Low-Income Fish Consumers’ Subsidies to the Fish Reduction Industry: The Case of Forage Fish

Abstract

Forage fish, a crucial source of nutrition in developing countries, are, unfortunately, primarily used for fishmeal and aquafeed production for aquaculture, which mainly serves consumers in developed countries. Industrial fish use leaves a meager portion of the catch available for direct human consumption in these fish-producing countries, leading to inflated fish prices locally. Overfishing forage fish due to the needs of the reduction fishery industry disrupts the ecosystem, diminishes the catch of larger fish, such as mackerel, and marginalizes local artisanal fishermen. This article briefly appraises the financial and nutritional impacts of elevated fish prices on low-income consumers in forage-fish-producing countries, drawing attention to the ethical implications of this situation. By reducing the supply to the industry, a hypothetical 10% boost in the annual supply of fresh forage fish to the current global supply of 5 million Mt (metric tons), markets could save consumers annually hundreds of millions of US dollars globally, tens of millions of US dollars nationally, and several dollars for families while improving the nutrition of families that depend on forage fish. The numbers suggest that even a modest supply shift from industry to the supply of forage fish to fresh fish markets could significantly benefit fish-producing nations and consumers. In some countries, such as South Africa, the orders of magnitude of these sums approach those of the entire value of local fish reduction industries. Increased fish prices could be considered involuntary subsidies by low-income consumers to the aquafeed and aquaculture industries. In summary, the current use of captured forage fish in reduction industries and aquaculture warrants further scrutiny, as it inadvertently burdens disadvantaged societies financially and nutritionally. This article proposes using alternative protein sources and cultivating non-carnivorous fish, among several optional measures, to ensure the equitable distribution of forage fish resources.

1. Introduction

Forage fish, also known as small pelagic fish and baitfish (Figure 1), constitute a significant portion of the global capture fisheries that typically feed low in the food chain (trophic level is 2.6 on average [1]). They are intermediaries between plankton and larger predatory fish, marine mammals, seabirds, and the fish market [2,3,4]. Many forage fish species have high fecundity and reach maturity early, contributing to their rapid population dynamics and high yields [5]. When eaten by humans, these fish supply consumers with essential nutrients, such as proteins and lipids. However, fresh fish consumers have the bad fortune that a significant portion of the local forage fish catch does not reach their fresh fish markets. Instead, they are industrially reduced into fishmeal and oil used in aquafeed production [6,7]. A decreased commodity supply usually increases its price, and the prices at fish markets are no exception (e.g., [8,9]). Since most forage fish capture fisheries are near their maximum sustainable yields, using most of the catch for industrial use inevitably increases their prices in fresh fish markets [10].

The withdrawal of most of a catch for industrial use, labeled here as “the practice,” involves using fish from productive marine ecosystems in less developed countries in the southern hemisphere to feed farmed fish for wealthier nations in the northern hemisphere [11]; this process has faced widespread criticism for various reasons, including its impact on ecosystems that produce these forage fish and on the socioeconomics of low-income fish consumers, whose buying power decreases [12]. The interests of low-income families involved with the forage fish supply chain from capture to fishmeal are complex; they may rewarded by higher fish prices (e.g., [13] Aksoy and Hoekman (2010)), but these aspects are not discussed here.

Fishing for forage fish at the maximum sustainable yield and overfishing can interfere with the natural functioning of an ecosystem [14]. The capture competes with piscivorous birds, mammals, and fish [3,15,16,17,18,19], particularly when such fish comprise a significant portion of the ecosystem’s biomass and are highly connected to the food web [2,3]. Disturbingly, most forage fish processed into aquafeed ingredients are of food-grade quality [20], suggesting that “the practice” limits the access of low-income communities in developing countries to local, affordable, and nutritious food [5]. Contrarily, Hilborn et al. [21] argued that simultaneously fishing both piscivorous fish and their primary food source, forage fish, has maintained high populations of the latter fish. This viewpoint should be reconciled with the declining fish harvests noted in recent decades associated with intense fishing [22,23]; however, this is beyond the scope of this article.

“The practice” impacts the ecosystem services provided by forage fish to their marine ecosystem and the populations nearby and the economic development of the supplying (usually developing) countries [14,24,25]. Unfortunately, the ecological, socio-economic, and ethical concerns described above have only been evaluated qualitatively [26,27,28,29].

This article uses available sources to gauge quantitatively, for the first time as far as we know, the financial and nutritional costs involved in the socio-economic consequences of “the practice” and their effect on low-income populations in countries that supply most forage fish to the aquafeed industry. The premise is that paying increased prices for fish in a market due to “the practice” can reduce the nutrition of individuals and families. In contrast, families used to consuming fish may maintain their fish intake by increasing their expenditure. The difference between the two prices, with and without “the practice,” can be considered a levy or a subsidy individuals pay to the industry.

The article does not judge “the practice” since it has different impacts and advantages for different sectors of society and the ecosystem (e.g., [5] Wikstrom 2009). Still, it assesses the financial and nutritional costs to the low-income consumers of fresh forage fish. These numbers do not exist in the literature; they will help weigh up the socio-economic and nutritional impacts of “the practice” on the low-income populations and the forage-fish-producing countries. This information will help formulate and improve policies and guidelines by the FAO, additional international organizations, and the relevant governments towards all relevant biological, technological, economic, social, environmental, and commercial aspects of the issue, with equitable social and economic development, nutritional benefits, and environmental sustainability [5,24,30,31].

