-livelihood portfolios.
In some Asian countries, women’s participation in economic activities is
restricted due to cultural and/or religious prohibitions. However, there is room
for increasing women’s involvement through supporting homestead aquaculture
where ponds are constructed adjacent to the homestead such as in Bangladesh. In
Bangladesh, there is a high degree of female participation in shrimp value chains,
where women work as fry collectors and workers in seafood processing plants.
Women participating in informal jobs in shrimp value chains are subject to lower
wage rates compared with men, and women who work as on-farm labourers can
be vulnerable to exploitation. Nonetheless women’s participation in shrimp value
chains has “saved many rural landless poor families from starvation and hunger”
(Hamid and Alauddin, 1998). In Africa, women’s involvement in commercial
aquaculture value chains can be limited (sometimes due to cultural and or religious
prohibitions); however, in subsistence aquaculture farming systems, women often
share the work of pond cleaning, feeding and management and fish harvesting
with their husbands. Women also act as informal fish traders who buy fish from
farms and resell them to domestic consumers, as reported in the Zambia case
study. In some African countries, such as Ghana, the vast majority of fish traders
and wholesalers are women.
4.2.3 Aquaculture and food fish supply and nutrition

Aquaculture accounts for about 50 percent of food fish production for human
consumption locally and globally. Global aquaculture production has been
increasing sharply in the last three decades or more, but it is unclear how this
remarkable increase in global production has affected fish consumption and
Global synthesis 33
nutrition of local people in developing countries, especially the poor. Ahmed and
Lorica (2002) show that aquaculture development has positive income and fish
consumption effects in developing countries. However, there is limited empirical
evidence to support the view that aquaculture provides vital nutrition to poor
households and contributes to poverty alleviation, thus improving the overall
welfare of poor people in developing countries.
Results from the country case studies show that, at the country aggregate level,
per capita fish consumption has been increasing in most countries investigated
despite the stagnation or decline in production from capture fisheries. The increasing
rate of fish consumption has been supported by the increase in aquaculture
production annually. The majority of rising aquaculture production comes from
entrepreneurial and commercial aquaculture operated by small-, medium- and
large-scale producers. Sales of fish allow rural people to buy other staple food and
enhance overall food security. Findings from the country case studies show that,
on average, aquaculture development increases fish consumption. However, there
is limited information to analyse disaggregated impacts on different stakeholder
groups such as the poor, women and children. Some authors have raised concerns
that substantial increases in aquaculture production are due to the increase in
large and export-oriented aquaculture production that has no, or even negative,
impacts on fish consumption and nutrition of poorer segments of populations in
developing countries. This critical issue requires further examination.
4.2.4 Other social and economic services of aquaculture

In addition to major social and economic services such as providing employment
opportunities, generating income, providing nutritious food, contributing to
poverty alleviation both directly and indirectly, and enhancing gender equity,
aquaculture development also generates other important services at macro and
micro levels.
From an economic development perspective, export-oriented aquaculture
provides an important source of foreign exchange to developing countries. For top
aquaculture producers, such as Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam, export revenue
from aquaculture accounts for a substantial proportion of total export revenues.
Export revenues generated by aquaculture in other countries in Africa, Asia and
Latin America investigated in this study have also been increasing. Aquaculture
development also supports infrastructure development and economic growth in
general.
From a human development perspective, aquaculture also provides cultural,
religious and regulating services to people in developing countries. In some
countries, fish are used for ritual practices. For example, in Viet Nam, common carp
is used for the kitchen god worship practised at the end of the lunar year, and all
carp used for rituals now come from aquaculture. In other countries, aquaculture
operations show the prestige and status of operators (for example, in the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic and Zambia, as illustrated by Belton and Little,
[2011]). In places where community-based aquaculture is promoted, aquaculture
development can be a vehicle for strengthening community relationships. In

addition to cultural and religious services, aquaculture development can offer
environmental regulating services, for example, waste recycling offered by fish,
clams and seaweed culture. Aquaculture ponds can store water to help producers
in water-scarce regions such as countries in SSA to cope with drought and increase
farm productivity.
4.3 MAJOR AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND INFLUENCES

Some of the key development trends occurring in the global aquaculture sector are
discussed below. These trends have significant implications for poor and small-
scale actors involved in aquaculture production and associated value chains, which
are explored further in Chapter 4.
4.3.1 Major trends in the global aquaculture sector

In the last four decades, aquaculture has been the fastest-growing food-producing
sector in the world, driven by the high and increasing demand for fish and seafood
in domestic and international markets. Aquaculture’s contribution to total food
fish supply increased from 9 percent in 1980 to 48 percent in 2011 (FAO, 2013).
Global markets for fish and fishery products are expanding, and 38 percent of fish
produced globally was exported in 2010 (FAO, 2012). The share of trade from
developing country exporters is rising and 67 percent (by value) of fishery exports
by developing countries go to developed countries (FAO, 2012). Globally, the
principal markets for fish and seafood products are the European Union (Member
Organization), the United States of America, and Japan. A significant increase in
regional trade between developing countries is also occurring, driven in part by
rising costs of exporting to the European Union (Member Organization) and the
United States of America, and by increasing population and purchasing power in
many regional markets. Global aquaculture production has also been expanding
in different directions including cultured species diversification and technological
intensification as well as introduction and expansion of new culture species (e.g.
in African countries). The fastest supply growth is expected for tilapia, carp and
Pangasius catfish, for example global tilapia production is expected to almost
double from 4.3 million tonnes to 7.3 million tonnes between 2010 and 2030
(World Bank, 2013).
Geographically, aquaculture production and development has been concentrated
in Asia with less impact in Africa, the Caribbean and South America. Evidence
from Asia, suggests that population growth and technological improvements
have had positive effects on raising aquaculture production (e.g. Jiang, 2010).
High demand for fish in domestic markets is a critical factor for successful
aquaculture development in Asia. In addition, increasing international trade has
promoted export-led aquaculture development in Asia and other parts of the
world as evidenced by the rapid growth of some aquaculture commodities such
as striped catfish in Viet Nam and farmed shrimp in Asia and Latin America. The
dominant source of supply in many Asian countries is from traditionally based
Global synthesis 35
pond aquaculture, often integrated into wider farming systems, contributing to

increased household food security and income generation. However, intensive
aquaculture has also developed in Asia, especially coastal shrimp farms and
larger-scale freshwater and marine fish farming using ponds, tanks and cages.
Overall, in the past 15 years a dynamic small and medium-sized enterprise (SME)
aquaculture sector targeting both domestic and export markets has emerged in a
number of Asian countries, particularly China, Viet Nam, Thailand, Indonesia
and the Philippines (Allison, 2011). The Bangladesh country case study also
noted the emergence of an entrepreneurial pond culture that has been growing in
importance and scale since the late 1990s, and the China country review indicates
that the number of small-scale farms has been decreasing in rural areas and is being
replaced by larger-scale operations.
Despite suitable and favourable natural resource conditions, aquaculture
in Africa contributes only 2 percent of global fish supply and currently
makes a minor contribution to economic growth, employment, and rural
development. International donors have invested hundreds of millions of dollars
to promote aquaculture development, particularly small-scale aquaculture, for
food security and poverty alleviation in SSA. However, donor-driven projects
have not produced the food security and economic growth impacts expected
by development and funding agencies (Brummett, Lazard and Moehl, 2008).
Nonetheless, in recent years aquaculture SMEs have been growing in a number
of African countries such as Angola, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia, and these are
making a substantial contribution to aquaculture production in SSA despite little
attention from African governments and international donors. Thus, aquaculture
plays dual roles in African economies, contributing to both commercial and rural
development (Brummett, Lazard and Moehl, 2000). Between these two extremes,
there are small-scale entrepreneurial producers who operate small farms, purchase
most of their inputs and sell the majority of their final products for cash income.
This in-between group of farmers can be viewed as in transition from the rural
development sector to commercial aquaculture. Evidence from Ghana suggests
that increased aquaculture production from this group has the potential to generate
higher economic multiplier effects and thus higher poverty impacts, than increased
production from poor farmers or more commercial SMEs (Kassam, 2013).
Aquaculture offers a significant development opportunity in Latin American
countries. Key aquaculture commodities grown in the region include salmon
in Chile and brackish-water shrimp in a number of countries such as Brazil,
Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico. There is currently growing interest in commercial
tilapia culture, molluscs (oysters and scallops) and seaweed culture as well as
culture of domestic fishes such as catfish in the region. Despite having favourable
environmental and climatic conditions for aquaculture development, Latin
America currently contributes only about 3 percent of global aquaculture
production. Unlike aquaculture in Asia and SSA, Latin American aquaculture is
dominated by medium- and large-scale producers. However, there is a trend of
increasing involvement of small and independent producers in the aquaculture

