THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SEMI-INTENSIVE AQUACULTURE ON BIODIVERSITY

This article was downloaded by: [University of Delaware]On: 05 October 2014, At: 10:01Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Aquaculture Economics & ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaqm20

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTSOF SEMI-INTENSIVE AQUACULTURE ONBIODIVERSITYRobert Pomeroy a , Madan M. Dey b & Nataliya Plesha ca University of Connecticut-Avery Point, Agricultural and ResourceEconomics/CT Sea Grant , Groton , Connecticut , USAb Aquaculture/Fisheries Center , University of Arkansas at PineBluff , Pine Bluff , Arkansas , USAc Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics , University ofConnecticut-Storrs , Storrs , Connecticut , USAPublished online: 16 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Robert Pomeroy , Madan M. Dey & Nataliya Plesha (2014) THE SOCIAL ANDECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SEMI-INTENSIVE AQUACULTURE ON BIODIVERSITY, Aquaculture Economics &Management, 18:3, 303-324, DOI: 10.1080/13657305.2014.926467

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2014.926467

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaqm20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13657305.2014.926467

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2014.926467

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SEMI-INTENSIVEAQUACULTURE ON BIODIVERSITY

Robert Pomeroy1, Madan M. Dey2, and Nataliya Plesha31University of Connecticut-Avery Point, Agricultural and Resource Economics=CTSea Grant, Groton, Connecticut, USA2Aquaculture=Fisheries Center, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff,Arkansas, USA3Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut-Storrs,Storrs, Connecticut, USA

& As a result of the concern and debate about the impacts of intensive aquaculture developmenton biodiversity, semi-intensive aquaculture is being considered as an alternative. Although thebiophysical impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity have been examined, there is only limited under-standing of the social and economic impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity, and especially theimpacts of the shift from intensive to semi-intensive systems. The purposes of this article are twofold:(1) to identify and discuss the social and economic impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity, and (2)to examine the impacts while moving from intensive to semi-intensive systems. After discussing thefindings of our study, we provide some recommendations as to how to minimize social and economicimpacts of aquaculture on biodiversity by moving to a lower intensity aquaculture system. Theintegrated agriculture-aquaculture farming systems, stakeholder involvement in management,and well defined basic rights are aquaculture systems that contribute to conservation of biodiversity.

Keywords biodiversity, semi-intensive aquaculture, social and economic impacts

INTRODUCTION

Aquaculture can be broadly classified as extensive, having no feed orfertilizer inputs and relying on natural food produced in the water body;semi-intensive, having some supplemental feed and=or fertilizers; andintensive, largely relying on nutritionally complete concentrate feed andfertilizers (Edwards, 1993; Dey et al., 2000). The pressure to use resources

Address correspondence to Robert Pomeroy, 380 Marine Science Building, 1080 ShennecossettRoad, University of Connecticut-Avery Point, Agricultural and Resource Economics=CT Sea Grant,Groton, Connecticut 06340. E-mail: [email protected]

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uaqm.

Aquaculture Economics & Management, 18:303–324, 2014Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1365-7305 print/1551-8663 onlineDOI: 10.1080/13657305.2014.926467

Aquaculture Economics & Management, 18:303–324, 2014Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1365-7305 print/1551-8663 onlineDOI: 10.1080/13657305.2014.926467

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

more efficiently, to increase competitiveness and to respond to marketforces is resulting in some areas in trends toward intensification of aqua-culture production. These are associated with more sophisticated farmmanagement, shift to monoculture of high-value species, and the targetingof more affluent consumers.

The rapid growth of aquaculture in recent years, especially the trendtowards intensification, has raised many questions about its environmentalsustainability and impact of biodiversity. A variety of biophysical impacts ofaquaculture (especially intensive systems) on biodiversity and ecosystemservices has been identified and examined (Beardmore et al., 1997; Diana,2009). These impacts are sometimes positive, sometimes neutral andusually negative. Impacts may be direct (e.g., genetic alteration of existingfish stocks) or indirect (e.g., loss of habitat). These impacts include:

1. Habitat loss and modification such as mangroves and wetlands;2. Fresh water availability;3. Pollution of local water resulting in effluents, eutrophication of water

bodies, and changes in the fauna of receiving waters;4. Escapement of aquatic crops and their potential hazard as invasive

species;5. Intensive collection of wild seed;6. Collection of wild fish for feed and fish meal and possible overexploi-

tation of fish stocks;7. Disease and parasite transfer from captive to wild stocks;8. Genetic alteration of existing stocks from escaped stocks;9. Predator mortality caused by, for example, killing birds near aquaculture

facilities;10. Effects of antibiotics and other chemical treatments.

As a result of the concern and debate about the impacts of intensiveaquaculture development on biodiversity, semi-intensive aquaculture is beingconsidered as an alternative since it will have different and potentially fewerimpacts on biodiversity. Depending on the proposed set of indicators andtargets as well as the utilization of the available resource, the producer willmake a choice with respect to intensity of the farming technique. Thesemi-intensive systems may be preferred as these would allow a wide rangeof producers to have a significant shift toward higher levels of productivitywhile using the production system. Semi-intensive aquaculture thus has thepotential to contribute to meeting the needs for expanded production ofanimal protein for an ever-growing world’s population (Diana et al., 2013).

Although the biophysical impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity have beenexamined, there is only limited understanding of the social and economicimpacts of aquaculture on biodiversity, and especially the impacts of the shift

304 R. Pomeroy et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

from intensive to semi-intensive systems. The purposes of this article aretwofold: (1) to identify and discuss the social and economic impacts of aquacul-ture on biodiversity, and (2) to examine the social and economic impacts onbiodiversity of moving from intensive to semi-intensive systems. Recommenda-tions will be made on how to minimize social and economic impacts ofaquaculture on biodiversity by moving to a lower intensity aquaculture system.

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF AQUACULTURE ONBIODIVERSITY

Biodiversity provides numerous ecosystem services that are crucialto human well-being at present and in the future. Ecosystem services arethe ecosystem processes or functions that have value to individuals orsociety (de Groot, 1992). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)described five major categories of ecosystem services:

1. Provisioning services are: The products obtained from ecosystems,including, for example, genetic resources, food and fiber, and fresh water.

2. Regulating services are: The benefits obtained from the regulation ofecosystem processes, including, for example, the regulation of climate,water, and some human diseases.

3. Cultural services are: The non-material benefits people obtain fromecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development,reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience, including knowledgesystems, social relations, and aesthetic values.

4. Supporting services are: Ecosystem services that are necessary for theproduction of all other ecosystem services. Some examples includebiomass production, production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formationand retention, nutrient cycling, crop pollination, water cycling, andprovisioning of habitat.