It should be noted that other factors not mentioned previously could also impact the processes described when assessing the quantitative approach used. For example, lower prices could decrease a fisherman’s interest in catching fish, and reduced prices for fresh forage fish could induce fishermen to sell their catch to the industry. On the other hand, decreasing revenues due to lower prices may be compensated for by the increased catch per unit effort to maintain reasonable profitability for artisanal fishermen. Therefore, the calculated subsidy values only provide orders of magnitude for their impacts, using a conservative supply boost of only 10% for most calculations, which is lower than the actual scale of “the practice” [21,32].

1.1. Forage Fish in Human Nutrition

Populations in developing countries often suffer from malnutrition, and locally captured fresh forage fish can alleviate inadequate food supplies as a cost-effective source of essential nutrients, such as proteins. The nutrient content of forage fish has considerable dietary benefits, particularly to children and young women of reproductive age, and their oil can also be used in producing effective health food supplements [33]. The micronutrients in forage fish include vitamin A, iron, calcium, and zinc, which are concentrated in the bones and heads, and the fish oil contains essential long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), including omega-3, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) [34]. The same attributes make forage fish a valuable ingredient in animal feed, primarily aquafeed [35].

Forage fish, readily available near the coast throughout the year, are a tremendous and delicious source of nutrition [36]. These fish are often consumed whole with their nutritious bones and heads, making them nutritionally superior per kilogram to larger fish, where only about half the body weight is edible [37,38]. Some small fish species in developing countries are more accessible than larger fish and other animal-sourced foods and vegetables [7,39]. However, forage fish must be available, affordable, and appealing to local consumers to be effective and derive the full benefit from their nutritional value. Even for those who can afford larger fish, forage fish provide a healthier and more cost-effective option, as feeding low in the food chain means that they accumulate fewer pollutants and carcinogens than larger fish [40].

1.2. Global Forage Fish Catch and Its Reduction to Fishmeal (“the Practice”)

Forage fish species sustain the world’s largest fisheries, with an annual catch of between 20 and 30 million Mt [15]. Most of these fish are processed into fishmeal and fish oil, mainly intended for use in aquafeed, which leaves only about 18–28% available for direct human consumption [21,32,41,42,43] (Figure 2). “The practice” has, of course, also benefited humanity through its application to farming aquatic organisms. Much of the global fish and crustacean culture industry (a multi-billion USD industry) relies on forage-fish-containing commercial aquafeeds [23,44] since their nutritional profiles fulfill the dietary requirements of popular carnivorous species like salmon and sea bass in providing them with essential proteins and fatty acids (e.g., [18]).

The demand for fish in the aquafeed industry has risen, although the fish content of aquafeeds has dropped dramatically [23] due to the significant increase in aquaculture production and the use of fish products in feeding tens of millions of Mt of non-carnivorous fish such as carp, tilapia, catfish, mullet, and milkfish [32,43,45]. It is unfortunate since biology allows them to meet their complete nutritional needs from plant-based diets and “natural food” found in “green water” bodies [46], sometimes supplemented with village and farm waste, even night soil [45].

1.3. The Impact of “the Practice” on Social Sectors: A Matter of Both Profit and Deprivation

The value of the global forage fishery industry has been estimated to be USD 9 billion and higher (USD 17 billion in 2006 [15]). The value of global fishmeal production has ranged between USD 8 and 9 billion [47]. The total economic benefit of forage fish to humanity, both in terms of fresh fish for human consumption and in industrial and ecosystem services, has been estimated at nearly USD 20 billion y⁻¹ [14,48]. Approximately 85% of fishmeal and oil production is used to support the aquafeed industry, whose estimated value was USD 64 billion in 2022 [48,49,50]). Over a third of aquafeed production is used to feed high-value carnivorous and omnivorous fish and crustacean species, which are primarily intended for high-income and upper-middle-income societies; the rest goes to carp, tilapia, and catfish production, which likewise do not usually reach the local markets of forage-fish-producing nations [23,27,51].

The primary beneficiaries of the fed aquaculture industry are stakeholders, such as fishers, traders, fish reduction and aquafeed industries, fish growers, those involved in the supply chain to the markets, and retailers who sell aquafeed-fed seafood. These influential sectors may leverage their economic and political power to receive a larger share of the benefits in the value chain; on the other hand, tens of millions of small-scale artisanal fishermen and the populations of the countries from whose waters most forage fish are extracted earn the least in terms of fish and money for their efforts and products [14,52,53,54].

Despite the valid and justified social and economic arguments for supplying local markets with a larger share of these fish [55,56,57] (Figure 2), the industry argues that fresh forage fish have low market demand due to local consumers’ preference for larger fish. Therefore, increasing supply would not necessarily lead to increased consumption [58]. The industry’s rationales regarding the diminished demand for fresh fish and its subsequent utilization in industrial processes within nations such as Peru do not pay sufficient attention to the interests of local fresh fish consumers. Their arguments seem to oversimplify the situation, disregarding alternative rationales and associated consequences. The following evidence can challenge the validity of such statements:

• Consider the documented situation in certain African countries, where demand for small fish is strong among low-income communities [59]. Nevertheless, the industry’s and exporters’ economic leverage allows them to buy much of the catch. Relevant authorities and organizations’ proactive attention to the interests of a population could considerably increase the direct human consumption of forage fish in such countries and elsewhere.
• The low demand for anchovy previously noted in Peruvian markets and elsewhere could be attributed to the poor quality of this fragile fish, which deteriorates quickly under inadequate storage conditions on the unrefrigerated boats supplying local markets [20,48]. Additionally, Peru’s fishery offers larger, widely available species, such as mackerel and bonito (Figure 3), which are less affordable but more versatile and palatable from a culinary standpoint. However, many Peruvian households cannot afford these fish. They would purchase instead available high-quality anchovy [43,48,52], which has historically been a crucial protein source in Peru and has played a significant role in ensuring food security since the ancient Andean civilizations [37,55,60]. Two countries that lead in reducing forage fish, Peru and Namibia, distribute over 80% of their forage fish catch to the export industry, while most of the Chilean catch remains in the country (Figure 4).