industry in some Latin American countries such as Chile.
Findings from community consultations in the case study countries and a review
of relevant secondary literature suggest that global aquaculture is experiencing
dynamic and complex development trends, influenced by a number of internal
and external factors. In countries where the aquaculture sector is mature, such as
Thailand, the number of people employed in aquaculture value chains, especially
small-scale stakeholders, has been decreasing. The Thailand country case study
indicates that there is an increasing process of vertical integration to increase
efficiency and close aquaculture value chains in order to address stringent food
safety and environmental standards required by international markets (discussed
in more detail below).
In transition and developing countries, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and
Viet Nam, aquaculture has been developing rapidly with an increasing area of
land being devoted to aquaculture, increasing aquaculture production as well
as increasing numbers of people employed along aquaculture value chains.
However, the large numbers of people involved tend to make aquaculture value
chains fragmented and vulnerable to stringent market and trading requirements
raised by domestic and export markets. Thus, in these countries, there are
different processes transforming the aquaculture industry into global value chains
coordinated by large players. For example, between 1996 and 2006, the Pangasius
catfish industry in Viet Nam was transformed from household-based cage and pen
aquaculture into highly intensive pond-based commercial aquaculture systems
generating billions of dollars in export revenue annually.
In all regions, but especially in those where aquaculture is relatively newer
and less developed, such as in SSA and Latin America, it appears that aquaculture
is experiencing some dynamic local development trends in the expansion of
commercial SME aquaculture.
The aquaculture development trends outlined above have substantial influences
and effects on employment opportunities for poor and small-scale stakeholders
involved in aquaculture value chains. The section below discusses some of the key
drivers of change in the aquaculture sector: global value chain formation, dynamic
local development, and climate change.
4.3.2 Transformation of global aquaculture production and trade

Important factors affecting global aquaculture development are: the development
and vertical integration of global and local aquaculture value chains; the increasing
stringency of product quality and trading standards; and demand for certification
of aquaculture products associated with the increasing awareness of consumers
and regulators of sustainable aquaculture production. These related factors are
leading to increased coordination and governance of local and global aquaculture
value chains. Trends towards industrialization and consolidation of value chains
are especially strong for species that are internationally marketed. International
value chains are affecting small-scale producers in Asia, for example, those in
Global synthesis 37
the Vietnamese catfish industry, where consolidation has been mainly driven by
western quality standards in processing and production (Bostock et al., 2010).
Findings from several of the country case studies also suggest that local and global
aquaculture value chains are becoming increasingly buyer-driven. However,
while many aquaculture value chains are becoming highly integrated and well
coordinated due to the need for control over specific production practices, there
are others which are fragmented, involving many small companies and value chain
players, with limited coordination. Local and global aquaculture value chains
originating from small-scale aquaculture production tend to be more fragmented
and involve a higher number of stakeholders as illustrated by the case studies
from Bangladesh, Indonesia and Viet Nam. In contrast, aquaculture value chains
oriented around large- and commercial-scale production are better organized,
less fragmented and better able to address food safety, product quality and
environmental standards imposed by buyers in domestic and export markets.
An emerging and increasing factor influencing aquaculture development and
small-scale producers is the proliferation of private party standard and certification
schemes. On the one hand, growing interests in aquaculture certification schemes
are driven by their potential for product differentiation in consumer markets.
On the other hand, certification favoured by environmental non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) envisions certification schemes as instruments to address
social, environmental and food safety externalities created by some forms of
aquaculture development. A WWF report (WWF, 2007) documented more than
30 certification schemes active in the aquaculture sector. Most private party
certification systems are voluntarily implemented subject to the interests of
stakeholders involved in local and global aquaculture value chains.
These new developments bring new opportunities and threats to stakeholders
involved in aquaculture value chains, especially poor and small-scale stakeholders.
Connecting to global and local value chains provides involved stakeholders
opportunities to upgrade and enhance their comparative advantage and place them
in a better position in the market. However, due to unequal power relationships
among value chain players, poor and small-scale stakeholders are often at a
disadvantage compared with larger, more powerful actors. Small-scale farmers are
also not as able as larger-scale producers to meet the requirements of international
markets. The effect of these developments in the global aquaculture sector,
particularly on the employment of poor and small-scale value chain players, is
discussed further in Section 4.2.
4.3.3 Dynamic development at local level

Global aquaculture has been developing in different directions including increasing
intensification and productivity levels, expanding into new farming areas and
regions, and introducing and acclimatizing new cultured species. Natural resource
planning and use at the local level has a strong influence on aquaculture
development. When constraining institutional factors such as land-use plans change,
they can provide great impetus for rapid aquaculture development. For example in
Viet Nam, aquaculture growth increased sharply after the government launched a

resolution (09/2000/TTg) allowing farmers to convert saline and low-productivity
rice fields and unused land into aquaculture ponds, The aquaculture sector in the
country became a significant source of export revenue and transformed hundreds
of thousands of small-scale agricultural farmers into small-scale, entrepreneurial
aquaculture producers. Employment in the coastal aquaculture sector has been
growing in Viet Nam as a result of shifting development interests at local level to
respond to increasing demand for fish in domestic and export markets. Change in
land-use purpose here is just one example showing that local development priority
setting has a strong influence on the development pace of the aquaculture sector.
In many other countries in the world, there are institutional and governance
factors that can influence aquaculture development. How natural resources such as
land and open waterbodies are mobilized for aquaculture development is subject
to local development priorities. To direct aquaculture development for poverty
alleviation and small-scale stakeholder employment, especially in new aquaculture
expanding areas, special attention should be paid to policy, institutional and
governance factors. As experienced in some Asian aquaculture producing
countries, the sector is dominated by small-scale and locally based producers. The
government can set land size limits to ensure that local farmers have access to land
and waterbodies for earning livelihoods dependent on aquaculture and agriculture
activities.
4.3.4 Climate change and other factors

