socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture

Aquaculttjre Research, 1997, 28,815-827

Socio-economic impacts of siirimp cuiture

J H PrimaveraSouth-east Asian Fisheries Development Centre, Iloilo, Philippines

Correspondence: Dr J Honculada Primavera, Aquaculture Department, South-east Asian Fisheries Development Centre, Tigbauan.Iloiio, Phiiippines 5021 (Fax: + 63 33 335 1008: E-maii: [email protected])

Abstract

Farmed shrimp contributed 27% of total worldshrimp production in 1995 with a volume of712 000 tonnes. Undoubtedly, the shrimp cultureindustry earns valuable foreign exchange fordeveloping countries and generates jobs across theindustry from fry gatherers to growers andprocessors. However, grave socio-economicconsequences - including conversion, expropriationand privatization of mangroves and other lands;salinization of water and soil; decline in food security;marginalization of coastal communities, unemploy-ment and urban migration; and social conflicts -have followed in the wake of, shrimp farmdevelopment in the Philippines and other tropicalcountries.

The paper focuses on mangrove ecosystems: thevaluation and cost-benefit analysis of their goodsand services, and the mangrove-offshore fisheriesconnection. Research gaps in these areas and theneed to internalize the ecological and socio-economiccosts ("externalities') of shrimp farming arehighlighted. Other recommendations includemangrove conservation and rehabilitation,enforcement of existing legislation, and introductionof environment-friendly aquaculture within thebroader framework of community-based, integratedcoastal area management, e.g. the traditional,extensive polyculture ponds in Indonesia.

Introduction

In 1995, more than 700 000 tonnes (t, 'metrictons') of marine shrimp were farmed worldwide,with around 80% from Asia (Rosenberry 1995).The contribution of farming to global shrimp

production has risen from a mere 6% in 1970 to 26%in 1990 (FAO 1993). Shrimp farming constitutes oneof the phenomenal commercial success stories of thelast two decades, with annual growth rates of 2 0 -30% in contrast to a stable 2-3% increase for wildcatches from the same period (Primavera 1994).

Shrimp (belonging to the family Penaeidae) thrivein the tropics and subtropics where the watersare warm, and they are exported to Japan, NorthAmerica and Europe where consumer demand ishigh. In 1992, 982 000 t of farmed crustaceans(90% marine shrimp) valued at USS 6,6 billionconstituted only 9% of total aquaculture volumebut contributed 24% of total value (FAO 1995).High profitability and generation of foreign exchangehave provided the major driving force in the globalexpansion of shrimp culture, attracting bothnational governments and international develop-ment agencies. The key factor in the growth ofthe Asian shrimp industry has been private sectorinitiative including the involvement of multinationalcorporations (Csavas 1988 in Bailey & Skladany1991).

Shrimp farming started in Southeast Asia intraditional earthen ponds that depended on tidalwater exchange for wild seed supply andmaintenance of water quality, evolving to thedeliberate stocking of wild or hatchery fry in ever-increasing densities (Primavera 1991). The highstocking rates in intensive ponds are supported byfeed and water management inputs to achieve yieldsof up to 7-15 t ha~^ year'^, 50 times the productionfrom traditional ponds (Primavera 1993),

The historical trends of shrimp production inleading Asian countries (Fig. 1) show a boom-and-bust cycle - Taiwan in 1987, the Philippines in1989, Indonesia in 1991-92, and China in 1993 -related to pollution and disease problems. Other

© 1997 Biackweii Science Ltd. 815

Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture / H Primavera Aquaculture Research, 1997, 28, 815-827

esh

Philippines

Figure 1 Production (thousand tonnes) of cultured shrimp in leading Asian countries (data from Rosenberry 1989-95;Ferdouse 1990),

ecological effects of shrimp farming (e,g, loss ofmangrove ecosystems, nutrient enrichment andeutrophication of coastal waters, longevity ofchemicals and toxicity to non-target species,development of antibiotic resistance, andintroduction of exotic species) are discussed in depthby Macintosh & Phillips (1992), Primavera (1993),Briggs & Funge-Smith (1994), and Funge-Smith &Stewart (no date). The large demand for resourcesand ecosystem services (Ehrlich & Mooney 1982:Folke 1991) by shrimp farming is described inLarsson, Folke & Kautsky (1994),

Socio-economic effects

Modem shrimp farming has socio-economic costs(Bailey 1988; Primavera 1993; Baird & Quarto1994; Barraclough & Finger-Stich 1996) aside fromthe ecological consequences listed above. A cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the IndianSupreme Court concluded that shrimp culturecaused more economic harm than good, the damage

outweighing the benefits by 4 to 1 (63 billion rupeesvs. 15 billion rupees annual earnings) in AndhraPradesh and by 1,5 to 1 in Tamil Nadu (Khor1995a). Among others, these costs included loss ofmangroves, salinization and increasing unem-ployment,

Barraclough & Finger-Stich (1996) point out thatthese social and environmental problems are onlythe latest incidents in the broader processesassociated with the expansion of other monocultures(e,g. banana, cotton, coffee and sugar) that havegenerated social exclusion and environmentaldegradation. Hence, intensive shrimp farmingrepeats the pattern of unsustainable growthdescribed for many other industries (e,g, Folke &Kautsky 1992).