1.4. Socio-Economic Impact: Social Sectors Worsened by “the Practice”

1.4.1. Food Fish or Fish Feed?

The capture of a large quantity of small fish to produce a smaller amount of high-value aquacultured fish has been the subject of research, debate, and controversy (e.g., [35,61]). Scientists have questioned the sustainability and social logic of fish reduction to feed, i.e., “the practice,” which diverts large quantities of nutritious small fish away from fresh fish markets to industrial use elsewhere (e.g., [58,62,63,64,65]). Several decades ago, the aquafeed used for certain farmed carnivorous fish contained much more wild fish weight than the weight of the fish being cultured, an untenable and unsustainable situation. The fish content of aquafeed has since improved dramatically due to research and changes in industrial practices [21,23,52]. At the same time, articles such as [26,66] have discussed the gap in knowledge exchange and the conflicts of interest between the aquaculture industry and policymakers trying to reconcile support for aquaculture development and fresh fish consumers. The studies mentioned raise fundamental questions about fairness, socio-economic justice, and ethics. They focus qualitatively on higher prices’ impacts on local communities’ economics, nutrition, and marine ecosystems.

Feed is the most significant cost of farming input for many fish species and crustaceans; it is often also the leading contributor to undesirable environmental impacts, such as waste, associated with commercial aquaculture activities [43]. The ecological costs of production, including pollution and carbon emissions, are often shouldered by less developed countries, thereby exacerbating global inequality [29,67]. It deprives low-income individuals involved in the supply of fish for local markets, including artisanal fishing, fish processing, trading, and sales, of their just benefits.

1.4.2. Impact of “the Practice” on Artisanal Fishermen and Others

Raising fish prices due to the reduction of forage fish to fishmeal impacts low-income societies in several ways, including job losses [5]. Supplying fresh fish for human consumption creates several times more jobs per Mt than the fish reduction industry [68]. Additionally, artisanal fishermen make up a significant portion of all fishing-related jobs. While the number of jobs related to fishing has been assessed [5,54,69], the specific number of jobs lost and gained because of “the practice” has yet to be evaluated.

Large, refrigerated boats and aggressive buying agents can outcompete artisanal fishermen and retailers who supply most fish to fresh markets [2,7,14,17,23,33,63,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]. Artisanal fishermen require sophisticated fishing equipment, larger boats, and stronger nets to compete with industrial fishing fleets in deeper waters [69,78,79]. Consequently, the share of artisanal fishermen’s captured fish dropped from over 90% in the 1980s to below 40% two decades later in Peru as industrial fishing increased [69]. In 2009, when Peruvian anchovy generated a third of the world’s fishmeal supply, artisanal fishers, wholesalers, markets, and restaurants involved in fresh fish consumption constituted 80% of fishery employment in Peru and generated USD 2.4 billion, nearly as much as the worth of the country’s fish reduction industry [37,48,55].

1.5. The Forage Fish Market and Its Response to “the Practice”

The quantity, type, and sizes of fish available, season, perceived quality of the catch, availability of alternative food sources, number of potential purchasers, and other market conditions [39,80] influence fish prices [15]. “The practice” raises forage fish prices and lowers their consumption on top of the aforementioned driving forces; moreover, the globalization of the forage fish market can affect local fish prices, regardless of local supply (e.g., [48]).

Villanueva García Benítez and Flores-Nava [75] explained how higher prices may lead to increased fish landings and improved supply to fresh fish markets for those who can afford higher prices. Understanding the reasons behind price fluctuations requires a comprehensive investigation, as they vary depending on geographical and temporal considerations [9].

Introducing fish products to the diets of non-carnivorous fish is unnecessarily, but it raises the scale of “the practice”; it is intended to increase production, even though higher production does not always bring about higher profit margins. Costly resources, such as aquafeed and environmental impact handling, can offset increased incomes [19,80,81,82]. According to Table 1, provided in a paper by Naylor et al. (2021) [23], there was a 17.5% increase in the overall use of wild fish in aquafeeds in 2017 when compared to the value in 1997 (Table 2 in Naylor et al. (2000) [83]). Thus, unfortunately, the non-essential use of fish products in diets for carp, tilapia, and catfish, the use of trimmings, and the rapid growth of the aquaculture industry have been prevalent in recent decades (aquaculture production and aquafeed output rose over threefold and sevenfold in two decades [84]); these processes have jointly offset the dramatic 85% reduction in the overall content of fish products in modern (novel) aquafeeds between 1997 and 2017 [23,32,45,85].