Aquaculture operations are often located in lowland areas along rivers and estuaries
and in coastal and marine areas. These areas are highly vulnerable to the effects of
climate change such as sea-level rise, increasing intensity and frequency of storms
and floods as well as changes in average temperature and precipitation. Climate
change and variability affects aquaculture in different ways and aquaculture is
also a factor contributing to climate change via releasing greenhouse gases from
aquaculture intensification and conversion of natural wetlands into aquaculture
systems. Among the case study countries, Bangladesh and Viet Nam are among
hotspot countries with regard to climate change impacts. In Bangladesh, Viet Nam
and many other countries in Asia, the majority of aquaculture production is
undertaken in the delta areas of the main rivers such as the Ganges delta, the
Mekong delta and the Red River delta. Rising sea levels could result in serious
inundation of aquaculture areas, while extreme floods caused by upstream water
flows during rainy seasons can have serious effects on aquaculture practices.
Climate change and variability is likely to affect aquaculture stakeholders
involved in the sector in different ways. Climate change can hamper farmed aquatic
species by exposing them to a range of pests and pathogens while decreasing their
disease-resistant capacity. Direct impacts could be damage to aquaculture facilities
and reduction in aquaculture productivity and revenue. Indirect impacts include
increasing aquaculture production costs and modifying food chains and food
webs in aquaculture-based aquatic ecosystems. Climate change can also create
Global synthesis 39
opportunities for aquaculture development. For example, areas inundated due to

sea-level rise may be no longer suitable for agricultural-based farming systems and
could be used for aquaculture. In some areas in Africa, IAA can be viewed as a
strategy to cope with drought and water scarcity due to climate change, increasing
overall farm sustainability and resilience to shocks. Therefore, aquaculture can
also provide options for climate change adaptation.
PLATE 4
Harvesting fish in a small-scale aquauclture pond in
Bangladesh. Photo credit: Md Masudur Rahaman/WorldFish
41
5. Discussion and policy

implications
This section summarizes key findings of the report and explores the implications
of these for aquaculture policy and planning. It discusses the potential impact
of aquaculture development trends on poor and small-scale stakeholders and
proposes a set of indicators to enable better monitoring of social and economic
services generated by aquaculture.
5.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The main objective of this study is to assess social and economic services of global
aquaculture from a human development perspective, especially the employment
generated by the aquaculture industry, with a particular emphasis on small-scale
stakeholders in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The findings of the study are
based on an analysis of case studies of the aquaculture sectors in 9 countries (2 in
Africa, 4 in Asia and 3 in South America). In total, 11.4 million people were found
to be employed in aquaculture value chains in these countries, of whom about
8.3 million at farm level and 3.1 million at other links along aquaculture value
chains up to the exporting stage. These nine countries account for about 16 percent
of global aquaculture production. Of the 10 million “units” in the aquaculture
sectors studied, 9.1 million are grow-out production operations dominated by
households who have ponds and operate aquaculture as an integrated component
of their larger farming systems. Most of the people employed in the aquaculture
sectors in the nine case study countries are in Bangladesh, Indonesia and
Viet Nam. The findings suggest that previous estimates of total employment
generated by the global aquaculture sector based on data reported to FAO are
likely to be underestimates.
Poor and “small-scale” stakeholders, although difficult to classify from the
data provided, enter aquaculture value chains at almost all segments. Of the
11.4 million people indicated above, an estimated 6.5 million are employed in
small-scale aquaculture value chains, compared with 4.9 million in medium- and
large-scale value chains. Employment at farm level and related jobs in small-scale
value chains (5.3 million) is estimated to be much higher than at the same level in
medium and large scale value chains (2.9 million). Employment at other links along
small-scale value chains (1.2 million) is much lower than employment at other
links along medium- and large-scale aquaculture chains (2 million). While small-
scale aquaculture value chains generate higher overall levels of employment, small-
scale aquaculture contributed only 29 percent to total production documented in
the case study countries (3.4 million tonnes from small-scale production versus
8.3 million tonnes from medium- and large-scale production).
While fisheries statistics do not disaggregate aquaculture employment by

gender, the country case studies show that women play a significant role in
the aquaculture sector. Employment of women in aquaculture value chains in
Indonesia, Viet Nam and Zambia was found to range between 40 and 80 percent,
especially in post-harvest activities and household-based aquaculture production
activities such as feeding, managing ponds and marketing.
Employment generated by domestic and export-oriented aquaculture value
chains in the nine country case studies was estimated to be 73 and 27 percent,
respectively. Freshwater aquaculture value chains for domestic markets consist
of a variety of carps and catfish produced in IAA systems. A substantial portion
of freshwater aquaculture production also enters value chains for export markets.
Freshwater value chains from IAA systems are simpler and contain fewer segments
than monoculture value chains producing for export. Brackish-water aquaculture
value chains are structured around a few commodities such as shrimps, milkfish
and mud crabs, and the most important of these in the nine country case studies
was found to be shrimp. The case studies showed that, in general, brackish-water
shrimp value chains are buyer-driven and export-oriented with unequal power
relationships among actors involved in the various chain segments.
The case studies highlighted aquaculture’s role in generating social and
economic services (aside from value chain employment) including: direct and
indirect poverty alleviation; benefiting women; and enhancing food and nutrition
security. The case studies showed that a large number of aquaculture producers are
small-scale and poor stakeholders e.g. subsistence farmers in Zambia, homestead
aquaculture farmers in Bangladesh, and farmers in the VAC system in Viet Nam.
Thus, aquaculture directly contributes to poverty alleviation through generating
self-employment and enhancing income and livelihoods of poor and small-scale
farmers. Findings from Chile and Ecuador show that a growing number of small
producers are currently operating seaweed and freshwater aquaculture ponds.
The case studies suggest that aquaculture also contributes indirectly to poverty
alleviation through the high number of small-scale players involved in various
aquaculture value chains. While many of these players may not be poor, they are
likely to be vulnerable, and aquaculture can help to improve their livelihoods and
protect them from falling into poverty. Women were also found to play critical
roles in different stages in aquaculture value chains, with their functions and roles
differing between countries, farming systems and value chains.
The study found that overall per capita fish consumption has been increasing,
supported by the increase in aquaculture production. The majority of the growth
in aquaculture production is from entrepreneurial and commercial aquaculture
operated by SMEs and large-scale producers. The country case studies suggest
that, on average, aquaculture development increases fish consumption. However,
there is limited information to analyse disaggregated impacts on different
stakeholder groups such as the poor, women and children.
The study also identified some of the key development trends occurring in
the global aquaculture sector, many of which have significant implications for
Discussion and policy implications 43
poor and small-scale actors involved in aquaculture production and associated

value chains. The rapid growth of the sector in terms of both production of and
trade in aquaculture products was found to be an overarching trend that provides
significant opportunities for the sector in all regions under analysis. The key
drivers of change identified include the increasing consolidation and vertical
integration of export-oriented value chains, driven in part by increasing stringency
in product quality, trading standards and increasing demands for certification of
aquaculture products. Dynamic local development trends were also identified as
being important, and climate change and variability were suggested as creating
both threats and opportunities for the aquaculture sector, although the effects are
complex and uncertain.
5.2 MAJOR TRENDS INFLUENCING SMALL-SCALE EMPLOYMENT

GENERATED THROUGH AQUACULTURE VALUE CHAINS
Some of the key trends in the global aquaculture sector are: consolidation of global
value chains; increasing stringency in product quality; and demand for certification
in international markets. The impact of these trends on poor and small-scale
farmers and value chain players is uncertain. The literature from global commodity
chain studies predicts that small-scale farmers will be displaced and marginalized
due to the increasing globalization and consolidation of large-scale and powerful
players (e.g. transnational corporations and retailers) in global markets. However,
the impacts of these developments are very dynamic and likely to differ between
contexts; thus, they need to be further investigated. One possible scenario is that
small-scale and marginal stakeholders could be displaced from aquaculture value
chains, and the global aquaculture industry will be concentrated in the hands of a
few large-scale players located in developed countries (e.g. supermarkets and large
retailers) and in developing countries (e.g. exporting and processing companies,
large-scale aquaculture producers). However, empirical studies suggest that small-
scale farms, although facing great challenges, will continue to exist because of
the specific characteristics of aquatic animal farming systems that are risky for
larger scale production. Another development scenario is that small-scale and
household players may still remain in the aquaculture industry but, due to market
stratification and differentiation, will be forced to specialize in lower quality
markets with less-stringent product requirements. For example, larger-scale
players will connect to value chains producing for export markets that demand
high-quality, while small-scale and household players will focus on lower quality
and less-demanding domestic markets.
Findings from the country case studies on the impacts of these trends on
small-scale stakeholders are mixed. For example, the China review found that,
while employment in the agriculture and fisheries sectors has been decreasing
over time, the number of people engaged in aquaculture has been increasing, rising
from 3.3 million in 2004 to 10 million in 2008. However, findings from other
country case studies show that employment in certain global value chains has been
decreasing. For example, the consolidation of the shrimp value chain in Thailand
has had a negative impact on small-scale producers as the number of small-scale