5. Preserving services are: The maintenance of genetic and speciesdiversity, accounting for uncertainty, protection of options.

There will be a variety of social and economic impacts from aquacultureon these ecosystem services.

Social Resilience

Aquaculture development has the potential to increase or reduce socialresilience of rural communities (Bailey, 2008). Social resilience is promotedby aquaculture development to the extent that the generation of entrepre-neurial opportunity and employment for local residents (Bailey, 2008): (1)

Impacts of Semi-Intensive Aquaculture on Biodiversity 305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

does not disrupt culturally accepted gender divisions of labor; (2) createsgreater diversity of economic activities in the local economy; (3) increasesthe local availability of food; (4) minimizes user conflicts; and (5) does notincrease inequalities of wealth, income, and power. Aquaculture can alsocontribute positively to social resilience by diversifying the portfolio ofhousehold economic activities and making fuller use of available resources(e.g., labor, management skill, water, agricultural wastes). Aquaculturedevelopment, which is scale-appropriate for the host community andregion, creates opportunity for entrepreneurial development among localresidents, with potential ripple effects across the entire local economy.

Conversely, aquaculture development that limits opportunities for localresidents, reduces the diversity of local economic activities, adversely affectsthe local supply of food, generates user group conflict and increases inequal-ities of wealth income and power will tend to reduce social resilience. Adger(2000) observed that construction of shrimp ponds in Vietnam decreasedsocial resilience by reducing the availability of mangrove, which provided awide array of important resources to people living in coastal communities.Shrimp farming generated profits, but these were highly variable and notwidely distributed among the population. The owner of the shrimp farm ben-efited from ‘‘enclosure’’ of the mangrove ‘‘commons,’’ but most local residentslost access to a source of food, building materials, and firewood. This loss ofaccess resulted in reduced social resilience, according to Adger et al. (2005).

People who are at the margins of society are likely to take what actionsthey find necessary to survive, even if those actions involve degradation ofthe biophysical environment. The more social resiliency is eroded, themore likely desperate people will engage in short-term survival behaviorthat is injurious to biodiversity and ecosystem services (Diana et al., 2013).

Most small-scale aquaculture activities involve family labor, allowing forfuller utilization of available human resources within the household. Whereproducers hire workers, the impact on social resilience with a communitywill depend on how such workers are recruited and compensated. Someproducers hire local residents so that others in the community benefit fromthe enterprise. In other cases, producers prefer to hire outsiders, in whichcase few benefits accrue to the local community (Muluk & Bailey, 1996).

Habitat Loss and ModificationProbably the most significant and apparent social and economic

impacts of aquaculture on provisioning, regulating and supporting servicesare habitat loss and modification such as mangroves and wetlands. Loss ofessential ecosystem services generated by mangroves, for example, includethe provisioning services of seafood; the supporting services for fish=crustacean nurseries and wildlife habitat; and the regulating services for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

coastal protection, flood control, sediment trapping and water treatment(Be et al., 1999).

Mangrove forests have also provided a sustainable and renewable resourceof firewood, timber, pulp, and charcoal for local communities. Shrimp ponds,for example, are often profitable only temporarily as they are subject todisease and to downward shifts in the shrimp market (Jadhav, 2008). Whenthe market falls, ponds are abandoned. A return to traditional fishing is notalways possible because the lost mangroves no longer serve as nursery areaswhich are critical for the recruitment of many wild fish stocks. Unemploymentprospects cannot always balance short-term gains. Large-scale mangroveconversion for shrimp and fish farming has displaced rural communities thatdepended on the mangrove resources for their livelihood (Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO), 1993).

Considering forest products and fisheries, as well as social benefits ofcoastal protection, shoreline stabilization and carbon sequestration, Sathir-athai (1997) concluded that mangrove conversion to commercial shrimpfarms in Surat Thani, Thailand was economically viable only for privatepersons but not for society as a whole. Further analysis of this mangrovesystem revealed that the intact forest had a total economic value 70% higherthan when converted to a shrimp farm ($60,000ha versus $16,700ha).

On the positive side, destructive land use practices, such as slash andburn agriculture, may be replaced by more sustainable practices, such asaquaculture in ponds that may generate income, reduce poverty, andimproved human health (Diana, 2009).

Food SecurityFood security and biodiversity, resulting from maintenance of provi-

sioning and preserving services, can be negatively affected by modernintensive aquaculture practices such as the use of small size fish and trashfish for fish feed. The uses of small size=trash fish are diverse and include:(1) human consumption (e.g., fresh, dried); (2) direct feed (e.g., livestock,high value species aquaculture); (3) fish meal production (e.g., poultry,aquaculture); and (4) value-added products (e.g., fish sauce) (Asia-PacificFishery Commission (APFIC), 2005).

There is increasing demand in the Asian region for small size=trash fish forboth aquaculture and animal feeds. There is also increasing conflict betweenthe use of small size=trash fish for feed and for human consumption. Theimpact is greater on the poor and needy as the market price of the potentiallyfood-grade fish is raiseddue to increasingmarket demands for themas fish feed(Funge-Smith et al., 2005). The other negative impact of certain aquaculturepracticeson foodsecurity is thedepletionofwild stockbecauseofpoorpracticesin collecting wild seed and broodstock for culture (Beardmore et al., 1997).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Due to the expansion of both scale and efficiency of aquaculture therehas been a downward trend in the unit price of many locally consumedfood fish species including cyprinids and tilapia, as has been the case inChina (FAO, 2007). Such a downward trend in prices, while beneficial tothe consumers in the short term also has its downside. The reduced unitvalue may not necessarily be attributable to lower production costs butmay be due to increased supply. This would mean lower profit marginsand would make small-scale operations less viable. When this happens,there will be a greater impetus to shift to high-value species that can returna substantially higher profit margin. This appears to be the case in Chinawhere there has been a surge in the production of high-value freshwaterspecies such as mandarin fish, mitten-handed river crabs (Eriocheir sinenses),river prawns (Macrobrachium spp.) and even the Pacific white shrimp (Penaeusvannamei). In the Philippines most of the cage and pen grown milkfish areproduced by large-scale operators who make up for the low margin byexpanding into larger volume production.

Tisdell (2002) found that aquaculture development can impactnegatively on wild stocks, thereby shifting the supply curve of the capturefishery, or raising the demand for the fish species subject both to aqua-culture and capture. Such development can threaten wild stocks and theirbiodiversity. Although aquaculture development could, in principle, haveno impact on the biodiversity of wild stocks or even raise aquatic biodiver-sity overall, its impact in the long term probably will be one of reducingaquatic diversity both in the wild and overall. The development of aquacul-ture may fail to save a captured fish species from extinction.

