socio-economic dimensions of seaweed farming in indiaaquagri.in/pdf/socio_-economic_dimensions of...

i

CMFRI Special Publication No. 104

Socio-economic dimensions ofSeaweed Farming in India

M. KrishnanPrincipal Scientist (Agricultural Economics)

Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture,Chennai

R. Narayana KumarSenior Scientist (Agricultural Economics)

Central Marine Fisheries Research InstituteKochi

Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute(Indian Council of Agricultural Research)

Post Box. 1603, Marine Drive North Extension,Kochi – 682 018, Kerala, India

www.cmfri.org.in

ii

Socio economic dimensions ofSeaweed Farming in India

M. KrishnanR. Narayana Kumar

Published by

Dr. G. Syda Rao

Director

Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute

Kochi-682 018, India

Telephone : 0091-484-2394867

Fax : 0091-484-2394909

Email : [email protected]

Website : http://www.cmfri.org.in

Front Cover Photo : Courtesy, National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development,

(NABARD) Chennai

Back Cover Photo : Seaweed Culture, Olaikuda, Rameswaram

© 2010 Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi

ISSN 0972 - 2351

ii

iii

FOREWORD

Stanza 1033 of the Tamil Epic Tirukkural when translated reads: “Those who cultivate their

food live in self-sufficiency — All others follow them and subsist in self-made dependence.”

Nearly 60 per cent of the Indian population is directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture

and related activities. Agriculture is India’s largest private sector activity; yet, far from being a

business, agriculture is a livelihood issue. Less than 4 per cent of the population is engaged in

agricultural activities in the US and the EU where it is “agri-business”.

Financial literacy and empowerment

In India, financial literacy is seen as a means to achieve financial inclusion. The thrust is on

rural areas. 5.7 lakh out of the six-lakh villages do not have a bank branch. There is, however, a

strong case for extending the efforts of financial inclusion to urban areas as well. The Economic

Survey 2009-10, quoting the NSS 61st Round, says that poverty ratio in urban areas is 25.7 per cent

which is only somewhat lower than the 28.3 per cent poverty ratio in rural areas. What will help

financial inclusion is not financial literacy per se but linking people’s livelihood needs with banking

services.

The Aryavrat Gramin Bank in Uttar Pradesh achieved 100 per cent financial inclusion in some

hamlets in UP through its tie-up with a corporate to sell solar powered lamps. The Kisan Mitra

Scheme of Punjab National Bank achieved 100 per cent financial inclusion in 40 villages by linking

bank finance to farming needs. There is also the example of a pilot project in Warangal district of

Andhra Pradesh, where pension payments and payments under NREGS were made through direct

credit to bank accounts. If people need banks for saving or receiving income or for remittances or

loans they will avail of such banking services. In such cases, financial literacy becomes only the

catalyst and not the main driving force behind financial inclusion.

Role of NABARD

Financial literacy can achieve a larger goal: that of empowering the consumer to take financial

decisions confidently. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), in a

bid to step up its focus on the farm sector, plans to bring together about 10 lakh small and marginal

farmers across the country in 2010-11 along the lines of the self-help group (SHG) model. This will

help farmers harness their collective bargaining power to access credit at competitive rates, improve

productivity using quality inputs, and realise better price for their produce in the market. Ever

iii

iv

since the SHG-Bank linkage programme was conceptualised and launched by NABARD in 1992,

about 47 lakh self-help groups (as of March-end 2009), predominantly comprising poor women,

have been able to access the formal banking sector in a sustainable and cost-effective manner.

PURA

The PURA (Providing Urban Amenities in Rural Areas) scheme, on public-private-partnership

mode, in a month at an outlay of ` 1,000 crore on civic amenities such as drinking water supply,

roads, street-lighting and drainage and sewerage systems with private sector efficiencies pooled

in. PURA is being taken up on a pilot basis in six to eight clusters where the population is between

30,000 and 40,000. This marked a paradigm shift in the way the Centre was looking at creating

rural infrastructure.

Developers would be required to maintain the facility they build for 10 years before handing

it over to the panchayats which can again put it up for bidding. The total amount spent on rural

development schemes in 2009 was around ` 75,000 crore. Despite substantial spends on rural

infrastructure development at the panchayat level, it has been seen that the “impact on the ground

was absent”. The PURA scheme launched in 2006 this time round, the basic idea was convergence,

done with private sector efficiency and the maintenance entrusted to them for 10 years. Priority

was, what was planned was built properly, maintained and serviced properly. Further, all amenities

would come up near simultaneously in a specified time span so that the impact was “wholesome”.

On the locations to be taken up on a pilot basis, once the partners were identified they would

come up with proposals on the areas they would like to work.

Priorities of the Reserve Bank of India

With the deadline to draw up a roadmap for providing banking services in every village with

a population of over 2,000 by March 2011, the Reserve Bank of India has asked banks to establish

linkages with NGOs for facilitating and channelling credit to low income households. It has also

asked banks to use well-run primary agricultural credit societies (PACS) as business correspondents

(BCs). Of the nearly six lakh inhabited villages in the country, 1.09 lakh villages have a population

of over 2,000. In its action points to help banks draw up a roadmap for financial inclusion by the

end of this month, the Reserve Bank of India said establishing linkages with local non-government

organisations (NGOs)/ corporate houses can lead to credit flow to low income households. Based

on the report of the high-level committee on lead bank scheme, the RBI believes that banks should

make concerted efforts to use well-run PACs as BCs. Currently, PACs, despite being permitted, are

not being used as BCs.

Agriculture occupies centre-stage in the Government’s plan to promote inclusive growth,

enhance rural incomes and sustain food security. The exercise of Budget hinges on 4 per cent

growth in the agriculture sector Huge investments are necessary at both pre-harvest and post-

harvest stages and the Budget provides ` 400 crore for the initiative for 2010-11. We have had a

iv

v

significant stepping-up of investments in rural infrastructure in the past five years. Roads have

been built and investments made in rural electrification — two key infrastructure services. These

investments may have led to new industries in rural areas, creating jobs and adding to incomes.

Have they also led to diversification of agricultural output as new market opportunities may

have emerged? Have they spurred new investments on the farm as additional income may have

flowed to farm households from non-farm activities? The returns on new investments are not

evident in the overall growth rates of the farm sector in recent years. It may, of course, be too early

to assess the impact. It is also possible that the development has not been quite effective. Supply of

infrastructure services is more important than the infrastructure itself (Shashank Bhide, 2010).

Extension work

A salaried scientist can never be the best of his kind; nor will a salaried extension worker care

for what happens to the farmers and to the fields after his visit. An extension system based on

qualified agricultural scientists undertaking work on payment of a minimal proportion of the

incremental income in the first year of consultation could change this scenario. The normal channels

of primary and secondary education should care about agricultural education. The extension work

does not keep the farmer informed about the latest developments in agricultural technology. An

agricultural nation like India does not have an “all India” or a ‘Central’ Civil Service (Class I) for

agriculture (Sharad Joshi, 2010).

If only agricultural graduates who find employment in banks could become agricultural officers

with the same rank and status as the District Collector or the District Superintendent of Police, a

significant stride can be made towards improving the quality of agriculture operations, making

agriculture more attractive not only to the children of the farmers but also to outsiders and lend

agriculture some sort of prestige and status which it does not enjoy at present.

The development in seaweed sector

A livelihood becomes a business enterprise with the right mix of financial and institutional

and policy support. The seaweed sector has emerged as the trial blazer for other sectors. A typical

example of demand driven development, the right mix of financial and institutional support in

tandem with private investments have made the prospects of the development of the seaweed

sector bright. The developments documented in this work, underline the fact that consistently

servicing the infrastructure created or, in other words, consistent quality extension education,

maybe more important than creation of the infrastructure itself. Commitment of the government

departments and private sector involved in this work is commendable and I wish the scope of

such typical development models are explored in other areas also.

New Delhi-110 114 Dr. S. Ayyappan,

May 2010 Secretary, DARE & Director General, ICAR

v

vi

PREFACE

Seaweed mariculture is an important and profitable livelihood option for the coastal fishing

community especially for fisherwomen, who with little effort can earn a substantial income for

the household. India possesses 434 species of red seaweeds, 194 species of brown seaweeds and

216 species of green seaweeds. The seaweed potential in India is estimated at 1,005,000 tonnes (t)

in six states of India (Modayil, 2004) comprising 250,000 t in Gujarat, 250,000 t in Tamilnadu,

100,000 t in Kerala, 100,000 t in Andhra Pradesh, 5,000 t in Maharasthra and 300,000 t in Andaman

& Nicobar Islands. In India, traditionally, seaweeds have been collected from natural stocks. However,

the need for farming of seaweeds arose from the unsustainable harvesting of the seaweeds and

the increasing demand for high quality and adequate quantity of seaweed raw material from the

seaweed processing industries. Accordingly the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI),

the Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (CSMCRI) and related organizations began

the experimental cultivation of agar-yielding seaweeds Gelidiella and Gracilaria in 1964 for

developing suitable technologies for the commercial-scale cultivation of raw material to the agar

industries, Today seaweed cultivation techniques have been standardized, improved and made

economically viable. Corporate backed by institutional and financial support led to the expansion

of seaweed (Kappaphycus alvarezii) farming, through Self Help Groups (SHG) model (mostly women),

starting in a small scale in Ramanathapuram district of Tamilnadu in 2000, which now gradually

has spread to neighbouring coastal districts like Tuticorin, Pudukottai and Thanjavur. The seaweed

mariculture is a potential employment generating and income earning activity, which is practiced

by more than thousand members of SHG’s in Ramanathapuram district alone and marching ahead

in the other coastal districts of the country with the support of private investments, industries,

financial institutions like NABARD (through scheduled commercial banks), National Fisheries

Development Board and NGO’s led by Aquaculture Foundation of India.

This publication has given a comprehensive picture of the status of seaweed collection as

well as farming in India with a case study on the socio-economic transformations in

Ramanathapuram district of Tamilnadu. The authors have traced the historical development of

seaweed collection/technology development for farming, the marketing channels and exports,

substantiated with analytical results. The socio-economic conditions of the seaweed farming/

collecting households have been brought out clearly to give background information about the

stakeholders, which is very vital in the process of technology development and adoption. The

study also has established the profitability, economic viability and financial feasibility of the

vi

vii

enterprise by working out appropriate economic indicators, which will help the lending institutions

to come forward to provide the much required financial support. Besides, the structure of organized

SHG contract seaweed farming, the systemic strengths and weakness of the organized seaweed

farming in India and the marketing channels for seaweed farmers in Tamilnadu have also been

brought out clearly. The study has suggested knowledge dissemination on the technology through

organizations like ASSOCHAM, FICCI, and ICCI to motivate entrepreneurs and bring in more

investment into this seaweed sector. Besides, the Government can also encourage this sector by

streamlining the tax, customs and excise duties and collection issues. I compliment the authors,

Dr. M.Krishnan, Principal Scientist, Central Institute of Brackish Water Aquaculture, Chennai and

Dr. R.Narayanakumar, Senior Scientist, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin for

their concerted and committed effort in bringing out this publication undertaken on Personal

Services Consultancy mode of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Rome. I also appreciate

the support given by Dr. G. Gopakumar, Principal Scientist and Scientist-in-Charge, Scientists and

staff members of Mandapam Regional Centre of CMFRI, Dr. P. Kaladharan, Principal Scientist, Calicut

Research Centre of CMFRI in scrutinizing the manuscript and also the help rendered by

Dr.M.Sakthivel, President, Aquaculture Foundation of India, Chennai and Shri.Abhiram Seth, Chief

Executive Officer, M/s. Aquagri Processing (P) Ltd., New Delhi. I am sure that this publication will

be of immense use to the academicians, researchers, policy makers and entrepreneurs to bestow

more attention in this sector and strive for its development in the days to come.

Cochin - 682 018 G. Syda Rao

May 2010 Director

vii

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors express their sincere thanks to Dr. S. Ayyappan, Director General, Indian Council

of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi for his constant encouragement and support during

the course of this work.

We acknowledge with thanks the support of Dr. Madan Mohan, Assistant Director General

(Marine Fisheries), ICAR, Dr. A.G. Ponniah, Director, Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture

(CIBA), Chennai and Dr. G. Syda Rao, Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI),

Kochi for providing the facilities and access to institute resources and duty leave for carrying out

field surveys.

The authors express their thanks to Dr. S.M. Pillai, Principal Scientist & OIC, Technical Cell,

CIBA and Dr. Grace Mathew, Principal Scientist & Chairperson, Consultancy Processing Cell, CMFRI

for facilitating the work during the period of this consultancy.

The first author expresses his thanks to Dr. V.S. Chandrasekaran and Dr. K.P. Jithendran,

Principal Scientists, CIBA, for their inputs and ideas. Thanks are also due to Messrs. R.Elankovan,

S. Nagarajan, S.Rajukumar and R.Rajasekaran, Technical Officers, CIBA for assistance. The second

author expresses his thanks to Dr. R.Sathiadhas, Head, Socio-economic Evaluation and Transfer of

Technology Division for his constant support.

This work would not have been possible but for the close and personal cooperation of Shri

Abhiram Seth, CEO, M/s. Aquagri Processing (P) Ltd., New Delhi and his colleagues at Mandapam,

Manamadurai, Tuticorin and Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu. Equally enthusiastic and supportive were

Dr.M.Sakthivel, President, Aquaculture Foundation of India, Chennai, Dr.G.Gopakumar, Principal

Scientist & Head Mariculture Division and Scientist-in-Charge Mandapam Research Station (MRC)

of CMFRI, Dr. K.Palanisamy and Mr. Kannabiram, Assistant General Managers, NABARD, Mrs.Uma

Basu Sarkar, IFS, Director, GoMBRT, Ramanathapuram, Mr. G.D.Rajeev, Deputy Director, MPEDA,

Kochi, Mr. R.Dinakaran, Assistant Director, TNDoF, Mandapam, Mr. Elankovan, Aquaclinic,

Mandapam,

We also acknowledge with thanks the cooperation and inputs of Mr. Vinod Nehimiah, CEO

and his colleagues at SNAP Natural and Alginate Products, Ranipet, Tamil Nadu.

Special thanks are due to Dr. N.Kaliaperumal, Principal Scientists (Retired) CMFRI,

viii

ix

Dr. P. Kaladharan, Principal Scientist, Calicut Research Station of CMFRI, Dr. G.Tamilmani, Scientist,

MRC of CMFRI, Mr. V.Edwin Joseph, Officer-in-Charge and Dr. V.Mohan, Technical Officer, Library

and Documentation Section, CMFRI, Kochi, Mr. P.Chidambaram, Library-in-Charge, MRC of CMFRI,

Mandapam, Messrs. K.K. Sankaran, N.K. Harshan, Technical Officers, Mr. M. Antony Joseph, SRF,

Mr. Abilash, Videographer, CMFRI, Kochi and Mr. J.Ramalingam, Technical Officer -CMFRI (Retired),

Madurai

The authors express their thanks to Dr. Diego Valderrama, Fishery Planning Analyst

(Aquaculture), FAO for the consultancy.

The contents of this publication, in no way reflect the official position of CIBA and CMFRI of

the ICAR. All views expressed here are ours including errors.

R. Narayana Kumar M. Krishnan

Senior Scientist (Ag. Economics) Principal Scientist (Ag. Economics)

Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture,

Kochi, INDIA Chennai, INDIA

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

ix

x

Socio-economic dimensions of

Seaweed Farming in India

Summary

The Ramanathapuram district in Tamil Nadu was identified as the target location for study-

ing the structure, conduct and performance of seaweed farming in India in view of its historical

background, locational advantages, industry interactions, socio-economic institutional framework

and opportunities for expansion and growth. For these reasons, the Ramanathapuram district has

long been recognized as the center of the seaweed farming in India.

Although 434 species of red seaweeds, 194 species of brown seaweeds and 216 species of

green seaweeds naturally occur in India, it was only until the beginning of the twenty-first cen-

tury that the country made any concrete progress towards organized seaweed farming. The tardy

progress was caused by a number of factors including locational disadvantages, inconsistent per-

formance of species for commercial exploitation, absence of a complete package of farming prac-

tices, and industry and policy support.

Although the commercial potential of Kappaphycus alvarezii had been previously recognized

and its culture technology had been perfected by the Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research

Institute (CSMCRI), culture at a commercial scale only began when PepsiCo India Holdings Ltd

(PepsiCo) made its entry into the venture with a pilot-scale investment in the early 2000s. The

entry of PepsiCo turned out to be decisive, acting as a catalyst to rejevunate the industry-institu-

tional linkages. The concept of Self Help Groups (SHG) spearheaded by the National Bank for Agri-

cultural and Rural Development (NABARD) also led to rapid development in the Mandapam area of

Ramanathapuram, which soon became the hub of seaweed farming in the country.

Self Help Groups in the fishing villages of Vedalai, Thonithurai, Ariyankkundu and R. Vadakadu

currently operate more than 1,000 rafts. Many of the SHGs have been able to obtain a yield of

more than 50 kg per raft per day (dry weight). Based on findings from this study, seaweed farming

offered 161 and 144 days of employment per annum in the Rameshwaram and Mandapam areas,

respectively. With current development projections targeting 5,000 families in the near future,

the seaweed sector could generate around 765 thousand man-days of employment in the

Ramanathapuram district. It has been estimated that India can produce one million tonnes of

x

xi

dried seaweed and provide employment to 200 thousand families with annual earnings of around

` 0.1 million per family. The annual turnover of Kappaphycus seaweed farming alone can be safely

estimated to be ` 2.0 billion.

Spearheaded by private investments, the clear institutional and financial support of the Gov-

ernment of India through development agencies and research establishments has been funda-

mental for the development of the sector. The distinct possibility of expansion of operations based

on successful commercial trials in sites in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat will give a significant boost

to the sector. Seaweed farming has all the potential to rise from a low-income livelihood activity

into a reasonably profitable commercial enterprise in coastal India.

xixi

xiixii

xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sl. No. Content Page Number

Foreword iii

Preface vi

Acknowledgements ix

Summary x

List of Tables xiv

List of Boxes xvi

List of Figures xvi

List of Plates xvii

List of Annexures xvii

1 Introduction 01

2 Unorganised seaweed collection sector 01

3 Seaweed processing industry in India 06

4 Resource management issues 10

5 Historical account of seaweed 10

mariculture in India

6 Historical production statistics 28

7 Seaweed exports 32

8 Socio-eonomic dimensions of seaweed 33

farming in India

9 Economic analysis of seaweed farming 57

10 Marketing channels of seaweed farmers 61

11 Policy notes, advisories and notifications 63

12 Conclusions, insights and development 65

strategies

13 References 68

14 Annexures 75

xiii

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

TableTitle of the Table Page Number

Number

1 Primary characteristics of commercial seaweeds

collected in coastal Panchayats of Ramanathapuram

District, Tamil Nadu, India 03

2 Prices for seaweed paid by processors to agents 05

3 A time line of the development of seaweed farming

in Tamil Nadu, India 22

4 Per cent increase in crop yields resulting from the

use of bio-fertilizers of seaweed origin 26

5 Estimated harvestable potential of wild seaweeds

in India, by State 28

6 Seaweed resources along the coast of India 29

7 Area, production and exports of Kappaphycus in 31

Tamil Nadu, India (2001-2009)

8 Trends in raft productivity, 2001-2009 32

9 Exports of seaweeds from India 33

10 Economics of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu, India:

cost of materials for the construction of one

raft (3 m x 3 m) 36

11 Economics of seaweed farming (raft culture)

in Tamil Nadu, India: analysis of costs and

returns for the first year of operation 37

12 Economics of mono line culture of seaweeds

per block of 60 ropes 39

13 Composition, structure and performance of SHGs engaged

in seaweed farming in the Mandapam and Rameshwaram

regions of Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India 41

14 Gender composition and average family size of respondents 44

15 Caste and religion structure of the sample respondents 45

xiv

xv

16 Family type 45

17 Fishing experience 46

18 Experience in seaweed farming 46

19 Age classification of respondents 47

20 Literacy level of respondents 47

21 Occupational profile of respondents 48

22 Income levels in the Mandapam area 48

23 Income levels in the Rameshwaram area 49

24 Housing ownership and type 49

25 Livestock ownership 50

26 Occupational patterns in Mandapam and Rameshwaram

areas, Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu 51

27 Estimation of employment generation in seaweed

farming in Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India 51

28 Consumption expenditure patterns, Ramanathapuram

district, Tamil Nadu, India 52

29 Level of indebtedness, Ramanathapuram district,

Tamil Nadu, India 53

30 Social impact of seaweed farming, Ramanathapuram

district, Tamil Nadu, India 54

31 Annual costs and returns of a one-ha seaweed

farm - raft culture (900 rafts) 58

32 Gross revenue of a one-ha seaweed farm (900 rafts) 59

33 Annual cashflow stream for a one-ha seaweed farm

(900 rafts) 60

34 Economic viability and financial feasibility indicators

for a one-ha seaweed farm (project cycle of three years) 60

35 Policy notes, important recommendations, advisories

and selected notifications and communications

relevant to seaweed culture in India 64

xv

xvi

BoxTitle

Page

Number Number

LIST OF BOXES

1 Self Help Groups - History, Guidelines and Performance 17

2 CSMCRI - PepsiCo interaction 19

3 Beneficial environmental impact of sea plant cultivation 23

4 Carrageenan extraction from dry weed 23

5 Products from Kappaphycus alvarezii 25

6 Seaweed as an animal feed supplement 27

7 The Socio-economic premise for Kappaphycus

culture in India 35

FigureTitle

Page

Number Number

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Map of the Study Area 1

1. (a) Map of Ramanathapuram district 2

2 Products from Kappaphycus alvarezii 25

3 Top view of 3m x 3 m size bamboo raft with 4' diagonals 38

4 General Structure of Organised SHG Contract Seaweed

Farming Production and Buy-back System in India 55

5 Casual loop diagram for systemic strengths and

weaknesses in organised seaweed farming in India 56

6 Components of initial investment of one hectare seaweed

farming (percent) 59

7 Marketing channels of seaweed farmers in

Ramanathapuram district of Tamil Nadu 62

xvi

xvii

LIST OF PLATES

PlateTitle

Page

Number Number

1 Kappaphycus cultivation in Mandapam-First portion 12

2. Kappaphycus cultivation in Mandapam -Second Portion 13

LIST OF ANNEXURES

AnnexureTitle

Page

Number Number

1 Composition, structure and performance of SHG

seaweed farming in Pudukottai and Tanjavur districts 75

2 Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere 76

3 Palk Bay 77

xvii

xviii

ABBREVIATIONS

ADGR Average daily growth rate

AFI Aquaculture Foundation of India

APEDA Agriculture Produce Export Development Authority

ASSOCHAM Associated Chambers of Commerce

BIS Bureau of Indian Standards

CAA Coastal Aquaculture Authority (of India)

ISI Indian Standards Institute

CIBA Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture

CMFRI Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute

CRZ Coastal Regulation Zone

CSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

CSMCRI Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute

DBT Department of Bio Technology

DRDA District Rural Development Agency

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FICCI Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

FIT Fisheries Institute of Technology

GoM Gulf of Mannar

GOMBRT Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust

GoMMNP Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park

G.O Government Order

ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research

ICCI Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

xviii

xix

JECFA Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives

JLG Joint Liability Group

KIA Krishnamurthy Institute of Algology

KMC Kudumbam Model of Cultivation

MARS Marine Algal Research Station (of CSMCRI)

MRC Mandapam Regional Centre of CMFRI

MPEDA Marine Products Exports Development Authority

MYRADA Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency

NAAS National Academy of Agricultural Sciences

NABARD National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development

NACA Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific

NBA National Biodiversity Agency

NCST National Committee on Science and Technology (NCST)

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NIO National Institute of Oceanography

NPOP National Programme for Organic Produce

PB Palk Bay

QoL Quality of Life Index

SBI State Bank of India

SCZMA State Coastal Zone Management Authorities

SGSY Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana

SHG Self Help Groups

SNAP SNAP Natural and Alginate Products

TNCDW The Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women

TNDoF Tamil Nadu Department of Fisheries, Government of Tamil Nadu

TNMB Tamil Nadu Maritime Board

VAT Value added tax

xix


1

1 Introduction

India possesses 434 species of red seaweeds, 194 species of brown seaweeds and 216 species

of green seaweeds. Traditionally, seaweeds have been collected from natural stocks. However,

these resources have been depleted by overharvesting and hence the need for their cultivation

arose overtime. Today seaweed cultivation techniques have been standardized, improved and

made economically viable. In addition, the industry has developed a preference for greater stabil-

ity through sustained supply of quantity and quality of farmed raw materials. Nevertheless,

collection of seaweed production statistics is not systematic in India; official time series of sea-

weed production simply do not exist.