shrimp farms dropped sharply during the transition from tiger shrimp culture
to high-demand, intensive white-leg shrimp culture. A large number of small-
scale stakeholders are being displaced or forced to work as contractors for larger
stakeholders. Overall, the number of people employed in aquaculture value chains
in Thailand, especially small-scale stakeholders, has been decreasing, and it is very
difficult for the poor to benefit from involvement in commercial and vertically
integrated aquaculture value chains other than in insecure and unstable jobs, such
as on-farm labourers or as workers in processing factories.
Similarly, in Viet Nam, while the overall production and area under aquaculture
cultivation nationally have been steadily increasing, the globalization and
consolidation of the catfish value chain has had negative impacts on small-scale
farmers. Catfish has become one of the key aquaculture species in Viet Nam,
contributing more than 39 percent to national aquaculture production and
33 percent to total fisheries export values. Until recently, the catfish sector
was dominated by small-scale, household production; however, an increasing
number of catfish processing and export companies are developing their own
larger-scale production operations and integrating processing and production
activities, displacing small-scale and family based players. Traditional family-
operated fish ponds in the VAC system have also been decreasing due to
pressures of industrialization, modernization, and residential settlements. Similar
processes have been occurring in Bangladesh, where more commercially oriented
aquaculture is growing and larger enterprises are contributing significantly to
production. While small-scale poor farmers might not be as involved directly in
production, they are benefiting from employment on aquaculture farms and the
many other services required by the sector. Such farms are also contributing to
food supplies for growing urban populations and, where cheap fish is concerned,
may be benefiting poorer consumers.
It appears therefore that the general trend of increasing aggregation and
commercialization in the sector as a whole, particularly in more commercial
and export-oriented value chains, is resulting in efficiency gains and longer-
term market relationships of larger producers, so making smaller producers
increasingly uncompetitive and vulnerable to takeover in many cases (Muir, 2005).
It is unclear whether employment generation along the value chain from larger-
scale commercial production can make up for the displacement of small-scale
farmers (e.g. overall employment in Thailand has decreased). The often insecure
and poor quality of employment created along value chains cannot make up for
loss of aquaculture based livelihoods of small-scale producers. This trend is thus of
concern due to the potential for social inequity and also due to the wider system
impacts of increasing intensive aquaculture development (Muir, 2005). The social
dimensions of aquaculture’s growth are thus complex, and there is a need for
more-detailed analysis and understanding of the types of people involved, and
how they participate and benefit from the changing aquaculture sector, using a
value chain approach.
A related trend and driver of change in the global aquaculture sector identified
in Section 3.3 is the increasing demand for certification of aquaculture products.
While these international standards may appear not to affect smallholder systems
in many countries, especially those where domestic and regional trade dominate
such as in SSA, there is an increasing risk that they could create substantial barriers
to development, by denying them access to wider markets (Bostock et al., 2010).
The more stringent demands of export markets mean that small-scale operators
will face increasing difficulties in producing products for export and, as noted
above, evidence from Asia suggests that some are leaving the sector as they are
becoming uncompetitive and unprofitable. Several of the country case studies
from Asia highlighted the risks and challenges small-scale farmers face in being
able to comply with these international standards and the overall uncertainty
as to their ability to do so. The case study noted that the increasingly strict
international standards for aquaculture products, including certification schemes
being adopted by the major global buyers, represent a major challenge given the
very large number of small-scale farmers and other upstream and downstream
value chain players involved in the sector, and its weak governance conditions.
Similarly, the Thailand case study found that a common expectation is that tilapia
for export will be a growing market segment, but it is not clear that small-scale
farmers will be able to participate in this expansion, given current lack of interest
in certification and quality management standards. The Viet Nam case study
highlighted that export-oriented marine and brackish-water aquaculture, which
connects small-scale aquaculture producers in Viet Nam to world markets via
complex commodity systems, will also face higher risks and challenges from the
emergence of tighter mandatory food safety regulations and voluntary standards
such as certification schemes. It appears that small-scale aquaculture in many
places may no longer be able to compete with larger producers both in terms of
efficiency and export market access. Thus, it will have to transform to adapt to
these emerging challenges.
Therefore, it seems that the impacts of both consolidation of global value
chains and certification trends on small-scale aquaculture producers and value
chain players are currently presenting significant challenges to the small-scale
sector that are likely to continue. It is beyond the scope of this study to explore
these impacts in depth, or predict how the quantity and quality of employment
along aquaculture value chains will change as a result. What is clear however is that
these trends have the potential to affect a significant and most probably growing
proportion of those involved in the aquaculture sector, especially considering
almost 30 percent of employment in aquaculture is estimated here to be in export-
oriented value chains (see Table 6), which are those primarily affected by these
global market trends.
Section 3.3 also discussed the effects of climate change on the aquaculture
sector, indicating that climate change and variability present both threats and
opportunities. The potential impacts of climate change on the aquaculture sector
and the employment of poor and small-scale stakeholders along aquaculture value
chains are very uncertain. The inherent unpredictability of climate change and
the strong links between aquaculture livelihoods and other livelihood strategies
and economic sectors make identifying all pathways between climate change
and employment and livelihoods in the aquaculture sector extremely complex.
However, it is clear that poor and small-scale stakeholders in the global aquaculture
sector are less advantageously placed than larger-scale commercial actors to take
advantage of new opportunities and adapt to the threats. Thus, a strong focus
should be placed on building general adaptive capacity that can support poor and
small-scale aquaculture producers and value chain actors to make the most of new
opportunities and cope with the coming challenges related to climate change.
5.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AQUACULTURE PLANNING AND