Given the experience with the long-term genetic consequences ofagriculture, it seems highly likely that as aquaculture develops and expands,this will tend to reduce wild genetic stock. In addition, although geneticdiversity within aquaculture may initially rise, in the very long term, it mightbe expected to decline after peaking. However, the later development ofaquaculture compared to agriculture, especially compared to livestockhusbandry, may result in some differences in the evolving extent of animaldiversity in aquaculture. The institutional arrangements affecting aqua-culture’s development today, particularly globalization factors, are quitedifferent from those surrounding the earlier development of livestockhusbandry. So, some differences in patterns of global genetic developmentin aquaculture and in livestock production might be anticipated.

On the other hand, the argument that aquaculture is the main con-tributor to disbalance between the food security and biodiversity wouldbe biased and rest on the premise of having a positive impact on food secur-ity. It has been recognized that some effects of aquaculture on biodiversitysuch as effluents and waste from aquaculture can increase local production,abundance and diversity of species (FAO, 2007).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Human Health IssuesAquaculture, which uses water from the river, estuary, or coastal areas,

is prone to external pollution (thus impacting regulating services) and theproduce (fish, prawns) can be a human health risk if consumed. Red-tideoutbreaks have occurred increasingly in areas where shellfish is cultured(Primavera, 2006). Risk to humans stems from the persistence of chemicalsin edible tissues which can result in development of antibiotic resistance andaccumulation of residues. A study done by the National University ofMalaysia on a tiger prawn project, which uses water from the Inanam Riverestuary in Sabah, is a case in point. Light industries (workshops, etc.), pigand poultry farms located near the estuary are sources of pollution. Thewater of the Inanam River and prawn ponds was monitored. Dissolved cobaltand lead were found to be higher than the recommended values of 0.05mg=l.Suspended solids were found to be higher than the maximum valuerecommended (40mg=l) by the World Health Organization (FAO, 2007).

Human Rights Abuses, Social Disruption, Conflicts and ViolenceAquaculture development can generate conflicts between competing

uses and users of land and water resources (Bailey, 2008). Upstream anddownstream water users affect or are affected by aquaculture, generatingconflicts that can disrupt the social fabric of communities if not carefullymanaged. Conflicts have been known to arise because of the pollution ofwater resources, blocking of access to the coastal resources and navigationby aquaculture installations, salination of crop lands, encroachment, anddecline in fish catch due to various aquaculture impacts including fish killsthat also affect the wild fisheries and may lead to a reduction in biodiversity.

Many rural communities enjoy the employment opportunities possiblewith aquaculture, but conflicts often develop within these communitieswhen traditional employment clashes with the aquaculture industry. Theseconflicts include violence between crop farmers and shrimp growers,between coastal fishers and shrimp growers, between artisanal fishers andcage and pen culturists, and even between those that want to raise fish incommunal village tanks and those that only want the tank for water, andbetween small farmers and the bigger farmers. Major social conflicts canalso arise because of competition for water at the small-scale level, suchas in sub-Saharan Africa between tobacco farmers and fish farmers.

Resource OwnershipAquaculture development can lead to privatization of public lands and

waterways. Local fishing communities often do not hold title to coastalwetlands, and have at times been displaced by shrimp consortia thathave acquired leases along tropical shorelines. Resource ownership is often


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

complex or ambiguous in prime aquaculture locations because propertyrights are unclear. Mangrove conversion into shrimp ponds was a widespreadproblem during the 1980s in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Mangrovestypically are public lands only loosely managed by governments, and conver-sion to shrimp ponds is the clearest example in the literature of aquaculturedevelopment representing a threat to resilience of local social systems.

The growth of Ecuador’s shrimp mariculture industry was possible inpart because of the lack of restrictions placed on mariculture entre-preneurs. Prospective shrimp farmers privatized communal lands by build-ing ponds on them, thus denying access to important sources of livelihoodto resource poor groups. In another case in Ecuador, access to traditionalresources was physically blocked by shrimp ponds. A large pond wasconstructed between the town and its agricultural fields (Epler, 1992).

Rural CommunitiesAquaculture development takes place in a social, economic and

political context that can either increase or reduce vulnerability to ruralcommunities (Bailey, 2008). Aquaculture development has been creditedwith stimulating the development of the rural communities in which theyare located by direct employment of residents, and the generation ofgreater economic activity with the establishment of support services.Aquaculture development brings with it an infusion of cash to areas, whichmay not merit consideration for other types of industry. Wages for locallabor become part of the local economy as they are used to pay for localgoods and services. Commercial-scale investment also spurs the govern-ment to provide or improve the infrastructure of an isolated area in theform of roads, bridges and often electricity.

However, this rural development often involves and benefits the elite.The elite often appropriate natural resources and aquaculture projects.The appropriation of land in rural communities can cause rural unemploy-ment and urban migration as aquaculture development does not requirea large amount of labor and people put off their land or who no longerhave access to coastal areas may become unemployed and migrateto urban areas looking for jobs. It may also put more pressure on theresources impacting biodiversity.

Specialization, such as aquaculture development, tends to increasevulnerability within resource dependent communities. These communitiestend to be vulnerable to externally driven changes, including external con-trol over the resource, changing government policies that affect resourceavailability, market valuations, or competition from other producers(Freudenburg, 1992). These forms of vulnerability affect the resilience ofcommunities dependent upon natural resources.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Rural communities divided by ethnic or class boundaries, and societieswithout adequate governance structures, which provide clear policies andassurances of stability provide inhospitable settings for success even whenthe biophysical conditions are favorable. Where monopolistic or oligopolisticmarkets exist, or corrupt political systems set policies and issue permits,producers can be vulnerable to forces beyond their control (Bailey, 2008).

Economic Diversification

Aquaculture may allow for greater integration of other householdeconomic enterprises (Burbridge et al., 2001). Water from ponds can be usedfor limited irrigation needs while crop residues and animal wastes can be usedto fertilize ponds for production of carps, tilapias, or other appropriatespecies. This diversification can minimize risks while maximizing incomeopportunities. The introduction of aquaculture may fit into an adaptivestrategy that is central to the resilience of rural economies. The introductionof aquaculture production systems that require increasing technical sophisti-cation and investment of financial and human capital would tend to promotespecialization rather than diversification of enterprises.