2 Unorganized seaweed collection sector

Although the major focus of this study is on the development of seaweed farming in India,

the progress that the country has made in this field is deeply connected with the constraints

currently faced by the agar-agar and alginate industries. As of today, these industries are depend-

ent on the raw materials collected from natural sources. Therefore, a brief review of the seaweed

collection process in India is in order.

2.1 Seaweed collection in the Gulf of Mannar 1

2.1.1 Location

Commercial harvesting of seaweed from natural sources takes place in the southern portion

of the Tamil Nadu coastline, from Kanyakumari (Cape Comorin) in the south, extending north-

wards to the peninsula that forms the GoM - a total distance of almost 300 km. The "seaweed belt"

runs along the coast of Ramanathapuram District and includes the villages of Mundel, Valinokkam,

Chinna Ervadi, Kilakarãi, Kalimangundu, Periapattnam, Pudumadam, Seeniappa Darga, Vedalai,

Pamban, Chinnapalam and Rameshwaram. All these villages lie on the GoM side towards the fag

end of the peninsula (Fig 1 & 1.a). Seaweeds in these locations are collected from the waters off the

mainland coast and the chain of offshore islands.

1 This section is largely based on Coppen and Nambiar (1991) and inputs from SNAP Natural and Alginate Products Ltd,

Ranipet, Tamil Nadu.


2

2.1.2 Species of seaweed utilized

The genera Gracilaria, Gelidium and Gelidiella are agarophytes used for commercial purposes.

Gracilaria is used for those applications in which the strength of the gel is not critical, e.g., food

products. In other cases, Gelidium or Gelidiella, separately or mixed with Gracilaria, is utilized for

the manufacturing of bacteriological-grade agar (the terms Gelidium and Gelidiella are often used

interchangeably within the industry although they are recognized as being separate genera). The

distribution of the different genera along the Indian coast is varied. Gracilaria edulis, found along

the entire length of the Tamil Nadu coastline, is the most abundant and commonly used Gracilaria

species. Gracilaria verrucosa occurs in estuarine/brackishwater areas such as those found near

Tuticorin, where it is collected by a few producers. Gracilaria crassa, G. corticata and G. multipartita

are also found in Indian waters.

Gelidiella acerosa is the predominant species in its genus; it tends to be found in slightly more

rocky areas than other seaweeds. Other important seaweeds are Sargassum wightii, S. myriocystum,

Turbinaria conoides and T. ornate, which are used for alginate production.

2.1.3 Seasonality of collection

Most seaweeds are generally available from middlemen (“agents”) throughout the year, but

supplies can be more plentiful in some months than in others. Gracilaria collection peaks during

January-April. Gelidium/Gelidiella is usually available throughout the year but may become scarce

at times. Seasonality is a function of seaweed growth rates, which in turn depend on local

environmental conditions and the extent to which seaweed collection is a primary or secondary

activity within the fishing community. Seaweed collection is minimum during times of rough

seas (June) and heavy rains (November). The peak period for Sargassum collection is July-August,

when high winds have detached the weeds from their growth points. Table 1 presents the major

characteristics of seaweeds collected in Tamil Nadu.


3

Table 1. Primary characteristics of commercial seaweeds collected in coastal Panchayats of

Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu, India.

SpeciesYear of first

collection forcommercial purposes

Collection centres Seasons ofharvest

Remarks

Gelidiella acerosa 1966 Rameswaram, Throughout a) Ratio of fresh to dryPamban, Vedalai the year weed is 7:1.Seeniappa darga b) Harvested resourcesKilakarai, Ervadi are often mixed with

Ulva reticulate.c) Collected seaweed

is 50 percent pure.

Gracilaria edulis 1966 Rameswaram Throughout the a) Ratio of fresh to dryPamban, Vedalai, year in GoM weed is 7:1Seeniappa darga b) Found mixed withKilakarai other species

Gracilaria crassa 1983 Pamban When G. acerosa a) Hand picked sinceVedalai and G. edulis are weeds are attachedKilakarai not available to pebbles or in

shallow areas.b) Large quantities of

sediments settleover the plants.

Sargassum spp* 1966 From GoM Islands; August-Januaryshore collection onlyat Pudumadam andKanyakumari area

Turbinaria spp. 1975 Rameshwaram April-July; a) Ratio of fresh toPamban Vedalai August-December; dry weed is 7:1.Seeniappa darga January-March.PeriapattnamKilakarai

* Natural seaweed collection from the islands of GoM is presently allowed only beyond the core area of the GoM

Marine Biosphere Reserve (Personal communication from CMFRI, Mandapam).

Source: Silas et al. (1987).

2.1.4 Methods of collection

Fishing is the major income source for the coastal village inhabitants, with seaweed collection

as an important secondary source. Seaweed collection may be the only income-generating activity

for women as they are not actively engaged in fishing. Weather conditions, festival and marriage

seasons, and personal judgments as to which of the two activities is more remunerative at a

particular time also determine the intensity of either activity.


4

Female seaweed collectors usually work in groups of 6-10 people and jointly hire a vathai

(boat) for ` 300 per day. Their working day starts at 6 AM; depending on the tidal conditions,

return to the mainland is made by 12 PM. The women wear their traditional sarees but also wear

a diver’s mask with a gunny bag (50-kg capacity) tied to their waist; collection is done by hand in

waters up to 3-4 m depth.

In recent years, the use of metal scrapers has made it possible to harvest larger quantities of

seaweed with less effort; however, the scraped seaweed tends to contain a higher proportion of

rock and coral fragments. In addition, removal of the rootstock prevents regeneration with the

consequent threat to future supplies (Coppen and Nambiar, 1991). The scrapers are also used as

tools for warding off eels which may physically injure the collectors’ hands.2

Environmental committees have recently been formed in each costal village engaged in

seaweed collection. Committees are usually formed by seven to eight people and include middlemen

or agents. Meetings are held monthly and are used to discuss issues such as misuse of scrapers

and impacts on the environment.

Men typically collect the alginophytes (Sargassum, Turbinaria) as this involves hoarding larger

quantities of weed. Nevertheless, harvesting of the alginophytes poses fewer complications as

compared with the agarophytes collected by women, which are more likely to be associated with

unwanted seaweeds.

2.2 The role of the seaweed agent

Two distinct phases are evident in the seaweed collection and trade in Ramanathapuram

district, Tamil Nadu.

Seaweed collection, marketing and processing is an unorganised activity in India. Since no

government approval is necessary for a local individual to become a collector, an agent or a

trader, instances of the lowly collector becoming an agent and then assuming the role of a trader

in due course of time is a normal transition. According to Coopens and Nambiar (1991), agents

play a key role in the seaweed industry, acting as a middleman between the collector and the

processor. The collection, transfer and sale of the seaweed was handled by the traders involved in

seaweed trade who generally hired some 20 boats belonging to different boat owners during the

season. Harvesting is directed by the major agents, who designate an organizer to assist the

seaweed collectors. For a fee, the organizer leads the collectors to the seaweed areas. If the agent

owns the boat, he is entitled to a share of the harvest while the reminder is divided among the

collectors. The role of an agent within a village community, however, extends well beyond buying

and selling seaweed. The agent controls the quality, quantity and price of seaweed released to the

processor while also determining the price offered to the collector. Collectors normally borrow

from agents to cover their daily living expenses; they also buy goods on credit from shops owned

by the agents. Debts are adjusted against the value of the weeds the collectors bring in. These

2 Personal communication from SNAP.


5

agreements ensure a regular supply of seaweed to the agents; however, collectors easily fall into

a never-ending cycle of indebtedness. At the end of a season, it is not unusual for a collector to

owe up to ` 20,000 to his agent.

In recent times, the presence of SNAP has become more pronounced as this company is the

main procurer of the landed seaweeds. Payments are made on boat load basis by the local traders

on behalf of the company directly. The company has engaged its own supervisors who oversee

the landings. Companies or outsiders cannot own and operate boats since the local communities

have exclusive rights of seaweed collection there is complete transparency in the actual billed

reportedly amount paid to the agent-trader by the company. The payments are made in full

knowledge of all the collectors and boat owners. As a measure of good will SNAP is reportedly

undertaking repairing the boats of the collectors through their agents-traders.

Land for storage and drying is generally leased; one or two thatched sheds are normally

constructed for seaweed storage. A few agents have registered for tax purposes and tax records

serves to assess the scale of their transactions.

2.3 Pricing the landings

After the seaweed is landed, the agent inspects the harvest and pays a non-negotiable price

to the collectors. Quantities are measured per basket of wet weed for agarophytes and per boat-

load for alginophytes - the latter being more abundant, easier to harvest and consumed in greater

quantities. Prices quoted by processors for the different types of seaweed were fairly consistent

(Table 2).

TABLE 2 Prices for seaweed paid by processors to agents

Seaweed Price (`/tonne) (1991)* Price (`/tonne) (2009) **

Gelidium/Gelidiella 5,000 - 8,000 10, 000 (Fresh)

Gracilaria 2,500 - 3,500 6,000 (Fresh)

Sargassum/Turbinaria 750 - 1,000 7,500 (Semi dry)

Sources: * Coppen and Nambiar (1991). **SNAP.

These prices are indicative rather than representative as the assessment regarding the

weight of one basket or boat-load of seaweed does not appear to be consistent across the

different villages.

Payments received by the collectors are discounted against the loan amounts and value of

goods owed to the agents. Agents in turn claim that the prices they receive from processors are

falling, preventing landing prices on the beach from rising. Prices paid to collectors are also normally

discounted based on the agents' belief that the collectors deliberately adulterate the wet seaweed


6

with sand and other materials.

Following its purchase, the seaweed is spread on the beach for drying. Dried weed is

transferred to thatched sheds for storage in heaps or in gunny bags. Hired labour is used for

sorting, cleaning, drying and packing. As much as five tonnes a day could be handled during the

peak season. During periods of excess demand, agents procure additional partly-dried stock from

subordinate agents for complete drying and the subsequent final sale. In any given year, seaweed

sales typically comprise of a large proportion of Sargassum and Turbinaria and a smaller proportion

of the higher value agarophytes.

The processor negotiates the price of the weed according to his evaluation of purity and

dryness. Small processors inspect the raw material personally and negotiate the deal. Larger firms

have employees who procure the material. These processors often maintain a purchase office in

the locality and even provide "in-house" labour for preliminary sorting and cleaning of seaweed.

Costs of transportation and packing are borne by the processors. The turnover time from collection

to sale could be only 15 days. Agents claim that properly dried material can be stored safely for

many months.

How much seaweed is purchased at any given time by the processors depends more on the

distance between the landing point and the processing factory than on the scale of the operation.

Frequency of purchase could be as high as once a month or as low as once a year. Some processors

may acquire the bulk of material when it is in plentiful supply and then "top it up" with smaller

lots as required.

The process of collection, assembly, drying, storage, sale and transportation has remained

more or less unchanged over the last two decades. Marketing channels have apparently not

undergone any modernization during the same period, either.

2.4 Employment in the seaweed sector

It has been estimated that seaweed resources in India can provide employment to more than

20,000 fishers in harvesting and an equal number of jobs in post-harvesting activities, provided

stocks are managed rationally. The seaweed resources along the southern end of the Tamil Nadu

coast provide a ready-made livelihood for both men and women in poor fishing communities. Rao

and Mantri (2006) have reported that there are 13 seaweed landing centres on the southeastern

coast. According to Immanuel and Sathiadhas (2004), five thousand women in southeastern India

depend on seaweed related activities for their livelihood.

3 Seaweed processing industry in India

3.1 The agar industry in India

In India, industrial uses for agar-agar emerged during the Second World War (Khan, 2003).

The seaweed industry then developed as commercial uses and technologies for agar-agar, alginic


7

acid, carrageenan and liquid seaweed fertilizers were being developed. The R&D conducted by

CSMCRI was crucial in this respect. The seaweed industry emerged primarily as a cottage industry

(Kaladharan and Kaliaperumal 1999) based on the natural stocks of agar-yielding red seaweeds

such as G. acerosa and G. edulis and algin-yielding brown seaweeds species such as Sargasum sp.

and Turbinaria sp.

Agar production in India started in 1940 using G. edulis as raw material. Subsequently, Thivy

(1960) developed a viable cottage-industry method for the manufacture of agar from Gracilaria

lichenoides. Using Gelidium micropterum as raw material, Kappana and Rao (1963) developed a

process for the industrial manufacturing of agar. Subsequently, a number of firms also turned to

G. acerosa as raw material. It is estimated that the Indian industry currently requires around 400

tonnes of agar annually, but only 30 percent of this total is being produced domestically.

As the nearest commercial and industrial hub to the seaweed belt, Madurai district which

is adjacent to Ramanathapuram district is the natural center for agar production in India. Other

producers in Tamil Nadu are located in towns nearer the southern coast. There are also a number

of factories in Kerala, northern Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. However, the potential for

growth in Kerala has been reduced by the energy and water crisis affecting the state during the

last decade.

3.1.1 Scales of operation

The Indian agar industry is mostly composed of small, family-run enterprises employing as

few as three or four people and producing 2-4 kg of agar per day (0.5-1 tonnes per year). Medium-

sized units can produce 10-40 kg of agar per day (2-10 tonnes per year). The outlook for the agar

industry has remained more or less unchanged during the last two decades. The scope of expansion

is very limited as the industry is strictly dependent on the natural stocks of red and brown seaweeds.

India produces between 110-132 tonnes of dry agar annually based on the harvest of 880-1,100

tonnes (dry weight) of agarophytes (Mohanta et al., 2007). Immanuel and Sathiadhas (2004),

estimate that there are 25 agar factories in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, each of which employs around

8-10 workers earning monthly salaries of ` 1,750 (men) and ` 1,500 (women).

3.1.2 Uses of agar

The coastal population of Tamil Nadu uses G. edulis for preparing gruel (porridge); this is the

only known use of algae as food in India. Gracilaria edulis is also used in Tamil Nadu as manure

for coconut plantations (Silas et al., 1987).

Agar is used in the preparation of jellies, dairy products (yoghurt), confectioneries (jelly/

marshmallow type), bakery products (including pie fillings and icings), and canned meats. Agar is

widely used in India in vegetarian foods and dishes such as faluda and blancmange. The Muslim

community traditionally consumes large quantities of agar during the Ramadan season. The


8

growing interest in tissue culture as a standard method for the propagation of orchids and

other ornamental plants, vegetables, fruits and other agricultural products has increased

the demand for agar-agar as a culture media. Agar is also used in the preparation of dental casts

in prosthetic dentistry.

Although the gel strength of Indian agar is lower than that from other sources, it nevertheless

meets the requirements of the domestic food and pharmaceutical industries.

3.1.3 Sourcing raw materials - Quality criteria

Dried seaweeds are available at collection centres in Tamil Nadu at a price of ` 22-25/kg. The

agar industry routinely complains about both the quantity and quality of the raw material.

Inconsistent supplies, poor quality owing to improper drying, fungal infestations and presence of

foreign matters in the seaweeds (e.g. small seashells and seagrasses) result in low agar output and

poor gel strength and viscosity. Most agar producers grade the purity of their raw materials at

around 50-60 per cent at best; users of Gelidiella typically consider it to be 30 percent pure. However,

this state of affairs generate a sense of resignation among processors as the prevailing view is

that someone else would buy what is being offered to them, regardless of the quality of the material.

They repeatedly state that there is little to gain by attempting to enforce quality standards.

Indian producers consider the colour and gel strength of agar as the most important criteria

of its quality. For food uses, paleness of colour ("whiteness") is deemed essential; thus, bleaching

of the agar gel during the final stages of processing is universal. Because gel strength is a less

important attribute, Gracilaria is mainly used for the production of food grade agar.

Currently, no Indian standard specifications have been placed with regard to gel strength,

meaning that producers have little incentive to improve the quality of the product (Coppen

and Nambiar, 1991).

3.1.4 Marketing

Food-grade agar (called China Grass) is sold by small and medium-scale producers to wholesalers

or dealers from large cities such as Chennai and Mumbai. The common mat form is packed in

polythene bags and dispatched in sacks to the dealer, who then repackages the product for retail

sale, often under his own brand name. Poorer quality (off-white) mat agar is powdered and sold as

"instant" China Grass. Larger producers sell to both wholesalers and end-users. IF grade agar3 is

generally sold directly to end-users. IF grade agar appears to be particularly attractive to new or

prospective producers as well as to some of the existing producers of food-grade agar.

Occasional consignments of agar are exported by the larger producers, with opportunities

emerging for the sale of food-grade agar to West Asia. However, most Indian production targets

the domestic market; foreign buyers are not in general attracted to the quantity and quality of

the seaweed produced in India. Output is low (or nil) during the monsoon season (because the

3The IF grade is the agar used for bacteriological or pharmaceutical applications. The term "IF" is used to denote the fact

that the agar meets Indian Pharmacopoeia standards.


9

agar cannot be sundried) while both demand and supply increase during the Ramadan season.

Prices for food-grade agar are dependent upon colour and gel strength, regardless of the

occurrence of Ramadan. Prices for good quality food-grade agar produced in powdered form are

higher than those of the corresponding mat form.

Marine Chemicals Private Limited, Cochin, Kerala, contributes 50 percent of the total

domestic production (Rao and Mantri, 2006). This company has also established a strong reputation

in the export markets, with sales to countries in the five continents. Its production units are

located in 3 different centres - Kochi in the state of Kerala and Pamban and Madurai in Tamil Nadu,

with a combined production capacity of 60 tonnes per year. The company produces a range of

products based on both bacteriological and food-grade agar.

3.1.5 Constraints faced by the industry

Operational constraints such as power and water supply shortages are common. When

operational constraints become overbearing, bankruptcy is often the end result. Growth of the

industry has also been limited by the unavailability of capital. Small-scale producers are also

affected by low capacity utilization caused by enforced stoppages and seasonal factors.

In general, the industry is looking forward to the potential of culture agarophytes. Producers

have repeatedly expressed their willingness to pay a higher price for cultured seaweeds free of

epiphytes and other foreign matter.

3.2 Alginate production in India

The production potential of refined alginates in India is around 500 tonnes, assuming a yield

of 7 to 30 percent (on dry weight basis) for algin-yielding seaweeds (Thivy, 1964). SNAP contributes

half of the domestic production (Rao and Mantri, 2006). It is estimated that the Indian industry

currently requires around 1,000 tonnes per year of alginate, meaning that domestic production is

only capable of supplying 50 percent of internal demand. Madurai and surrounding areas, with

their proximity to the sources of raw material, and Ahmedabad (near the major markets) have

emerged as the major centres of alginate production in India. A few producers of agar also

manufacture alginates, even though the equipment and chemical requirements for the two

operations are different.

Although the industry is not constrained by the availability of raw materials (Sargassum and

Turbinaria), processing can nevertheless operate at less than installed capacity owing to other

operational constraints.