POLICY FORMULATION
This study has shown the importance of taking a value chain perspective
to understanding the social and economic services, particularly employment
generation, of the aquaculture sector. Focusing only on the social and economic
services generated by aquaculture production alone would yield an incomplete
picture. The study has found that the data available to monitor the social and
economic services generated by aquaculture are currently limited. The study
found the few existing estimates of employment generated by the global
aquaculture sector using official national statistics to be underestimates, and many
of the individual country case studies were unable to explore the full range of
social and economic services generated from aquaculture value chains due to the
lack of suitable data. As noted above, it is uncertain how the development trends
occurring in the aquaculture sector will affect the services it generates such as
employment generation along the value chain, and the livelihoods of small-scale
and poor stakeholders. Therefore, as the aquaculture sector continues to develop,
it is important that more comprehensive data become available to enable successful
monitoring of the sector and to inform aquaculture planning and policy in the
future.
Tables 7 and 8 suggest some indicators to monitor these social and economic
services from aquaculture, distinguishing between macro and micro level
indicators, which can be applied at national/local and household levels. The
proposed indicators also incorporate indicators to monitor social and economic
services generated by the aquaculture sector generally, and indicators that can be
used specifically to monitor such services generated by small-scale aquaculture
development. The national-level indicators (Table 7) are based on those developed
by Cai et al. (2010) and include additional indicators for measuring employment
along aquaculture value chains. The indicators for monitoring small-scale
aquaculture and its contribution to sustainable rural development and poverty
alleviation (Table 8) are based on the outcomes of an FAO workshop on
measuring the contribution of small-scale aquaculture (Bondad-Reantaso and
Prein, 2009). The indicators for small-scale aquaculture are informed by the
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (Carney, 1998) and categorized by their
TABLE 7
Indicators for monitoring social and economic services from aquaculture at the national level
Social/economic Indicator
service
Contribution to GDP Share of aquaculture’s value added in GDP
Aquaculture sectors’ contribution to GDP growth
Share of aquaculture’s value added in agriculture value added
Aquaculture’s contribution to agriculture value added growth
Economic multiplier effect* (national and local)
Employment Share of aquaculture employment in total employment
Aquaculture’s contribution to total employment growth
Share of aquaculture’s employment in total agriculture employment
Aquaculture’s contribution to agriculture employment growth
Employment multiplier**
Total employment in aquaculture value chains
Share of small-scale aquaculture value chain employment in total aquaculture
value chain employment
Share of female employment in total aquaculture value chain employment
Labour income Share of aquaculture’s labour income in total labour income
Share of aquaculture value chain’s labour income in total labour income
Aquaculture’s contribution to total labour income growth
Foreign exchange Net foreign exchange earnings from aquaculture
Productivity Aquaculture’s labour productivity
Aquaculture’s land productivity
Aquaculture’s total factor productivity
Food availability Share of aquaculture’s protein supply in total protein supply
Share of aquaculture’s protein supply in total animal protein supply
Aquaculture’s direct protein supply (aquaculture production minus aquaculture
exports)
Ratio of aquaculture’s net foreign exchange earnings to total value of food
imports (indirect contribution to food availability)
Food access Aquaculture value chain’s contribution to labour income
Aquaculture’s average wage rate
Wage level comparison between aquaculture and agriculture
Total employment in aquaculture value chains
Share of female employment in total aquaculture value chain employment
Source: Adapted from Cai et al. (2010).

* The multiplier effect is defined here as the amount of added income or value added generated locally and/
or nationally by an extra dollar of income or value added from aquaculture (see Cai et al. [2010] and Kassam
[2013] for methodology). This report has highlighted the importance of capturing the whole value chain when
assessing the services generated by aquaculture. The employment, wage and income effects in aquaculture value
chains occur through backward and forward production linkages (e.g. from supplying aquaculture inputs and
marketing outputs). Indirect effects not addressed in this report are the employment, wage and income effects
of aquaculture in other sectors through consumption linkages. Consumption linkages occur when increased
income from aquaculture stimulates demand for locally produced goods and services. The combined effect of
both production and consumption linkages creates an economic multiplier effect that boosts local and national
economic growth.
** Similar to the value-added multiplier, the employment multiplier is defined as the increase in total employment
for the entire economy corresponding to one extra job provided by aquaculture, and can be used to measure
aquaculture’s total contribution to employment (see Cai et al. [2010] for methodology).
TABLE 8
Indicators for monitoring the social and economic services of small-scale aquaculture to
sustainable rural development
SOCIAL/ECONOMIC SERVICE INDICATOR
Natural capital
Efficient use of materials Types and number of nutrient flows

and energy saving
Efficient use of water Number of farm production uses of water
Physical capital
Build up of SSA farms and Number of small-scale aquaculture farms and farm areas increased
farm assets in rural area over 3 years in the study area
Build up of rural physical Types and number of rural infrastructure investments induced by
assets small-scale aquaculture
More efficient use of built Types and number of rural infrastructure investments induced not
physical assets in rural area purposely for small-scale aquaculture but which benefit small-scale
aquaculture
Human capital
Food and nutrition security Per capita annual consumption of fish in SSA household (only fish for
their own small-scale aquaculture harvest.)
Seasonal food security Season of the year when household relies more on their own harvest
than on fish from other sources
Financial capital
Household cash income Percentage of cash income from small-scale aquaculture to total
household cash income
SSA serves as a source of Economic returns from small-scale aquaculture to household
household economic security
Contribution to provincial Percentage of economic value from small-scale aquaculture
economy production to the value of production from all aquaculture in the
province
Social capital
Social participation Percentage of farm households who are active members of small-
scale aquaculture programs/ associations/ organizations
Women empowerment Percentage of number of small-scale aquaculture farm activities in
which women take the major decision-making role
Fostering social harmony Number of small-scale aquaculture households that share fish
products and other farm resources
Number of activities in which farmers work together so as to improve
the shared resources in the community (such as water system,
roads and reservoirs
Providing social safety net Ratio of family labourers who previously worked solely or mainly in
non small-scale aquaculture (including off-farm jobs) but now work
in small-scale aquaculture (X) to total family labour (Y)
Source: Bondad-Reantaso and Prein, 2009.
contribution to the development of livelihood assets and forms of capital (natural,

physical, financial, human and social).
While the national-level indicators can be seen to be “traditional” indicators,
those for monitoring small-scale aquaculture can be seen as “sustainability”
indicators (Bueno, 2009). Traditional indicators, such as income or wages, measure
changes in one part of a system while sustainability indicators treat economic,
social and environmental progress as interconnected and provide a more holistic
view and understanding of the sustainability of an entity such as a farm, a

community or a commodity sector. Although this study has not focused explicitly
on environmental and ecosystem services provided by aquaculture (these have been
addressed elsewhere, e.g. Soto, Aguilar-Manjarrez and Hishamunda, 2008), social
and economic services provided by aquaculture depend on aquatic ecosystems
and a range of other natural resource inputs, and thus require continuous support
from the natural resource base. Aquaculture also has the potential to have a
negative impact on the natural resource base, reducing environmental quality and
societal benefits. Thus, the success of aquaculture and the social and economic
services it generates depend upon its ability to produce fish while also maintaining
the sustainability of its resource base. The social, economic and environmental
services of aquaculture are therefore closely connected, and indicators that reflect
this connectedness are important.
It is hoped that the indicators suggested will be used to help monitor the
aquaculture sector and assist local, regional and national policy-makers to account
for the level of performance of the sector, understand the risks and the threats to
the sector, and thereby assist in determining appropriate interventions, setting
priorities and allocating resources. By incorporating sustainability indicators, an
integrated and holistic approach to planning the development of the aquaculture
sector, including small-scale aquaculture development, is possible.
The data required to measure many of the national level indicators in Table 7
can be gathered from national statistics supplemented by farm surveys (see Cai
et al. [2010] for a full discussion of data sources and methodology).
The data needed to measure the indicators in Table 8 will require local farm-
level / household surveys and a more holistic approach to research and data
collection, i.e. participatory approaches, to understand local contexts and adapt
indicators accordingly. Indicators also need to be able to capture negative impacts
of aquaculture – social, economic and environmental, such as social conflict,
gender inequality, risks such as low profits and financial loss from investing in
aquaculture and environmental degradation.
It is important that indicators not only focus on the quantity of people affected
by social and economic services generated by aquaculture but also the quality
of those impacts. For example, while small-scale producers may be displaced by
larger producers in global value chains, additional employment opportunities
created along the value chain, including those for women, may appear to
compensate this displacement if only numbers are taken into account. However,
some of the country case studies have shown that the poor quality of employment,
vulnerability to global trading conditions, and potentially adverse impacts on
women is also a concern.
Future policy development will thus need to move beyond simple objectives of
economic development and employment, and provide support to take advantage of
the new opportunities for segmentation and innovative approaches to sustainable
aquaculture; this to ensure that poor and small-scale stakeholders in aquaculture
value chains are included in the growth of the sector in coming years.
PLATE 5
Rice-fish culture in Indonesia. Photo credit:
Miao Weimin, FAO
51
6. Conclusions and
recommendations
This study has found that previous estimates of employment generated by the global
aquaculture sector based on official statistics are likely to be underestimates. The
study findings also suggest that employment generated at farm level is likely to be
much higher than employment generated at other links in the value chain, and that
the majority of fish farms are small-scale integrated household operations. Value
chains oriented around small-scale producers were estimated to generate more
employment than those from medium- and large-scale producers. Employment
at farm level was also found to be much higher in small-scale value chains than
in medium- and large-scale ones, although employment at other links along
small-scale value chains is much lower than for medium- and large-scale ones.
Overall, therefore, these findings indicate that aquaculture, particularly small-
scale aquaculture, generates important social and economic services in the form
of direct and indirect employment. These findings also highlight the importance
of understanding the social and economic services generated throughout the
whole aquaculture value chain and not just at the level of production. The study
findings draw attention to the limited nature of available “official” data to be able
to fully measure the social and economic services generated by aquaculture, and
the need for more detailed and comprehensive data upon which to monitor the
performance of the aquaculture sector and its social and economic services at a
variety of levels, including the global, national, community and household levels.
Without accurate data, it is unlikely that aquaculture planning, policy
development and resource allocation will provide the appropriate support to enable
the sector to maximize its social and economic services, especially those generated
by and beneficial to the small-scale aquaculture sector. Aquaculture planning
and policies are likely to differ by country context and according to the stage of
development of the aquaculture sector in these countries. For example, policies to
support aquaculture development in countries in SSA, where aquaculture is just
taking off, may well focus on supporting SMEs as a means of increasing national
fish supplies as well as generating economic growth and employment. Countries
in Asia, such as Bangladesh, where the aquaculture sector is developing and value
chains are globalizing, may focus on supporting small-scale farmers to meet
market requirements and certification standards while also facilitating the growth
of SME commercial aquaculture as a way of generating employment along value
chains. Policies may also focus on improving the quality of employment generated
in value chains. The focus of policies will also depend on which social and
economic services are priorities for those countries, whether they are increasing
fish production and decreasing fish prices for national consumption, maximizing
foreign exchange earnings through exports or enhancing livelihoods of poor and

