60 / 104
60
anticipated, according to FAO. At the same time, the volume
of fishmeal and fish oil used in formulated aquaculture feeds
tripled between 1996 and 2006. This was made possible by
a significant reduction of the poultry sector’s reliance on fish-
meal for poultry feeds. As formulated feeds are increasingly
being used for non-filter feeding omnivorous fish like carps,
the demand for fishmeal is increasing.
As for meat production, feed is a major bottleneck. It is extreme-
ly difficult to project the future role of fisheries and aquaculture,
but it is evident that the growth in aquaculture may be limited by
access to feed, which, in turn is partly dependent on capture fish-
eries. There is no indication that today’s marine fisheries could
sustain the 23% increase in landings needed to sustain the 56%
growth in aquaculture production required to maintain per cap-
ita fish consumption at current levels. Given the grave nature of
the trends and scenarios on overfishing and ocean degradation, a
future collapse of ocean fisheries would immediately affect aqua-
culture production and the prices of aquaculture products. Even
assuming that marine fisheries landings can be maintained at
current levels, the proportion of fish in the diet (in terms of calo-
rie intake) may go down from the current 2% of world human
calorie intake to 1.5% by 2030 and to only 1% by 2050. This loss
will have to be compensated for by either meat or crops.
The combined impact of reductions in yield and in the area
available for food production will have to be compensated ei-
ther by even further yield increases, cropland expansion, or by
increasing food energy efficiency.
The extent of the impact of each individual factor on food pro-
duction is likely to exhibit great regional variation. This prob-
ably also applies to the possible socio-economic responses,
including that of policy changes as well as the responses and
RANGES OF IMPACTS ON CROPLAND AREA AND YIELDS
incentives for change of the individual farmer. It also applies
to the financial and institutional capacity of the country, region
and individual farm to cope with increasing stressors.
As the extent of interaction, synergistic or cumulative effects
are not known, the projections should be interpreted cautious-
ly, reflecting mainly a risk assessment and indication of the
possible magnitude and relevance of environmental degrada-
tion for future food supply.