Fresh Water AvailabilityWhere aquaculture depends on groundwater, such use may conflict

with others both in terms of supply and quality impacting the deliveryof ecosystem services. Saltwater intrusion is a common problem in coastalareas where shrimp farmers pump freshwater from coastal aquifers tocontrol salinities. Pumping large volumes of underground water to achievebrackish water salinity in the 1980s to mid-1990s have led to the lowering ofgroundwater levels, emptying of aquifers, land subsidence and salinizationof adjacent land and waterways in Taiwan and Southeast Asia (Primavera,1997; Primavera, 2006). Even when fresh water is no longer pumped fromaquifers, the discharge of salt water from shrimp farms located behindmangroves still causes salinization in adjoining rice and other agriculturallands (Dierberg & Kiattisimkul, 1996). The development of low salinityshrimp farming in Thailand paved the way for industry expansion into ricepaddies and other inland sites (Flaherty & Miller, 2000).

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITYOF MOVING FROM INTENSIVE TO SEMI-INTENSIVEAQUACULTURE SYSTEMS

There are fundamental economic and social differences betweenextensive=semi-intensive and intensive systems of aquaculture production.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Profitability, Cost Effectiveness, Factor Shares, andInvestment Requirements

Among various continents, Asia has the most diverse aquaculture systems.Aquaculture has been developed in Asia for many centuries. Currently,aquaculture technologies in Asia range from sophisticated and very intensivefish farming to more traditional and extensive practices. In this section, wereviewed economics of diverse fish farming systems in eight major aquacultureproducing countries of Asia (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines,Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam). China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia andBangladesh are the top five aquaculture producers of the world (FAO,2012). Myanmar is also becoming a major aquaculture producer, but detailedstudies on economics of fish farming in Myanmar are not available.

Costs and returns of freshwater aquaculture production in selectedAsian countries are presented in Table 1. The data is grouped by species,then by intensity level and gross cost. An important indicator iscost-effectiveness, measured here by the ratio of the gross margin to vari-able cost, i.e., the net income that one dollar of current outlay is expectedto earn within one production cycle. If cost-effectiveness is low, one needsa larger outlay to hit the same gross margin, which may be a problem ifthere are limits to expansion, e.g., due to credit constraints.

As expected, as intensity increases, costs, as well as revenue, rises(though the pattern may be obscured by differences across countries). Prof-itability also exhibits a tendency to rise with intensity, but the pattern ismuch less obvious. It is noteworthy that cost-effectiveness appears to beunrelated to intensity; if at all, increasing intensity seems to be associatedwith lower cost-effectiveness. What is evident is that extensive systemsperform relatively poorly in terms of profitability and cost-effectiveness.However, moderate increases in intensity can make a big difference inprofitability and cost-effectiveness, though this improvement does notnecessarily continue with increasing level of intensity. In India, carppolyculture in ponds with low inputs had the highest return per dollarof operating capital, while ponds with high inputs had the lowest. InThailand, although snakehead culture had one of the highest gross margins,cost-effectiveness was among the lowest.

Costs and returns data for brackishwater fish culture in the selectedAsian countries are presented in Table 2, which is grouped and orderedin the same way as Table 1. Similar patterns are observed as in freshwaterculture, although cost, returns, and profits are on a higher level, giventhe higher unit value of brackish water species. It is noteworthy that exten-sive shrimp culture in Thailand is highly cost-effective and semi-intensiveculture even more so, but cost-effectiveness is mediocre for intensivesystems (despite higher gross margins).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

TABLE1

Costsan

dReturnsofFreshwater

FishProductionin

Selected

Asian

Countries(U

S$=ha=cycle),20

04=05

Prices

Species

Intensity

Country

Culture

System

Yield(kg)

Gross

Return

Gross

Cost

Variable

Cost

Gross

Margin

Gross

Margin=

Variable

Cost

Carp

EIndonesia

Pondmono

1,20

51,26

888

088

038

80.44

Carp

IEBan

glad

esh

Pondpoly

2,16

12,09

11,06

096

41,12

71.17

Carp

SIIndia

Lowinput

2,50

01,59

289

067

891

41.35

Carp

SIVietnam

Pondmono

3,64

72,37

497

697

61,39

81.43

Carp

SIThailand

Pondpoly

4,28

02,52

71,33

61,22

91,29

81.06

Carp

SIIndonesia

Cagemono

2,52

52,18

21,74

21,74

244

00.25

Carp

SIIndia

Highinput

12,500

7,96

16,50

46,29

21,66

90.27

Carp

SIChina

Pondpoly

12,708

13,791

10,381

9,44

64,35

20.46

Carp

IChina

Pondpoly

19,748

11,207

6,78

06,17

05,04

30.82

Catfish

SIIndonesia

Pondmono

2,13

61,53

81,35

51,29

024

80.19

Crab

EChina

Pen

lake

417

4,79

82,82

12,59

52,20

50.85

FW

prawn

SIThailand

Pondmono

4,00

011

,818

9,40

98,46

83,35

00.40

Man

darin

SIChina

Pondmono

6,75

028

,992

13,657

12,428

16,578

1.33

Prawn

SIIndia

Pondmono

1,50

06,36

93,42

33,21

13,15

80.98

Prawn

SIChina

Pondmono

2,09

76,11

84,39

93,51

92,60

20.74

Snakeh

ead

IThailand

Pondmono

60,450

74,440

69,958

67,859

6,58

00.10

Tilap

iaE

Ban

glad

esh

Cagemono

383

314

147

122

192

1.57

Tilap

iaE

Indonesia

Pondmono

1,18

056

635

533

822

80.68

Tilap

iaE

Philippines

Casemono

540

648

462

297

351

1.18

Tilap

iaSI

Ban

glad

esh

Pondmono

4,05

01,86

366

745

31,41

03.11

Tilap

iaSI

China

Pondmono

5,86

07,81

94,37

23,97

43,84

80.97

Tilap

iaI

Thailand

River

cage

4,38

23,65

02,99

72,93

671

30.24

Tilap

iaI

Philippines

Pondmono

10,800

9,56

43,73

13,10

96,45

52.08

Tilap

ia=catfish

IMalaysia

Floatingcage

5,30

36,00

39,06

95,30

170

20.13

Notes.Areais

measuredin

hectare

forpondan

d10

0m

2forcage

.E:ex

tensive,IE:im

provedex

tensive,SI:semi-intensive,I:intensive,FW:freshwater.#

[ICLARM

(WorldFish)].Rep

roducedbypermissionofDianeSh

ohet.Permissionto

reuse

must

beobtained

from

therigh

tsholder.

