* By Antonio Garza de Yta, Ph.D
The importance of increasing domestic markets in countries where aquaculture is developed is increasingly discussed. However, it is necessary to take into account their own realities, as they are completely different.
Recently I have been involved in several discussions where the importance of increasing domestic markets in countries where aquaculture is being developed has been mentioned. Of course, this depends very much on the size of the population and the objectives of the different countries.
Countries with populations of more than 100 million, such as Mexico and Brazil, or, in the superlative case of India, with populations of only a few million, such as Honduras or Oman, cannot be categorized in the same way. Although aquaculture is a relevant activity in all these countries, they live in completely different realities.
Let’s talk first about countries with a population of less than 20 million inhabitants, such as several relevant aquaculture producing countries, such as Ecuador and Chile, or countries whose activity is consolidating, such as Honduras or Oman.
These countries cannot focus all or a large part of their production on domestic consumption and must focus mainly on exports, which can be a great source of foreign exchange for the country, but can also be a major weakness, especially in a world as volatile and changing as the one we live in today.
This strategy depends on completely external factors, such as possible tariff barriers or a decrease in the purchasing power of the markets in which they are accustomed to sell their products. It is also susceptible to the competition that can be generated with other countries with a depreciation of their currency, allowing their exports to be more competitive in international markets.
I am not saying that this is an exclusive characteristic of these countries, all producers competing for a global market are exposed to these risks, but if you do not have a domestic market that can absorb a large production of fish or any other product, this risk is extremely high.
Let’s take the case of countries like Mexico or Brazil, with populations of more than 100 million people, where seafood consumption has not yet reached the levels recommended by the World Health Organization. These giants, which also have an impressive potential for the development of aquaculture, have a historic opportunity to fill this huge gap that exists, not only with imports, as is unfortunately the case in Mexico, which is the second largest importer of white fish fillets in the world, but also with a solid development of their aquaculture industry.
Obviously, to achieve this, the strategic support of the institutions and leaders of the sector will be necessary, so that the activity can be consolidated and possibly grow exponentially. Let’s not talk about the case of India, which would need 1.3 million tons of fish and seafood per capita per year to meet this quota, just by increasing its per capita consumption of fish and seafood by 1 kg.
If I were a producer in any of these three countries, I would be more focused on increasing the domestic market for all seafood than on seeking new horizons for exporting my product. Especially in today’s world, where globalization is experiencing major setbacks, local markets are crucial for the development not only of aquaculture, but of the economies of nations in general.
Again, as on other occasions, I would like to raise the issue of tariffs on imported products, which I believe should be applied only to those products that sell water for fish, because it is not possible to pay the same for 1 gram of fish as we pay for 1 gram of water.
As I have said on many other occasions, tariffs should be directly related to the percentage of glazing of a product, be it shrimp, tilapia or any other seafood product sold domestically, because it is not possible for 1 kg of any aquaculture or fishing product to compete at a complete disadvantage with 700 g of imported product.
Another great way to make the competition between local producers and imports fair would be to indicate on the label or at the point of sale the percentage of glaze in each product, so that the consumer knows how much drained mass is contained in the various options and can decide in an informed way what amount of product he is really buying with the value of his money.
I mention Mexico because it is a case I know first-hand, but I am also aware that the same problem occurs in many other parts of the world.
In conclusion, there is no universal way to develop aquaculture, nor is there a universal strategy that a country should follow to develop this activity. What is important, however, is that in every latitude and in every country in the world, domestic producers should be supported so that they can compete fairly with imports.
Not all countries or regions will develop aquaculture in the same way, but without a doubt this activity should be a priority wherever there is a desire to promote the production of protein with the smallest environmental footprint, because at the end of the day we must not forget what aquaculture is… the most sustainable way to produce protein in the world.
* Antonio Garza de Yta is COO of Blue Aqua International-Gulf, Vice President of the International Center for Strategic Studies in Aquaculture (CIDEEA), President of Aquaculture Without Frontiers (AwF), Past President of the World Aquaculture Society (WAS), Former Secretary of Fisheries and Aquaculture of Tamaulipas, Mexico, and Creator of the Certification for Aquaculture Professionals (CAP) Program with Auburn University