The above processes undoubtedly impacted fish supply and price in the fresh fish markets. A possible contributor to the limited availability of fish in specific low-income fresh fish markets like Namibia and Peru (Figure 5) may be the higher prices offered to fishermen by the aquafeed and canning industries despite the legal complexities involved [48,69,86,87]. Conversely, lower prices were reported elsewhere for fish destined for the industry than those for direct human consumption [88], possibly thanks to better organization, subsidies, and improved access to these fish within the sector [63,89]. Unfortunately, industrial fishing and processing firms, which receive 75–85% of global fishery subsidies (totaling USD 35 billion), generate only 10% of jobs and approximately 30% of fish for human consumption [90,91,92].

“The practice” can have dire ecological and social consequences, and Lake Victoria, the largest lake in Africa, provides a textbook case. Introducing the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) into the lake in the 1960s transformed the region’s fisheries and the life of local communities of artisanal fishermen and fish consumers, providing a compelling example of the socio-economic impact of a changed fish ecosystem on disadvantaged populations [78]. The deliberate introduction of a large predatory fish resulted in the depletion of small native fish species, such as tilapias and other cichlids, which were previously crucial to the local fishing industry and consumers. Consequently, the availability of small fish in the local market decreased and prices increased. Artisanal fishermen encountered difficulties catching the new, larger fish and were outcompeted by larger boats; thus, the labor structure changed. The captured Nile perch has been primarily exported, making it less locally accessible than native fish. These consequences have compelled local populations to seek more expensive and potentially less nutritious alternative food sources or to migrate from the lake to other areas [78].

Existing studies have provided only qualitative descriptions of the impact of the rising market price and reduced supply of forage fish on low-income families’ budgets, nutrition, and food security, even though the socially unjust negative socio-economic implications of this situation have been widely acknowledged [2,26,51,89]. Despite these concerns, scientific studies have not quantified this issue’s economic and dietary consequences for low-income families relying on such fish as a vital food source [32,60]. This article begins to close this gap. We assessed the magnitude of the effect of “the practice” on the price of fish and, therefore, the expenditure and fish consumption of low-income consumers who depend on small fish for their nutritional needs. This evaluation involved several inevitable assumptions due to the lack of solid data [69].

2. Forage Fish Supply and Prices in the Fresh Fish Markets: Quantification of the Socio-Economic Impact of “the Practice”

Complete and accurate fish supply and price market data can be elusive [53]. For example, data are not readily available for every variable, location, and year, and sometimes, reports disagree [39,43,72,93]. However, any discrepancies should not invalidate our calculations thanks to the relative stability of the capture fisheries sector [27,94].

Economists evaluate market forces and prices mainly based on commercial interest using mathematical parameters, such as price elasticity, which measures the change in demand relative to a change in price, and price flexibility, which is the inverse demand counterpart to elasticity and reflects the change in price relative to supply; price flexibility of −2 means that, for every 1% decrease in supply, there is a 2% increase in price and vice versa [93,95]. When the demand for a commodity is inflexible, its price rises more as the supply drops, compared to a commodity with flexible demand and alternative products, where the price rise is dampened by diminished demand [93,96].

According to Lem et al. (2014) [96], a 10% change in fish price was associated with a 4–5% change in supply (price flexibility of −2 to –2.5, and the reverse value is a 10% supply drop linked to a 20 to 25% price rise, while Cornelsen et al. (2015) [97] reported price flexibility of only −1.25). Yildiz et al. (2023) [39] reported a 33% change in anchovy catches associated with a 50% price change (price flexibility of −1.5) in the Istanbul fish market. The calculations below have used several well-based assumptions to fill this information gap. For convenience, we used a flexibility value of −1, meaning a 10% boost in supply reduces the price by 10% [93], where no specific value is available.

A hypothetical 10% boost in the fresh forage fish supply to the markets of several fish-producing countries should reduce prices and improve consumer fish purchases (

Table 1. Supply and prices of forage fish in the fresh fish markets. For each case, base (factual) values of market quantity and price are followed by boosted values of market quantity, reduced prices, and the postulated subsidy thereof for a hypothetical family of five and the nation if the base supply was priced with the boosted price.

Country	Base Market Supply Mt.	Base Price USD Mt−1	Base Total USD Million	Boosted Supply %	Boosted Fish Supply Mt.	Price Flexibility	Reduced Price USD Mt−1	Boosted Total Columns 6 × 8 USD Million	Specific Subsidy Columns 3–8 USD Mt−1	Hypothetical Family Levy–Subsidy USD y−1 *		Total National Subsidy, Columns 2 × 10 Million USD y−1
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11		12
1. Global	5,000,000	780	3900	10	5,500,000	−1	702	38,600	78	1.17	a	390
2. South Africa	204,700	1000	204.7	10	225,000	−1	900	202.6	100	1.5	b	20.5
3. Senegal a	135,000	216	29.17	37.5	216,000	−1	135	29.16	81	3.65	c	10.9
4. Senegal b	135,000	216	29.17	10	148,500	−1	194.4	28.867	21.6	0.97	c	2.9
5. Istanbul, Turkey	100,000	767	76.7	10	110,000	−1.5	652	71.7	115	3.9	d	11.5
6. Peru forage fish	240,000	1000	240	10	264,000	−1	900	237.6	100	1.5	e	24
7. Peru Mackerel	220,000	1000	220	10	242,000	−1	900	218	100	3.15	f	22

* The levy paid by a family of five that consumes the annual average for that country with the base price compared with the boosted price; annual fish consumption of a family of five (kg y⁻¹): a 15; b 15; c 90; d 31.25; e 15; f 35.