Many grades of alginates are produced in India. Alginic acid and sodium, calcium, potassium

and ammonium alginates are some of the products manufactured. Alginates are widely used in

textile printing and in the food and pharmaceutical industries; applications in other industries

are constantly emerging.


10

Mumbai and Ahmedabad, the textile hubs of India, are the major purchasers of textile-grade

alginate. Erode, the hosiery hub, is also supplied by alginate producers in Tamil Nadu. Price rather

than quality seems to be the determining factor for buyers in the textile industry. Food-grade

alginates are mainly supplied to the ice cream industry. Pharmaceutical and food-grade alginate,

which are manufactured according to Indian and international standards, are priced around

` 275-300/kg. These products are subject to an 8.2 per cent duty but no value-added tax (VAT)

is levied.

4 Resource management issues

With the establishment of the GoMBRT and the GoMMNP (Appendix 2), the livelihood

opportunities of seaweed-collecting fishermen have been restricted to collection outside core areas

of the Reserve Trust. The livelihoods of many of these fishers are entirely dependent on seaweed

collection. Restrictions have not been placed on the Palk Bay side, which has become a beehive of

activity for seaweed farming.

Landings of Gelidiella, Sargassum and Turbinaria peaked in 1979 while landings of Gracilaria

peaked in 1978. Since then, collectors have complained about the increasing scarcity of red seaweeds

over the years, meaning that they have to work harder to collect the same quantities harvested in

previous years.

Management of seaweed resources has received little attention in India. Government actions

have been restricted to controlling trade through licensing, with little effort being made to prohibit

harmful harvesting practices. The need for conservation is recognized by present efforts to develop

seaweed farming as an alternative source of good quality, easily accessible raw material for the

industry (Coppen and Nambiar, 1991). Sustainable utilization involves both conservation efforts

and proper husbandry practices as unplanned harvesting of seaweeds from their natural habitats

have led to depletion of standing crops. Continuation of these practices might exhaust the resource

completely, not even sparing the basic nuclei needed for propagation in the succeeding season.

Timetables for commercial harvest of economically important seaweeds from the Tamil Nadu

and Gujarat coasts have been drawn up based on the maturity of the crops, which might aid to

improve sustainability of the sector (Kaliaperumal and Kalimuthu, 1997). Countries such as France,

Spain and Zanzibar have enacted legislation to regulate the harvest of seaweed resources. Similar

legislations could be enacted in India to achieve a more sustainable utilization of the resource.

5 Historical account of seaweed mariculture in India

It has been estimated that seaweed can be farmed in around 200 thousand ha or 0.001 percent

of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Krishnamurthy, 2005). The rocky beaches, mudflats, estuaries

and lagoons on the Indian coasts offer ideal habitats for seaweed farming.


11

5.1 Experimental culture trials

With a view towards developing suitable technologies for the commercial-scale cultivation of

raw material to the agar industries, the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), the

Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (CSMCRI)4 and related organizations began

the experimental cultivation of agar-yielding seaweeds Gelidiella and Gracilaria in 1964. In addition,

various carageenophytes and edible seaweeds such as Hypnea, Sargassum, Turbinaria, Cystoseira,

Hormophysa, Caulerpa, Ulva, Enteromorpha and Acanthophora have been cultured in different field

environments using various techniques (Kaliaperumal, 2004). These experiments revealed that

Gelidiella acerosa can be successfully cultivated on dead coral and Gracilaria edulis, Hypnea

musciformis, Acanthophora spicifera and Enteromorpha flexuosa on long line ropes and nets.

The agar-yielding G. acerosa was cultured successfully on coir/nylon ropes, frames, nets and

dead coral stones in the inshore waters of the (GoM) and Palk Bay near Mandapam (Plate 1&2).

Small fragments obtained from mother plants were inserted in the twist of the coir ropes,5 tied at

the mesh intersections of nylon rope nets using nylon twine; seeded twines were wound on the

nails fixed to the dead coral stones. A two-fold increase over the quantity of seed material after 60

days of culture period was obtained from coir rope frames and nylon nets while a 33-fold increase

was achieved on coral stones (Subbaramiah et al., 1975; Patel et al., 1986). The CSMCRI has developed

a technology for commercial scale cultivation of G. acerosa using the dead coral stone method.

Cultivation of G. edulis was carried out in the lagoon of the GoM islands and in the shallow

waters of the GoM and Palk Bay at Mandapam using coir rope and nets, nylon rope nets and nylon

mono-lines (Kaliaperumal, 2004). The fragments of the plants were directly inserted on the twists

of coir ropes and nets tied at mesh intersections of nylon rope nets with nylon twine. These

experiments obtained an average yield of a three-fold increase after 60 days. From the experiments

conducted in a 0.1-ha area, it is estimated that a total quantity of 120 tonnes (fresh weight) could

be harvested from a 1-ha of nets in a year. These experiments also showed that G. edulis could be

successfully cultivated on a commercial scale throughout the year in the GoM coast and during

June-September in the Palk Bay coast of the Mandapam area (Raju and Thomas, 1971;

Umamaheswara Rao, 1974; Krishnamurthy et al., 1975, 1977; Chennubhotla et al., 1978; Kaliaperumal

et al., 1996). Attempts were made to culture the agarophytes G. edulis, Gracilaria corticata and

Gracilaria foliifera in the Kerala coast by reproductive and vegetative propagation methods.

Based on the results obtained with the field trials for G. edulis cultivation, CMFRI evolved a

viable technology for commercial-scale farming using coir rope nets by 1983 (Chennubhotla and

Kaliaperumal, 1983; Kaliaperumal and Ramalingam, 2000). With this method, one kg of seed

material could potentially yield an average of 3 kg/m2 of net after 60 days.

4 CSMCRI is a constituent laboratory of the Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).5 Ropes made from fibre extracted from coconut husks.


12

Pla

te 1

. K

ap

pa

ply

cus

Cu

ltiv

atio

n i

n M

and

apam

fir

st p

ort

ion

Cou

rtes

y:

Aq

uag

ri P

roce

ssin

g P

riva

te L

imit

ed, N

ew D

elh

i


13

Pla

te 2

. K

ap

pa

ply

cus

Cu

ltiv

atio

n i

n M

and

apam

Sec

on

d p

ort

ion

Cou

rtes

y:

Aq

uag

ri p

roce

ssin

g P

riva

te L

imit

ed, N

ew D

elh

i


14

In 1990, G. edulis was transported from Krusudai Islands (Mandapam) and Kavaratti Island to

Minicoy Islands (Lakshadweep) to be cultivated in lagoons on long line ropes and nets by the

vegetative propagation method. Results were encouraging, with yields reaching a maximum of a

30-fold increase in a 60-day growth period. These trials proved that G. edulis could be successfully

cultivated on a commercial scale in the lagoons of these islands during the pre-monsoon (March to

June) and post-monsoon (October to February) seasons (Chennubotla et al., 1992; Kaliaperumal

et al., 1992).

Commercial cultivation of G. edulis was also shown feasible using fiberglass tanks in outdoor

environments with continuous running water and aeration. A growout period of 70 days resulted

in a maximum of a 4.75-fold increase in biomass (Kaliaperumal, 2004). Gracilaria edulis has also

been cultivated successfully by reproductive methods using tetraspores and carpospores. With

this technology, spores from mature plants are liberated and settled on cement blocks and other

substrates and cultured to germlings in the laboratory. They are thereafter transferred to the sea.

The germlings take between 5 to 6 months to reach a harvestable size. The technology has been

perfected at CMFRI for commercial scale cultivation (Reeta Jayasankar and Kaliaperumal, 1991).

In the case of the carrageenan-yielding red algae H. musciformis, CMFRI achieved a four-fold

increase in biomass in 25 days during experimental trials (Rama Rao et al., 1985; Rama Rao and

Subbaramaiah, 1986). With A. spicifera, CMFRI achieved a 3.6-fold increase after 45 days through

vegetative propagation (Kaliaperumal et al., 1986). Kappaphycus alvarezii was cultured successfully

by vegetative propagation at the Suarashtra in the west coast of India and Mandapam regions

(Mairh et al., 1995; Eswaran et al., 2002). It was also successfully cultured in the nearshore areas of

Narakkal (Kochi) and Calicut in the state of Kerala.

Chennubhotla et al. (1986) has documented the pattern of release of spores for several Gracilaria

species found in Mandapam. The TNDoF has also conducted trials on the seaward side of Kurusadai

Island using vegetative propagation techniques (Kalkman et al., 1991).

In 1987, following a great deal of preparatory work and the active involvement of communities

from the fishing villages of Vedalai and Chinnapalam, the FAO-supported Bay of Bengal Programme

set up culture trials of G. edulis after assessing the technical, economic and social viability of

seaweed culture in Ramanathapuram district (Kalkman et al., 1991). The program had the objective

of introducing commercially oriented practices suitable to the local environmental and socio-

economic conditions, to increase the level of training in seaweed culture and to conduct marketing

trials. Although a small amount of seaweed was harvested, these pilot-scale attempts failed

primarily because of grazing by juvenile siganids (rabbit fish) and issues with the management of

the program.

Despite the encouraging results from some of the initial experimental trials, which revealed a


15

clear potential for successful commercial cultivation, industrial development did not follow up

immediately (Coppen and Nambiar, 1991).

5.2 Organized development of seaweed farming6

The first organized attempt to culture seaweed at an industrial scale in India was initiated by

PepsiCo Holdings India Ltd (PepsiCo) in 2000. Given its experience with contract farming, the

international chocolate, foods and pet foods manufacturer MARS requested PepsiCo to explore

seaweed farming as a business opportunity in India. The search for technology and the planting

material eventually led to CSMCRI in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, which had developed the commercial

cultivation method for K. alvarezii. Initially PepsiCo evaluated two types of red seaweeds, K. alvarezii

and H. musciformis. From the onset, evaluation trials revealed that efforts had to be focused on the

former given its greater ease of cultivation and market acceptability.

Activities began in 2002 with the leasing of an area of 10 ha on the Palk Bay side towards

Mandapam; around 100 kg of planting material received from CSMCRI were seeded. Early challenges

included heavy grazing by fish and the need for modifications in the culture technology to enable

adoption by local growers. Mono-line cultivation gave way to raft culture with net bottoms to

prevent grazing by fish.

PepsiCo had initially requested permission to operate along a 35-km stretch along the GoM

and Palk Bay, equivalent to an area of about 350 ha. The company had a preference for the GoM

because of its calmer seas, conducive to faster growth rates (average daily growth rate [ADGR] of

6-8 %). However, because the selected area fell within the GoMNNP, cultivation was restricted to

the Palk Bay side, where growth rates are lower (ADGR of only 2.5 to 3.5 %).

After having demonstrated the economic feasibility of the proposed venture, the company

decided to modify its business model in 2003. Instead of hiring daily wageworkers, PepsiCo

encouraged workers to engage in contract farming by making available the culture infrastructure

on a staggered payment basis. Even though contract farming offered a greater potential for increased

income, the proposed contractual arrangement did not gain immediate acceptance among fishing

villagers.

The contract farming model proposed an allocation of 45 rafts for each individual member of

a SHG (Box 1) and a harvest cycle of 45 days. The model assumed that each individual within the

group would be able to conveniently plant and harvest one raft per day. A farmer should be able to

harvest around 260 kg per raft, out of which 60 kg would be used as planting material for the next

cycle, leaving 200 kg of fresh weed or 22 kg of dry weed available for sale.

5.2.1 Role of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD)7

NABARD is a refinancing development bank with a mandate for facilitating credit flow for

promotion and development of agriculture and small-scale industries in rural areas of India. The

6 This section is based on personal communications and inputs from Mr Abhiram Seth, Managing Director, Aquagri Processing P77 This section is based on personal communications from Dr K. Palanisamy and Mr. Kannabiram, Assistant General Managers,

NABARD in Chennai and Ramanathapuram (Tamil Nadu), respectively.


16

funds available to commercial banks, including State Bank of India, for agricultural sector lending

are normally routed through NABARD. Under this scheme, financing of SHGs is collateral free.

Because many SHGs in the Mandapam area already had savings accounts with their local banks,

the channeling of collateral-free microcredit was facilitated. The involvement of the banks has

also assisted the SHGs with mobilization, capacity building, training and extension of technology.

Marketing arrangements were assured through contract-farming mechanisms wherein PepsiCo

agreed to procure the harvested seaweed at a predetermined minimum price and remit the cash

through the bank accounts.

To ensure smooth implementation, farming contracts were arranged between the State Bank

of India (SBI) and PepsiCo, enabling the bank to provide credit support to the SHGs interested in

seaweed cultivation while PepsiCo agreed to procure the harvested seaweed. By means of

Government Order G.O. Ms No. 229 (dated 20 December 2005), the Government of Tamil Nadu

authorized SHGs to begin seaweed cultivation in the sea waters north of Palk Bay and on the

South of Tuticorin coast. Under this arrangement, SBI approved the release of ` 11,542 million8 to

finance around 60 SHGs (covering 285 members) in the Ramanathapuram-Mandapam area during

2008-2009, with no subsidies being involved

Encouraged by the success of these SHGs, the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA)

began providing subsidies to selected SHGs under the Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY)

programme, which covered 50 percent of the project cost, provided the subsidy did not exceed

` 10,000 per person or ` 0.125 million per SHG, whichever was less. Under this scheme, the Bank

of Baroda financed 40 SHGs (covering 200 members) during 2008-2009. Sporadic financing has

also been provided in Thanjavur, Tuticorin and Kanyakumari districts of Tamil Nadu by the Indian

Overseas Bank and SBI.

An “Aquaclinic Centre” (Meenvalamaiyyam) operating in Mandapam, has been promoted by

NABARD and the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), an Indian NGO that implements

training programs on various livelihood opportunities in fisheries (including seaweed culture), in

association with the TNDoF. Seaweed culture has been identified by the Indian Government as

one of the rural technologies to be promoted in India (NIRD, 2003).

8 Exchange rate as of April 2010: USD 1.00 = ` 44.422.


17

BOX 1

Self help groups – history, guidelines and performance

Self-help groups (SHGs) first emerged in projects led by the Mysore Resettlement and Development

Agency (MYRADA) in 1985. By 1987 some 300 SHGs had been established in MYRADA projects. NABARD

(1992) issued guidelines that would allow banks to lend directly to SHGs. The Tamil Nadu Women’s

Empowerment Project, an IFAD-supported project implemented through the Tamil Nadu Corporation

Development of Women (TNCDW), was the first project in the country to incorporate the SHG concept

into a state-sponsored program, in 1990.

A SHG is an association of rural poor who have volunteered to organize themselves into a working

group. Members agree to save regularly and pool their savings into a common fund known as the

group corpus. Members agree to use this common fund and such other funds they may receive as a

group through a common-management arrangement. The SHG may consist of 5-20 persons. To be

recognized as a SHG, a group should adhere to the following norms: 1) all members should belong to

families below the poverty line (BPL); 2) only one member from a single family is permitted as a

member in a SHG; 3) a member can belong to only one SHG; 4) members belonging to families

marginally above the poverty line (living with BPL families) can be admitted into a SHG as long as

they do not represent over 20 percent and in exceptional cases over 30 per cent of the entire

membership; 5) above-poverty-line members will not be eligible for state subsidies and positions as

office bearers in the SHG; and 6) 50 per cent of members should be women.

The SHG movement in India has reached an exceptional number of poor households since its

inception and thus has been recognized as the largest microfinance program in the world. Since

1992, when NABARD initiated the SHG-bank linkage programme, over 2.2 million SHGs have been

reached, which translates to almost 33 million households. Today there are more than 3

million SHGs with active banking accounts in India.

As of 31 March 2008, 4770,612 SHGs have been credit-linked in Tamil Nadu, of which 46, 283 are

formed exclusively by women. The pace of formation of SHGs in the southern Indian states is

remarkable. On the other hand, activity in the northern and eastern states is not very encouraging.

These states account for as much as 63 per cent of the country’s rural BPL population, but claim

only 40 percent of the total SHGs. The southern states are home to 11 per cent of the rural BPL

population but account for more than 33 per cent of the SHGs.

Federations of rural SHGs from village up to the district level are necessary to strengthen their voice

and bargaining power and reduce their dependency on external agencies. In most states, however,

very few SHGs have been federated at various levels.

State Government initiatives - Mahalir Thittam programme

The TNCDW has been spearheading the SHG movement in Tamil Nadu in partnership with NGOs

and community-based organizations, under the Mahalir Thitttam programme. Training in leadership


18

5.2.3 Role of the Seaweed Research and Utilization Association (Mandapam)

The Seaweed Research and Utilization Association was established in 1970 at the initiative of

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy, who was at the time an Assistant Director at CSMCRI directly in charge of

the field station in Mandapam (subsequently named the Marine Algal Research Station). The

Association organizes an annual symposium on algae related topics and publishes a journal, Seaweed

Research and Utilization, with Prof. Krishnamurthy as its Chief Editor. This is the only journal in

India devoted exclusively to the publication of research on marine algae.

5.2.2 Role of the State Bank of India (SBI)

The SBI began to promote seaweed cultivation projects in collaboration with the Chennai-

based NGO Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI) in 2006. Marketing was conducted through

PepsiCo. It is estimated that each member of participating SHGs earned over ` 5,000 a month

after repaying the monthly loan installment to SBI. This model represented a new approach for

funding livelihood restoration projects following the destruction caused by the December 2004

tsunami. Nearly 80 per cent of those involved in these SHGs were women.

The experience with SHGs has proved to be a major success in entrepreneurship development

and loan recovery. By 2006, the bank had granted a total of about ` 22,630 million to over 540

thousand groups, 64 662 of which were located in Tamil Nadu. This approach was also

implemented in the livelihood restoration project in Mandapam and extended to Tuticorin and

Kanyakumari. The bank had plans to extend the project to other states and other coastal districts

in Tamil Nadu. By March 2007, SBI was planning to release over ` 1.0 billion in credit to support

the livelihoods of over 10 thousand families.

quality, team building, accounting systems are currently being undertaken. As of 31 March 2008,

370 thousand SHGs had been formed under this programme, of which 310 thousand had been credit

linked with bank loans amounting to ` 26,734 million. To upscale the program, the Government of

Tamil Nadu has started providing revolving funds of ` 10,000 to groups in rural areas under the

Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) programme, with banks providing cash credit (up to

` 30,000 per group). In 2008-09, the State Government has decided to provide a revolving fund

subsidy to all eligible 150 thousand SHGs. The State Government is also providing seed money to

panchayat-level federations of SHGs functioning in the State (Panchayat is the basic unit of district

administration in Tamil Nadu). The State Government has now started the “Vazhndhu Kaatuvom

Project” to financially assist SHGs with the formation of micro enterprises.

For more details, visit: http://www.tn.gov.in/dtp/shg.htm

http://www.nabard.org/fileupload/DataBank/FocusPapers/SPF%20Executive%20Summary%2009-

10_170209.pdf


19

BOX 2

CSMCRI – PepsiCo interaction

During the last few years, PepsiCo has provided funds to the CSMCRI (Bhavnagar, Gujarat) to

carry out a number of projects on the development of viable technologies for Hypnea Kappaphycus

cultivation, harvesting and manufacture of semi refined carrageenan, and studies on the environmental

impact assessment of Kappaphycus cultivation on the marine ecosystem.

CSMCRI successfully transferred the technological package for cultivation of Kappaphycus on a

commercial scale to PepsiCo in March 2000. For its contribution to the development of seaweed

farming in India, the CSMCRI was granted the prestigious CSIR Technology Award in Biological Sciences

in 2001.

At present, PepsiCo is engaging in massive scale cultivation of K. alvarezii in a 15-20 ha area in

the Palk Bay site near the famous temple at Rameshwaram. The total permitted area extends to 100

ha. The company continues to benefit from the advice of CSMCRI scientists.

Source: CSIR News, Vol. 53, No. 13, 15 July 2003.

5.2.4 Role of the Krishnamurthy Institute of Algology

The Krishnamurthy Institute of Algology (KIA) was established by a group of Indian phycologists

who felt there was a need for an institution devoted to research and development on algal studies.

The group unanimously resolved to establish the Institute in Chennai and to name it the

Krishnamurthy Institute of Algology after Prof. Krishnamurthy, who had convened the meeting

for discussing the creation of such an institution in July 1991.

The laboratory is currently equipped for studies on morphology, taxonomy, life history and

basic algae chemistry. The library has an extensive collection of books and journals on phycology.

The herbarium contains about 500 sheets of Indian marine algae, in addition to collections from

South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

The facilities of the institute are open to research to any visitor with a special interest on the

field. During its beginnings, the institute was mostly interested on macroalgal culture and practical

applications; the current focus has expanded to cover microalgae culture, development and

utilization. The institute conducts periodical seminars and symposia on algal-related subjects

and has been publishing a journal (Indian Hydrobiology) for the last 12 years.

5.2.5 Aquagri Processing Private Limited (Aquagri)

PepsiCo sold its eight-year-old seaweed cultivation business – which also resulted in a global

patent for a chemical-free derivative product – to a group of entrepreneurs led by former PepsiCo

executive Abhiram Seth in August 2008. PepsiCo transferred the assets of the seaweed venture at


20

book value to a newly formed company, Aquagri. According to press reports, PepsiCo hived off the

seaweed division owing to problems associated with managing an increasing workforce on a non-

core business activity. Through Aquagri, PepsiCo continues to honor its buyback commitment

made to the SHGs.

Aquagri has placed its focus on the agricultural by-produce, ensuring marketing through

strategic associations with agro-based businesses. The company is planning to extend operations

in the Gujarat coast and set up the first seaweed processing plant in Tamil Nadu. Aquagri has also

provided buyback guarantee for the new cultivation projects launched by CSMCRI in the states of

Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh; in addition Aquagri has indicated its intent to set up manufacturing

facilities at these centres once activities scale up.