313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

TABLE2

Costsan

dReturnsofBrackishwater

FishCulture

inSe

lected

Asian

Countries(U

S$=ha=cycle),in

2004

=05

Prices

Species

Country

Intensity

Culture

System

Yield(kg)

Price

(US$

=kg

)Gross

Return

Gross

Cost

Variable

Cost

Gross

Margin

Gross

Margin=

Variable

Cost

Shrimp

Thailand

EPondmono

104

4.68

487

184

103

384

3.74

Shrimp

Ban

glad

esh

EPondmono

250

6.27

1,56

71,05

187

669

10.79

Shrimp

Vietnam

EPondmono

500

3.57

1,78

51,21

51,01

377

20.76

Shrimp

Indonesia

EPondmono

650

4.71

3,06

21,86

01,55

01,51

20.98

Prawn

Philippines

EPondmono

450

5.12

2,30

32,04

61,35

694

60.70

Shrimp

India

EPondmono

1,00

05.94

5,94

42,23

81,86

54,08

02.19

Shrimp

India

IEPondmono

2,00

05.94

11,889

5,09

54,24

67,64

31.80

Shrimp

Thailand

SIPondmono

356

5.90

2,10

040

125

61,84

37.19

Shrimp

Vietnam

SIPondmono

2,00

05.36

10,710

9,23

37,69

43,01

60.39

Shrimp

India

SIPondmono

4,00

05.94

23,778

11,889

9,90

713

,870

1.40

Prawn

Philippines

SIPondmono

2,70

05.51

14,878

19,341

10,192

4,68

60.46

Shrimp

Thailand

IPondmono

2,11

65.29

11,200

10,122

8,40

12,79

90.33

Shrimp

Vietnam

IPondmono

4,00

05.36

21,420

12,916

10,763

10,656

0.99

Prawn

Philippines

IPondmono

7,02

05.41

37,992

47,614

25,703

12,290

0.48

Shrimp

Malaysia

IPondmono

11,894

7.37

87,650

56,078

46,732

40,919

0.88

Milkfish

Indonesia

IEPondmono

1,13

80.95

1,08

31,06

288

519

80.22

Mudcrab

Philippines

IEPondmono

1,05

03.94

4,13

33,22

21,69

42,43

81.44

Notes.E:ex

tensive,IE:im

proved

extensive,SI:semi-intensive,I:

intensive.Sh

rimp=prawn

cycleis

biannual;milkfish

istypically

triannual;mud

crab

isbiannual.#

[ICLARM

(WorldFish)].Rep

roducedbypermissionofDianeSh

ohet.Permissionto

reuse

must

beobtained

from

therigh

tsholder.

314

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Across species, extensive, improved extensive and semi-intensivemonoculture of shrimp in India appears to be a good performer in termsof both gross margin and cost-effectiveness. Improved extensive mud crabfarming in the Philippines also had reasonably high gross margins andcost-effectiveness. Overall, the data suggest that the technologies whichwere more profitable and cost-effective were extensive and semi-intensive(Figure 1). Such technologies involve lower operating costs and appearto be more affordable from the viewpoint of resource-poor farmers.

Over the last several years, some farmers in Bangladesh have beenconverting their rice land to fish ponds for intensive aquaculture. These capi-tal intensive fish farmers are not very cost-effective, even less than some ofthe semi-intensive farms (Table 3). Some of these intensive farmers havestarted limiting fish culture to only one growing season (for about 6–7months) and then cultivating rice during the dry season in those fish ponds.

Table 4 presents factor shares (i.e., percentages in gross return) for themajor inputs in freshwater aquaculture. Aquaculture intensity would a prioribe positively associated with capital intensity, an expectation that is met bythe tabulation. Note that high capital intensity implies a greater investmentneed; hence, the large required outlays for fixed and working capital raiseentry barriers for the poor. A notable exception is the case of Indonesia,where extensive and semi-intensive pond monocultures of tilapia andcatfish were associated with very low use of labor and high use of feedand seed. The other exception was the labor-intensive pond monocultureof carp and tilapia in Philippines.

FIGURE 1 Cost-effectiveness and the level of intensity. # [ICLARM (WorldFish)]. Reproduced bypermission of Diane Shohet. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Intensive culture systems are also associated with a higher proportion offeed cost in the total cost. This is illustrated by intensive and semi-intensivepond polyculture of carp and pond monoculture of prawn in China,intensive floating cage culture of tilapia in Malaysia, intensive freshwaterprawn monoculture in Philippines, and intensive pond monoculture ofsnakehead, river cage culture of tilapia, and semi-intensive freshwater pondmonoculture of prawn in Thailand (Table 4). The technologies that hada higher share of labor in the production cost were extensive=improvedextensive pond polyculture of carp in Bangladesh, duck-fish culturein India, extensive pen culture of crab in lake in China, and semi-intensivepond monoculture of carp and fish-paddy culture in Vietnam.

Table 5 shows factor shares in the brackishwater aquaculture techno-logies in nine Asian countries. In all cases, the species was shrimp=prawnand the culture system was pond monoculture. Irrespective of the intensityof culture, seed constituted a major share in the total production cost,except for semi-intensive and intensive shrimp=prawn culture in Vietnamand in the Philippines where seed constituted a relatively lesser sharein the total cost of production. Moreover, intensive cultures were alsoassociated with higher use of feed inputs, as for intensive and semi-intensiveshrimp=prawn culture in Malaysia, Vietnam and Philippines. In contrast,

TABLE 3 Cost and Return of Intensive Fish Farming in Muktagacha, Bangladesh, 2011(US$=ha)

Cost and Return Pangas-Based Farming Climbing Perch-Based Farming

Cost (US$=ha)Land-relatedDitch making and dyke preparation 365 81Lease value or land rent 257 342InputFingerling 2119 1554Feed 20129 10122Fertilizer 149 158Irrigation 517 179Labor cost 3030 158Management-relatedManagement 385 208Guarding 45Harvest- and Post-harvest-relatedFish harvesting 479 236Transport and marketing 6 6Total Cost (US$=ha) 27481 13042Total Variable Cost 26429 12411Yield (Kg=ha) 41946 10480Gross Return (US$=ha) 36936 24501Net return (US$=ha) 9455 11459Gross Margin (US$=ha) 10507 12090Gross Margin=variable cost 0.398 0.974

Source: Field survey.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

extensive cultures tend to be labor-intensive, as for extensive pond mono-culture and shrimp-rice culture in Bangladesh, and extensive pond mono-culture of shrimp in Indonesia and Vietnam.