) [95,97]. The differences between the actual high price and the hypothetical low price in a better-supplied market represent a subsidy paid by consumers to the reduction industry and fish exporters. A 10% boost would be a conservative underestimate compared with the much more significant actual fraction that goes to reduction. The table provides the financial and nutritional implications of a modest boost in supply for consumers and entire nations.

2.1. The Global Forage Fish Market

This article does not examine fish catches and price dynamics but only provides typical values to permit the order of magnitude calculations (Table 1). The global catch of forage fish has fluctuated up and down, with values varying between reports; it decreased from 37 million Mt y⁻¹ in 1994 to 25 million Mt y⁻¹ in 2017 [23]. The amount of forage fish used for fishmeal and fish oil production has declined, according to some reports, from 27 million Mt (73% of the total) in 1994 to 16 million Mt (64% of the total) in 2017 and 22 million in 2018, a drop offset by the increased use of trimmings [23,86].

The quantity of fish used for direct human consumption, both fresh and processed (canned, dried, salted, smoked, or frozen), has been relatively stable, with 10 million Mt in 1994 and 9 million Mt in 2017 [23]. Values of 19.3 million Mt used for reduction and only 5 million Mt used for direct human consumption represent 2010 onward [16,32]. Prices, landed values, and other retail values usually range from about USD 200 to USD 1750 Mt⁻¹, while the retail price of forage fish for human consumption has ranged between USD 700 and 2000 Mt⁻¹ globally [20,48,88]. Naturally, prices vary temporally and geographically [73].

According to the FAO data, over 5 million Mt divided by the worldwide population (7.8 billion) reflects an average global per capita consumption of live fish equivalent (in 2019) of 20 kg y⁻¹, with forage fish contributing about 0.65 kg y⁻¹ [43]. Per capita consumption has been notably higher in low-income countries with forage fish capture sectors [89], as highlighted in the case studies below.

2.2. Estimating the Quantitative Impact of “the Practice” on Fresh Forage Fish Price and Consumption

The total value of the fresh forage fish supplied to the markets has been reported to be approximately USD 4 billion or USD 0.78 per kilogram (Table 1, line 1). However, prices were lower in several countries at the time of landing [88] and higher in others (e.g., [39]).

For a hypothetical family of five in fish-consuming countries, with a 3 kg per capita y⁻¹ purchase, the cost for 15 kg y⁻¹ was USD 11.7 (15 kg × USD 0.78 kg⁻¹), and the calculated family subsidy was USD 1.17. Multiplying the USD 0.078 kg⁻¹ subsidy by the average forage fish consumption of 0.65 kg y⁻¹ results in a hypothetical USD 0.05 subsidy per capita y⁻¹ for every person on Earth. The total global subsidy (5 million Mt × USD 78 subsidy Mt⁻¹) would be close to USD 400 million, not including the more elusive estimate of indirect ecosystem services, such as the functioning of the marine food web and the nutrition of piscivorous animals (e.g., [61]).

2.3. Country Case Studies

The initial calculations were based on the correlation between the supply and price of fresh forage fish in the local markets of South Africa, Senegal, Turkey, and Peru, for which data were available in the literature. A standard conservative 10% hypothetical boost in supply was applied across the country-based values. Even though the data were sourced across different years and time frames, they still hold significant indicative value regarding the hidden subsidy consumers provide to the fishmeal, aquafeed, and aquaculture industries.

2.3.1. South Africa

The total forage fish caught in South Africa in 2004 amounted to 614,153 Mt [63] (Table 1, line 2). In 2024, the retail value of anchovy ranged in those years from USD 680 to USD 1360 Mt⁻¹ [98]. In the absence of other specific figures, and considering the volatile nature of anchovy prices, an average value of USD 1000 Mt⁻¹ is used to estimate the total value of the 2004 forage fish harvest to be USD 614 million. The industry purchased two-thirds of the harvest that year, while the remaining 204,680 Mt, valued at USD 204.7 million, supplied fresh fish markets. A 10% boost to the fresh fish supply would decrease the market price, allowing the population to buy 10% more fish for the same cost. In this case, fish consumers subsidized the industry by over USD 20 million.

2.3.2. Senegal

Forage fish represent the primary source of animal protein in Senegal; however, per capita consumption in the country decreased from 18 kg y⁻¹ in 2009 to 9 kg y⁻¹ in 2018 (Table 1, lines 3 and 4). This decline was concurrent with a population growth that exceeded capture growth and increased withdrawal from the annual harvest, ranging from 260,000 to 330,000 Mt for “the practice,” i.e., withdrawn from the fresh fish market for industrial and export purposes [88,99]. Over the same period, fish exports rose steadily from 71,000 Mt in 2009 to 206,600 Mt, being valued at around USD 1500 Mt⁻¹ for a total of USD 310 million in 2018 [100], leaving 37.5% less available for fresh consumption, which dropped from 216,000 Mt in 2009 to 135,000 Mt in 2018.