While seaweed cultivation currently engages about 1,000 people (predominantly women) in

Mandapam area of Tamil Nadu, Aquagri plans to increase that number to 50,000. A seaweed farmer

typically earns ` 3,000 – 5,000 a month but his/her earnings could go up to ` 10,000 a month. In

order to provide prospects for long-term livelihood sustainability, Aquagri introduced the Growers

Investment Program (GIP) in April 2009. Under this program, the company deducts 5 per cent of

the income of the SHG/farmer; the deduction is matched by the company and the total contribution

is deposited in a bank. The overall goal is to initiate a SHG-owned microcredit lending program.

Aquagri also extends monetary assistance to growers to help them meet their out-of pocket expenses

in times of social emergencies.

As an additional example of corporate social responsibility, SNAP Natural and Alginate Products

Limited (SNAP), an Indian alginate conglomerate based in Ranipet, Tamil Nadu, is also engaged in

organizing village committees to help seaweed collectors understand the issues of responsible

collection and conservation of Sargassum resources in the region. The company is reportedly in

the process of taking over the debt burden of the seaweed collectors to release them from their

obligations with seaweed agents and traders. SNAP has also made financial contributions to cover

the salaries of teachers in Panchayat9 schools.

5.2.6 The Tamil Nadu State Department of Fisheries (TNDoF)10

The support of the TNDoF to seaweed farming as an alternative livelihood strategy for small-

scale fishermen has provided a major impetus to the activity. Given the length of the Indian

coastal line and the number of people looking for alternative livelihood opportunities, India has

the potential to evolve into a major world seaweed producer. From 2007 to 2009, the TNDoF

trained 1,300 fishers (13 batches of 100 members each) in the farming of Kappaphycus. This included

200 members of 40 SHGs who received a government subsidy under the Joint Liability Group (JLG)

scheme of the TNDoF.

9 Panchayat is the basic unit of district administration in Tamil Nadu.

10 Personal communication: Mr R. Dinakaran, Assistant Director of Fisheries, TNDoF, Mandapam, Ramanathapuram district, Tamil

Nadu (26 October 2009).


21

5.2.7 Role of the Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI)

The Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI)11 plays a very active role in the promotion of seaweed

farming in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu. AFI identifies the most suitable SHGs for further

involvement with the DRDA, TNDoF and the banks. With support from Aquagri and the government

departments, AFI also imparts training and provides support to to SHG participants for obtaining

government subsidies and financing from the banks. AFI also works in collaboration with colleges

and universities (such as the M.S. University, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu) to increase the scale of

seaweed farming.

5.2.8 Role of the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB)

The NFDB is a government agency specifically constituted in 2006 for development of the

fisheries sector in India. Considering the vast potential of seaweed cultivation and processing in

India, the NFDB has developed supporting schemes for the promotion of these activities. This

support includes (a) training and demonstration programs and (b) establishment of seaweed

processing units.

For the training programs, farmers/entrepreneurs (preferably fisher women) are selected based

on (i) past experience of the farmer in undertaking seaweed cultivation; (ii) willingness of the

farmer to assimilate scientific advice; and (iii) willingness to upgrade current farming practices.

The NFDB also awards grants to other government agencies, NGOs, etc. for the development of

training and demonstration sites for seaweed farming. The NFDB is currently considering to

provide financial assistance for the construction of seaweed processing plants.

5.3 A time line of the development of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu

Table 3 provides a timeline of the major events marking the development of seaweed farming

in Tamil Nadu since the year 2000.

11 AFI is an NGO based in Chennai, Tamil Nadu.


22

Table 3 A time line of the development of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu, India

2000 Agreement with CSMCRI on Kappaphycus cultivation and genesis of the undertaking.

2001 The project seaweed cultivation was commenced in February 2001. The net-bag

technique was the method formulated by CSMCRI, but was not found suitable for

commercial scale. The TN Government granted PepsiCo access to one km of water

front (10 ha) for pilot-scale cultivation at Palk Bay. Farming began in Munaikkadu

(Mandapam area) by adapting the mono-line method.

2002 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) officials visited the PepsiCo site to monitor the 10-ha

farming area and certified the project. Mono-line cultivation was in place until April

2002. Due to severe grazing, the entire seeded area (10 ha) was lost in May. Thereafter,

trials were conducted to establish a commercially viable method. ` 0.2 million were

paid to the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board (TNMB) for the leasing of the 1-km water front

area. A full-fledged quality control lab to check the quality dry weeds was also

established.

2003 Based on the results of more than 120 trials, the bamboo raft technique emerged as

the most suitable commercially viable method. The daily-wages model was withdrawn

and the contract faming method was successfully implemented in March 2003.

2004 About 3,500 rafts were harvested, delivering 126 tonnes. Another 5,000 rafts were

seeded for further expansion. Trial cultivation was also carried out in the Prakasam

District of Andhra Pradesh (AP).

2005 PepsiCo expanded farming to the Tuticorin District. For the first time, three SHGs

received subsidies from DRDA to engage in seaweed cultivation. The Department of

Biotechnology (DBT) sanctioned ` 9 million to rehabilitate tsunami-affected areas,

which led to the floating of 5,500 rafts. The company entered into an agreement with

SBI for establishing a buyback guarantee; both infrastructure and cultivators were

placed under insurance coverage.

2006 Expansion of farming to the Tanjore District. A total of 8,100 rafts were harvested,

delivering 244 tonnes of dry weed. The sap extracted from Kappaphycus was found to

be an excellent biofertilizer.

2007 Expansion of farming to Pudukkottai. The DBT activates a project in Tanjore but due

to poor growth/whitening, it is moved to Mandapam. Mono-line method was restarted

again in Mandapam as it is found to provide better returns. Trial cultivation is carried

out in Krishna district (AP); however, salinity drop in back waters and rough waves in

open seas lead to poor plant growth.

2008 Aquagri takes over the PepsiCo project. Commercialization of AquaSAP has been started.

2009 Construction of a Semi-Refined Carrageenan (SRC) unit at SIPCOT is initiated.


23

5.4 Development of alternative production methods and value-added processes and products

The main product derived from K. alvarezii is carrageenan, a gel-forming agent widely used in

the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, food and pet food industries. Carrageenan fetches prices of up to

USD 5,000/tonne in the world market, the total size of which was valued at over USD 300 million

in 2005. The Philippines and Indonesia today account for over 90 per cent of the world production

of K. alvarezii, currently estimated around 400 thousand tonnes. Sixty-five per cent of this total is

traded in dried form. Carrageenan is much superior to agar both in terms of cost and versatility,

particularly in its ability to form an almost infinite variety of gels at room temperature. It is for

this reason that carrageenan compounds are used for thickening, stabilizing and improving viscosity

of various foods and non-food products.

BOX 3

Beneficial environmental impacts of sea plant cultivation

� As any other alga, Kappaphycus sequesters carbon, thereby ameliorating the impact of greenhouse

gases.

� Twenty-six percent of the dry mass of Kappaphycus consists of carbon. Seaweed farming offers a

clear opportunity for growers to earn carbon credits.

� Co-cultivation of algae with marine finfish is recommended as a best aquaculture practice as it

reduces the polluting potential of farming sites.

� Algal cultivation creates habitats/shelters for the breeding of fish and other marine organisms.

� Most algae have a 90 percent moisture content and, despite growing in sea water, have limited

sodium content and are rich in potassium, which opens up the potential for extracting fresh

potable water and low-sodium salt.

BOX 4

Carrageenan extraction from dry weed

� Carrageenans are a family of linear sulphated polysaccharides extracted from seaweeds.

� Carrageenan has the ability to form a variety of different gels which are stable at room temperature.

This leads to a wide range of applications as thickening and stabilizing agents in various industries

such as food processing, dairy, pet foods, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

� The process of manufacture and extraction of carrageenan from dry weed is both water and

energy intensive.

� Given concerns of water availability in coastal areas, PepsiCo partnered with CSMCRI in developing

fresh-weed processing technology.


2412 In this context, SAP is not a generic term. It rather indicates the liquid biofertilizer developed by Aquagri and branded as

AQUASAP.

The partnership established between PepsiCo and CSMCRI to explore more water and energy

efficient processing technologies led to the development of a fresh-weed processing system which

yielded SAP,12 an organic fertilizer rich in micronutrients, aminoacids and growth hormones. Since

then SAP has been applied to a range of crops (brinjal, onion, corn, black gram, paddy, sugar cane)

and has consistently increased yields by 12 to 40 per cent (Table 4). This technological innovation

– for which CSMCRI obtained a global patent – was licensed to PepsiCo. The development was

singled out as an important technology breakthrough by former President Dr Abdul Kalam in his

National Technology Day broadcast to the nation in 2006.

Aquagri has sourced the technology for extracting SAP from wet seaweeds and acquired

exclusive marketing rights for three years from CSMCRI.

A seaweed farmer in Rameswaram

A good haul of seaweed, Olaikuda, Rameswaram


25

AQUASAP Seaplant nutrient

AQUAFEED Animal nutrition

CARRAGEENAN Polysaccharide gelling/stabilizing agent

BOX 5

Fig 2 Products from Kappaphycus alvarezii


26

According to CSMCRI, Kappaphycus sap also contains considerable quantities of nitrogen,

phosphorus, potassium, organic matter, sodium calcium, magnesium, manganese, iron, copper,

zinc, cobalt, molybdenum, sulphate and chloride. Incidentally, applying SAP at the germination

stage of seaweed cultivation has also shown impressive results in terms of increase in growth of

roots and shoots.

Table 4 Per cent increase in crop yields resulting from the use of bio-fertilizers of seaweed origin

Source: Aquagri Processing Private Limited, New Delhi.

Crop Increase in yield (%) Trials location

Broad Acre Crops 16.1 Pepsi farm.

Gracilaria 2,500 - 3 500 6,000 (Fresh)

Paddy 18 Madras University.

Barley 11; 22 4 farmer fields; Rajasthan government farm.

Wheat 20.2 (2005-6);

13.5 (2006-7)Pepsi farm; 5 farmer fields.

Sugarcane 40.1; 45 Renuka Sugar; farmer fields in Karnataka.

Mustard 7.2 Rajasthan government farm.

Vegetables

Brinjal 22.1 Pepsi farm.

Tomato 20 Clean Foods.

Potato 26, 25 Techno Tubers; Agricultural University,

Kalyani, West Bengal.

Capsicum 19.1 Pepsi farm.

Chilli 18 Clean Foods.

Legumes

Soya Bean 13.6 (2005);

15.3 (2006)Soya Producers Association.

Gram 12.5; 16 5 farmers; Rajasthan government farm.

Peanut 14.5 Madras University.


27

BOX 6

Seaweeds as an animal feed supplement

� Research and trials have proved beyond doubt that animals can obtain natural nutrients from

seaweeds. The nutritional value of seaweeds may even exceed that of land plants.

� Seaweeds contains macro and micronutrients, trace minerals, alginic acid, vitamins, aminoacids,

naturally occurring plant growth hormones and antibiotics. All these compounds are chelated,

making them 100 percent absorbable.

� Seaweeds are also a natural source of iodine which acts as an antibiotic to kill germs; it also

increases growth rates and helps regulate metabolic functions in organisms.

� The complex constituent profile of seaweeds also contributes to strengthen the immune system

and increase resistance against disease.

Advantages of seaweeds for cattle

International literature and trials suggest that seaweeds

� build resistance to disease by ensuring a complete balance of micronutrients. They also help

reduce the incidence of mastitis and cow fever;

� increase the availability of nutrients; improve milk yield, fertility and health;

� improve fat level and iodine content in milk.

Seaweeds as a poultry feed supplement

Seaweeds as a supplement for poultry feed have been used since the 1960s. Their benefits are as

follows:

� Carotenoids (30-60 mg/kg) and trace elements in seaweeds improve egg shell strength.

� Fucoxanthin A, which produces a xanthophyll in the gut, improves egg yolk colour.

� By adding five-percent-content granules to the feed, trials showed a decrease in mortality rate

of five percent and an increase in weight of 10 percent in treatment individuals as compared to

control individuals.

Source: Aquagri Processing Private Limited, New Delhi

Aquagri has recently completed the construction of two facilities for processing of seaweeds

in Tamil Nadu, located at Mandapam and Manamadurai. These facilities are capable of handling

150 tonnes/day of fresh seaweed; most of the input material is being converted to SAP; the residual

content after extraction of SAP is used for the extraction of carrageenan. These are state-of-the-

art facilities using solar power and biofuels as energy sources.

Other firms such as SNAP (Ranipet, Tamil Nadu) are also developing value-added products

using Sargassum as raw material. The list of products includes organic manure, foliar sprays, and


28

liquid and gel fertilizers. SNAP reported that their products were certified by the Agricultural and

Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) under the National Program for

Organic Produce certification.

5.5 Farming problems

Seaweed farming can be affected by a host of problems. Grazing fish such as siganids

(rabbitfish) and puffers can damage the crops. Siganids are the most destructive, especially if the

plants have not grown much. Entire crops can be devoured and even dense beds can be severely

damaged. There is no simple solution except to move the farming location to another site where

predators are less prevalent. Turtles pose a special problem: besides grazing, they also crawl

through the farms, causing devastating physical damage. Long spined sea urchins are also a pest

and can cause injury to the farmer as he tries to remove them.

The most common symptom of poor health is ice-ice, disease so named because of the white

segments that appear on the plants, causing them to break at that point. There is disagreement

about its causes: some people argue that the segments are indicative of a bacterial or viral infection

while others attribute the disease to physical stress caused by changes in the farming environment.

Storms lead to strong water movements that can cause plants to break apart and even cause

physical damage to the rafts and lines. Locations that are subject to cyclical cyclones should be

avoided; if this is not possible, precautions should be taken during the period of storms (FAO,

2003). The period from October to December in Tamil Nadu are months of seasonal rains and

cyclones.

6 Historical production statistics13

6.1 Production potential

Modayil (2004) estimated a total potential of 1 005 000 tonnes of seaweed in six states of

India. The greatest potential exists in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the lowest in the state

of Maharashtra. (Table 5).

Table 5 Estimated harvestable potential of wild seaweeds in India, by State

13 The section is strictly a compilation of available information from various sources and the authors have no specific

comments to offer on the estimates and the methodology.

State Potential (tonnes)

Gujarat 2,50,000

Maharashtra 5,000

Kerala 100,000

Tamil Nadu 2,50 000

Andhra Pradesh 100, 000

Andaman and Nicobar Islands 300, 000

Source: Modayil (2004).


29

Dhargalkar and Pereira (2005) estimated the total seaweed harvest from the Indian coastline

at about 100 thousand tonnes (fresh weight). Their survey covered eight States and two Union

Territories of India. The estimates of seaweed resources in earlier studies by other workers in

various states are given in Table 6.

Table 6 Seaweed resources along the coast of India

Area Annual yield(tonnes fresh weight Source

Gujarat

Gulf of Kutch 100,000 Chauhan and Krishnamurthy (1968)

Hanumandandi to 19,000 Bhandari and Trivedi (1975)

Vumani (Okha) 650

Adatra reef 60 Sreenivasa Rao et al.,(1964)

Saurashtra coast 282-608 Chauhan and Mirh (1978)

Maharashtra

Konkan coast 315 Chauhan (1977)

Entire coast 20,000 Untawale et al. (1979)

Goa 2,000 Dhargalkar (1981)

Karnataka Negligible

Kerala Negligible Nair et al., (1982)

Tamil Nadu

Cape Comorin to Colachel 5 Koshy and John (1948)

Calimere to Cape Comorin 66,000 Chacko and Malu Pillai (1958)

Pamban 1,000 Varma and Rao (1964)

Palk Bay 900 Umamaheshwara Rao (1968)

South East coast 20,535 Subbaramaiah et al., (1977)

Entire coast 22,044 Subbaramaiah et al., (1977)

Andhra Pradesh Data not available

Orissa

Chilka lake 5 Mitra (1946)

Lakshadweep Islands 3,645 to 7,598 Subbaramaiah et al., (1979)

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Little Andaman 120 Gopinathan and Panigrahy (1983)

Source: Dhargalkar and Pereira (2005).


30

Although structured feasibility studies on seaweed farming did not appear until the last decade

of the twentieth century in India, Thivy (1958) was perhaps the first to map the distribution of

economic seaweeds along the Indian coast. ‘The Survey of Economic Seaweed Resources’ was

initiated by the CSMCRI during 1961-91. This effort was funded by the National Committee on

Science and Technology (NCST). However, surveys were sporadic after 1980 owing to lack of funding.

The Indian seaweed flora is highly diversified: boreal, temperate and subtropical species have

all been reported. Krishnamurthy (2005) reported that Indian waters contain 271 genera and 1,153

species of marine algae belonging to four groups of algae: Cholorophyceae, Rhodophyceae,

Phaeophyceae and Cyanophyceae. These seaweed resources have supported a collection industry

that currently faces many obstacles such as overexploitation of a number of species, poor quality

of harvested material, labour shortages during the paddy harvesting and transplanting seasons,

lack of technology to improve processed product quality, and lack of information on new and

alternative sources of raw materials. Despite the great number of sheltered bays and lagoons

suitable for mariculture, large-scale attempts to grow seaweed were never attempted.

6.2 Production statistics of Kappaphycus seaweed

PepsiCo’s entry into Kappaphycus culture marks the beginning of organized, commercial-

oriented production of this specific type of seaweed. Production increased from 21 tonnes in 2001

to 714(+) tonnes (dry weight) in 2009. The entire production resulted from the output of the SHGs

working in coordination with PepsiCo (Table 7).

Competitive pricing arrangements were extended to farmers by PepsiCo. Price incentives were

also offered to growers who produced more than the targeted quantity so as to prevent breaching

of contracts. With the opening of the new SAP plant, Aquagri will increase its purchases of wet

Kappaphycus, enabling growers to devote a greater portion of their time on farming rather than

on drying. Wet seaweed is currently being purchased from the SHG members at the rate of ` 1.50

per kg.

Table 7 provides information on raft productivity in Kappaphycus farming. The output per raft

increased from 21 kg in 2002 to almost 50 kg in 2008, i.e. productivity more than doubled in just

seven years.


31

Note: BR: bamboo rafts; ML: mono-line culture; FCL: Full Container Load (1 container = 21

tonnes).

* Data incomplete for 2009.

** The column includes two prices to indicate that prices offered to SHG members were

revised in the same year.

Table 7 Area, production and exports of Kappaphycus in Tamil Nadu, India (2001-2009)

YearNumber of

ML/BR

2001 ML 1.5 - 6.0 Company Daily wage Test plots 21 1

owned system

2002 ML 2.2 - 2.4 Company Daily wage ML: 82 4

owned system 5 275

2003 BR: 75% 2.0 - Company Daily wage ML: 3 567 147 7

ML: 25% 2.5 owned and system BR: 1 962

contract & 4.50

farming

2004 BR 2.6 Contract 4.50 & 7.50 BR: 3 469 126 6

farming

2005 BR 3.25 Company 7.50 & 8.50 BR: 3 450 135 6

owned

2006 BR 2.5 - 3.0 Company 8.50 & 10.00 BR: 8 100 244 12

owned

2007 BR: 95% 2.5 - Contract 10.00 & 12.00 BR: 10 464 315 15

ML: 5% 3.0 farming

and private

cultivators

2008 BR: 90% 2.5 - 3.0 Company 12.00 & 14.00 BR: 588 28

ML: 10% owned 16 000+

2009 BR: 90% 2.5 - 3.0 Company 14.00/kg BR: 714* 34*

ML: 10% owned (dry) 18 000+

1.75/kg (fresh)

TOTAL 2, 372 113

Cultivationmethod

Growthrate (%)

Businessmodel

Procurement

cost, (`)/kg (dry

weight)**

Productiondry weight

(tonnes)

Exports(FCL of dryseaweed)


32

Of the 250 -260 kg of seaweed that is obtained as wet weed from a raft, about 25 percent of

the harvest is kept aside as seed material (cuttings) for planting the next raft. Therefore, since the

yield of dry weed is a proportion of total output harvested, there is an urgent need to develop an

off shore seed jetty to help the SHG farmers to outsource their seed (instead of keeping a part of

their total harvest towards seeding the next raft). Table 8 indicates loss in dry weed yield and

income resulting from retaining a portion of the total harvest as seed material. It may also be

noted that yields have been increasing over time indicating that SHG farmers have been seeding

and harvesting more rafts and monolines than estimated, daily. The yields have risen from 21 kg

to 49 kg at full utilization rate in less than a decade. The figures given here are indicative (as

obtained from Aquagiri Procesing Private Limited) since the data is a mix of output from rafts and

monoline culture.

Table 8 Trends in raft productivity, 2001-2009 (kg)

**Ongoing (*No of BR and ML)


7 Seaweed exports

By international standards, Indian agar and alginates do not compare favourably in terms of

gel strength and viscosity. Although Indian products are competitive on a cost basis and are not

subject to export restrictions, the world market offers little scope for most categories of Indian-

produced agar and alginates. However, some large producers (e.g. Marine Chemicals, Kochi) have

achieved important export levels.

Seaweed exports data are available from MPEDA and are shown in Table 9. PepsiCo has exported

Year

2001 Test plots Test plots Test plots Test plots

2002 5 275 20.73 3956 15.55

2003 5 529 35.45 4147 26.59

2004 3 469 48.43 2602 36.32

2005 3 450 52.17 2588 39.13

2006 8 100 40.16 6075 30.12

2007 10 464 40.14 7848 30.10

2008 16 000+ 49.00 12000 36.75

2009* 18 000+ 13500 **

Number ofML/BR

Dry weed yield per raft at100% utilization (kg/raft)

Dry weed yield perraft at75% utilization

(kg/raft)

Number ofML/BR


33

113 containers of dried seaweed between 2000 and 2008 (valued at USD 0.923 million). It should

be noted that PepsiCo exports are not reflected in MPEDA statistics.