Loss of mangrove ecosystems, goods andservices

Culture ponds for shrimp and fish account for thedestruction of 20-50% of mangroves worldwide in

816 © 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Aquaculture Research. 28 , 815-827

Aquaculture Research, 1997, 28, 815-827 Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture / H Primavera

Mangroves Culture Ponds

-70 -60 -50 -40 - 3 0 30

llocos Region (I)

Cogayan Valley (II)

Central Luzon (111)+NCR

Southern Tagalog( IV)

Bicol Region (V)

Western Visayas (VI)

Central Visayas (VII)

Eastern Visayas (VIII)

Western Mindanao (IX)

Northern Mindanao (X)

Southern Mindanao (XI)

Central Mindanao(XII)

Change in area (x 10 ha)

Figure 2 Change in area (thousand hectares) of mangroves and brackish water culture ponds, from 1951 to 1990, ingeographical regions of the Philippines (from Primavera ] 994).

recent decades, in addition to agricultural, industrialand residential development. In the Philippines,approximately half of the mangrove loss of279 000 ha from 1951 to 1988 resulted from thedevelopment of culture ponds (Fig, 2: Primavera1995), Minh Hai province, with the largest mangrovearea in Vietnam, has lost forests at an average of5000 ha year"^; shrimp farms have increased from50 000 ha in 1981 to 120 000 ha in 1987 (Trinh1993), Reduction in mangrove areas in Ecuador in1965-1984 was mainly due to the construction of21 600 ha of shrimp ponds (Alvarez, Vasconez &Guerrero 1989), Around 50% of total denudedmangrove area of 171 500 ha in Thailand in 1961-1987 was converted into shrimp ponds (Aksomkae1988), In the Chokoria Sunderbans in Bangladesh,most of the 7500 ha ofmangrove vegetation in 1975has been cleared for shrimp farming, leaving only973 ha of scrub forest in 1988 (Choudhury, Quadir& Islam 1994), This widescale expansion of shrimpculture into mangroves has transformed amultifunctional ecosystem that generates a diversityof resources and services into private ponds thatproduce only one resource (Bailey 1988) and degradethe environment at the same time.

Mangroves have contributed significantly to the

well-being of coastal communities for centuriesthrough products used for fuel, construction, fishing,agriculture, forage for livestock, paper, medicines,textile and leather, and food items - mainly flsh,crustaceans and molluscs (Macnae 1974; dela Cruz1979; Christensen 1982; Tesoro 1984; Fottland &Sorensen 1996), A positive correlation betweenmangrove area and shrimp/fish catches has beendocumented for the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesiaand Australia (Primavera 1995 and referencestherein), and is reflected in the parallel declinein Philippine mangroves (Fig, 3 a) and municipalfisheries (Fig, 3b).

In addition to a wide array of products, mangrovesgenerate a variety of ecosystem services such ascoastal protection provided by a buffer zone duringtyphoons and storm surges, reduction of shorelineand riverbank erosion, stabilizing sediments andabsorption of pollutants (Saenger, Hegerl & Davie1983; HamUton & Snedaker 1984),

Destruction of mangroves along the Philippinecoastline accounts in part for the great losses to lifeand property inflicted by an average of 20 typhoonsand tsunamis each year - around 3000 deaths inZamboanga province in 1976, 1000 in northernPanay in 1984. and 7000 in Ormoc and other Le}^

© 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Aquarulture Research. 28, 815-827 817


1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990

Figure 3 Changes in (a)mangrove area and brackishwater pond area and (b)proportion of municipal flsheriesand aquaculture production inthe Philipines, 1976-1990 (fromPrimavera 1993; data from BAS1987, 1993),

towns in 1991, In the Chokoria Sundarbans inBangladesh, mangroves protected villagers from a1960 tidal wave but a cyclone caused thousands ofdeaths and enormous property damage in 1991after the installation of shrimp farms (Choudhury,Quadir & Islam et al. 1994).

Aside from sustainable uses (timber, fish) andregulatory functions (prevention of erosion,maintenance of biodiversity, nutrient supply andregeneration), Ruitenbeek (1994) has described theinformation function (scientific, cultural andhistorical) of mangroves. Two examples from thePhilippines and Vietnam serve to illustrate thehistorical function. The Philippines' premier city ofManila probably owes its name to the mangrovespecies Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea, initially namedIxora manila by the Spanish priest Blanco in 1837,the species name being associated with the city(Merrill 1918). When the Spanish arrived in 1570,the swampy bay was called Maynilad, in referenceto the abundance of S. hydrophyllacea, locally called

nilad. On a more poignant note. Professor PhanNguyen Hong of the Vietnam National PedagogicUniversity decries the shrimp rush in his countrythus; 'During the two wars [of resistance againstthe French, and later the Americans], Minh Haimangroves had protected the people and soldiersagainst the enemies' bombs and attacks. Sweat,tears and even blood were shed to protect andrestore these valuable forests which are now beingdestroyed for some short-term benefits' (Hong 1996).