Lancker and Bronnmann (2022) [101] calculated price flexibility for Senegalese forage fish at about −2.0; that is, a change in supply by 10% would be associated with a price change of 20% in the opposite direction. Therefore, using a 1:1 price flexibility ratio is conservative. Deme et al. (2022) [99] provided an average forage fish price over nine years of USD 0.266 kg⁻¹, including the retail margin [102]. The detailed data in these publications allow the reader to examine the price values for an evaluation of a 37.5% forage fish supply change to the Senegalese fresh fish market (Table 1, line 3), in addition to the 10% value used as a standard in the present paper (Table 1, line 4). The 37.5% example (Table 1, line 3) provides the prices for two reported levels of supply, 135,000 and 216,000 metric tons, as follows: the price is assumed to have increased steadily between 2009 and 2018 by 37.5%, from USD 216 Mt⁻¹ in the 216,000 Mt market of 2009 to USD 297 Mt⁻¹ in the 135,000 Mt market of 2018 (Table 1, line 3). In the 135,000 Mt market of 2018, a family of five with a per capita consumption of 9 kg paid in 2018 a levy of USD 3.65 on its 45 kg purchase compared to the lower price of 2009. Because of the higher 2018 prices, the nation subsidized the industry by nearly USD 11 million for 37.5% less fish compared to the 2009 prices, on top of other variables.

The standard scenario (Table 1, line 4) examined, in agreement with the other cases, estimated the impact of a hypothetical 10% supply boost from the base 135,000 Mt to 148,500 Mt. In the 135,000 Mt market of 2018, a family of five paid a levy of USD 0.97 y⁻¹ on its 45 kg annual purchase compared to a 10%-boosted supply. In this case, the nation subsidized the industry in 2018 by nearly USD 2.9 million for 10% less fish.

2.3.3. Istanbul, Turkey

The price of anchovies in Istanbul fluctuates depending on season and availability; however, they are generally affordable and accessible to most consumers (Table 1, line 5). These small, flavorful fish play a significant role in Turkish cuisine and are particularly popular among low-income families due to their affordability [7,39]. However, approximately half of this market’s 200,000 Mt of annually captured forage fish are reduced to fishmeal and oil [103]. The fresh anchovy supply that remains for the 15 million inhabitants of the Istanbul market, around 100,000 metric tons [104], satisfies a per capita consumption of fresh forage fish of approximately 6.7 kg (compared with 6.3 kg national average [105]).

Over 13 years, a 50% decrease in anchovy landings corresponded to a 75% increase in the landed price, resulting in a price flexibility of 1.5 [39]. Moreover, Yilmaz et al. (2016) [106] calculated price flexibility of 1.94 (price rise per supply drop). A landing price of USD 0.2 kg⁻¹ for the fish supplied to the industry during the study can be compared to the much higher retail price of fresh anchovy in the fresh fish market, which was USD 0.767 kg⁻¹, indicating on the face of it, a factor of 3.8 between the landed price of the entire catch and the retail price of the reduced quantity that remained for the market [103]. However, the value includes the costs for cold chain transportation, intermediaries, and retailers, and therefore, using a flexibility value of 1.5 for our calculations appears to be conservative. A family of five that consumed 33.5 kg anchovy paid (33.5 kg × USD 0.767 kg⁻¹) USD 25.7 y⁻¹ in 2018. It would pay only USD 21.8 y⁻¹ with the hypothetically 10%-boosted 110,000 Mt market price of USD 0.652 kg⁻¹; the family levy was USD 3.86 y⁻¹, which, for the 15-million-person city, provides a total subsidy to the industry equaling USD 11.6 million y⁻¹.

2.3.4. Peru

Forage Fish

The Peruvian anchovy is the world’s most extensive fishery resource, with annual landings reaching 12 million Mt y⁻¹ and averaging about 7 million Mt y⁻¹ [49,107] (Table 1, line 6). Only 10–20% of this is used for direct human consumption [2]. The rest of the Peruvian catch (and much of the global catch of forage fish) consistently goes to reduction and not to direct human consumption (Figure 2; [108,109]). Peruvian per capita fresh fish consumption has been recently reported at 23 kg y⁻¹, and about a third of it was forage fish, thanks to successful proactive government programs [75]. Consumption values for fresh forage fish for fishing communities reached 218 kg per capita and possibly more, considering unreported self-captured fish [30,75,110]. Several reports have estimated the anchovy market prices in Peru to range from USD 600 to USD 1100 Mt⁻¹ [48,54,98]. Using the 8 kg per capita consumption value and a base price of USD 1000 Mt⁻¹, the total Peruvian consumption for the 30 million population for the year reported was 240,000 Mt, with a total value of USD 240 million. If boosted by 10% for a total of 264,000 Mt and using a price flexibility of 1:1, the total market fish price would drop to USD 223 million. A family of five would pay a base price of USD 40 y⁻¹ for its fish. Compared to the lower price with the boosted supply of USD 36, the family spent an annual levy of USD 4, and the nation subsidized the industry by USD 24 million. A five-person fisher family, where small fish make up half of their food [75], would pay an annual levy of around USD 100.

Mackerel (and Other Small Piscivorous Fish) in Peru

Leaving in the sea the entire 5 million Mt of Peruvian forage fish catch that today supplies the industry could increase the catch of small piscivorous fish, such as mackerel [111,112] (Table 1, line 7). In the absence of a quantitative estimate on the effect of this hypothetical situation on piscivorous fish’s market availability and price, informed assumptions were made for the following calculations. Being their primary food sources, the fecundity and population density of anchovies and sardines influence the population, fecundity, and capture of mackerel-sized piscivorous fish [113,114]. Free et al. (2017) [114] did not find an impact of anchovy populations on mackerel populations, but others have different opinions [15,115]. According to the latter study, the biomass of Peruvian anchovies and sardines in the relevant 165,000 km² Peruvian fished waters from 2010 to 2015 varied around 10 million Mt, of which 8.8 million Mt were captured [116].