TABLE 5 Factor Shares and Investment Needs in Brackishwater Aquaculture Technologies in theSelected Countries

Country SpeciesCultureSystem Intensity

Factor Shares (%)Investment

Requirement (US$=ha)Seed Feed Labor

Bangladesh Shrimp Pond mono E 40 2 47 863Shrimp Shrimp-rice E 36 2 35 812

India Shrimp Pond mono IE 24 20 10 3,497Indonesia Shrimp Pond mono E 32 12 24 1,550Malaysia Shrimp Pond mono I 10 49 6 43,362Philippines Prawn Pond mono SI 7 44 5 10,194Thailand Shrimp Pond mono SI 14 – 16 802Vietnam Shrimp Pond mono E 24 10 15 932Vietnam Shrimp Pond mono SI 8 32 6 6,763Vietnam Shrimp Pond mono I 8 62 7 10,763

# [ICLARM (WorldFish)]. Reproduced by permission of Diane Shohet. Permission to reuse must beobtained from the rightsholder.

TABLE 4 Factor Shares and Investment Needs in Freshwater Aquaculture Technologies in theSelected Asian Countries

Country SpeciesCultureSystem Intensity

Factor Shares (%)Investment Requirement

(US$=ha=100m2)Seed Feed Labor

Bangladesh Carp Pond poly IE 27 20 30 1,108China Carp Pond poly SI 24 49 9 6,780

I 28 46 8 10,380Prawn Pond mono SI 20 68 9 3,000Crab Pen lake E 29 32 18 1,000

India Carp Pond poly SI (LI) 8 14 10 949SI (HI) 7 7 10 6,369

Prawn Pond mono SI 10 20 10 3,397Carp Duck-fish SI 6 16 24 1,303

Indonesia Tilapia Pond mono E 35 58 6 352Catfish Pond mono SI 24 70 5 1,075

Malaysia Tilapia Floating cage I 10 79 7 6,764Philippines Carp Pond mono I 28 4 68 2,125

Tilapia Pond mono I 19 23 55 3,109FW Prawn Pond mono I 24 53 12 4,074

Thailand Carp Pond poly SI 19 32 16 1,435Snakehead Pond mono I 5 69 12 29,845FW Prawn Pond mono SI 19 49 7 4,270Tilapia River cage I 17 73 2 2,997

Vietnam Carp Pond mono SI 25 28 24 976Carp Fish-paddy SI 20 – 40 712

# [ICLARM (WorldFish)]. Reproduced by permission of Diane Shohet. Permission to reuse must beobtained from the rightsholder.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Tables 1–5 reveal that today’s production costs in intensive or highinput semi-intensive aquaculture systems are often too high to be a sustain-able economic activity (high feed cost, high labor costs, high land costs).The price of feed (e.g., fish meal and fish oil), which contributes most ofthe cost of intensive aquaculture operation, has increased three to fourtimes over the last few years (Dey et al., 2008).

Dey et al. (2008) reported the results of a prioritization exercise whereAsian aquaculture leaders agreed to adopt five criteria for prioritizingpro-poor aquaculture technologies. These criteria are: (1) productionefficiency, (2) food and nutrition security, (3) employment generation,(4) impact on the environment and (5) acceptability by the poor. Basedon these criteria, top ranked grow-out aquaculture technologies are mostlyextensive, improved extensive, or semi-intensive (Dey et al., 2008).

IMPACT OF SEMI-INTENSIVE INTEGRATED AQUACULTURE-AGRICULTURE ON BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Various studies (including Dey et al., 2007; Dey et al., 2010; Jahan &Pemsl, 2011) reveal that semi-intensive aquaculture integrated with othercomponents of farming activities (such as cereal, vegetables, livestock)is a sustainable practice and does improve farm biodiversity. Dey et al.(2007) have analyzed the effect of integrated aquaculture-agriculture(IAA) technologies on the sustainability of natural resource use in Malawiusing the following four sustainability indicators: (a) diversity (number ofspecies=enterprises maintained and utilized in the farming systems); inother words, managed biodiversity or agrodiversity; (b) recycling (numberof movements of biological output or by-product=waste from one naturalresource enterprise to another within the farming system); (c) capacity(product biomass yield in tons per hectare); and (d) economic perfor-mance (profit-cost ratio).

Results indicate that semi-intensive IAA farmers have increased enter-prise diversity, recycling flows among enterprises, the overall biomass pro-duction, as well as improved economic performance, even though resultsmight vary over time (Dey et al., 2007). Semi-intensive integrated fishpondsact as on-farm mini-reservoirs that store nutrient-loaded water, enable thecultivation of vegetables on the pond dikes or in the pond vicinity. Often,ponds are constructed in locations adjacent to streams, or farmer groupsorganize small and simple irrigation=conveyance systems to have year-round access to water.

Although the primary motivation for establishing the water supply andholding facilities was that of fish culture, the complementary productionof fish and vegetables, or use of the water for other (agricultural) activities


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

can increase household income and overall sustainability of the farmingsystem. However, issues of finiteness and fragility of the water sources needto be considered in up-scaling and adopting irrigation by larger numbers offarmers.

Brummett and Costa-Pierce (2002) found that adoption of IAA hasa positive impact on the sustainability of farming systems through resourcerecycling and use of pond water and nutrients for growing agriculturalcrops. Jahan and Pemsl (2011) show that semi-intensive IAA technologyoffers Bangladeshi farmers economic improvements while reducing theadverse environmental impacts of farming. Phong et al. (2010) found simi-lar results in the Mekong delta of Vietnam. Sheriff et al. (2010) reveal thatcommunity-based extensive fish culture in the Bangladesh floodplainenhances abundance of non-stocked fish species by about 10 to 20%. A veryrecent survey by Dey et al. (2013) found similar results for semi-intensivecommunity-based fish culture in floodplains in eastern Bangladesh. Withan average yield of about 4300 kg=ha stocked fish, farmers still get about70 kg=ha non-stocked fish of 16 different species.

IMPACT OF SEMI-INTENSIVE SYSTEM ON FOOD SECURITY

Semi-intensive aquaculture has relevance for food security. Nutritionalinputs in semi-intensive production can be on-farm by-products; even whenoff-farm fertilizers and supplementary feeds are purchased, they arecheaper than formulated feed used in intensive systems. Low cost inputsare affordable to poorer farmers and because the cost of productionis low, the fish can be sold at a reasonable and affordable price to poorconsumers. In contrast, fish cultured intensively can be marketed profitablyonly at a relatively high price because of the high production cost, whichputs them beyond the purchasing power of most consumers.

Most of the semi-intensive aquaculture systems, particularly thosepracticed in freshwater environments are polyculture in nature (Deyet al., 2008). Many farmers in Bangladesh culture low-value herbivorousand=or omnivorous freshwater finfish in inland rural communities, withinsemi-intensive or extensive farming systems, that use moderate to low levelsof production inputs, and supply large quantities of affordable fish fordomestic markets and home consumption (Prein & Ahmed, 2000; Jahan,Ahmed, & Belton, 2010).