Table 9 Exports of seaweeds from India

Sources: MPEDA (columns 3 and 4); Aquagri (column 5). FCL: Full Container Load (1 FCL: 21 tonnes).

*Incomplete data for 2008-09

8 Socio-economic dimensions of seaweed farming in India

Kappaphycus seaweed grow profusely in areas with sandy or rocky bottoms, salinity in the

range of 28 to 33 ppt, temperature around 30o ± 3o C, depth around 1.5 meters, moderate light

intensity and wave action. A seed plant of 150 g grows to more than 600 g in 45 days in calm

waters such as those found in the Palk Bay area. Seaweeds only require sunlight and transparent

seawater with mild wave action for replenishing bottom nutrients. But Kappaphycus seaweed

grows more than eight times in the open sea where wave action is fairly high (AFI, 2008).

The Kudumbam (family) model of cultivation (KMC) is a farming system initially introduced by

PepsiCo and then widely adopted for Kappaphycus culture in Tamil Nadu. All seaweed farming in

Ramanathapuram district is under the KMC. Cultivation is organized by members of a SHG who

normally belong to the same family but may include other members from the same community.

Collectively, the group prepares the rafts, seeds the lines, provides maintainance and harvests on

the due date. Basic infrastructure is facilitated by the company, the harvest is purchased on a

buyback basis and payments are effected by the company through the bank accounts of the SHG

(Box 7).

The advantages of the SHG/KMC model are manifold and obvious. The major advantage is

(1)Year

2000-01 Negligible Negligible Negligible 1


2002-03 0.37 0.149 0.00 7




2006-07 21 0.538 0.01 15

2007-08 74.25 1.991 0.05 28

2008-09 855.82 38.438 0.86 34*

(2)Quantity(Tonnes)

(4)Value

(USD Million)

(3)Value

( ` million)

(5)Exports of PepsiCo

(FCL Dry)


34

that fishers are given an opportunity to become entrepreneurs in an activity with growth potential.

The seaweed farming initiative in Ramanathapuram started with a strong positive gender bias.

Women took up the gauntlet with ardor as the activity empowered them with a highly productive,

non-hazardous work environment. The overall economic and social quality of life has improved by

leaps and bounds as discussed in the following sections. Convenient hours and stress-free work of

4-6 hours a day enhanced their quality of life. It has been argued that seaweed farming development

has also led to alleviate pressure on fish stocks and reduce dependence on agriculture, although

these facts are not well documented. According to experts, the area suitable for culture in

Ramanathapuram district --– one of the most under-developed regions in Tamil Nadu – could

exceed 50 thousand hectares. It has been estimated that substantial employment and income

opportunities can be provided to more than 50 thousand families for every 10 thousand hectares

brought under cultivation.

8.1 Locations

PepsiCo started operations in 2002 by leasing an area of 10 hectares (one km of sea front) on

Palk Bay, near Mandapam (Ramanathapuram district) in Tamil Nadu. Currently, seaweed farming

is practiced in Tamil Nadu at various scales of operation in Mandapam, Rameswaram, Pudukottai,

Tuticorin, Tanjore and Cuddalore. Experimental trials are being conducted in Thondi and Karangadu

areas of Ramanthapuram district, Parangipettai in Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu, Ongole district

of Andhra Pradesh on the east coast, Edavanakad in Kerala and state of Diu on the west coast of

India.

8.2 The SHG model of seaweed farming

There are currently more than 110 SHGs involved in seaweed farming in the Ramanathapuram

district. Each group presently comprises five persons. During 2002-2003, the daily-wage corporate

model was the prevailing production arrangement in the region, which came to be replaced by

the more successful contract farming/SHG model.

In addition to PepsiCo (2002-2008) and Aquagri, the seaweed farming movement in India has

been promoted by a network of institutions, namely NABARD, commercial banks, the TNDoF, AFI,

DRDA, DBT, CSMCRI, CMFRI and numerous NGOs.

The economics of the raft-culture/SHG production model for the farming of Kappaphycus as

supported by the TNDoF (2009) is presented in Tables 10 and 11. Fifty per cent of the total production

cost of 45 rafts per SHG trainee (` 31,050) is borne by the TNDoF; the other 50 per cent is financed

with a commercial bank loan.


35

BOX 7

The socio-economic premise for Kappaphycus culture in India

The advantages of Kappaphycus cultivation in coastal waters of Tamil Nadu are:

� Kappaphycus grows by absorbing nutrients (N, P and other minerals) present in the seawater

(i.e, no input of external nutrients is needed).

� Kappaphycus is a versatile plant capable of growing almost anywhere in tropical marine

environments.

� It propagates vegetatively by cuttings (no need to undergo sexual phases) and thus it is easy to

reproduce.

� Grows fast and regenerates fast after harvesting.

� Can be consumed raw or used in salads.

� Culture does not involve applications of fertilizers, growth hormones, pesticides, insecticides,

or herbicides; the final product is 100-percent organic.

� Cultivation technology is simple and environmentally friendly.

� Kappaphycus is a major source of Kappa carrageenan.

� Kappaphycus culture does not release any harmful chemicals or solid wastes into the surrounding

environment.

Two to three persons in a family can handle the operations and earn from ̀ 12,000 to 15,000 a month

(The average net income per annum per farmer is ̀ 73,107 which works out to ̀ 6,092 per month per

farmer. In a family if two to three members are involved in seaweed farming, they can earn about `12,200 to `18,000, which is near to the approximation of ` 12,000 to ` 15,000 a month)

� The technological and economic viability has been established in Tamil Nadu.

� Farming, harvesting and processing generates new cottage industries and direct and indirect

employment for the coastal poor.

� Commercial banks provide loans to SHGs without collateral (up to ` 0.50 million per SHG).

Buyback of the produce is guaranteed.

� Research, development institutions, TNDoF, commercial banks and corporate investors have

developed a network to promote Kappaphycus cultivation in the coastal waters of Tamil Nadu.

� Refined carrageenan extracted from Kappaphycus fetches a price ranging from USD 7,000 to

10 000 per tonne depending upon grade and quality. Raw weeds with around 30 percent moisture

get a price of USD 250-600/tonne.

� Kappaphycus is a high-value seaweed with expanding demand and innumerable applications in

various industries.

� Because of its plant-growth-promoting properties, Kappaphycus culture could revolutionize

organic agriculture in India. Preliminary experiments have revealed substantial growth

enhancement (18-40 percent) in rice, sugarcane, groundnut and wheat.

Source: Modified from AFI (2008).


36

Bamboo rafts 64 ft ` 3.10/ft 198.50

Five cornered anchors 15 kg ` 40/kg 60.00

3-mm nylon rope (1.25 mm 0.45 kg ` 10/kg 50.00

thickness / 4.5 m length / 20

lengths)

20 ropes for seeding 400 cuttings 0.165 kg ` 120/kg 20.00

36 m of 6-mm thickness nylon 0.65 kg ` 110/kg 75.00

rope (for the manufacturing of

the raft)

3.5 x 3.5-m nets for reducing 1.13 kg ` 75/kg 85.00

grazing by fish

28 m of 2-mm thickness ropes 0.09 kg ` 110/kg 10.00

for tying the nets to raft bottoms

1 kg nylon rope of 5.4 m length 0.10 kg ` 110/kg 11.00

pieces for tying together a

batch of 10 rafts.

Anchor ropes 17 M of 10mm 0.09 kg ` 110/kg 10.00

thickness. 1 length for a batch

of 10 rafts

65 kg of seed materials 65 kg ` 0.85/kg 55.25

(including 5 kg-loss in handling)

Transportation charges for

seed materials 25.00

Mats/ladders/baskets/ knives, etc. 40.00

Floats 25.00

TOTAL 690.00

Items Quantity/ Raft `/ Unit Total value (`)

Table 10 Economics of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu, India: cost of materials for the construction

of one raft (3 m x 3 m)


37

It maybe noted that the interest rate is charged annually, even though culture is restricted to

270 days and since the Tamil Nadu coast is subjected to the north east monsoon seaweed culture

is not practiced during the balance of 95 days (Table 10). The yield is calculated for 270 days as the

culture operations are confined to this period in a year. One raft a day is expected to be seeded and

harvested by the SHG farmer. Therefore the yield of dry weed (24 kg) indicated is for a cycle of 45

days. It may also be noted that the figures cited here by the government of Tamil Nadu forms the

basis on which the commercial banks work out their lending strategies to the SHGs. However, the

farmers now (December 2009) are receiving upto ` 18/- per kg of dry weed based on quantity and

quality of output. Many farmers are able to handle as many as 3 rafts a day by way of seeding and

harvesting therby enhancing their economic returns handsomely.

Table 11 Economics of seaweed farming (raft culture) in Tamil Nadu, India: analysis of costs and

returns for the first year of operation

Source: Seaweed Culture, Golden Jubilee Village Self Employment Opportunities, Government of Tamil Nadu (2008-09).

8.3 Seaweed farming practices

Two different culture techniques are practiced in Mandapam: raft culture and mono-line culture.

The raft method is suitable in areas where water currents are weak, e.g. Palk Bay. A floating

frame made of bamboo (normally of dimensions 3’x3’) is used to suspend the seaweed about 50

cm below the surface. Three-mm polypropylene ropes are stretched in parallel between the two

sides of the raft, at 10-15 cm intervals. The seedlings are tied to the ropes and the raft is anchored

to the bottom. Anchor ropes may be need to hold the raft below the surface at the beginning but

Itemnumber

1 Cost of 45 rafts per farmer - ` 31,050

2 Subsidy from TNDoF (50%) - ` 15,525

3 Bank loan (50%) - ` 15 ,525

4 Production from 45 rafts in 45 days (kg fresh weight) 300

5 Seed material allocated to the next stocking cycle (kg) 60

6 Production of dried weed 24 kg

7 Interest on bank loan (11%) - ` 1,708

8 Insurance - ` 380

9 Returns (24 kg @ ` 14.00 x 270 days) - ` 90,720

10 Net returns for the first year (9 - [2 + 7 + 8]) - ` 73,107

QuantityItem


38

Figure 3 Top view of a 3 m x 3 m bamboo raft with 4-ft diagonals.

Source : AFI, 2008

In the mono-line culture method, ropes of 60 m each are tied in two sections to avoid sags in

the line caused by the weight. Each fishermen or stakeholder is given 45 ropes, which are tied in

two plots of 30 m x 45 m each. A spacing of one metre is allowed between the two plots.

In each plot, 150 seaweed cuttings are inserted in the ropes, leaving a spacing of 20 cm. The

initial weight of the seedling is 200 g and thus a total of 60 kg of seed material is required for each

production cycle. Normally the seaweed plants are simply tied up to the nylon ropes. However,

as the plants grow and add weight to the raft, extra support (such as polystyrene foam boxes tied

to the corners of the rafts) may be required to prevent it from sinking too low in the water. Specific

details of this technique are provided in Figure 3.

A cluster of 4-6 rafts during the monsoon season or a cluster of 10 rafts during the normal

season can be anchored with a five-toothed iron anchor of 15 kg. Alternatively, holed stones can be

linked with chains and then tied to the cluster.

The major advantage of floating rafts is that they can be easily moved to another location if

necessary, and removed from the water during bad weather. Rafts can also be used as drying racks

by providing appropriate support when placed onshore.


39

ItemNumber

Item

1 Average initial investment for 60m rope- ` 1,716

2 Average operating cost for 60 ropes 175

3 Cost of seedlings 105

4 Production from 60 ropes in 45 days (kg fresh weight) 400

5 Seed material allocated to the next stocking cycle (kg) 100

6 Production of dried weed at 10:1 ratio of fresh to dry seaweed 30

7 Average harvest of dried seaweed per rope (after deducing

2 kg for impurities and other wastes)-kg 28

8 Average gross revenue - ` 448

9 Cost of Harvesting- ` 50

10 Net returns per farmer per block of 60 ropes- ` 398

Quantity

Harvest is normally conducted after 45 days in the Ramanathapuram district; because

growth rates are higher, the production cycle is shortened to only 30 days in the southern

districts of Tuticorin and Kanyakumari. The expected yield from the two plots ranges from

350 to 400 kg of fresh seaweed. From this harvest, 100 kg are separated as planting material

for the subsequent cycle. Hence 25 to 30 kg of dry weed are obtained from a harvest of 250-

300 kg of fresh weed after 45 days (10:1 ratio). The estimated annual harvest of seaweeds

(per 900 ropes) is 27,000 kg, which is higher than what is obtained under raft culture.

The average initial investment for 60-m length of long line culture amounts to ` 1,716,

which is higher than that of the raft, which was ` 690. (Table 12) The cost of the nylon ropes

accounted for of 33 per cent of total investment but the labour charges for the installation

accounted for the highest share of 38.5 per cent of the total investment (` 660). The average

during the summer months of May-June (fish breeding season), the plants are covered with net

bags to avoid grazing by fishes, which increases production costs. The seeds are always covered

with net bags in Tuticorin and Kanyakumari.

The major advantage of mono-line culture is that it provides superior yields to those achieved

with rafts. The disadvantages are that investment per rope is higher, there is a higher threat of

grazing by fish, ropes could break (leading to crop loss), and maintenance of the plots is labor

intensive.

Table 12 Economics of mono line culture of seaweeds per block of 60 ropes


40

operating cost per rope worked out to ` 175 per 60 m ropes, if family labour wage is not

included. This comprised the cost of seedlings, which worked out to ` 105 for 60 kg seed

material. The average harvest per rope was 28 kg of dried seaweed, which fetched gross

revenue of ` 448. Deducting the harvesting charge of ` 50, the average net income per rope

worked out to ` 398 (Table 11).

Although mono-line culture appears to be more profitable than raft culture, the

operational difficulties may be overbearing, especially when the workforce is mostly composed

by women. The non-monetary advantages of raft culture make it a preferred system choice in

the Ramanathapuram district. As such, this study will concentrate on the socio-economics of

the raft culture system.

The socio-economic status of seaweed farmers was assessed through personal interviews

using a pre-tested schedule. Details on socio-economic parameters such as family size, age

composition, experience in fishing and seaweed farming, asset ownership, income and

occupational status, indebtedness, and socio-economic status improvement associated with

seaweed farming, were collected from the sample respondents (n = 437). The population of

organised SHG seaweed farmers at the time the survey was administered was estimated at

1,000. The sample was drawn based on purposive sampling proportionate to size. For

comparison purposes, respondents were grouped into two major areas: Mandapam and

Rameshwaram. The selected locations represent the mainland and island ecosystems,

respectively.

Farmers in the Mandapam region included in the sample were specifically located in

Vedalai, Umilyalpuram, Munaikadu, T. Nagar, Meenavar colony and Thonithurai. The locations

covered in Rameshwaram were Pamban, Akkalmadam, Nallupanai, Ariyankudu, A.Vadakadu,

Parvatham, Sambai, Mangadu and Olaikuda.

The earliest groups in the selected locations seem to have been formed in 2006 (Table 13).

The SHGs are predominantly formed by women, even though a few of the SHG consisted

exclusively of men and some other SHGs were mixed. Each SHG consists of five members. The

names of the supporting institutions are also indicated in Table 13; the agencies most actively

engaged are DBT, Ramanathapuram Rural Development Agency (RDDA) and TNDoF. The

Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI) has provided seedlings and other materials to farmers

in the region.

A number of SHGs in Vedalai, Thonithurai, Ariyankkundu and R.Vadakadu are currently

handling more than 1,000 rafts each. These SHGs have been exposed to Kappaphycus culture

longer than other groups; because of this experience, they are able to obtain yields exceeding

50 kg per raft (dry weight). The performance of the most recent SHGs is expected to improve

over time. Overall, farmers report that they have been able to obtain good returns from the

activity. Seaweed farming is now expanding to other districts within Tamil Nadu such as

Pudukottai and Thanjavur also(Annexure I).


41

Name oflocation

Sri Lingeshwar

Andavar SHG DBT 2006 3 12 10 1040 52

Vedalai Sri Karumaliyan

Andavar SHG DBT 2006

Sakthi

Mariyamman RDDA 2007

Mahalir

Umiyal MNS Mahalir

Puram SHG RDDA 2007 1 12 0 540 53

Valarpirai

Andavar SHG DBT 2006 4 0 20 900 58

Vidivelli

Andavar SHG DBT

Munaikadu Team Andavar

SHG TNDoF

Kadal Pavalam

Andavar SHG DBT

Kadal Alli

Mahalir SHG DBT 2006 3 12 3 750 54

T.Nagar Kadal Thamarai

Mahalir SHG DBT 2006

Kadal Pasu

Mixed SHG DBT 2006

Meeenavar Karuppanasamy

colony Andavar SHG DBT 2007 2 0 10 400 55

Sri Thillai

Adavar SHG DBT 2007

Uthayam Mixed

SHG DBT 2006 5 12 19 1050 43

Krishna Andavar

SHG DBT 2006

Thonithurai Nila Andavar SHG DBT 2006

Name of SHGSupportinginstitution

StartingYear

Numberof SHGs

Numberof femalemembers

Numberof male

members

Numberof rafts

Annualyeild perraft (kg)

Table 13 . Composition, structure and performance of SHGs engaged in seaweed farming in the

Mandapam and Rameshwaram regions of Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India


42

Kadal Nila


Kadal Muthu DBT 2007

Pamban Jesus Andavar – DBT

DBT 2007 1 0 5 200 43

Vasantham

Andavar SHG DBT 2006 3 5 10 675 48

Akkal madam Kadal Thendral

Andavar DBT 2007

Kadal Osai

Mahalir TNDoF 2008

Nallupanai Vetri Andavar SHG DBT 2006 1 0 5 250 46

Ariyan Red Algae

kundu Andavar SHG DBT 2006 3 12 10 1040

Thendral


St. Sebasthiyar

Mahalir SHG RDDA 2007

A.Vadakadu Nalvalvu Josw

a Andavar SHG DBT 2006 1 0 5 250 46

R. Vadakadu Private

Cultivators 2008 0 0 0 1080 47

Parvatham Sri Sastha

Mahalir SHG RDDA 2007 1 12 0 540 48

Sambai Kadal Rani

Mahalir SHG DBT 2007 1 5 0 200 51

Subam

Andavar SHG DBT 2006 3 5 10 700 49

Dharma

Muneshwarar


Mangadu Kadal Pura


Nalvalvu

Antoniyar

Andavar SHG DBT 2006 2 12 5 790 51


43

Name oflocation

Name of SHGSupportinginstitution

StartingYear

Numberof SHGs

Numberof femalemembers

Numberof male

members

Numberof rafts

Annualyeild perraft (kg)

Iyarkai Mahalir

SHG RDDA 2007

Paralogamatha

Mahalir SHG TNDoF 2009 5 5 0 225 —

Punitha

Antoniyar

Andavar SHG TNDoF 2009 5 0 5 225 —

Olaikuda Annai Therasa


Sengol Matha


Punitha Annal


Kadal Pura


Kadal Pookkal


Sri Vinayagar


Kaliamman


Sambai Ramanathasamy


Pathrakaliamman


Kanthari Amman


Prathingara Devi


Kadal Ulagam




44

8.4.1 Socio-economic indicators in seaweed farming

The socio-economics of the farming villages were studied by examining parameters such as

average family size, age and caste structure, occupation and income patterns, consumption

expenditure and indebtedness.

8.4.1.1 Head of the family - Family size

Normally in Tamilnadu as in most other states of India, Head of the family is the senior most

male in the family. Of late, widows who are the bread winners are also represented as family

head. The analysis of the head of the family is given in Table 14.

The analysis of the head of the family of the respondents revealed that about 64 percent of

the respondents in Mandapam and 66 percent in Rameswaram are males and the rest are female

seaweed farmers (Table 14). The concept of SHG was founded on the basic premise that women

are more responsible and have a better disposition to work towards achieving social and economic

independence. In the case of seaweed farming, rather than assuming a leadership role, men in

fishing households followed their women. The initial success of women in seaweed farming

motivated men to enter the activity as well.

The average family size of respondents ranged from 4.5 in Mandapam to 5.5 in Rameshwaram.

This is consistent with the national average of 4.5 for fishermen families reported by the Marine

Fishery Census (CMFRI, 2005).

Table 14 Gender composition and average family size of respondents

8.4.1.2 Caste / Religion structure

The analysis of caste structure reveals that only a few castes like valaiyan and kadayar

are getting involved in seaweed farming (Table 15). It must be noted that these castes form

the major coastal belt community engaged in fishing and related enterprises. It also must be

noted that a number of individuals with capital resources but without any other liaison to

the coastal area have entered seaweed farming. To avoid potential conflicts, authorities have

adopted the method of allocating the oceanic inshore area among stakeholders based on the

"ration cards" 14 allocated by the Government of Tamil Nadu (Olaikuda village, Rameswaram).

Male 145 64 139 66

Female 81 36 72 34

Total 226 100 211 100

Average family size 4.5 5.5

CategoryMandapam Rameshwaram

Number % Number %

14 Ration cards are family food cards allotted to households in India which entitles the holder to periodic subsidized rationsof food. These cards also function as identification documents enabling the holder to establish his place of residence at aparticular place and


45

Table 15. Caste and religion structure of the sample respondents

8.4.1.3 Type of family

Most of the sample respondents' families belong to the nuclear family type15 (Table 16).

However, Rameshwaram has a relatively greater number of joint families16 involved in seaweed

farming. The social development programmes promoted by the Government of Tamil Nadu have

led to a general improvement of the socio-economic conditions of the overall population. These

programmes have also altered the structure of families, with joint families giving way to nuclear

families. This phenomenon is also taking place in coastal villages.