Most mangrove valuation efforts cover onlymarketed resources (Hamilton & Snedaker 1984) andignore non-traded uses such as the regulatory andinformation functions and other ecosystem servicesdescribed by de Groot 1988 (in Folke 1991). This isevident in the low values (< USS 100 ha"^ year"!;Table 1) assigned to mangrove systems because theyonly include marketed forestry and fishery products.Yet the traditional subsistence use of fuelwood,medicines and food contributes yearly over USS 1000per household in certain areas in Thailand (McNeely

818 © 1997 Blackweil Science Ltd, Aquaculture Research, 28 , 815-827


Table 1 Economic values placed on products and services of mangrove systems (after Primavera 1993)

Country

Puerto RicoTrinidad

riji

IndonesiaindoneslaThailand

Thailand

Thailand

BrazilMalaysia

Malaysia

MalaysiaIndia

Year

19731974

, 1976

19781978n.d.

1979

1982

1981-21979

n.d.

n.d.1985

Product or service

Complete mangrove ecosystemComplete mangrove ecosystemFishery productsForestry productsComplete mangrove systemFishery productsFishery productsForestry (charcoal, wood chips)Charcoal production

Fish (inside mangroves) and mangrove-associated species (caught outside)

Fish and shrimpForestry productsFish (based on extent of open water)Shrimp and fish (including estuaries and

lagoons)Fishery productsForestry productsManaged forest (sustained harvest)Complete system (including fishery products

maintenance of fauna, air/waterpurification)

Value (USSha"' year')

155060012570

950-125064050

10-204000

130

30-200030-400

7692772

750225

11 56111314

Reference

Hamilton & Snedaker (1984)Hamilton & Snedaker (1984)

Hamilton & Snedaker (1984)

Hamilton & Snedaker (1984)Hamilton & Snedaker (1984)McNeely & Dobias (1991)Christensen (1982)

Hamilton & Snedaker (1984)

Kapetsky(1987)Gedney, Kapetsky & Kuhnhold (1982)

Ong (1982)

Salleh & Chan (1986)Untawale (1986)

& Dobias 1991), When complete systems areconsidered, much higher figures of US$1000-11 000 ha~^ year~^ (Table 1) place mangroves on apar with intensive shrimp culture that gives net profitsof $11 600 ha-i year-i (Chamberlain 1991),

An expanded cost-benefit analysis (CBA) wasapplied to Fiji mangroves based on the wholemangrove ecosystem, including interactions ofecological, economic and institutional factors (Lai1990), The CBA gave a negative net present valuefor alternative uses (over a 50-year planninghorizon), that is, mangrove reclamation for shrimpor rice will not give positive returns, A similarCBA of the Bintuni Bay mangroves in Irian Jaya,Indonesia by Ruitenbeek (1994) incorporateslinkages amotig mangrove conversion, fisheriesproductivity, traditional values, etc. Under a scenarioof linear but delayed 5-year linkages, the optimalmanagement strategy is selective cutting (vs,clearcutting) of harvestable mangroves. Noteworthyin both studies are the values reflected for non-marketed functions such as subsistence uses, erosioncontrol and filtering services.

Land conversion, privatization andexpropriation

All across Southeast and South Asia, residential,agricultural and forest lands are being convertedinto shrimp farms. Even burial grounds, pastures,areas for drying nets and other common land havenot been spared by the shrimp fever. In manycases, this has involved a direct buying out by bigcompanies of small-scale landowners. Often, salt-water contamination by adjacent shrimp pondsmakes agricultural land barren (see followingsection) and the only option of poor farmers withno capital for aquaculture is to sell their land.

In India, the enclosure of beaches for pumps andpowerhouses has deprived fishers of access to fishinggrounds and parking places for fishing boats(Rajagopal 1995), Indian fishing communities whoonce were called pattapu raja, meaning kings of thecoastline, now find themselves refugees ofaquaculture development (Shiva 1995). Whereaspublic beaches have been privatized by shrimpculttire in India, private and communal property

© 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Aquaculture Research, 28, 815-827 819

Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture / H Primavera Aquaculture Research. 1997, 28. 815-827

has ceased to be sacred in Kedah state, Malaysia(Seabrook 1995). Against the objections of smallfarmers, the state government has acquired theirland by invoking 'economic benefits' (as allowedunder the Land Acquisition Act of 1960) to begained from a planned tiger prawn (Penaeus monodonFabricius) project in cooperation with a SaudiArabian company.

When intensive farming is practised, the life spanof ponds does not exceed 5-10 years because ofattendant problems of self-pollution and disease. Insome cases, entrepreneurs have moved on to otherareas in a pattern called 'rape-and-run' and thesterile lands are no longer available for agricultureor aquaculture. These abandoned areas do notappear in worldwide estimates of the landappropriation by shrimp farms, which totalled 1.14million ha in 1995 (Rosenberry 1995).

Salinization of soil and water

Water use in shrimp culture affects the surroundingenvironment through extraction of ground waterand discharge of pond waste water. Heavy wateruse may draw from freshwater aquifers and reducesupply of domestic and agricultural water, asidefrom causing seawater contamination, especially ofdepleted aquifers. Salinization of natural waterwayscan result from uncontrolled discharge of salty pondwater, as in Songkhla, Thailand, where horses diedafter drinking canal water (Anonymous 1991c). Toquote a Philippine daily: 'Cebuano [people] drinkseawater as prawn farms proliferate' (Anonymous1991a).