Recent studies in Bangladesh (Jahan & Pemsl, 2011) and Malawi (Deyet al., 2007) show that integrated agriculture-aquaculture (IAA) systemsimprove nutrition and food security, both within IAA farm householdsand in non-IAA households in the community. These effects are direct,through within-household consumption and dietary improvement, but


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

also indirect, through sale of fish produce and purchase of other fooditems (often at lower unit value than the sold fish). Several studiesconducted in Bangladesh and other Asian developing countries showthat semi-intensive polyculture of finfish with small indigenous speciesreduces vitamin A and mineral deficiencies among poor households(Ross et al., 2007).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO MINIMIZE THESOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF AQUACULTURE ONBIODIVERSITY

The positive social and economic impacts of aquaculture are wellknown and include increased social resilience, provision of rural liveli-hoods, better income and new or alternative employment, additionalincome from integrated systems, food security and better nutrition, anddevelopment of rural areas; the latter is also seen as a means to arrest urbanmigration. Negative impacts of aquaculture arise due to the constant needto produce more by expanding the production area or by increasing theunit productivity. Under such circumstances conflicts arise that stem fromcompetition for common resources as well as denial to some groups ofaccess to resources; social inequities when benefits from aquaculture arenot equitably shared; from us of common resources by aquaculture opera-tions; and damage caused to the ecosystem by aquaculture and the cost ofmitigating the damage or restoring the ecosystem.

When interest in aquaculture shifts to generate cash with develop-ment of the economy, the use of on-farm resources alone is insufficient.This is particularly true where opportunity costs of labor through alter-native activities to aquaculture are high. This lesson was learned throughover a decade’s involvement by AIT and collaborating national institutionsin the promotion of aquaculture, starting in Northeast Thailand, andextending to Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam over the last five years.Dependence of extensive=semi-intensive aquaculture on natural processesalso limits their productivity, implying a low compatibility with intenseeconomic activity.

There are aquaculture systems that contribute to conservation ofbiodiversity. The most well-known are integrated agriculture- aquaculturefarming systems. A balanced strategy with judicious use of on-farm by-products and relatively cheap off-farm inputs is required to increase fishproduction to levels attractive to the farmer, thus addressing both socialand environmental aspects of sustainability.

Products coming from extensive and semi-intensive culture are alsopoorly differentiated by the majority of consumers from intensive farming


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

products. The simple recognition of non-market benefits associated withextensive aquaculture such as the maintenance of wetland functionalities,landscape structure or sentinel of coastal ecosystem integrity does notensure improved economic viability of these productions. The road of sub-sidizing production for non-market services to the environment has beenproven to be a difficult path to improve sustainability.

The search for internal incentives such as product value-adding orincome diversification may be more efficient. There are many options forthat. One is in the differentiation of products based on collective actionto build niche markets offering premiums to products from extensiveand semi-intensive aquaculture. The other is to consider the diversityof complementary activities than can be developed to generate incomein the form of added-value to the product or in the form of other activitiesbenefiting of the environment and image of extensive and semi-intensiveaquaculture.

The adoption of better management practices would avoid or mitigatethe impacts of aquaculture. Such practices should be enforced by legis-lation or adopted on a voluntary basis. Compliance with regulations andadoption of better management practices would necessarily entail cost toaquaculture. The aquaculturist should be required to internalize the costsof negative impacts on the environment from the aquaculture operation.Clay (2004) reports that better management practices can pay forthemselves and he advocates support for small farmers to make the transitioninto better management practices, rather than leaving this to the marketalone, through government subsidies in the short term.

Stakeholder involvement in aquaculture policymaking, planning andmanagement can lead to more realistic and effective policies and plansas well as improve their implementation. Stakeholder involvement makesit easier to develop and implement realistic aquaculture policies and plans,new initiatives can be embedded into existing legitimate local institutions,there is less opposition and greater political support, and local capacitiesare developed and political interference is minimized.

Well-defined basic rights (property, human, labor) of individuals andthe welfare of the public should take precedence over that of interestgroups (Bailly & Willmann, 2001). Clear rights defining access rights andlimitations to various types of activities, and recognizing basic individualrights such as access to shore or water with specific properties would helpprivate and public promoters of aquaculture development plan theiractivities with more security and a more informed basis for decisions.Well-defined individual or collective rights act as incentive where thosewho have rights, either on the side of the aquaculture promoter oron the part of another interested party, can use them for persuasion orcan claim them in front of jurisdiction capable of enforcement.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

FUNDING

We wish to acknowledge support from the AquaFish CollaborativeResearch Support Program (CRSP).

REFERENCES

Adger, W.N. (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography,24(3), 347–364.

Adger, W.N., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, & J. Rockstrom (2005) Social-ecological resilienceto coastal disasters. Science, 309(12), 1036–1039.

Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC) (2005) APFIC Regional Workshop on Low-Value and ‘‘Trash Fish’’in the Asia-Pacific Region. Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission, Hanoi, Vietnam, 7–9 June 2005. Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific,Bangkok, Thailand.

Bailey, C. (2008) Human dimensions of an ecosystem approach to aquaculture. In D. Soto, J.Aguilar-Manjarrez, & N. Hishamunda (Eds.), Building an Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture(pp. 37–46). FAO=Universitat de les Illes Balears Expert Workshop, Palma de Mallorca, Spain,7–11 May. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 14. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Bailly, D. & R. Willmann (2001) Promoting sustainable aquaculture through economic and otherincentives. In R.P. Subasinghe, P.B. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery, & J.R. Arthur(Eds.), Aquaculture in the Third Millennium (pp. 65–103). Technical proceedings of the Conferenceon Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20–25 February. The network ofaquaculture centers in Asia-pacific (NACA), Bangkok, Thailand, and FAO, Rome, Italy.

Be, T.T., L.C. Dung, & D. Brennan (1999) Environmental costs of shrimp culture in the rice-growingregions of the Mekong Delta. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 3(1), 31–42.

Beardmore, J.A., G.C. Mair, & R.I. Lewis (1997) Biodiversity in aquatic systems in relation toaquaculture. Aquaculture Research, 28, 829–839.

Brummett, R.E. & B.A. Costa-Pierce (2002) Village-based aquaculture ecosystems as a model forsustainable aquaculture development in sub-Saharan Africa. In B.A. Costa-Pierce (Ed.), EcologicalAquaculture: The Evolution of the Blue Revolution (pp. 145–160). Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.

Burbridge, P.V., E.R. Hendrick, & H. Rosenthal (2001) Social and economic policy issues relevantto marine aquaculture. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 17, 194–206.