Table 16. Family type

Backward communities 0 0 15 7.11

Valaiyan 124 54.99 119 56.40

Ambalakarar 5 2.01 14 6.64

Sheeper 0 0 1 0.47

Kadayar 63 28.07 21 9.95

MBC 0 0 33 15.64

Servai 23 9.93 1 0.47

Muslim 5 2.01 2 0.95

Christian 0 0 3 1.42

Paman 0 0 1 0.47

Paller 0 0 1 0.47

Nadars 6 3.99 0 0

Total 226 100.00 211 100.00

Caste structureMandapam Rameshwaram

Number % Number %

Nuclear 219 97 162 77

Joint 7 3 49 23

Total 226 100 211 100

Type of familyMandapam Rameshwaram

Number % Number %

15 A nuclear family is a family group consisting of only a father and mother and their children, who share living quarters.16 A Hindu Joint Family or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or a Joint Family is an extended family arrangement prevalent among Hindus and consisting of many generations living under the same roof. All the male members are blood relatives and all the women are either mothers, wives, unmarried daughters, or widowed relatives.


46

8.4.1.4 Experience in fishing and seaweed farming

Table 17 indicates that 92 and 72 percent of the respondents in Mandapam and Rameshwaram,

respectively, have between 11 and 25 years of experience in fishing. Because these individuals

belong to the middle-aged group, they can be expected to successfully adapt to innovations in

farming techniques.

Table 17. Fishing experience

Less than 10 years 11 6 49 23

11- 25 years 208 92 151 72

More than 25 years 7 2 11 5

Total 226 100 211 100

Years of experienceMandapam Rameshwaram

Number % Number %

The concept of seaweed farming was introduced only after 2001, thus the maximum

experience a farmer can be expected to have is nine years (Table 18). About 85 percent of

respondents in both areas have about five years of experience in seaweed farming, with 9-13

percent of respondents already having between 6-7 years of experience. This indicates the level

of commitment of stakeholders as fishers perceive seaweed farming as a less risky and more

sustainable activity relative to traditional fishing practices.

Table 18. Experience in seaweed farming

8.4.1.5 Age classification of respondents

Table 19 indicates that the proportion of middle-aged individuals (31- 50 years old) in both

groups was around 60 percent. This age bracket corresponds to a productive group of individuals,

which is usually receptive to new ideas and is capable of implementing them, even if doing so

involves some risk.

Less than 5 years 196 87 176 84

6 - 7 years 20 9 28 13

More than 7 years 10 4 7 3

Total 226 100 211 100

Years of experienceMandapam Rameshwaram

Number % Number %


47

Below 30 years old 70 31 53 25

31- 50 years old 138 61 124 59

Above 50 years old 18 8 34 16

Total 226 100 211 100

Age groupMandapam Rameshwaram

Number % Number %

Table 19 Age classification of respondents

8.4.1.6 Literacy level of respondents

The literacy rate was estimated to be approximately equal to the district average of 52.8

percent. The infrastructure of educational facilities in the area is poor. The cumulative quality of

life (QoL) index was estimated to range from 0.285 at Puliamadam to 0.485 in Vedalai, with an

average cumulative QoL index below normal tending towards unsatisfactory (CSMCRI, 2003). The

literacy level of respondents in the two areas is comparatively higher than the national average of

about 65 percent. Table 20 reveals that about 43 percent of respondents in Mandapam have

undergone elementary schooling while 43 percent of respondents in Rameshwaram have reached

middle-school level. About 10-20 per cent of respondents have achieved secondary level of schooling.

Table 20. Literacy level of respondents

8.4.1.7 Occupational profile

Fishing and seaweed farming are th0e two most important occupations in these two areas. In

Mandapam, 48 percent of the respondents practiced fishing as a primary activity while only 13

percent chose fishing as the primary occupation in Rameshwaram (Table 21). Seaweed farming

has become the primary livelihood activity of fishers in Rameshwaram, which has contributed to

reduce pressure on the fish stocks of the area. The emergence of seaweed farming has also

Illiterate 2 1 14 7

Elementary 97 43 17 8

Lower primary 48 21 38 18

Upper primary 49 22 91 43

Secondary 25 11 38 18

Higher Secondary 5 2 13 6

Total 226 100 211 100

Literacy levelMandapam Rameshwaram

Number % Number %


48

contributed to reduce the political tension with neighbouring Sri Lanka over access to common

fishing grounds.

Table 21 occupational profile of the respondents

Fishing 108 48 24 13

Seaweed farming 118 52 187 87

Total 226 100 211 100

OccupationMandapam Rameshwaram

Number % Number %

In Rameshwaram, the maximum proportion of income earned from fishing was also in the

range of ` 10,001 to ` 20,000 (57 per cent) while the maximum proportion of income earned in

seaweed farming was equally split between the ranges of ` 10,001 to ` 20,000 (25 percent) and

` 20,001 to ̀ 30,000 (24 percent). A considerable number of seaweed farming practitioners reported

relatively high income levels, up to ` 100,000. Tables 22 and 23 highlight the clear potential of

seaweed farming for lifting the socio-economic status of the communities in both regions.

8.4.1.8 Income status

Table 22 indicates that the maximum proportion of income earned in fishing in the Mandapam

area was within the range of ` 10,001 to ` 20,000 (69 percent), followed by the less than ` 10,000

bracket. In the case of seaweed farming, most individuals earn income between ` 20,001 and

` 30,000 (57 per cent), with two individuals reporting even higher earnings (` 30,001 to ` 40,000

bracket).

Table 22. Income levels in the Mandapam area

Less than 10 000 62 28 20 9

10 001- 20 000 157 69 76 33

20 001- 30 000 7 3 128 57

30 001- 40 000 0 0 2 1

40 001 - 50 000 0 0 0 0

50 001- 80 000 0 0 0 0

80 001- 100 000 0 0 0 0

More than 100 000 0 0 0 0

Total 226 100 226 100

Income levels(` per year)

Fishing Seaweed farming

Number % Number %


49

16 A pucca house is one which has walls made of any of the following materials: burnt bricks, stones (packed with lime orcement), cement concrete, timber, ekra, etc. In addition, the roof is made of either tiles, GCI (Galvanized Corrugated Iron) sheets,asbestos cement sheets, RBC (Reinforced Brick Concrete), RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete), timber, etc. In a kutcha house, thewalls and/or roof are made of materials other than those mentioned above, such as un-burnt bricks, bamboos, mud, grass, reeds,thatch, loosely packed stones, etc

8.4.1.9 Housing and livestock ownership

Housing is an important indicator of the socio-economic status of an individual, particularly

in small villages. All respondents in both areas were living in their own houses. With regard to the

housing type, the proportion of kutcha houses was high in Mandapam (75 percent). The proportion

of kutcha and pucca houses was approximately the same (49 percent) in Rameshwaram (Table 24).

Only four respondents (in Rameshwaram) were found to reside in Reinforced Cement Concrete

(RCC) houses.16

Table 24 Housing ownership and type

Table 23. Income levels in the Rameswaram area

Less than 10 000 5 2 27 13

10 001- 20 000 53 25 121 57

20 001- 30 000 51 24 41 19

30 001- 40 000 36 17 16 8

40 001 - 50 000 46 22 4 2

50 001- 80 000 16 8 2 1

80 001- 100 000 1 1 0 0

More than 100 000 3 1 0 0

Total 211 100 211 100

Income levels(` per annum)

Fishing Seaweed farming

Number % Number %

Ownership of house

Owned 226 100 211 100

Rented

Type of House

Kutcha 171 75 103 49

Pucca 55 25 104 49

RCC 0 0 4 2

Total 226 100 211 100

DetailsFishing Seaweed farming

Number % Number %


50

Livestock husbandry is an important source of supplementary income for the fishermen

households. Maintaining livestock is also often seen as a symbol of prestige among rural

households. About 55 percent of respondents in Mandapam and 60 percent in Rameshwaram

maintain livestock to supplement their income and domestic needs (Table 25). The most common

livestock type is poultry.

Table 25 Livestock ownership

Cattle 43 18 8 4

Buffalos 15 7 0 0

Poultry 67 30 116 55

Non owners 101 45 87 41

Total 226 100 211 100

Livestock DetailsMandapam Rameshwaram

Number % Number %

8.4.1.10 Changes in patterns of consumer expenditure

During the last five years, the surveyed households were able to acquire electronic appliances

such as TVs, DVD players and mobile phones in addition to household appliances such as mixers

and grinders. A total of 135 respondents (60 %) and 141 persons (67 %) had purchased cell phones

in Mandapam and Rameshwaran, respectively, over the last five years.

8.4.1.11 Occupational patterns

Table 26 present the occupational patterns of respondents. On average, one member from

each family is involved in active fishing in both areas. One member per family is involved in post-

harvest fisheries like peeling, drying, freezing, processing, value addition and related activities in

the Mandapam area, while two members are involved in the Rameshwaram area. For seaweed

farming, on average two members per family are involved in the activity in both Mandapam and

Rameswaram. The average annual employment in fishing and post-harvest activities is marginally

higher in Rameshwaram (181 and 100 days) than in Mandapam (179 and 96 days). A similar trend

was also observed for seaweed farming (161 days in Rameshwaram as opposed to 144 days in

Mandapam).


51

Table 26 Occupational patterns in Mandapam and Rameshwaram areas, Ramanathapuram

district, Tamil Nadu

8.4.1.12 Estimated labour force in the seaweed farming sector

Table 27 provides an estimate of total employment (man-days per year) in seaweed culture in

the Mandapam and Rameswaram regions. Assuming that two members in each household are

engaged in seaweed farming during 144 and 161 days of the year in Mandapam and Rameswaram,

respectively, the sector would be providing 148,896 and 155,526 man-days of employment per

year in the two areas (this calculation assumes a total of 1,000 families engaged in seaweed

farming in the Ramanathapuram district). The various development programs in the region are

currently planning for total of 5 thousand families to become involved with seaweed farming,

which would translate into 765 thousand days of employment in the district (assuming 153 days

of employment per person per year). More generally, it has been argued that seaweed farming

could provide employment to 200 thousand families in the country, with annual earnings of

about ` 0.10 million per family (AFI, 2008).

Table 27 Estimation of employment generation in seaweed farming in Ramanathapuram district,

Tamil Nadu, India

Manda-

pam 226 02 144 65,088 51.7 517 148,896

Ramesh-

waram 211 02 161 67,942 48.3 483 155, 526

Area

(1)

Number of

sample

households

(2)

Average

number of

family members

engaged in

seaweed

farming

(3)

Days of

employment

in seaweed

farming

per person

per year

(4)

Days of

employment in

seaweed farming

per year for

sample house

holds

(1) x (2) x (3)

(4)Days of

employ -mentinseaweed

farming peryear for

sample households

(1) x (2) x (3)

(6)

Totalnumber of

families(N = 1000)

(8)

Man-daysper year in

seaweedfarming(2)x(3)x(6

Active fishing 01 179 0 0 01 181 66 98

Post-harvest

fisheries 01 96 0 0 02 100 0 0

Seaweed

culture/harvest 02 144 0 0 02 161 95 106

Mandapam Rameshwaram

Number of days

employed per year

Name of theoccupation Average number of

members per familyNormal Lean Peak

Number of days

employed per yearAverage number of

members per familyNormal Lean Peak


52

8.4.1.13 Consumption expenditure patterns

The household consumption basket includes expenses on items such as food, oils, meat, fish,

clothing, medical and children education expenses. The average annual expenditure per household

amounted to ` 28,417 in Mandapam and ` 31,625 in Rameswaram (Table 28).

The maximum expenditure share in both areas corresponded to the purchase of fish (28.26

and 30 percent, respectively). Total food expenditures (including food, oils, meat and fish)

amounted to ̀ 18,525 (65.19 percent) and ̀ 19,819 (62.79 percent) in Mandapam and Rameswaram,

respectively. These large expenditure shares are characteristic of households with relatively low

incomes.

Seaweed farming has enabled the families to raise their economic status significantly, with

members of SHG families actively participating in the activity and contributing handsomely to

total family income, thus enabling comfortable family consumption expenditure.

Table 28. Consumption expenditure patterns, Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India

8.4.1.14 Indebtedness

Table 29 presents the average amounts of loans availed, repaid and outstanding for Mandapam

Food 5,569 19.60 5,462 17.27

Oils 2,358 8.30 2,704 8.55

Meat 2,568 9.04 2,205 6.97

Fish 8,030 28.26 9,448 30.00

Clothing expenses 2,027 7.13 3,407 10.77

Children education 1,210 4.26 1,749 5.53

Medical expenses 4,284 15.08 3,668 11.60

Electricity 836 2.94 851 2.69

Fuel charges 1,193 4.20 807 2.55

Recreation 0 0.00 583 1.85

Social function 342 1.20 701 2.22

Others 0 0.00 0 0.00

Total 28 417 100.00 31 625 100.00

Items of expenditureMandapam Rameswaram

Expenditure(`/year)

Expenditure(`/year)

Percentage oftotal expenses

Percentage oftotal expenses


53

and Rameshwaram. Respondents prefer institutional loans mainly due to awareness that has

been created since the advent of seaweed farming in the region. They now realize that though

institutional loan procedures maybe slightly more cumbersome, the post loan experiences are

decent and transparent and hence worth the trouble of going through the paper work. The

households avail loans for different purposes including domestic activities and social obligations.

The absolute amounts availed as loans clearly indicate the preferences of the respondents in

Ramanathapuram district for institutional sources of credit. The comparative absolute levels of

outstandings also indicate the easy terms of repayment in respect of the institutional loans.

Table 29 Level of indebtedness, Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India

8.4.1.15 Social impacts of seaweed farming

The socio-economic impact of seaweed farming was examined by means of a series of ques-

tions asked to participants in the study. The evaluation revealed that 68 and 48 per cent of re-

spondents in Mandapam and Rameshwaram were able to purchase or renovate their existing

house using the income earned from seaweed. In Rameswaram, about four percent of the re-

spondents were able to purchase agricultural land with their earned income (Table 30).

Seaweed farming has also had a large positive impact on the ability of the respondents to

purchase livestock, quality clothing and consumer durables. Respondents in Rameshwaram also

reported a large positive impact of seaweed farming on their ability to celebrate marriages in the

family. Seaweed culture has also allowed respondents to engage more frequently in social and

religious traveling.

The responses from the participants reveal that seaweed farming has indeed emerged as a

new, sustainable livelihood option for the fishing communities in the district. Encouragement of

seaweed aquaculture with appropriate policy, financial, technical and institutional support can

also serve to divert pressure on overexploited fish stocks. Dramatic structural changes in the

socio-economic status of many fishermen have taken place over the last 10 years: a number of

Mandapam

a) Institutional 4,350 3,050 1,300

b) Money lenders 1,505 1,292 213

Rameshwaram

a) Institutional 8,071 7 ,607 464

b) Money lenders 5,089 4,763 324

Source of loans Average loan availedper household (`)

Average loan repaidper household (`)

Outstanding loan perhousehold (`)


54

seaweed farmers actually started as hired labor for other farmers; however, many of them used

this initial experience to become members of a SHG. After a few production cycles, a SHG member

can aspire to operate his own set of rafts and transform himself into a farmer capable of hiring

labour to look after his own plots.

Table 30 Social impact of seaweed farming, Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India

The organised seaweed farming sector as given in Fig 4 is driven by committed corporate

interests, NGO's and related government agencies. Though Tamil Nadu is the second most literate

state in India next only to the state of Kerala, the expected social transformation resulting from

higher levels of education such as adherence to commitments, keeping away from negative societal

influences such as drinking and gambling etc. is yet to get reinforced. Figure 5 summarizes the

major strengths and weaknesses associated with organized seaweed farming. The seaweed farm-

ers tend to break the contract if they are offered a higher price by competing by fly by night

operators in the sector leading to a possible chain reaction among neighbouring farmers. The

Purchase or renovate the

existing house 154 68 72 32 103 48 108 52

Purchase agricultural land 0 0 226 100 08 4 203 96

Purchase cattle/poultry 168 74 58 26 177 84 34 16

Purchase quality clothing 223 99 03 1 188 89 23 11

Purchase consumer durables

and modern electronic

appliances 156 69 70 31 139 66 72 34

Celebrate a marriage in

the family 9 4 217 96 97 46 114 54

Engage in social and religious

traveling outside the

district/State 75 37 151 67 53 25 158 75

Transfer to a better educational

institution 0 0 226 100 20 9 191 91

Increase expenses on

entertainment 0 0 226 100 0 0 211 100

Engage in any other activity 0 0 226 100 0 0 211 100

Using the income earned fromseaweed farming, were you able to...

Mandapam Rameshwaram

Yes % No % Yes % No %


55

organised value chain management has taken steps to keep the flock together by announcing

incentives prices for producers who attain high levels of production and ensure proper manage-

ment of stock during the season.

Figure 4 General structure of organized SHG contract seaweed farming production and buyback

system in India

Drying of seaweed at Pamban, Rameswaram


56

Figure 5 Loop diagram illustrating systemic strengths and weaknesses in organized seaweed

farming in India


57

9 Economic analysis of seaweed farming

The farming of seaweed is preferred to its natural collection because of the comparatively

lesser effort involved and the suitability of the marine ecosystem for seaweed cultivation. In

addition, seaweed farming holds the potential of larger economic returns. In this regard, this

section evaluates the economic performance of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu, India, by 1)

estimating annual costs and returns for the raft culture technique, and 2) by developing indicators

of economic viability and financial feasibility. Subsidies were excluded from these analyses.

9.1 Annual costs and returns of seaweed farming

Table 31 presents the annual costs and returns for a one-ha seaweed farm using the raft

culture technique. The average initial investment amounted to ` 600,000. The different types of

nylon ropes required for planting, tying, mooring and anchoring the rafts accounted for the

maximum share of investment (41%) followed by the bamboo poles (32%) and seedlings (15%)

(Figure 6). Seedlings are sourced from the harvest of an earlier crop.

The annual total cost of production was estimated at ` 694 100, comprising a fixed cost of

` 197,300 (28 percent) and an annual operating cost of ` 496 800 (72 percent). The annual fixed

cost included depreciation on capital investment, interest on capital and insurance premium while

operating costs included labour expenses, transportation, and raft maintenance.

The annual gross revenue was estimated at ` 1.15 million, leading to an annual net income of

` 460,000. The estimation of gross revenues assumed a yield of 280 kg of fresh seaweed per raft

after a growout period of 45 days, a 10:1 ratio of fresh to dry weight, and a market price of ` 16/

kg of dry weed. The complete set of assumptions is presented in Table 32.

9.2 Economic and financial viability

Indicators of economic and financial feasibility for a one-ha seaweed farm were estimated.

The following assumptions were made: i) each cultivation cycle has a duration of 45 days; ii) four

cycles are carried out in the first year; iii) six cycles are carried out in the second and third years;

iv) after three years of operation, a new set of investments needs to be made; and v) interest on

investment is charged at 7 percent per annum, based on the guidelines provided by the commercial

banks.

The average annual net income for the three-year farming project (` 676,300) is higher than

the initial investment (` 597,100), suggesting a payback period shorter than a year (Tables 31, 32,

33 and 34). The estimated Net Present Value (20-percent discount rate) was ̀ 1.30 million (implying

an IRR higher than 100%) while the Benefit-Cost Ratio was 1.70. All these indicators provide

strong evidence of the economic and financial feasibility of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu. The

estimated high rate of return on investment is consistent with the findings of Padilla and Lampe

(1989), who calculated an IRR of 78 per cent for seaweed farming in the Philippines; Shang (1976),

who estimated an IRR of 56 per cent for Gracilaria cultivation; and Tisdell (1991), who reported an

IRR of 123 per cent in Bali. Seaweed farming has thus emerged as one of the most profitable


58

livelihood options for coastal fishing communities in various locations of the Asian continent.

Table 31 Annual costs and returns of a one-ha seaweed farm – raft culture (900 rafts)

A. Initial investment

Seedlings kg 54 000 1.75 94.50 16

Bamboo poles feet 57 600 3.30 190.10 32 3

Anchorage weight kg 1 350 42.00 56.70 9 10

Nylon ropes, 3-mm

PP twisted kg 405 115.50 46.70 8 3

Nylon - Braided ropes kg 148.5 126.00 18.70 3 3

Raft framing ropes kg 585 115.50 67.60 11 3

HDPE fishing nets kg 1 017 78.80 80.10 13 3

HDPE net tying rope kg 81 115.50 9.40 2 3

Anchoring rope kg 81 115.50 9.40 2 3

Raft lining rope kg 90 115.50 10.40 2 3

Labour charges for

installation raft 900 15.00 13.50 2

Total Initial Investment ` 597.10 100

B. Fixed costs

Depreciation ` 148.40 75

Interest on investment (7%) ` 41.80 21

Insurance at 1.2% of

investment ` 7.10 4

Total fixed costs ` 197.30 100

C. Operating costs `

Braider twining charges ` 108.00 22

QuantityUnitPrice per

unit

(`)

Total value

(` thousand)

Share(%)

Economiclife (inyears


59

Transportation ` 93.60 19

Raft maintenance ` 284.40 57

Miscellaneous ` 10.80 2

Total operating costs ` 496.80 100

D. Total cost of production ` (B+C) 694.10

E. Gross revenue

(four production cycles in

first year) ` 1 152.00

F. Net income ` (E-D) 457.90

Note: Based on data from the 2008-2009 production year.