The Peruvian mackerel catch has been highly variable [96,117]. In 2022–2023, it was 220,000 Mt, most of it for human consumption [108] (7 kg per capita), valued at USD 1000 Mt⁻¹ and USD 220 million in total [15,98].

Ecosystem models suggest that the contribution of anchovy as food for the Peruvian catch of small piscivorous fish (mainly mackerel) varies in time and space, yielding on average over 1 Mt piscivores km⁻² y⁻¹ from an area of about 165,000 km² [15]. These values differ significantly between reports and years [69]. Nevertheless, as a rough estimate, leaving 5 million Mt y⁻¹ of anchovy catch in the water could boost the mackerel catch by 10% to 242,000 Mt y⁻¹ (Table 1, line 7). With a price flexibility of −1, the total value of the original 220,000 Mt would drop to USD 218 million. After the 10% supply boost, a family of five consuming 35 kg y⁻¹ of mackerel-sized fish could save USD 3.15 y⁻¹. The subsidy or levy for the Peruvian nation for capturing anchovies instead of leaving them in the water and feeding mackerel would be USD 22 million y⁻¹. These levies reflect the order of magnitude of the extra cost for mackerel paid by Peruvian consumers due to the impact of forage fish overfishing on the mackerel population. Applying this calculation to the global value of the fisheries that depend on forage fish [15] of USD 11.3 billion results in a worldwide subsidy of over USD 1 billion.

3. Discussion

It is important to note that the numbers calculated here are only approximate. Accurate figures require comprehensive economic and socio-economic studies on both national and international scales.

The estimated subsidy for a 10% drop in fish supply on a global scale approaches USD 100 Mt⁻¹ and hundreds of millions of USD annually. This burden, primarily shouldered by those with limited financial means, accounts for several percent of the total USD 10 billion value of worldwide fishmeal production [118]. On national or regional scales, the impact on fish consumers was in the range of (USD) millions, up to USD 24 million y⁻¹ in Peru, the largest forage fish supplier globally. It is alarming that an average individual consumer family could consume significantly more fish or save several USD y⁻¹ upon redistributing a significant fraction of the fish from the reduction industry to fresh fish markets; these values should stimulate international policies and agreements to reconcile the competing interests of powerful industries and disadvantaged populations, implementing laws and ethical considerations in properly utilizing and distributing ocean resources. However, Peru stands out as a positive example, with proactive governmental efforts that successfully reintroduced the ancient tradition of consuming nutritious forage fish, maintaining the artisanal fishing fleet, and its capacity to supply fresh fish to markets.

It appears that the industry, authorities, fishermen, consumers, scientists, and other stakeholders have given less attention to the influence of globalization and the financial and nutritional needs of marginal populations of low-income consumers in fish-capturing nations, who suffer greatest from the loss of full access to small fish, a significant local natural resource that is essential for food security [119]. These gaps justify our efforts to introduce some figures to the arguments about the just distribution of ocean resources.

3.1. Country Case Studies

3.1.1. South Africa

Hypothetical five-member families in South Africa that typically consumed 15 kg of forage fish annually would save USD 1.5, equal to a day’s wage for the most disadvantaged [51,63]. A 10% change in the total value, amounting to USD 20.5 million y⁻¹, can be seen as a significant subsidy; moreover, it constituted 29% of the total USD 71 million output of the fish product industry in South Africa at the time of the cited study [63].

3.1.2. Senegal

Based on uniquely detailed data available in the literature concerning a 37.5% forage fish supply boost, the calculated levies to families and national levies are nearly four-fold higher than those for the hypothetical 10% supply boost estimate used here as a standard. Therefore, the respective industry and exporter subsidies of USD 11 million for the actual 37.5% boost and USD 3 million for the hypothetical 10% boost should be evaluated relative to the USD 310 million value of Senegalese forage fish exports in 2018 [99]. With such a large discrepancy, it should be possible for the Senegalese government to regulate the assignment of a significantly larger supply to fresh fish markets to make it more affordable, with minor harm to the industry.

3.1.3. Istanbul, Turkey

Low-income families are the primary consumers of forage fish from Istanbul fish markets [106]. In 2018, these families paid the highest levy, nearly USD 4 y⁻¹. The city levy of USD 11.5 million represented about 12% of the total value of the entire Turkish fishmeal industry, approximately USD 94 million (300,000 Mt × USD 314 Mt⁻¹ [105]). With a population of 82 million in 2018 [120], five and a half times the population of Istanbul, the national levy for only a hypothetical 10% supply change could be over USD 60 million, accounting for 67% of the entire Turkish fishmeal industry value of USD 90 y⁻¹ million. Considering that the actual quantity of fish diverted to the industry is closer to 50% than 10% [39], it is likely that the national subsidy, shouldered mainly by the disadvantaged Turkish population for “the practice”, exceeds the total value of the Turkish fish reduction industry.

3.1.4. Peru

Peru, the largest producer of forage fish, receives significant attention in this context. The hypothetical 10% boost to the market supply of fresh forage fish results in a substantial family levy, and the national levy stands at USD 24 million. This figure is likely a conservative estimate, considering that the actual boost, representing the fish supply the market would have received in the absolute absence of a fish reduction industry, would have been considerably higher. Considering a hypothetical boosted mackerel supply to Peruvian markets when all forage fish remains in the water suggests that the Peruvian public conservatively pays tens of millions of USD y⁻¹ in subsidy to the fish reduction and aquafeed industries.