Clay, J. (2004) World aquaculture and the environment. A commodity by commodity guide to impactsand practices. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Dey, M.M., G.B. Bimbao, L. Yong, P. Regaspi, A.H.M. Kohinoor, N. Pongthana, & F.J. Paraguas (2000)Current status of production and consumption of tilapia in selected Asian countries. AquacultureEconomics & Management, 4(1=2), 13–30.

Dey, M.M., R.M. Briones, Y.T. Garcia, A. Nissapa, U.P. Rodriguez, R.K. Talukder, . . . F.J. Paraguas (2008) Stra-tegies and Options for Increasing and Sustaining Fisheries and Aquaculture Production to Benefit Poorer House-holds in Asia. WorldFish Center Studies andReviews No. 1823. TheWorldFish Center, Penang,Malaysia.

Dey, M.M., P. Kambewa, M. Prein, D. Jamu, F.J. Paraguas, D.E. Pemsl, & R.M. Briones (2007) Impactof the development and dissemination of integrated aquaculture-agriculture (IAA) technologiesin Malawi. In H. Waibel & D. Zilberman (Eds.), International Research on Natural Research Management:Advances in Impact Assessment (pp. 118–146). FAO and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau Inter-national (CAB International), Oxfordshire, UK.

Dey, M.M., F.J. Paraguas, P. Kambewa, & D. Pemsl (2010) The impact of integrated aquaculture-agricultureon small-scale farms in southern Malawi. Agricultural Economics, 41(1), 67–79.

Dey, M.M., D.J. Spielman, A.B.M. Mahfuzul Haque, M.S. Rahman, & R.A. Valmonte-Santos (2013)Changes and diversity in smallholder rice-fish systems: Recent evidence and policy lessons fromBangladesh. Food Policy, 43, 108–117.

Dey, M.M., D.J. Spielman, A.B.M. Mahfuzul Haque, M.S. Rahman, & R.A. Valmonte-Santos (2012)Changes and diversity in smallholder rice-fish systems: Recent evidence and policy lessons from


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Bangladesh. Discussion paper 01220. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),Washington, DC, USA.

Diana, J.S. (2009) Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation. Bioscience, 59(1), 27–38.Diana, J.S., H.S. Egna, T. Chopin, M.S. Peterson, L. Cao, R. Pomeroy, . . . F. Cabello (2013) Responsible

aquaculture in 2050: Valuing local conditions and human innovations will be key to success.Bioscience, 63(4), 255–262.

Dierberg, F.E. & W. Kiattisimkul (1996) Issues, impacts, and implications of shrimp aquaculture inThailand. Environmental Management, 20(5), 649–66.

Edwards, P. (1993) Environmental issues in integrated agriculture—Aquaculture and wastewater-fed fishculture systems. In R.S.V. Pullin, H. Rosenthal, & J.L. Maclean (Eds.), Environment and Aquaculturein Developing (pp. 139–170). ICLARM Conference Proceedings 31. International Center for LivingAquatic Resources Management, Manila, the Philippines.

Epler, B. (1992) Social ramifications of mariculture on coastal Ecuadorian communities. In R.B. Pollnac& P. Weeks (Eds.), Coastal Aquaculture in Developing Countries: Problems and Perspectives. InternationalCenter for Marine Resource Development, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island,USA.

Flaherty, M. & S.B. Miller (2000) Low salinity inland shrimp farming in Thailand. Ambio,29(3), 174–179.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2007) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. FAOFisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2012) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012. FAOFisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Freudenburg, W.R. (1992) Addictive economies: extractive industries and vulnerable localities ina changing world economy. Rural Sociology, 57(3), 305–331.

Funge-Smith, S., E. Lindebo, & D. Staples (2005) Asian Fisheries Today: The Production and Use of LowValue=Trash Fish from Marine Fisheries in the Asia-Pacific Region. FAO, Regional Office for Asia andthe Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.

de Groot, R.S. (1992) Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management, andDecision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff BV, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Jadhav, U. (2008) Aquaculture Technology and Environment. PHI Learning Private Limited, New Delhi,India.

Jahan, K.M., M. Ahmed, & B. Belton (2010) The impacts of aquaculture development on food security:lessons from Bangladesh. Aquaculture Research, 41, 481–495.

Jahan, K.M. & D.E. Pemsl (2011) The impact of integrated aquaculture–agriculture on small-scalefarm sustainability and farmers’ livelihoods: Experience from Bangladesh. Agricultural Systems,104, 392–402.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis Report. WorldResources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Muluk, C. & C. Bailey (1996) Social and environmental impacts of coastal aquaculture in Indonesia.In C. Bailey, S. Jentoft, & P. Sinclair (Eds.), Aquacultural Development: Social Dimensions of an EmergingIndustry (pp. 193–210). Westview, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Phong, L.T., A.A. van Dam, H.M.J. Udo, M.E.F. van Mensvoort, L.Q. Tri, F.A. Steenstra, & A.J. van derZijpp (2010) An agro-ecological evaluation of aquaculture integration into farming systems of theMekong Delta. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 138(3=4), 232–241.

Prein, M. & M. Ahmed (2000) Integration of aquaculture into smallholder farming systems forimproved food security and household nutrition. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 21, 466–471.

Primavera, J.H. (1997) Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture. Aquaculture Research, 28, 815–827.Primavera, J.H. (2006) Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 49, 531–545.Ross, N., M.A. Wahab, C. Chamnan, & S.H. Thilsted (2007) The role of fish in food-based strategies

to combat vitamin A and mineral deficiencies in developing countries. Journal of Nutrition,137, 1106–1109.

Sathirathai, S. (1997) Economic valuation of mangroves and the roles of local communities in the conservationof the resources: Case study of Surat Thani, south of Thailand. Economy and Environment Programfor Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), Singapore.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Sheriff, N., O. Joffre, M.C. Hong, B. Barman, A.B.M. Haque, F. Rahman, . . .A. Kodio (2010)Community-based fish culture in seasonal floodplains and irrigation systems. Challenge Programon Water and Food (CPWF) Project Number 35, Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) Challenge Program on Water and Food Project Report series. Retrievedfrom www.waterandfood.org

Sinha, V.R.P. & M.A. Mazid (Eds.) (1993, December). Short Term Training on Fisheries and Environ-ment (25–29 July, 1993). Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AC382E/AC382E00.htm

Tisdell, C. (2002) Bioeconomic analysis of aquaculture’s impact on wild stocks and biodiversity.Working Paper No. 69, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 1

0:01

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SEMI-INTENSIVE AQUACULTURE ON BIODIVERSITY