small-scale producers being displaced by consolidation of export value chains.
Regardless of national aquaculture policy priorities, accurate, comprehensive and
disaggregated data on the aquaculture sector and its associated value chains are
a necessary but not sufficient condition for effective policy development. The
indicators suggested in this study provide a sound basis for data collection in the
aquaculture sector.
An important priority, particularly for developing countries, should be to
ensure the inclusion of poor and small-scale stakeholders in the development of
the aquaculture sector, either directly through production or indirectly through
value chain employment. While the globalization of value chains and demands for
certification from global buyers appear to be marginalizing small-scale farmers in
many countries, significant social and economic benefits could be generated by
a small-scale sector that is able to participate effectively in certified export value
chains. Thus, key recommendations are that small-scale farmers should be involved
in the development of certification procedures, and standards and policies should
be developed to support small-scale farmers to become certified. While this may
seem unrealistic given the considerable constraints facing individual small-scale
farmers, one approach that has had success in a number of countries is to provide
support to, and promote group certification of, farmers organizations or clusters
of farmers (Kassam, Subasinghe and Phillips, 2011). This approach can enable
them to connect with lucrative export markets and take advantage of the growing
interest of buyers in sourcing high-quality aquaculture products from small-scale
farmers. Supporting the small-scale sector to access services, technical knowledge
and training to utilize better management practices is also required in order to
develop a sector that will be both productive and sustainable.
53
References
Ahmed, M. & Lorica, M.H. 2002. Improving developing country food security
through aquaculture development lessons from Asia. Food Policy, 27(2): 125–141.
Allison, E.H. 2011. Aquaculture, fisheries, poverty and food security. Working Paper
2011-65. Penang, Malaysia, WorldFish Center.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). 2007. Household income and expenditure
survey 2005. Dhaka.
BCE/Central Bank of Ecuador. 2010. Statistics and publications pages [online].
Ecuador. www.ecuadorencifras.com/cifras-inec/main.html
Belton, B. & Little, D.C. 2011. Immanent and interventionist inland Asian aquaculture
development and its outcomes. Development Policy Review, 29(4): 459–484.
Belton, B., Karim, M., Thilsted, S., Murshed-E-Jahan, K, Collis, W. & Phillips,
M. 2011. Review of aquaculture and fish consumption in Bangladesh. Studies and
Reviews 2011-53. Penang, Malaysia, WorldFish Center.
Bondad-Reantaso, M.G. & Prein, M., eds. 2009. Measuring the contribution of small-
scale aquaculture: an assessment. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper
No. 534. Rome, FAO. 180 pp. (also available at www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1138e/
i1138e00.pdf).
Bostock, J., McAndrew, B., Richards, R., Jauncey, K., Telfer, T., Lorenzen, K., Little,
D., Ross, L., Handisyde, N., Gatward, I. & Corner, R. 2010. Aquaculture: global
status and trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 365(1554), pp.2897-2912.
Brummett, R.E., Lazard, J. & Moehl, J. 2008. African aquaculture: realizing the
potential. Food Policy, 33(5): 371–385.
Bueno, P.B. 2009. Indicators of sustainable small-scale aquaculture development. In
M.G. Bondad-Reantaso & M. Prein, eds. Measuring the contribution of small-scale
aquaculture: an assessment, pp. 145-160. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical
Paper No. 534. Rome, FAO. 180 pp. (also available at www.fao.org/docrep/012/
i1138e/i1138e00.pdf).
Burgos, R. 2009. Condición Actual y perspectivas de la Acuicultura en el Ecuador.
Memorias de Seminario: Comisión de Seguridad Alimentaria de la Asamblea
Nacional del Ecuador. FAO.
Cai, J., Leung, P. & Hishamunda, N. 2009. Commercial aquaculture and economic
growth, poverty alleviation and food security: assessment framework. FAO Fisheries
and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 512. Rome, FAO. 2009. 58p.
Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make?
In Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make? Papers presented
at the Department for International Development’s Natural Resources Advisers’
Conference, July 1998.
Conapesca. 2010a. Anuario Estadístico 2009 [Statistical Yearbook 2009] [online].