Figure 6. Initial investment in a one-ha seaweed farm, Tamil Nadu, India

Table 32 Gross revenue of a one-ha seaweed farm (900 rafts)

Average harvest of fresh seaweed per raft after 45 days

of culture kg 280

(Less) allocation of seedling for the subsequent crop kg 60

Balance of fresh seaweed kept for drying kg 220

Quantity of dry seaweed produced from 220 kg

of fresh seaweed at 10:1 ratio of fresh to dry weight kg 22

Dry seaweed available for sale per raft after allowing

for impurities kg 20

Details of harvest Unit Value


60

Market Price `/kg 16

Average revenue per raft per preduction cycle (45 days) ` 320

Average revenue per raft in the first production year

(four cycles) ` 1,280

Average revenue per ha (900 rafts) in the first `

production year (thousand) 1,152

Average revenue per hectare (900 rafts) in the second `

production year (six cycles) (thousand) 1,728

Average revenue per hectare (900 rafts) in the third `

production year (six cycles) (thousand) 1,728

The annual cash flow stream for the first three years of the farm is presented in Table 33. The

net cash flow is much lower in Year 1 (` 58,100) because of the initial investment; however, net

cash flow increases to ` 983,000 in Years 2 and 3. These high values are indicative of the overall

profitability of seaweed farming and corroborates findings from earlier studies (Padilla and Lampe,

1989; Tisdell, 1991).

Table 33. Annual cashflow stream for a one-ha seaweed farm (900 rafts) (` thousands)

Table 34 Economic viability and financial feasibility indicators for a one-ha seaweed farm

(project cycle of three years)

YearCash outflow

Investment Annual cashoutflow

Total cashoutflow

Annual cashinflow

Annualcash flow

1 597.10 496.80 1 093.90 1,152.00 58.10

2 0 745.20 745.20 1,728.00 982.8

3 0 745.20 745.20 1,728.00 982.8

Indicators Unit

Gross investment `

(thousands) 597.10 N/A N/A 597.10

Total cost of production `

(thousands) 694.10 942.50 942.50 859.70

Year I Year II Year III Average


61

Gross returns `

(thousands) 1,152.00 1,728.00 1,728.00 1,536.00

Net income `

(thousands) 457.90 785.50 785.50 676.30

Net Present Value ` 1,300.00

(20% discount rate) (thousands)

Benefit Cost Ratio Ratio 1.70

(20% discount rate)

Return on investment Percent 113.26

Payback period Years 0.9

IRR Percent >100

10 Markets, marketing channels and prices

Harvested seaweeds are sun dried on the beach and then bundled into bales. Although the

institutions and companies involved in the development of seaweed farming have constructed

drying platforms, most drying is still conducted by farmers on the sandy beaches. Apparently, this

problem has not yet been corrected due to Aquagri's willingness to source the dried weed irre-

spective of its impurities.

The marketing channels for seaweed are illustrated in Figure 7. Basic prices are arranged to

the satisfaction of the farmers taking into account the effort invested. In 2009, Aquagri was offer-

ing ` 16/kg of dried weed. Although it has been argued that Aquagri currently holds a monopsony

advantage, competing companies with an interest on Kappaphycus have routinely induced the

farmers to break the contracts by offering a marginally higher price. However, Aquagri has devel-

oped its own price incentive schemes for loyal farmers and high-volume producers. In addition,

non-price measures such as providing assistance to farmers with their economic and social obli-

gations have contributed to build bondages of mutual trust and loyalty.

SAP is the major product extracted from the dried weed. Efforts are currently underway for

building a plant in Manamadurai for the extraction of carrageenan; the plant is to be commis-

sioned in 2010. Dried seaweed is exported by PepsiCo to the carrageenan conversion plants of

MARS, the international chocolate, foods and pet foods manufacturer, in Indonesia. International

price fluctuations, which have disrupted the development of seaweed farming in other locations

in the world, have had relatively little impact in India due to the large demand from the domestic

market.


62

Fig

ure

7.

Mar

keti

ng

ch

ann

els

of

seaw

eed

far

mer

s in

th

e R

aman

ath

apu

ram

dis

tric

t o

f Ta

mil

Nad

u,

Ind

ia.


63

11 Policy notes, advisories and notifications

The Government of India, the banking and insurance sectors, the State Departments of

Fisheries, development agencies (e.g. DRDA and DBT) and research institutions (e.g. ICAR, CMFRI

and CSMCRI) are fully conscious and enthusiastic about the prospects for seaweed culture in India.

Roundtables and expert committee meetings on seaweed cultivation and utilization have been

organized by the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS), CMFRI and CSMCRI. The salient

findings and recommendations from these high-level meetings are presented in Table 35. Experts

have given recognition to the potential of seaweed aquaculture in India and have advised the

Government of India to provide full-fledged institutional support to the activity.

Table 35 (column 4) also provides a list of periodic advisories with relevance to the development

of seaweed farming in the Ramanathapuram district of Tamil Nadu. These advisories are mostly

related to the establishment of the GoMMNP (1986) and the GoMBRT (1989). The G.O. Ms. No. 229

of the Department of Environment and Forests, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai (dated 12

December 2005) issued a directive allowing seaweed cultivation by SHGs in the North of Palk Bay

and South of Tuticorin coast; in this regard, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief

Wildlife Warden informed that from the point of the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, no objections

are made to cultivation of Kappaphycus by SHGs in the above mentioned locations.

The Conservator of Forests and GoMBRT Director in his communication GoMBRT/Misc-08/

dated 1 June, 2009 has clarified that stoppage of Kappaphycus culture is not applicable to the

regions other than GoM (i.e. Coastal Waters of Tamil Nadu excluding GoM). This seems to be in

response to a report in the Hindu dated May 25, 2009 on stoppage of Kappaphycus culture in

Mandapam area (Not seen).

The Wildlife warden GoM Marine National Park, in his communication of September 4, 2009

has requested for a clarification from the Government of Tamil Nadu on the correct interpretation

of the order of 20 December, 2005 regarding the “jurisdiction” where Kappaphycus can be cultivated.

In view of the potential impact that the cultivation of Kappaphycus has had on the livelihoods

of coastal communities in the Ramanathpuram distric, the State Government is well advised to

take decisive actions in favour of this activity, declaring it as an economic alternative with the

potential to raise the socio-economic status of coastal inhabitants. The Government should also

lead a transparent process for the designation of areas where the cultivation of Kappaphycus would

be allowed. Marine scientists from the CMFRI Mandapam Research Station have clearly stated that

seaweed farming is relatively benign to the environment when compared to the bottom trawling

activities currently taking place on the region.17

17 Personal communication from Dr. G. Gopakumar, Principal Scientist and Head, Mariculture Division and Scientist-in-Charge, CMFRIMandapam Research Station. Dr. Gopakumar is categorical in his assertion that the damage caused by roller muddies trawling in theMandapam/Rameshwaram waters is the major environmental threat faced by the marine ecosystems of the region. In addition, claimsmade on the negative impact of Kappaphycus culture on the GoM corals are easily proven unfounded, simply because seaweeds do nothave the ability to grow on live corals.


64

(1)NAAS (2003)

(3)CSMCRI (2003) advisoriescommissioned by PepsiCo

(4)Notifications/

Communications

(2)CMFRI (2005)

Sources: (1): NAAS (2003); (2): Minutes of expert committee on seaweed cultivation, CMFRI, Kochi, 2 February 2005; (3)

CSMCRI (2003).

� Commercial cultivation andprocessing of marinemacroalgae identified as anational priority.

� A new nodal cell for promotionof commercial cultivation,processing and marketing ofmacroalgae to be established.

� Kappaphycus alvarezii –introduced to Indian coastalwaters over a decade ago anddomesticated since then –considered ecologically safe.

� Natural incidence ofKappaphycus alvarezii isreported in the Andamanislands. Ecological studies haverevealed that cultivation yiedsno adverse effects to theecosystem. Large-scalecultivation of Kappaphycus

alvarezii in Andaman islands isideal.

� Other recommendations:

� Seaweed farming is ideal inChilika, Andamans andLakshadweep.

� Cultivations of agarophytes,alginophytes andcarrageenophytes must begiven high priority.

� Sustainable cultivation ispossible.

� Environmental friendly disposalof wastage.

Observations:

� Most Indianseaweed culturepractices are eco-friendly.

� Kappaphycus is anon-invasivemarinemacroalgae.

� No adverseimpact on themarineecosystem.

Salientrecommendations:

� Seaweed farmingas a strategy forpollutioncontrol.

� Good prospectsfor co-cultivationof Kappaphycuswith otherspecies.

� Formation ofDistrict and Statelevel committeesfor monitoringof seaweedfarming.

� Promotion ofculture throughSHG model.

� Developprotocols for thecollection ofseaweeds fromnatural habitats.

Observations:

� Most Indianseaweed culturepractices are eco-friendly.

� Kappaphycus is anon-invasivemarinemacroalgae.

� No adverse impacton the marineecosystem.

Salientrecommendations:

� Seaweed farmingas a strategy forpollution control.

� Good prospects forco-cultivation ofKappaphycus withother species.

� Formation ofDistrict and Statelevel committeesfor monitoring ofseaweed farming.

� Promotion ofculture throughSHG model.

� Develop protocolsfor the collectionof seaweeds fromnatural habitats.

1. G.O. Ms. No.962 Forestsand Fisheries,dated 10September1986.

2. No. 1/S/80 -Mannar/ K3/49181/88Governmentof India,Ministry ofEnvironmentand Forests,dated 4 April1989.

3. G.O. Ms. No.229DepartmentofEnvironmentand Forests ofGOTN, dated20 December2005.

4. Rc. No. 37076/Q3/2006 TNDoF, dated8 June 2009.

Lr. No. 3264/2009/M, TN ForestDepartment,datedSeptember 2009.

Table 35. Policy notes, important recommendations, advisories and selected notifications and

communications relevant to seaweed culture in India.


65

12 Conclusions, insights and development strategies

Commercial farming of seaweeds including Eucheuma in coastal waters is a well proven practice

by many countries including Japan, China, Philippines and Korea. This is a time tested practice

and such activities are increasing in these countries and other countries. Considering the above

said facts, it is clear that Eucheuma cultivation will be beneficial for the environment as well as

local inhabitants (CSMCRI, 2003).

Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA, 2009) in a recent trainers’ training

programme in August 2009 has prioritized the needs of red seaweeds farming communities in the

Philippines under policy support, regulation and sector management. The issues seem to be typical

of problems that small farmers in developing countries face the world over. The issues in research

and development, training and extension, information development and dissemination, credit

needs are also typical.

It is heartening to state that India has been able to circumvent most of the problems that

seem to be haunting the development of seaweed sector in other developing countries. The adoption

of the SHG model in seaweed culture in India by PepsiCo from 2003 has proved to be a big success.

Participatory approach in culture and management via contract farming has enabled rapid

expansion of this activity that began as a livelihood option and is now developing into an organised

and institutionalized socio-economic transformation of these farming villages.

The insights gained from the development of seaweed farming in India so far are listed below

1. The SHG model accepted by the network of institutions involved in the process of

development of seaweed farming is at the foundation of this development. Strengths

are in strong organization, record keeping and transparency.

2. Kappaphycus culture is perhaps the first of its kind initiated by a corporate in Indian

agriculture. It also maybe the first to get designated as an agricultural activity among

other mariculture initiatives in India.

3. Demand driven and corporate led initiative has enabled the development of the sector

on a fast track. Corporate commitment is very evident. Based on rough calculations, the

gross revenue over cost per tonne exported works out to only ̀ 8,000 which is a reasonable

margin for a corporate considering its overheads. The social responsibility is well and

truly getting translated to tangible benefits to the farming community.

4. The consistent backing of the sector by the banking sector led by NABARD and other

commercial banks such as SBI, IOB, Bank of Baroda and Indian Bank besides others has

strengthened the movement

5. The clear policy back up and financial support of the Government of India, through


66

development agencies and research establishments have given a substantial fillip to the

sector

6. The distinct possibility of expansion of operations based on commercial trials in sites in

Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat will give a further presence to the seaweed farming sector

7. Seaweed sector has all the potential to rise from a low level equilibrium trap that is

normally associated with livelihood interventions to higher levels of employment-income-

consumption relationships in coastal India

8. At the farm level, the establishment of a off shore seed jetty will enable the farmers to

go in for full scale cultivation at the beginning of the season itself instead of having to

divert part of their output as cuttings for the next crop

9. Poaching is a problem but is limited by the strong organizational structure of the

enterprise

10. Industrial and civic discharges reportedly take place and have an adverse impact on

water quality.

11. Improper garbage disposal in the region needs to be stopped.

12. Occurrences of seaweed diseases like ice-ice and epiphytism; prevalent during the summer

months need to be studied and suitable preventive / ameliorative measures suggested.

13. Better understanding and joint exercises and efforts of concerned monitoring institutions,

TNDoF and Department of Environment and Forests (GoMBRT and GoMNP) will enable

the direct stakeholders in seaweed farming in the region work with greater degree of

confidence and trust

14. The corporate initiative taken by PepsiCo and equally well followed by Aquagri needs to

be appreciated and is a clear case of how responsible community inclusive corporate

interventions in agriculture can bring about a sea change in the lives of local communities.

15. Seaweed sector offers one of the best avenues for institutional financial agencies to

promote venture capital

Immediate suggested policy initiatives

The nodal cell for quick clearance of new projects and for handling all issues related to seaweed

culture as envisaged in NAAS (2003) needs to be set up on a priority basis.

a. Entry into the Kappaphycus culture in India is restricted by knowledge. Corporates

need to be educated on the immense scope in terms of returns to investment

considering the low levels of investment requirement and the fast turnover that could

be forthcoming given efficient human resource management. Periodic presentations


67

by experts on Kappaphycus culture at chambers of commerce such as ASSOCHAM,

FICCI and ICCI will help induce new investment in the seaweed sector

b. Anomalies, if any, in the tax structure in terms of excise and customs duties need to

be ironed out

c. The nodal cell could be the final authority in deciding the various aspects of culture

practices, interpretations of G.O’s and inter-departmental conflicts.

Development strategies

A sector develops either by deficiency of Social Overhead Capital (SOC) or availability of Directly

Productive Activities (DPA) or vice-a-versa. Either of these development strategies or business

models in a macro sense is suitable depending upon current stage of development of a sector. In

the case of seaweed sector in India we are fortunate that the DPA is more or less in place at least

in Tamil Nadu and in a typical model that warrants the development of forward linkages, it is

most crucial that support infrastructure and policy are available to the entrepreneurs for furthering

the growth of the sector. Warehouses to store dried weed, port facilities for enabling exports,

power, potable water, roads, telecommunications, public transport are some of the linkages that

need to be established in coastal towns that will help industry to take the opportunity in seaweed

sector.

Lessons need to be learnt from policies in place for New Zealand aquaculture development.

A hectare of water area is leased at NZ$200,000 (Townsend and Young, 2005). This could keep

weak firms from entering the market. The Government of New Zealand has a 10 point policy plan

which has helped the country’s aquaculture to reach new heights. New Zealand aquaculture,

though restricted to mussels, oysters and salmon, has had a disease free track record.

Modified version of such measures which promotes inclusive growth of stakeholders in all

levels of the society needs to be charted out in India for the development of the seaweed sector.

Based on track record of multi-national aquaculture companies, contract farming of seaweed based

on the current model in place in Tamil Nadu may also be examined. This would make the field

more competitive and spur movement towards a perfectly competitive market structure. The

immediate pay offs would be towards achievement of the much elusive 4 % growth rate envisaged

for the agricultural sector in India during the XI and XII Five Year Plan periods

The seaweed sector in India even at this point of development can serve as role model to

other developing countries of the world.


68

13 References

Agadi, V. V. 1985. Distribution of marine algae in the littoral zone of Karnataka coast. In Krishnamurthy,

V. & Untawale, A. G. (eds), Marine Plants, Madras, Seaweed Research Utilization Assoc., pp. 35–42.

Anon. 1979. A report on the survey of marine algal resources of Lakshadweep, 1977–1979. Bhavnagar, CSMCRI,

p. 48.

Anon. 1984. A report on the survey of marine algal resources of Andhra Pradesh, 1979–1982. Bhavnagar, CSMCRI,

p. 30.

Anon. 1978. A report on the survey on the marine algal resources of Andhra Pradesh, 1972-1982, Bhavnagar,

CSMCRI, p. 137.

Anon. 2004. Progress report of the DBT project - Studies on field cultivation and harvesting of seaweeds Porphyra

(Nori), Enteromorpha (Ao Nori), Eucheuma (Tosaka Nori) and their use in processed foods, October 2003–June

2004, Bhavnagar, Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute, p. 9.

Anon (undated). Income generation activities for the fisher folk living around Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay

coastal regions through eco-friendly seaweed farming in India in AFI 2008.

Aquaculture Foundation of India. 2008. Final report of the DBT project: Seaweed Farming to Rehabilitate Tsunami

Affected Coastal Communities in Tamil Nadu, Department of Bio-technology, Ministry of Science and

Technology, New Delhi, Government of India, pp. 41.

Bhanderi, P. P. & Trivedi Y.A. 1975. Seaweed resources of Hanumandandi reef and Vumani reef near Okha

port, Gujrat. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 4: 97–99.

Børgesan, F. 1933a. Some Indian green and brown algae, especially from the shores of presidency of Bombay

– III. Journal of Indian Botanical Society, 12: 1-16.

Børgesan, F. 1933b. Some Indian Rhodophycaea, especially from the presidency of Bombay – III. Bulletin of

Miscellaneous Information, Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, pp. 113-142.

Børgesan, F. 1933c. Some Indian Rhodophycaea, especially from the presidency of Bombay – IV. Bulletin of

Miscellaneous Information, Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, 1-30

Børgesan, F. 1934. Some marine algae from the northern part of the Arabian Sea with remarks on their

geographical distribution. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Med., 11: 72

Børgesan, F. 1935. List of marine algae from Bombay. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Med., 12: 64.

Børgesan F. 1938a. Two species of Scinaia from south India. Bot. Nat., 16: 183-189.

Børgesan, F. 1938b. Contribution to a south Indian marine algal flora – II. Journal of Indian Botanical Society,

16: 311-357.

Børgesan F. 1938b. Contribution to a south Indian marine algal flora – III. Journal of Indian Botanical Society,

17: 205-242.

Bradford, D.F., 1975. Constraints on government investment opportunities and the choice of discount

rate. Am.Econ.Rev.65 (6):887-899

Chacko, P. I. & Malu Pillai, C. 1958. Studies on utilization of the seaweed resources of Madras State. Contrib.

Mar. Biol. Stn., Krusadai Island, GoM, 6: 1–12.

Chandrkrachang, S. & Chinadit, U. 1988 : Seaweed production and processing — a new approach. INFOFISH

International, 4: 22—25.


69

Chauhan, V. D. & Krishnamurthi, V. 1968. An estimate of algin-bearing seaweeds in the Gulf of Kutch. Curr.

Sci., 37: 648.

Chauhan, V. D. 1978. Report of the survey of marine algae resources of Maharashtra coast. Salt Res. Ind., 14:

1–10.

Chauhan, V. D. & Mairh, O. P. 1978. Report on survey of marine algal resources of Saurashtra Coast, India.

Salt Res. Ind., , 14: 21–41.

Chennubhotala, V.S., Kaliaperumal, N., Ramalingam, J.R. & Kalimuthu, S. 1986. Growth, reproduction and

spore output in Gracilaria folifera (Forsskal) Boergesen and Gracliaraia sjoestedtii (Kylin) Dawson around

Mandapam. Indian J. Fish., 33(1): 76-84.

Chennubhotla, V.S.K., Kaliaperumal, N & Kalimuthu, S. 1978. Culture of Gracilaria edulis in the inshore

waters of GoM (Mandapam). Indian J. Fish., 25 (1&2): 228-229.

Chennubhotla, V. S. K., Ramachandrudu, B. S., Kaladharan, P. & Dharmaraj, S. K. 1988. Seaweed resources

of Kerala coast. Aquat.Biol., 7: 69–74.

Chennubotla, V.S.K. & Kaliaperumal, N. 1983. Proven technology 7, Technology of cultured seaweed

production. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T&E. Ser., No. 54: 19-20.

Chenuubhotla, V.S.K., Kaladharan, P., Kaliaperumal, N. & Rajagopalan, M.S. 1992. Seasonal variation in

poduction of cultured seaweed Gracilaria edulis (Gmelin) Silva in Minicoy lagoon (Lakshadweep). Seaweed

Res. Utiln., 14(2): 109-113.

CMFRI. 1987. Seaweed research and utilization in India. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst., No. 41: 116

Coopen, J.J.W. & Nambiar, P. 1991. Agar and alginate production from seaweed in India. Madras, Bay of Bengal

Programme (India), p.32.

Coppen, J.J.W. 1989. International trade in agar for countries in the Bay of Bengal Project Region. In

Seminar on Gracilaria production and utilization in the Bay of Bengal, October 23-27, 1989, Songkhla,

Thailand.

CSMCRI, 2003. CSMCRI- PepsiCo Interaction. CSIR News Vol 53 No 13, 15 July 2003, ISSN 0409-7467

CSMCRI, 2003. Report on Rapid Environmental Impact Assesment of Euchema Cultivation on Marine Environment

in the Selected Regions of Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay of Tamil Nadu Coast, Submitted to M/s. PepsiCo

Holdings (I) Ltd., pp. 8.

Department of Fisheries, 2009. Swarna Grammeena Rozgar Yojana : Seaweed cultivation, Goovernment of

Tamil Nadu. 19pp.

Desai, B. N. 1969. Seaweed resources and extraction of alginate and agar. In: Krishnamurthi, V.(ed.), Proceedings

of the Seminar on Sea, Salt and Plants, Bhavnagar, CSMCRI, 1967, pp. 343–351.

Desikachari, T.V. 1967. Seaweed resources of India. In: V. Krishnamurthi, ed. Proceedings of the Seminar on

Sea, Salt and Plants, Bhavnagar, CSMCRI, pp. 7–24.

Dhargalkar, V.K. 1981. Studies on marine algae of the Goa coast. Ph.D thesis, Bombay University, p. 168.