Communities adjacent to shrimp farms inBangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the Philippinesexperienced salinization or complete drying up ofshallow wells for domestic water supply, andbrowning of previously green orchards and ricelands(Yap 1990; Gain & Moral 1994; Gain 1995). Watersalinization and longer hours to collect drinkingwater from distant sources moved local women topressure a shrimp company to supply free water to600 fisherfolk in Nellore district, India (Shiva 199 5).

Food insecurity

Global food security needs are used to justify theheavy promotion and subsidy of aquaculturedevelopment by national and international lendingagencies. This is a paradox, because most cultured

shrimp is destined for luxury export markets. Thedevelopment of shrimp culture is driven by economicrealities, not the goal of improved domestic nutrition.A shrimp crop in Thailand earns up to 30 times theprofits in rice farming, but almost all of it is exported(Table 2), whereas rice remains the staple of millionsof Thai and billions of Asians. Shrimp culture hasadversely affected food security through (a) loss ofricelands by pond conversion or salinization. (b)shifting of culture ponds from milkfish and otherdomestic food crops to shrimp, and (c) decliningnearshore fish, crustacean and mollusc catchesassociated with mangrove deforestation.

Decreasing rice production from around 40 000t in 1976 to only 36 t in 1986 in Satkhira.Bangladesh can be traced to salinization and loss ofsoil fertility as saltwater canals from shrimp pondscut across paddy fields (Shiva 1995). Hence thecomplaint of local villagers; 'Prawn revolution atthe cost of [the] rice bowl' (Parthasarathy 1994).Moreover, shrimp monoculture has led to the declineof traditional pokali fields in India and Bangladesh,where alternating rice and shrimp/fish harvests havebeen sustainable (Baird & Quanto 1994). Consumerdemand in rich nations drives the development ofthe industry. Perhaps the demand would decrease ifconsumers became aware of the devastating effectscaused by their consumption of cultured shrimp.

Marginalization, rural unemployment andmigration

A 1989 study of two coastal villages in Panay,central Philippines, concluded that the economicbenefits of shrimp culture did not trickle downto the residents but remained with the farmers,entrepreneurs and traders (Amante, Castillo &Segovia 1989). Instead of improving living standardsand village welfare, shrimp farming brought aboutsocial displacement and marginalization of fishers.Municipal fishers in the Philippines in 198 7 exceededby almost threefold the number of workers inaquaculture. but earned only half the income of thelatter (Table 3). The introduction of shrimp farmingto the Chokoria Sunderbans in Bangladesh did notimprove the socio-economic status of poor people -fishers became daily labourers, peasants lost theirgrazing lands and others became jobless (Choudhury,Quadir & Islam 1994).

Declining municipal fisheries yields (Fig. 3b) inthe Philippines may be traced to loss of mangrove

820 © 1997 Biackweli Science Ltd. Aquaculture Research. 28 . 815-827


hectarage (Fig, 3a), among other factors. Theconversion and salinization of rice and otheragricultural lands also leads to the marginalizationof coastal rural communities. Dispossessed farmersare forced to seek work elsewhere, migrating tothe cities and swelling the ranks of the urbanunemployed (Alauddin & Hamid 1996) and leavingwomen and children alone for long periods (Shultna1994 in Barraclough & Finger-Stich 1996), Thedevelopment of shrimp farming in the Satkhiraregion of Bangladesh has displaced nearly 120 000people from their farmlands (Utusan Konsumer inBaird & Quarto 1994).

Modern shrimp farms are capital- rather than

Table 2 Comparison of land and financial status betweenrice and shrimp farming in Pak Phanang, SouthernThailand (from Boromthanarat 199 5)

Farm area (ha)Cost of land

(baht ha-')"Rental (ha)Land ownershipSource of income

Marketinvestment

(baht ha~')^Net return

(baht per crop)^Loss (baht per

crop)^

Rice farming

23000-10 000

10% (1.12)100% local25% rice + 75%other

100% local500-15 000

3000-10 000

none

Shrimp farming

0,8300 000-600 000

46% (0.64)27% outsider75% shrimp +25% other

95% export100 000-1 500 000

100 000-200 000or 0-1 000 00010 000-350 000

"25 baht = USS 1,

labour-intensive. A 40-ha shrimp farm in Indiaemploys only 5 labourers while an equivalent ricefarm would need 50 (Shiva 1995), In Indonesia, arice crop requires an average of 76 work days ha"'compared with 45 for an extensive shrimp farm(Hanning 1988 in Barraclough & Finger-Stich1996). Employment of local people in shrimp farmsis often limited to low-paying, unskilled jobs suchas labourers and guards, while technical andmanagerial positions are reserved for outsiders.Moreover, funds invested in these farms are mostlygenerated from the outside, therefore profits alsoleave the community. Three-quarters of the shrimpfarmers-investors in the coastal areas of Khulna andSatkhira in Bangladesh in the early 1990s werebusinessmen from outside the local community(Shultna 1994 in Barraclough & Finger-Stich 1996).One reason was that the lease fee was beyond thereach of local people.