Mexico, Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca, SAGARPA. www.conapesca.
sagarpa.gob.mx/wb/cona/anuario_2009_capitulo_i_preliminar
De Silva, S.S. & Davy, F.B., eds. 2010. Success stories in Asian aquaculture. Dordrecht,
Springer.
Dey, M.M. & Ahmed, M. 2005. Aquaculture - Food and livelihoods for the poor in Asia:
A brief overview of the issues. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 9: 1–10.
Department of Fisheries (DOF). 2003. Brief on Department of Fisheries, Bangladesh.
Dhaka.
Department of Fisheries (DOF). 2010. Fisheries Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh
2008–2009. Volume 26, No. 1. Fisheries Resource Survey System.
Department of Fisheries (DOF). 2011. Detailed information and registration of
aquaculture farms and enterprises [online]. Bangkok. [Cited 18 October 2011].
www.fisheries.go.th/fish/web2/regisfarm/index.html
Edwards, P. 1999. Towards increased impact of rural aquaculture. A discussion paper
prepared for the first meeting of the APFIC Working Group of Experts on Rural
Aquaculture, FAO-RAP. Bangkok, FAO.
Edwards, P. 2000. Aquaculture, poverty impacts and livelihoods. Natural Resource
Perspectives, 56: 8.
Edwards, P. & Demaine, H. 1997. Rural aquaculture: Overview and framework for
country reviews. RAP Publication 1997/36. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
Bangkok, FAO.
FAO. 2005–2014. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Thailand. National
Aquaculture Sector Overview Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department [online]. Rome. [Cited 18 October 2011]. www.fao.org/fishery/
countrysector/naso_thailand/en
FAO. 2006–2011. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Zambia. National
Aquaculture Sector Overview Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department [online]. Rome. [Cited 18 October 2011]. www.fao.org/fishery/
countrysector/naso_zambia/en
FAO. 2009. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. Rome. 176 pp. (also
available at www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0250e/i0250e00.htm)
FAO. 2010. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Rome. 197 pp. (also
available at www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e00.htm).
FAO. 2012b. FAO yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. 2010/FAO annuaire.
Statistiques des pêches et de l’aquaculture. 2010/FAO anuario. Estadísticas de pesca
y acuicultura. 2010. Rome/Roma. 78 pp. (also available at www.fao.org/docrep/015/
ba0058t/ba0058t.pdf).
FAO. 2013. Food outlook: biannual report on global food markets (June) [online].
Rome. [Cited 24 February 2014] www.fao.org/docrep/018/al999e/al999e.pdf
FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food
security and nutrition for all. Rome. 200 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/
a-i5555e.pdf).
References 55
Gammage, S., Swanburg, K., Khandkar, M., Islam, M.Z., Zobair, M. & Muzareba,
A.M. 2006. A gendered analysis of the shrimp sector in Bangladesh. Greater access to
trade and expansion. Bangladesh, USAID.
General Authority for Fishery Resources Development (GAFRD). 2000–2009.
Statistics of fish production. Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation.
General Statistical Office of Vietnam. 2007. Results of the 2006 rural, agriculture and
fisheries census. Hanoi.
Gereffi, G. 1994. Capitalism, development and global commodity chains. In L. Sklair,
ed. Capitalism and development, pp. 211–230. London, Routledge.
Gereffi, G., Lee, J. & Christian, M. 2009. US-based food and agricultural value chains
and their relevance to healthy diets. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition,
4: 357–374.
Giap, D.H., Garden, P. & Lebel, L. 2010. Enabling sustainable shrimp aquaculture:
narrowing the gaps between science and policy in Thailand. In L. Lebel, S. Lorek &
R. Daniel, eds. Sustainable production consumption systems: knowledge, engagement
and practice, pp. 123–144. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Global Aquaculture Information Service (GAIN). 2010. Indonesian aquaculture
report 2010. GAIN report number ID1040. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (Inegi). 2011. Sistema de Consulta de
los Censos Económicos 2009 [System for Consulting Economic Census 2009] [online].
Mexico. www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/proyectos/censos/ce2009/saic/
default.asp?s=est&c=17166 /
Jiang, S. 2010. Aquaculture, capture fisheries, and wild fish stocks. Resource Energy
Economics, 32: 65–77.
Kassam, L. 2013. Assessing the contribution of aquaculture to poverty reduction
in Ghana. SOAS, University of London. (PhD thesis). http://eprints.soas.
ac.uk/17842/1/Kassam_3547.pdf
Kassam, L., Subasinghe, R. & Phillips, M. 2011. Aquaculture farmer organizations
and cluster management: concepts and experiences. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper No. 563. Rome, FAO. 90 pp. (also available at www.fao.org/
docrep/014/i2275e/i2275e00.htm).
Kaplinsky, R. 2000. Globalisation and unequalisation: What can be learned from value
chain analysis? Journal of Development Studies, 37: 117–146.
M4P. 2008. Making value chains work better for the poor: A toolbook for practitioners
of value chain analysis, version 3. Making Markets Work Better for the Poor (M4P)
Project, UK Department for International Development (DFID). Phnom Penh,
Agricultural Development International.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being:
Synthesis. Washington DC, Island Press.
Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. 2009. Strategic Plan (2010 – 2014),
Government of Indonesia.
Muir, J. 2005. Managing to harvest? Perspectives on the potential of aquaculture.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,
360(1453), pp.191-218.
National Statistics Office (NSO). 2011. Labour force survey. Bangkok.

Porter, M.E. 1985. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior
performance. New York, USA, The Free Press.
Santinelli, J.B. 2009. Indicadores socio-económicos del sector pesquero y acuícola [Socio-
economic indicators for fisheries and aquaculture sector]. Mexico, Comité del Centro
de Estudios para el Desarrollo Rural Sustentable y la soberanía Alimentaria, Cámara
de Diputados. 90 99.
Sheriff, N., Little, D.C. & Tantikamton, K. 2008. Aquaculture and the poor—Is the
culture of high-value fish a viable livelihood option for the poor? Marine Policy, 32:
1094–1102.
Soto, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. & Hishamunda, N. 2008. Building an ecosystem
approach to aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 14.
Rome, FAO. 221 pp. (also available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0339e/
i0339e.pdf).
USAID. 2006. A pro-poor analysis of the shrimp sector in Bangladesh. Greater Access
to Trade (GATE) Project. Development and Training Services, Inc (DTS). pp. 93.
Valderrama, D., Hishamunda, N. & Zhou, X. 2010. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Newsletter (FAN) No. 45. Rome, FAO.
Weeratunge, N. & Snyder, K. 2009. Gleaner, fisher, trader, processor: Understanding
gendered employment in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. In FAO-IFAD-
ILO Workshop on gaps, trends and current research in gender dimensions of
agricultural and rural employment: differentiated pathways out of poverty, Rome,
31 March - 2 April 2009 [online]. [Cited 21 February 2014]. www.fao-ilo.org/
fileadmin/user_upload/fao_ilo/pdf/Papers/Weeratunge-final.pdf
World Bank. 2013. Fish to 2030: Prospects for fisheries and aquaculture. Agriculture
and environmental service discussion paper 03. World Bank Report Number 83177-
GLB. Washington, DC.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2007. Benchmarking study on international aquaculture
certification programmes. Zurich and Oslo.

57
Appendix 1: Summary of
aquaculture production and
employment in case study
countries and worldwide
Country Aquaculture production Employment at Employment at other Total

(tonnes) farm value chain links employment
Case study countries:
Viet Nam 2 233 000 1 744 900 900 056 2 644 956
Bangladesh 1 305 048 3 153 120 641 805 3 794 925
Thailand 1 370 000 217 883 145 190 363 073
Indonesia 4 780 100 2 797 005 1 215 258 4 012 263
Chile 870 000 49 694 27 375 77 069
Ecuador 159 976 109 085 96 820 205 905
Mexico 285 019 30 690 18 107 48 797
Egypt 705 490 157 991 79 000 236 991
Zambia 3 130 14 865 450 15 315
Developing countries (extrapolation based on labour productivities estimated from the case studies):
P.R. China 32 735 944 26 737 463 9 806 810 36 544 273
India 3 478 690 2 841 261 1 042 122 3 883 383
Philippines 741 142 605 336 222 026 827 363
Myanmar 674 776 551 131 202 145 753 276
Republic of Korea 473 794 386 977 141 936 528 913
Taiwan Province of China 323 982 264 616 97 056 361 672
Brazil 290 186 41 811 31 402 73 213
Malaysia 243 081 198 539 72 821 271 360
Iran 154 979 126 581 46 428 173 008
Turkey 152 260 124 360 45 613 169 973
Nigeria 143 207 34 933 16 056 50 989
Pakistan 135 098 110 343 40 472 150 815
Rest of the world 1 539 669 1 087 891 410 700 1,498 591
Total including P. R. China 52 798 571 41 386 474 15 299 648 56 686 122
Total excluding P.R. China 20 062 627 14 649 011 5 492 838 20 141 849