4. Conclusions

4.1. General Conclusions

This article provides a brief overview of the ecological, economic, ethical, and social costs relating to the redirection of completely edible captured forage fish to the fish reduction industry; these costs result in greater expenditure and reduced nutritional value for consumers. The basic calculations, as approximate as they are, shed light on the scale of involuntary and socially harmful contributions paid by low-income forage fish consumers to fishmeal and oil, aquafeed, and aquaculture industries, much of which caters to more affluent consumers in the Northern Hemisphere; however, the reduction fishery industry provides economic opportunities and employment for local communities, and a decrease in forage fish use could have adverse effects on these communities, especially if alternative protein sources and non-carnivorous fish cultivation may not be as economically viable or sustainable as utilizing forage fish for fishmeal and aquafeed production [3,23,53,121,122]. The article also reviews how industrial fishing operations and the ensuing industrial use of catches can adversely affect the livelihoods of impoverished artisanal fishermen threatened by these practices [48,75,94,99,123]. One of the main messages in this article is that “the practice” raises prices of fresh forage fish; these increases, even if approximate, are levies that cost low-income families several USD annually, amounting to tens of millions of USD nationally and hundreds of millions to a billion USD globally. These levies and reduced fish purchases are accompanied by disruptions to the natural marine food web, which can have a similarly significant cost [14,15,49,71].

At the national level, in some countries, the size of levies imposed on low-income individuals to support the fish reduction industry can match the value of the industry in terms of magnitude; globally, these levies approach the total value of these sectors, considering that recent estimates place the fishmeal industry to be worth between USD 7 and 9 billion and the global aquafeed industry to be worth USD 64 billion [47,49]. Reducing forage fish supply to the industry could potentially lead to increased prices for aquaculture products, consequently impacting consumers in developed countries who rely on these products; reduced availability and increased prices can significantly harm individuals with lower incomes in those countries, as they tend to be more sensitive to fluctuations in fish prices than those with higher incomes [10,124]. For instance, elevated prices of a favored fish choice may compel individuals with limited incomes to transition to more affordable alternatives, such as chicken or lower-grade fish [10,48,53,72,74,88,96,125].

Insect-based feeds, microalgae, and plant proteins, such as soybeans or legumes, can reduce the environmental impact of aquaculture while meeting the nutritional needs of farmed fish and their consumers [126]. The culture of herbivorous or omnivorous fish, such as tilapia, catfish, mullet, and carp, which thrive on plant-based feeds, can eliminate the need for fish in aquafeeds. The industry, interested organizations, and authorities can collaborate to create a brighter and more sustainable future for the fisheries industry and fish consumers, balancing economics and socio-economic justice. Readers, industry professionals, policymakers, NGOs, and other stakeholders should carefully assess the broader rationale behind current global, regional, and national situations. In this context, it is essential to recognize that the fish reduction industry, serving mainly affluent consumers [27,127] while producing valuable food, could compromise marginalized consumers’ and fishermen’s financial and nutritional welfare. The evidence provided here can support the formation of well-informed opinions. Scientists can use this article as a steppingstone when pursuing quantitative studies toward the fair distribution of ocean fish resources.

4.2. Policy Suggestions

The literature currently lacks specific quantitative data on the financial and nutritional impacts of reducing the catch of forage fish for fishmeal and fish oil production instead of supplying the fresh fish market or leaving the fish in the sea to support natural forage fish consumers. The inequality embodied in “the practice” demands attention from economists, fish market experts, regulators, and other stakeholders, given the significance of ensuring social justice in sustainable human activities [3,14,28,77,99,128]. It is essential to recognize the significant socio-economic value of these food fish and reconsider the utilization of most forage fish in the reduction industry, especially considering the interests of all consumers.

Authorities and industries that acknowledge the problem can take proactive, collaborative steps to improve the availability and appeal of nutritious fresh small fish; other measures (like those implemented in Peru [75]) that can address the injustice include regulating the capture of smaller fish by industrial boats and providing artisanal fishermen with access to refrigerated supply chains; these measures will enhance the fish supply to fresh fish markets provided by artisanal fleets catching forage fish and larger piscivorous fish [72,111]. Alternatively, leaving forage fish in the water can support larger populations and catches of larger fish by local artisanal fishermen [37,52]. The data indicate that the Peruvian and Namibian policies of distributing most of the catch to the industry are not essential, given the large fraction of the catch remaining domestically in Chile.

Obtaining more accurate numbers through detailed scientific market and consumer attitude studies is essential. These studies should aim to quantify this practice’s economic and dietary consequences for low-income families relying on forage fish as a crucial food source. The studies could utilize the approach presented here and others and leverage existing databases to address the knowledge gap on the conflicts of interest between the reduction and aquaculture industries and low-income fish consumers. This information is crucial in evaluating the socio-economic and nutritional consequences of “the practice” and supporting equitable social and economic development in global fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Such data can also assist countries engaged in forage fish capture and processing to gauge the actual cost–benefit values of the reduction industry, leading to improved policies and guidelines by governments and international authorities. Detailed national and international quantitative economic and nutritional studies may improve the regulations and decision-making. Policies based on better numbers assist governments and international authorities, led by the FAO, in steering the ethical distribution of ocean resources and the sustainability of the marine ecosystem. These policies can improve the supply and reduce the cost of forage fish for low-income populations in the supplying countries.