The allocation of resources for shrimp farmingand the distribution of benefits depends on the socialcontext and institutional framework (Barraclough& Finger-Stich 1996). Where land and otherresources are under the control of a small elite, mostshrimp production is concentrated in a few largeentrepreneurs as in India and Bangladesh, But mostshrimp farms in Thailand are operated by small-and medium-sized farmers (Kongkeo 1995) whereland is widely distributed. This is also the case inVietnam, where land and other natural resourcesbelong to the State (Sinh 1994).

Social unrest and conflicts

The capital-intensive nature of high-density shrimpculture has favoured the entry of multinational

Tkble 3 Comparison of municipal, commercial and aquaculture sectors in the Philippine fisheries (Primavera 1994)

Municipal' Commercial" Aquaculture*^

Production (t), 1971 (% of total)1991 (% of total)

Employment, 1991 (no. of persons)Gross monthly income, 1987 {P}''

542 904(53.1)1 146 765(44.1)

675 6771986

382 276 (37.4)759 815(29.3)56 71519 695

97 915(9.6)692 401 (26.6)258 480

3721

"Vessels ^ 3 gross tons.''Vessels > 3 gross tons,•^Includes pond, pen, cage and mollusc culture.•'20 P (peso) = USS 1, (1987 rate).

© 1997 Blackweil Science Ltd, Aquaculture Research, 28, 815-827 821


corporate investors or the national elite. They canprovide the necessary capital, have easier access topermits, credits, subsidies, and can absorb financialrisks. In this context, local communities in coastalareas and small farmers are disadvantaged.

Powerful landlords and elected staterepresentatives in Andhra Pradesh, India connivedwith local civilian and military authorities tocircumvent laws and acquire wide areas for shrimpculture (Gain 1995), Despite non-compliance withthe required voluntary consent of 85% oflandholders, well-connected city folk in Bangladeshused similar links with political leaders and the localadministration to lease land for shrimp farms (Gain1995). Meltzoff & UPuma (1986) highlight theduality of interests that pervades the Ecuadorianshrimp industry - government officials tasked tooversee the industry are also shrimp producersand exporters with personal economic and politicalinterests. Corruption is a major cause behind the

mangrove destruction associated with shrimpculture development. Official laws, decrees andregulations prohibiting the use of mangroves andagricultural land for shrimp pond construction areoften ignored through lack of sanctions andenforcements.

With their very survival at stake, villagers haveorganized themselves, aided by non-governmentalorganizations, and have started to fight back. Smallfarmers in Andhra Pradesh were arrested in 1994for defying plans to convert paddy to prawn farms(Nayak 1995; Rajagopal 1995), In February 1995,hundreds of farmers in Kerpan, Malaysia lay downin the path of bulldozers; 33 were arrested and jailed(Seabrook 1995),

Other such confrontations have turned violent -Karunamoi Sardar, a landless woman protester, wasmurdered in 1990 (Gain 1995) and at least two morevillagers opposing shrimp cultivation in Bangladeshhave been killed, one of them by a bomb attack

Table 4 Matrix of ecological and socio-economic values and problems of brackisii water pond culture compared withintact or managed mangrove systems" (Primavera 1993)

Intact/managed''mangrove system

Brackish water pond culture

Milkfishculture

Shrimp farming'

\felues1. Communal ownership of resources2. Mangrove products3. Coastal protection4. Nearshore fisheries production5. Domestic food supply6. Foreign exchange7. Income8. Employment9. Competition for land, credit, etc.

Problems1. Pollution (in and outside pond)2. Chemical toxicity3. Public health risks4. Displacement of native species5. Spread of parasites and diseases6. Water and soil salinization

+d

+d

+d

'+, present; -, absent.''For silviculture and/or fisheries,Ti, extensive; S, semi-intensive; I, intensive,•"Only middle and upper income classes.'Only technical and managerial expertise.

822 ® 1997 Blackwell Sdence Ltd, Aquacuiturt Research, 28, 815-827


(Khor 1995b; Alauddin & Hamid 1996), The housesof landless families opposing shrimp farmdevelopment in Tennampattinam, Tbmil Nadu wereburned down (Mukul 1994 in Barraclough & Finger-Stich 1996), In the Vietnamese village of ThongChau in the Red River Delta, one man died duringa conflict between fishers and shrimp pond owners(A, Quarto, personal communication). There arereports from Hua Sai district, Nakkon Si Thammaratin Tljailand of shrimp farmers boasting that theamount needed to silence a (protesting) rice farmeris equivalent to sales of only 20 kg of prawns. Outof desperation, one of 4000 displaced rice fannersshot dead a neighbouring shrimp pond operator(Anonymous 1991b), To prevent theft of his crop,a powerful shrimp owner in Tehtultela, Bangladeshhas, with the help of hired guards, banned peoplefrom moving in the vicinity of the farm after dark(MAP 1996). Villagers can no longer fish for crabs,women cannot leave their houses to attend to theirbiological needs at night, and half the males have leftthe village because of the presence of armed guards.

nature's productivity in the sea and the productivityof fishing communities . . , [and place] the luxuryconsumption of shrimp by rich Northern consumersand the profits of corporations above the need fordrinking water, food and livelihoods of local fishingand farming communities,' The environmental andsocial damage caused by such value judgments isreflected in Table 4 where problems of pollution,public health risks and salinization caused byintensive shrimp fanning are in stark contrast tothe values of communal ownership, coastalprotection and domestic food supply intrinsic tointact mangroves (Primavera 1993). These valuesneed to be monetized to provide more comprehensiveinformation to national governments andinternational funding organizations, which haveembarked on ambitious development programmesfor shrimp aquaculture. Institutions that protectlocal communities and the environment from short-term profit-makers must be developed and supportedand their rules must be enforced.