Dhargalkar, V.K. & Deshmukh, G.V. 1996. Subtidal marine algae of the Dwaraka coast (Gujarat). Ind. J. Mar.

Sci., 25(4): 297-301.

Dhargalkar, V.K. & Neelam Pereira. 2005. Seaweed : Promising plant of the millennium. Science and Culture,

March-April, 60-66.


70

Dinabandhu, S. Seaweeds Utilisation and their cultivation as an alternate source of livelihood. (available at

http://www.nio.org/past_events/fisheries/session_III.jsp)

Dogma Jr. I.J., Trono, Jr. G.C. Tabbada, R.A. 1981. Proceedings of the symposium on culture and utilization of

Algaein Southeast Asia, 8-11 December, 1981, AQD, Tigbaun, Iloilo, Philippines, SEAFDEC, p. 111

Earthtrends. 2003. (available at http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/cp/coa_cou_356.pdf)

Eswaran, K., Ghosh, P.K. & Mairh, O.P. 2002. Experimental field cultivation of Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty)

ex. P.Silva at Mandapam region. Seaweed Res. Utiln., 24(1): 67-72.

FAO. 2003. Seaweeds used a source of carrageenan (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4765e/

y4765e09.htm, accessed on December, 12.2009)

Firdausy, Carunia and Tisdell, Clem, 1991. Economic Returns from Seaweed (Eucheuma cottonii) farming

in Bali, Indonesia. Asian Fisheries Science, 4(1991):61-73

Gittinger, J.P., 1982. Economic analysis of agricultural projects. The John Hopkins University Press, Second

Edition, Baltimore, London

Gopinathan, C. P. & Panigrahy, R. 1983. Seaweed resources in mariculture potential of Andaman and Nicobar

islands – an indicative survey. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst., No. 34: 47–51.

Hornell, J. 1918. Report on development of fishery resources of Baroda state.(cited in Rao and Mantri, 2006)

Original not seen

Hurtado, Q.A., Agbayani, R.F., Roman Sanares, Ma Teresa, R. de Castro-Mallare, 2001. The seasonality and

economic feasibility of cultivationg Kappaphycus alvarezii in Panagatan Cays, Caluya, Antique, Philippines.

Aquaculture, 199: 295-310.

Immanuel, S. & Sathiadhas, R. 2004. Employment potential of fisherwomen in the collection and post

harvest operations of seaweeds in India. Seaweed Res. Utiln., 26: 209–215.

Iyengar, M.O.P. 1927. Krusadai Island Flora. Bulletin Madras Government Museum New Ser., Natural History, 1:

185-188.

Joshi, H.V. & Chauhan, V.D. 1985. Effect of repeated harvesting on the growth of Gelidiella acerosa (Forsskål)

Feldmann et. Hamel. Seaweed Res. Utiln., 7: 94–100.

Joshi, H.V. 1984. Studies on Indian seaweeds physiological ecology of Sargassum of Okha. Ph D thesis, Bhavnagar

University. p.229.

Kaladharan, P. & Kaliaperumal, N. 1992. The seaweed industry in India. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly, 22(1):

11-14.

Kaladharan, P., K.Vijayakumaran & V.S.K.Cheenabhotla, 1996. Physical parameters in the husbandry practices

for mariculture of Gracilaria edulis in Minicoy Lagoon and Laccadives Archipelago. Aquaculture, 139:265-

270

Kaladharan, P. & Jayasankar, R. 2003. Seaweeds. In M.J. Modaiyil, & A.A. Jayaprakash, eds. Status of exploited

marine fishery resources of India. Cochin, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, pp. 228–239.

Kaliaperumal, N., S.Kalimuthu, J.R.Ramalingam & M.Selvaraj. 1986. Experimental field cultivation of

Acanthophora spicifera (Vahl). Boergesen in the nearshore area of Gulf of Mannar, Indian J. Fish., 33 (4):

476-478

Kaliaperumal N., Rajagopalan, M.S. & Chenuubhotla, V.S.K. 1992. Field cultivation of Gracilaria edulis

(Gmelin) Silva in Minicoy lagoon (Lakshadweep). Seaweed Res. Utlin., 14(2): 103-107.


71

Kaliaperumal, N. 2004. Prospects of seaweed farming in India. In Proceedings of Ocean Life Food and

Medicine Expo, 27-29 February, 2004, Chennai, Aquaculture Foundation of India, Chennai, pp. 384-393.

Kaliaperumal, N. & Kalimuthu, S. 1997. Seaweed potential and its exploitation in India. Seaweed Res. Utiln.,

19: 33–40.

Kaliaperumal, N. & Ramalingam, J.R. 2000. Seaweed culture. In Training course manual of seaweed culture,

processing and uitilization, Cochin, CMFRI, pp. 7-13.

Kaliaperumal, N. 1992. Seaweed culture. In Handbook of Aquafarming, Cochin, MPEDA, pp. 30-37.

Kaliaperumal, N., Kalimuthu, S., & Ramalingam, J.R. 1998. Seaweed resources and distribution in deep

waters from Dhanushkodi to Kanyakumari, Tamilnadu. Seaweed Res. Util., 20: 141–151.

Kaliaperumal, N., Kalimuthu, S. & Muniyandi, K. 1996. Experimental cultivation of Gracilaria edulis at

Valinokkam Bay. In Proc. Natl. Symp. Aquaculture for 2000 AD. Madurai Kamaraj University, pp. 221-226.

Kaliaperumal, N., Kalimuthu, S. & Ramalingam, J.R. 1996. Effect of repeated harvesting on the growth of

Sargassum spp. and Turbinaria conoides occurring in Mandapum area. Seaweed Res. Utiln, 18: 57–66.

Kaliaperumal, N., Kalimuthu, S. & Ramalingam, J.R. 2004. Present scenario of seaweed exploitation and

industry in India. Seaweed Res. Utiln., 26: 47–53.

Kalkman Ineke, Issac Rajendran & Charles L. Angell, 1991. Seaweed (Gracilaria edulis) farming in Vedali

and Chinnapalem, India. Bay of Bengal Programme, Madras, India BOBP/WP/65, Small Scale Fisherfolk

Communities GCP/RAS/118/MUL, p. 28

Kappanna, A. N. & Rao, A. V. 1963. Preparation and properties of agar agar from Indian seaweeds. Indian J.

Technol., 1: 222– 224.

Khan Sajid, I., Goud D., Patil S.V. & Satam S.B. 2003. Importance of seaweeds and their culture prospects.

Fishing Chimes 23(9): 25-28.

Koshy, T.K. & John, C.C. 1948. Survey of Gracilaria resources of Travancore. Department of Research, University

of Travancore, Rept. Septen. pp.35-53

Krishnamurthy, V. 2005. Seaweeds – Wonder Plants of the Sea. Chennai, Aquaculture Foundation of India,

p.30.

Krishnamurthy, V. 1969. Seaweed drift on the Indian coast. In Proc. Symp. Indian Ocean, Natl. Inst. Sci. India,

38: 657–666.

Krishnamurthy, V., Raju, P.V. & Thomas, P.C. 1977. Onaugmenting seaweed resources of India. Seaweed Res.

Utiln., 2(1): 37-40.

Krishnamurthy, V., Raju, P.V. & Venugopal, P.V. 1975. On augmenting seaweed resources of India. J. Mar. Biol.

Ass. India, 17(2): 181-185.

Kumaraguru, A.K., V.Edwin Joseph, N.Marimuthu & J.Jerald Wilson, 2006. Scientific information on Gulf of

Mannar-A Bibliography . Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai,

Tamilnadu, India, p656.

Kumaraguru, A.K., V.Edwin Joseph, M.Rajee & T.Balasubramanian, 2008. Palk Bay Information and

Bibliography, Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, Madurai Kamraj University, Madurai, Tamil Nadu,

India, 1-27

Mairh, O.P., Zodape, Tewari, A. & Rajyaguru, M.R. 1995. Culture of marine red alga Kappaphycus striatum

(Schmitz) Doty in the Saurashtra region, West Coast of India. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 24: 24-31.


72

Mantri, V. A. & Subba Rao, P. V. 2005. Diu island: A paradise for tourists and seaweed biologists. Curr. Sci., 89:

1795–1797.

Marine Fisheries Censu 2005 Part I. All India over view of the Census data. Ministry of Agriculture,

Government of India and Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Indian Council of Agricultural

Research.pp104

Mendelsohn, R., 1981. The choice of discount rate for public projects. Am.Econ.Rev. 71(1):239-241

McHugh, D. J. 2003. A guide to the seaweed industry. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 441: 105.

Miahan, E.J., 1982. Cost-benefit analysis. Third Edition. George Allen and Unwin, London

Michanek, G. 1975. Seaweed resources of the Ocean. FAO Fish Tech. Rep. No. 138. pp. 1-126.

Misra, J.N. 1960. The ecology, distribution and seaweed succession of the littoral algae on the west coast of

India. In: Kachiroo, P.(ed.), Proceedings of the symposium on algology, New Delhi, ICAR, pp. 187-203.

Mitra, C. 1946. Report on development of Chilka Lake, Cuttack

Modayil, M. J. 2004. How to increase marine fish production. Fishing Chimes, 28(1): 14-16.

Mohanta, K.N., Subramaniam, S., Komarpant, N. & Saurabh, F. 2007. On improving the present status of

seaweed industry in India. Fishing Chimes, 26(10): 157-158.

MPEDA. 2001. Statistics report of Marine Products Export Development Authority, Cochin, MPEDA. 300 pp.

Mukhopadhyay, A. & Pal, R. 2002. A report on biodiversity of algae from coastal West Bengal (South and

North 24-Parganas) and their cultural behaviour in relation to mass cultivation programme. Indian

Hydrobiol., 5: 97–107.

Muthuvelan, B., Chennubhotla, V. S. K., Nair, K. V. K., Sampath, V. & Ravindran, M. 2001. Standing crop

biomass and comparative distribution of agarophytes, alginophytes and other algae in south Andaman.

Indian Hydrobiol., 4: 130–138.

Muthuvelan, B., Chennubhotla, V. S. K., Nair, K. V. K., Sampath, V. & Ravindran, M. 2001. Seaweed standing

crop biomass and comparative distribution in eastern shoreline of middle and north islands. Indian

Hydrobiol., 4: 139–148.

National Academy of Agricultural Sciences. 2003. Seaweed cultivation and utilization, Policy Paper 22, p.5

National Institute of Rural Development, 2003. Directory of Rural Technologies-Part IV(Eds.) Mathew

Kunnankal and B.Sant, NIRD, Hyderabad, pp156-158

Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific. 2009. Capacity Building Needs For Small Scale Aquaculture

Farmers, available at http://library.enaca.org/inland/reports/

annex_b_capacity_building_needs_for_aquaculture_farmeINRpdf; accessed on Novemver 4, 2009

Padilla, J.E. and H.C.Lampe, 1989. The economics of seaweed farming in he Philippines, Naga, the

ICLARM Quarterly.12(3):3-5

Patel, J.B., Gopal, B.V., Nagulan, V.R., Subbaramaiah, K. & Thomas, P. C. 1986. Experimental field cultivation

of Gelidiella acerosa at Ervadi in India. In: Proc. Symp. Coastal Aquaculture, Pt. 4: 1342–1343

Pearce, D.W. and C.A.Nash, 1981. The social appraisal of projects: a text in cost-benefit analysis,

Macmillan, London

Raju, P.V. & Thomas, P.C. 1971. Experimental filed cultivation of Gracilaria edulis (Gmel.) Sila. Bot. Mar., 14 (2):

71-75.


73

Rama Rao, K., Nair, M.R.P. & Subbaramiah, V. 1985. Experimental field cultivation of Hypenea musciformis

(Turn). Mont. at Krusudai Island. In V. Krishnamurthy, ed. Marine Plants, pp. 205-208.

Rama Rao, K. & K.Subbaramaiah, !986. A technique for the field cultivation of Hypenea musciformis (Wulf.)

Lam. Proc. Symp. Coastal Aquaculture (MBAI, Cochin), 4:1190-1192

Rao, G. Syda, and Kumar R.Narayana, 2008. An economic analysis of land based

production of marine pearls in India. Aquaculture Economics and Management

. 12(2):130-144

Rao, M.U. 1973. Seaweed potential of the seas around India. Proc. Symp. Living Resources of the Sea around

India, Cochin, CMFRI, pp. 687–692.

Rao, M.U. 1974. On the cultivation of Gracilaria in the near shore are around Mandapam. Curr. Sci., 43(20):

660-661.

Rao, M.U. & Seeramulu, T. 1964. An ecological study of some intertidal algae of the Visakhapatnam coast.

Journal of Ecology, 52: 595-616.

Rao, P.V. Subba 1983. Biology and propagation of Gelidiella acerosa (Forsskal) Feldmann et Hamel in the

Mandapam region. Ph D thesis, Banaras Hindu University, p. 127.

Rao, P.V. Subba & Mantri, V.A. 2006. Indian seaweed resources and sustainable utilization: scenario at the

dawn of a new century. Cur. Sci., 91(2): 164-173.

Rath, J. & Adhikari, S.P. 2004. Algal biomass of Chilika Lake, east coast of India, Seaweeds – 2004. National

Symposium and Exposition, Cochin, Abst., p. 24.

Ravindran, V. S., Thangaradjou, T. & Kannan, L. 2004. Qualitative and quantitative distribution of seaweeds

in the Great Nicobar Island. Seaweeds – 2004 – National Symposium and Exposition, Cochin, Abst. p. 27.

Reeta Jayasankar and Kaliaperumal, N. 1991. Experimental culture of Gracilaria edulis by spore shedding

method. Seaweed Res. Utiln., 14 (1): 21-23.

Sahoo, D., Sahu, N. and Sahoo, D. 2003. A critical survey of seaweed biodiversity of Chilika Lake, India. Algae,

18: 1–12.

Sahoo D., available at http://www.nio.org/past_events/fisheries/Sustainabilityof_seafood.jsp

Sakthivel, M. 2006. Kappaphycus seaweed cultivation: Economics. Fishing Chimes,

26(8): 19-24.

Sanil Kumar, V., Pathak, K. C., Pednekar, P., Raju, N. S. N. & Gowthaman, R. 2006. Coastal processes along

the Indian coastline. Cur. Sci., 91(4): 530-536.

Shang, Y.C., 1976. Economic aspects of Gracilaria culture in Taiwan. Aquaculture 8:1-7

Shang, Y.C., 1981. Aquaculture Economics: basic concepts and methods of anlaysis. Westview, Press,

Boulderview, Colorado

Silas, E.G., Chennubhotla, V.S.K. & Kaliaperumal, N. 1986. Seaweed resources, products and utilization.

Seaweed Res. Utiln., 9(1): 11-24.

Silas, E. G. & Kalimuthu, S. 1987. Commercial exploitation of seaweeds in India. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res.

Inst., No. 41: 55–59.

Sreenivasa Rao, P., Iyengar, E. E. R. and Thivy, F. 1964. Survey of algin bearing seaweed at Adatra reef, Okha.

Curr. Sci., 33: 464–465.


74

Srinivasan, K.S. 1947. Ecology and seasonal succession of the marine algae at Mahabalipuram. (Seven pagodas)

near Madras. In B. Sahni, ed. M.O.P.Ieyngar Commemoration Volume. Silver Jubilee Session, Allahabad,

Indian Botanical Society, pp. 267-278.

Subbaramiah, K., Rama Rao, K., Thomas, P.C., Nair, M.R.P., Gopal, B.V. and Nagulan, V.R. 1975. Cultivation

of Gelidiella acerosa. Salt Res. India, 11(1): 33-36.

Thivy, F. 1958. Economic seaweeds. In: Jones, S. (ed.), Fisheries of West Coast of India, Mandapam Camp,

Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, pp. 74-80.

Thivy, F. 1960. Seaweed utilization in India. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Algology, New Delhi, Indian

Council of Agricultural Research.

Thomas, P.C., Rama Rao, K. & Subbaramaiah, K. 1975. Periodicity in growth and production of agar of

Gelidiella acerosa (Forsskål) Feldmann et. Hamel. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 4: 210–21.

Tisdell, C., 1972. The Microeconomics: the theory of economic allocation. John Wiley and Sons, Sydney

Townsend, Ralph E., & Michael D.Young. 2005. Perspectives: evergreen leasing of aquaculture sites,

Marine Resource Economics, 20, pp. 203-210

Trono Jr. G.C. 1981. Seaweed resources in the developing countries of Asia: Production and socio-economic

implications. In I.J. Dogma Jr. G.C. Trono, Jr. R.A. Tabbada, eds. Proc. Symp. on Culture and utilization of

algae in south-east Asia, 8-11, December 1981, Tigbaun, Iloilo, Philippines. p. 1-7.

UNDP. 1994. Conservation and sustainable-use of the GoM siosphere reserve’s coastal biodiversity, New

York. (available at UNDP Project Brief), accessed on November 4, 2009

Untawale, A.G., Dhargalkar, V.K., Agadi, V.V. & Jagtap, T.G. 1983. Marine algal resources of Maharashtra

coast. NIO Technical Report, Goa, National Institute of Oceanography, p. 42.

Usitalo, J. 1986. Commercial seaweed collection and the agar/alginate industries in Tamil Nadu, India.—

Seaweed cultivation as a solution to over-exploitation of a natural resource. Swedish National Board of

Fisheries, Gothenburg, pp.

Verma, R. P. & Krishna Rao, K. 1962. Algal resources of Pamban area. Indian J. Fish, 9: 205–211.

Zemke-White, L. W. & Ohno, M. 1999. World seaweed utilization: An end of century summary. J. Appl. Phycol.,

11: 369–376.


75

14 Annexure

Annexure - 1

Composition, structure and performance of SHGs engaged in seaweed farming in Pudukottai

and Tanjavur districts.

Name of thelocation

Name of theSHG

Muthukuda Kadal Muthu (men) 2008 0 5 200 18

Five Star

Arasanagri (men) 2009 0 15 600 23

Pattinam Panimalar (men) 2009 0 5 200 23

Pasumai 2009 0 5

Bishmilla (mixed) 2009 2 3 200 23

Gopalapattinam Kadal Pasu

(mixed) 2009 2 3 200 23

Jegathapattinam Valampuri

(women) 2007 5 0 225 26

Thamarai (men) 2009 0 5 200 23

Jevan (men) 2009 0 5 200 23

Kottaipattinam Mallikai

(mixed) 2009 2 3 200 23

Senthuram

(mixed) 2009 3 2 200 23

Roja ( mixed) 2009 3 2 200 23

Sethupava Kadal pasu 2007 2 3 200 21

Chatram (mixed)

Tanjore Kadal Nila 2007 3 2 200 21

Manora Kalpana Chawla

Tanjavur (women) 2007 4 0 200 21

Year ofstart

Number offemale

members

Number ofmale

members

Numberof rafts

Average yieldper raft

(kg/year)



76

Annexure - 2

Gulf of Mannar

The Gulf of Mannar (GoM) in the southeast coast of India extends from Rameshwaram Island

in the north to Kanyakumari in the south. It encloses a chain of 21 islands stretching from

Mandapam to Tuticorin to a distance of 140 km along the coast. Each of the islands is located

anywhere between 2 and 10 km from the mainland. The Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (GoMBR)

was established on 18 February 1989 by the Government of Tamil Nadu with the purpose of

protecting the marine environment and its wildlife. The reserve has an area of 10 500 km2 (including

the 21 islands in the gulf) and it runs along the mainland coast for about 170 nautical miles.

The GoM is endowed with a rich variety of marine organisms as it houses ecosystems of coral

reefs, rocky shores, sandy beaches, mud flats, estuaries, mangrove forests, seaweed stretches and

seagrass beds. These ecosystems support a wide variety of fauna and flora including rare cowries,

cones, volutes, murices, whelks, strombids, chanks, tonnids, prawns, lobsters, pearl oysters,

seahorses, sea cucumbers, etc. Among other reasons, the GoMBR is particularly important because

it provides a safe habitat to the declining populations of the endangered dugong, an herbivorous

aquatic mammal of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

The GoM supports finfish and shellfish fisheries as well a number of aquaculture activities

(seaweed farming, primarily). The finfish fishery includes perches, carangids, barracudas, mackerels,

milkfish, mullets, tunas, sardines, scrombroides, silver bellies, pomfrets, lethrinids, groupers, sharks

and rays. The shellfish fishery includes oysters, mussels, clams, prawns, lobsters and crabs. In

addition to seaweed, aquaculture trials have been conducted for pearl oysters, edible oysters,

crabs, sea cucumbers, prawns, and milkfish.

Source: Kumaraguru et al., (2006)


77

Anneuxre - 3

Palk Bay

Palk Bay, named after Sir Robert Palk (1717-1798), Governor of Madras from 1755 to 1763, is

situated in the southeast coast of India encompassing the sea between Point Calimer (Kodikkarai)

near Vedaranyam in the north and the northern shores of Mandapam to Dhanushkodi in the south

(about 110 km long). Palk Bay and the GoM to its south are connected by a narrow passing called

Pamban Strait (about 1.2 km wide), which separates the Island of Rameswaram from the mainland.

The coastline of Palk Bay harbors coral reefs, mangroves, lagoons and seagrass ecosystems.

The saline water and the muddy substratum coupled with seasonal rain and discharge form Vaigai

and Cauvery rivers has created good breeding grounds for pelagic and demersal fishes. Palk Bay is

also rich in seaweed resources of economic importance. The fringing coral reefs contain Gelidium

micropterum and various species of Gracilaria. The lagoons between the reefs and the shore exhibit

rich growth of Gracilaria lichenoides (locally known as kanji ppasi). The reefs also harbour large

standing crops of Sargassum and Turbinaria.

Source: Kumaraguru et al. (2008)


78

socio-economic dimensions of seaweed farming in indiaaquagri.in/pdf/socio_-economic_dimensions of...

Documents