PLATE 6
Mollusc culture in Viet Nam. Photo credit:
Rohana Subasinghe
59
Appendix 2: Methodology for

estimating the number of people
employed in global aquaculture
value chains
In order to extrapolate employment in global aquaculture, the study computed

the labour productivity of the nine case study countries, the average labour
productivity of these nine case study countries, and the average labour productivity
of country groups representing Africa (Egypt and Zambia), Asia (Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam) and Latin America (Chile, Ecuador and
Mexico). Table 4 of the main report presents the estimated aquaculture labour and
farm-level productivity of each case study country. Total labour productivity is
the ratio of total aquaculture production in tonnes and the total number of people
employed in aquaculture value chains. Farm-level labour productivity is the ratio
of total aquaculture production in tonnes and the number of people employed at
the farm level.
The values reported in Table 4 of the main report are used for extrapolating
the level of employment in aquaculture value chains in other countries around
the world. It is assumed that aquaculture employment in Africa, Asia and Latin
America follows average employment patterns experienced in the case study
countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America reported above. Using the estimates
reported in Table 4, the number of people employed in the principal aquaculture-
producing and developing countries in the three regions is extrapolated and
presented in Appendix 1. As Asia dominates global aquaculture and also presents
high heterogeneity in terms of industrial and aquaculture development, it is
further assumed that the principal aquaculture-producing countries in Asia follow
different employment patterns. Specifically, it is assumed that the Republic of
Korea, Taiwan Province of China, and Malaysia follow Thailand’s employment
pattern / labour productivity, and other main aquaculture producers follow
average “Asia” aquaculture employment patterns experienced in Asian case study
countries.
By applying the average labour productivity of the nine case study countries
and the average labour productivities of the country groups representing Africa,
Asia and Latin America, it is estimated in Appendix 1 that, including China,
there were about 56.7 million people employed along aquaculture value chains
all over the world, of whom 41.4 million were employed at farm level, and 15.3
million at other links along aquaculture value chains. If China is excluded, total
employment in global aquaculture value chains was about 20.1 million people,
of whom 14.6 million were employed at farm/production level and 45.5 million

employed at other links in aquaculture value chains. Following FAO’s assumption
that each person employed in global aquaculture value chains comes from a
different family and that each family has five members on average, it is estimated
that about 206.9 million and 283.4 million people have livelihoods that depend on
aquaculture at farm level and aquaculture value chains, respectively.
As China accounts for about 60 percent of world aquaculture production, its
aquaculture employment pattern has a strong impact on total employment levels
in world aquaculture. In the table in Appendix 1, it is assumed that China has an
“Asia” average pattern of employment in aquaculture (labour productivity was
estimated at 1.22 at farm level employment and 0.90 at the whole-value-chain
employment level). With this assumption, using aquaculture production in China
in 2008 reported by FAO (2010), total employment in aquaculture value chains in
China is estimated at 36.5 million people, of whom 26.7 million and 9.8 million
were employed at farm level and at other links along aquaculture value chains,
respectively. However, if China’s aquaculture labour productivity of 6 tonnes/
FTE (FAO, 2010) and the Far East average indirect employment multiplier effect
of 0.38 (Valderrama Hishamunda and Zhou, 2010) are used, the total number of
people employed in aquaculture value chains in China is estimated to be about
7.5 million, of whom 5.5 million and 2.1 million are employed at farm level
and at other links along value chains respectively. In this case, the estimate for
total employment in world aquaculture value chains drops from 56.7 million to
27.7 million people, of whom 20.1 million employed at farm production level.
As China’s aquaculture employment has a very strong bearing on global
aquaculture employment estimates, and given the lack of good quality aquaculture
employment data for China, there is a need for the China case to be thoroughly
investigated. By assuming that aquaculture in China takes the employment
pattern of “Asia’s” average labour productivity estimated from the case studies
in this report, it is probable the study is overestimating the number of people
employed in aquaculture value chains in China. However, this number is likely
to be underestimated if one adopts FAO’s suggestion that aquaculture labour
productivity in China is about 6 tonnes per person and employment multiplier
is 0.38. It should also be noted that as the extrapolations in this report are based
on labour productivities mainly based on all those employed (both full- and
part-time), this lower estimate for China (which is based on full-time equivalent
[FTE] labour productivity) leads to even more of an underestimate relative to
other country estimates. This inconsistency between using FTE estimates for
some countries and full- and part-time employment estimates for others is an
unavoidable limitation due to a lack of good-quality country data for aquaculture
employment.
This document provides some baseline information on the present status of the aquaculture
sector, small-scale aquaculture sector in particular, from a human development perspective.
The research findings presented here are based on a global synthesis of information from
various sources and 9 country case studies undertaken in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The
findings suggest that previous employment estimates of the global aquaculture sector
based on official statistics are likely to be underestimates. Employment generated at farm
level is found to be much higher than employment at other links in the value chain. The
findings highlight the limited nature of available “official” data. A key recommendation of
the study is that small-scale farmers should be involved in the development of certification
procedures and appropriate standards and policies should be developed to support
small-scale farmers to become certified. One approach that has had success in a number of
countries is to support and promote group certification of farmer organizations or clusters
of farmers. Supporting the small-scale sector to access services, technical knowledge and
training to utilize better management practices is required in order to develop a sector that
is productive and sustainable.
I6317En/1/10.16

Aquaculture Big Numbers PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aquaculture Big Numbers PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aquaculture Big Numbers PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAO

Aquaculture Big Numbers

Chin Yee Chan

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Preparation of this document

This document has been developed through a collaborative programme involving

FAO. 2016. Aquaculture Big Numbers, by Michael Phillips, Rohana P. Subasinghe,

Preparation of this document iii

3. SUMMARY OF COUNTRY CASE STUDIES 9

4.3.3 Dynamic development at local level 37

5. DISCUSSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 41

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51

Abbreviations and acronyms

FTE full-time equivalent

SMALL-SCALE STAKEHOLDERS AND WOMEN EMPLOYED IN AQUACULTURE

AQUACULTURE VALUE CHAINS

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SERVICES OF AQUACULTURE

MAJOR AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND INFLUENCES

quality, trading standards and increasing demands for certification of aquaculture

MAJOR TRENDS INFLUENCING SMALL-SCALE EMPLOYMENT GENERATED

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AQUACULTURE PLANNING AND POLICY

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2. General overview and study

2.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SERVICES OF

2.1.1 Aquaculture and stakeholder classifications

2.1.2 Social and economic services from global aquaculture

Sociocultural services: In some countries, farmed aquaculture products are used

Regulating services: Aquaculture can provide waste assimilation and

2.2 STUDY APPROACHES

2.2.2 Country case studies

Table 1 presents aquaculture production of the major aquaculture producing

Source: FAO (2012b).

2.2.3 Terminology and Definitions

Aquaculture commodity: a specific species such as tiger shrimp, tilapia, seaweed,

2.2.4 Study constraints and limitations

3. Summary of country case

3.1 AQUACULTURE NUMBERS IN ASIA

of ponds. About 25–50 percent of aquaculture production from homestead culture

cage culture in freshwater waterbodies. Aquaculture production accounted for

competitive capacity of Thailand’s shrimp industry in international markets and

3.2 AQUACULTURE NUMBERS IN AFRICA

by large-scale producers, and in Zambia, where the majority of aquaculture

(three-spotted bream), O. macrochir (green-headed bream), Tilapia rendalli (red-

3.3 AQUACULTURE NUMBERS IN LATIN AMERICA

4.1 EMPLOYMENT ALONG AQUACULTURE VALUE CHAINS

Source: M4P (2008).

4.1.2 Type of people employed by the aquaculture sector

Hatcheries and nurseries 30 962 Employees

4.1.3 Number of people employed in the aquaculture sector

Vietnam** 2 233 000 1 744 900 900 056 2 644 956

Indonesia** 4 780 100 2 797 005 1 215 258 4 012 263

Notes: * Employment estimates based on FTE jobs

The number of people employed in global aquaculture varies from country to

Vietnam** 0.84 1.28

Bangladesh* 0.34 0.41

Notes: * Employment estimates based on FTE jobs.

productivity as reported in Table 4 is underestimated because not all case-study

4.1.4 Small-scale stakeholders and women employed in aquaculture

As presented in Table 5, of the about 11.4 million people employed in