Conclusion and recommendations

According to Vandana Shiva (1995); 'Intrinsic toshrimp farming are value judgments that devalue

Mangrove valuation and economic analysis

There is a need for further research to validate themangrove-offshore fisheries connection (Fig. 3), and

To produce 1kg of shrimp

Figure 4 Comparison of theapparent and true costs ofproducing 1 kg of farmed shrimp(data from Auburn University,1993), P (Phil, peso) 26,8: USSl(1993 rate).

LabourVp7,4]

Others

Apparent costs

Drinking waterDomestic food supplyMangrove goodsFisheries productionTyphoon aonagePollution

PI12,7 / Production

True costs

© 1997 Blackweil Science Ltd, Aguaculture Research, 28, 815-827 823


to refine valuation of mangrove systems. As shownin Table 1, the fishery harvests from mangrovesystems have much greater value than forestryproducts. Following the pioneering work of Lai(1990) and Ruitenbeek (1994), more CBA studiesincorporating the ecosystem approach are needed,A theoretical framework for such valuation has beendeveloped (Maler, Gren & Follce 1994) but empiricaltests have not yet been made.

The studies by Lai (1990) and Ruitenbeek (1994)have noted that the exact relationship betweenmangroves and coastal fisheries/fish fauna iscomplex and not known. Two mechanismspostulated to explain the link between fisheriesyields and mangrove (and other intertidal) areas aretrophic subsidy through detritus export, and use asnursery grounds (Boesch & Turner 1984), However,there is little evidence that the exported detritusenhances offshore productivity (Lee 1995) andfisheries yields; the connection between offshoreprawn catches and mangroves may lie in the nurseryfunction (Hatcher, Johannes & Robertson 1989),Mangroves act as shrimp nurseries by providingfood and/or shelter from predation.

In addition to updated mangrove values, a moreaccurate economic analysis of shrimp productionfrom culture ponds is needed. The social andecological impacts heretofore considered'externalities' should be internalized in the finalvaluation of the shrimp product (Fig. 4) as Folke,Kautsky & Troell (1994) did for salmon aquaculture.Selected case studies should deal with the politicaleconomy of shrimp farming and environmentaldegradation in specific ecological, social and politicalcontexts because the key question is who bears thecosts and who enjoys the benefits (Bailey 1988;Barraclough & Finger-Stich 1996),

Other recommendations

Fees for use of resources such as ponds should becommensurate with economic rents (World Bank1989), defined as total revenue minus all costsexcluding the lease fee (Evangelista 1992), In thePhilippines, the economic rent of ponds convertedfrom mangroves ranges from P515ha~i toP3296ha"^ considerably above the present pondlease fee of P50 ha'^ (Evangelista 1992), If rentnow accruing to pond owners can be collected bythe government (through increased resource usefees), such collections can fund mangrove planting

and other rehabilitation programmes (World Bank1989; Evangelista 1992), Increased fees may alsoslow the rate of mangrove conversion because thereturn on investment wUI be lower.

Complementary to the research thrusts discussedearlier are various action-orientated programmesthat can be instituted at the local and national levels(Primavera 1993,1994), These include enforcementof existing pro-environment laws; conservation ofremaining mangroves and rehabilitation of degradedareas; introduction of environment-friendlyaquaculture of seaweeds, molluscs, fish in cages andother crops that are compatible with mangroves;implementation of an integrated coastal areamanagement programme that is community-based;and other actions recommended by Barg (1992),Primavera (1993), Barraclough & Finger-Stich(1996) and Funge-Smith & Stewart (no date)among others.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due the International Foundation forScience for the invitation to present this paper andthe travel grant to Can Tho, Vietnam; Carl Folke forhis valuable comments and suggestions; AlfredoQuarto, Kate Cissna and Meena Rahman for help inretrieving references; Junemie Lebata for typing thetables; and Edgar Ledesma for the figures.

References

Aksomkae S. (1988) Mangrove habitat degradation andremoval in Phangnga and Ban Don Bays, Thailand,Tropical Coastal Area Management i (1), 16.

Alauddin M. & Hamid M.A. (1996) Shrimp culture inBangladesh: key sustainable and research issues. Paperpresented during the ACIAR Workshop on KeyResearchable Issues in Sustainable Coastal ShrimpAquaculture in Thailand, Songkhla, Thailand, 28-31October 1996, 27 pp,

Alvarez A., VasconezB. & Guerrero L. (1989) Multi-temporalstudy ofmangrove, shrimp farm and salt flat areas in thecoastal zone of Ecuador, through information providedby remote sensing. In: Establishing A Sustainable ShrimpMariculture Industry in Ecuador (ed. by S. Olsen and L.Arriaga), pp. 141-146. The University of Rhode IslandCoastal Resources Center; Ministerio de Energia y Minas,Gobierno de Ecuador; and U,S, Agency for internationalDevelopment, Ecuador,

© 1997 Blackwell Science Ud, Aquaculture Research, 28, 815-827


Amante S,V,, Castillo F,A, & Segovia L,Z, (1989) The

Aquaculture Industry in Panay, Panay Self RelianceInstitute, Manila, Philippines, 61 pp.

Anonymous (1991a) Cebuanos drink seawater as prawnfarms proliferate, Dmly Globe, 13 May 1991,

Anonymous (1991b) Fight for survival turns into bloodshed.The BangkokPost, 26 May 1991,

Anonymous (1991c) Water so salty it can kill a horse. The

Bangkok Post, 26 May 1991,

Auburn University (1993) Philippine Prawn Industry Policy

Study. Prepared for the Coordinating Council of thePhilippines Assistance Program and US Agency forInternational Development, International Center forAquaculture and Aquatic Environments, AuburnUniversity, Alabama, USA,

Bailey C. (1988) The social consequences of tropical shrimpmariculture development. Ocean and Shoreline

Management 11. 31-44,

Bailey C, & Skladany M, (1991) Aquaculture developmentin tropical Asia: a re-evaluation. Natural Resources Forum

15,66-73,Baird I,B, & Quarto A, (1994) The environmental and social

costs of developing coastal shrimp aquaculture in Asia In:Trade and Environment: Prospects for Regional Cooperation,

pp, 188-214, Nautilus Institute, Berkeley, CA,Barg U, (1992) Guidelines for the promotion of

environmental management of coastal aquaculturedevelopment, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper i28, 1-100,

Barraclough S, & Finger-Stich A. (1996) Some ecologicaland social implications of commercial shrimp farmingin Asia, UNRISD Discussion Paper 74, United NationsResearch Institute for Social Development, Geneva, andWorld Wide Fund for Nature-International, Gland,Switzerland, 62 pp,

BAS (1987) Handbook on Selected Fishery Statistics, 1976-

1986. Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Department ofAgriculture, Quezon City, Philippines.

BAS (1993) Fishery Statistics, 1984^1992. Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department ofAgriculture, Quezon City, Philippines.

Boesch D,F, & Turner R,E, (1984) Dependence of flsherj'species on salt marshes: the role of food and refuge.Estuaries 7,460-468.

Boromthanarat B, (1995) The impact of shrimp cultureon human communities and coastal resources in PakPhanang, Thailand: an update. Coastal Management in

Tropical Asia 4, 19-20,Briggs M,R.P, & Funge-Smith S.J. (1994) Unsustainable

shrimp culture, a review of causes and potential solutionsfrom experience in Thailand, In: Development of Strategies

for Sustainable Shrimp Farming, ODA Research ProjectR4751, Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling,Scotland,

Chamberlain G,W,(1991)Shrimp farming in Indonesia. 1 -Growout techniques. World Aquaculture 22 (2), 13-27,

Choudhury A,M,, Quadir D,A, & Islam M,J, (1994) Study of

Chokoria Sundarbans using remote sensing techniques,ISME Mangrove Ecosystems Technical Report 4, 1-22,

Christensen B, (1982) Management and utilization ofmangroves in Asia and the Pacific, FAO Environment Paper3,1-60,

dela Cruz A, A. (1979) The functions of mangroves, BiotropSpecial Publication 10, 125-138,

Ehrlich P,R,&MooneyH,A. (1983) Extinction, substitution,and ecosystem services. BioScience 33, 248-254,

Evangelista D,L, (1992) Management of mangrove areasin Calauag Bay, Quezon Province, Philippines, Naga, theICLARM Quarterly 15, 47-49,

FAO (199 3) Yearbook of Fishery Statistics 1991, Vol 72. Foodand Agriculture Organization, Rome,

FAO (1995) Review of the state of world fishery resources:aquaculture, FAO Fisheries Circular 886, 127 pp,

Ferdouse F, (1990) Asian shrimp situation, InfofishInternational 1/90, 32-38,

Folke C, (1991) Socioeconomic dependence on the life-supporting environment. In: Linking the NaturalEnvironment and the Economy: Essays from the Eco-EcoGroup (ed, by C, Folke & T. Kaberger), pp, 77-94, KluwerAcademic Publishers. Dordrecht.

Folke C, & Kautsky N, (1992) Aquaculture with itsenvironment: prospects for sustainability. Ocean andCoastal Management 17, 5-24,

Folke C Kautsky N. & IVoeli M, (1994) The costs ofeutrophication ii-om salmon farming: implications forpolicy.JournalofEnvironnientalManagementiO, 173-182.

Fottland H, & Sorensen C, (1996) Issues related to theestablishment of prawn farms in Tanzania with anexample from the Rufiji delta. Catchment Forestry Report96.4, The Mangrove Management Project and Instituteof Resource Assessment. Dar Es Salaam. Tanzania, 36 pp.

Funge-Smith S.J, & Stewart J, A, (1996) Coastal aquaculture:Identification of social, economic and environmentalconstraints to sustainability with reference to shrimpculture, ODA Research Project R6011, 74 pp.

Gain P, (1995) Bangladesh: attack of the shrimps. ThirdWorld Resurgence 59, 18-19,

Gain P, & Moral S, (1994) Profits, murders, changes, DhakaCourier, 11 November (1994),

Gedney R,H,, Kapetsky J,M, & Kuhnhold W.W. (1982)Training on Assessment of Coastal Aquaculture Potential,Malaysia. SCS/GEN/82/35 South China Sea FisheriesDevelopment and Coordinating Programme, Manila, 62pp,

Hamilton L,S, & Snedaker, S,C (eds) (1984) Handbook forMangrove Area Management. United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Kenya and Environment and PolicyInstitute, East-West Center, Hawaii, 123 pp.

Hatcher B,G,. Johannes R,E, & Robertson A.I. (1989) Reviewof research relevant to the conservation of shallow tropicalmarine ecosystems. Oceanography and Marine BiologyAnnual Review 27, 337-414,

Hong P.N, (1996) Mangrove destruction for shrimp rearing

© 1997 BiacisweU Science Ltd, Aquaculture Research, 28, 815-827 825

Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture / H Primavera Aquaculture Research, 1997, 28 , 815-827

in Minh Hai, Vietnam: its damage to natural resourcesand environnment. SEAFDEL Asian Aquaculture 18(3),6-11.

Kapetsky J.M. (1984) Coastal lagoon fisheries around theworld: some perspectives on fishery yields, and othercomparative fishery statistics. In: Management of Coastal

Lagoon Fisheries (ed. by J.M. Kapetsky & D. Capone),pp, 97-139. Stud. Rev. (3FCM (61), Vol, 1, Food andAgriculture Organization, Rome.

Kapetsky, J.M. Conversion of mangroves for pondaquaculture: some short-term and long-term remedies.RIO Fisheries Report 370 ,129-141 .

Khor M. (1995a) Protests over shrimp farms spreadthroughout India, r/iird World Resurgence 59.11-12.

Khor M. (1995b) The aquaculture disaster. Third World

Resurgence 59. 8-10.Kongkeo H. (1995) How Thailand became the world's

largest producer of cultured shrimp. In: Aquaculture

Tbwards the 21st Century. Proceedings of Infofish-Aquatech

'94 International Conference on Aquaculture, Colombo, Sri

Lanka. 28-31 August. 1994 (ed. by K.P.P. Nambiar &- T.Singh), pp, 62-73. Infofish, Kuala Lumpur.

Lai P.M. (1990) Ecological economic analysis of mangroveconservation, a case study from Fiji. ISME Mangrove

Ecosystems Occasional Papers No. 6. UNDP/UNESCORegional Mangroves Project RAS/86/120.

Larsson J.. Folke C. & Kautsky N. (1994) Ecologicallimitations and appropriation of ecosystem support byshrimp farming in Colombia. Environmental Management

18, 663-676.

Lee S.Y. (1995) Mangrove outwelling: a review.Hydrobiologia 295. 203-212.

Macintosh D.J. & Phillips M.J. (1992) Environmental issuesin shrimp farming. In: Shrimp '92. Proceedings of the 3rd

Global Conference on the Shrimp Industry, Hong Kong, 14r-

16 September 1992 (ed. by H. de Saram & T. Singh), pp.118-145. Infofish, Kuala Lumpur.

Macnae W. (1974) Mangrove Forests and Fisheries. IOFC/DEV/74/34. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome,35 pp,

McNeely J.A. & Dobias R.J. (1991) Economic incentives forconserving biological diversity in Thailand. Ambio 20 (2),86-90.

Maler K.G., Gren I.M. & Folke C. (1994) Multiple use ofenvironmental resources: a household productionfunction approach to valuing natural capital. In: Investing

in Natural Capital: the Ecological Economics Approach to

Sustainability (ed. by A.M. Jansson, H. Hammer, C, Folke& R. Costanza), pp, 233-249, ISEE Press/Island Press,Washington, DC.

MAP (1996) Bangladesh: shrimpers' violence is the order ofthe day. Mangrove Action Project Quarterly News 2 (5), 8-9,

Meltzoff S.K. & LiPuma E. (1986) The social and politicaleconomy of Coastal Zone Management: shrimpmariculture in Ecuador. Journal of Coastal Zone

Management 14, 349-380.

Merrill E.D. (1918) Species Blancoanae. A critical revision of

the Philippine species of plants described by Blanco and Llanos.

Bureau of Science Publication 12, Bureau of Printing,Manila, 423 pp,

Nayak N. (1995) Up in arms. Samudra 12, 10-11,Ong J.E. (1982) Mangroves and aquaculture in Malaysia.

AmWo 11, 252-257.Parthasarathy R, (1994) 'Prawn revolution' at the cost of

rice bowl.' The Hindu. 12 August 1994.Primavera J.H. (1991) Intensive prawn fartning in the

Philippines: ecological, social, and economic implications,Amfcio 20(1), 28-33.

Primavera J.H. (1993) A critical review of shrimp pond

culture in the Philippines. Reviews in Fisheries Science 1,151-201.

Primavera J.H. (1994) Shrimp farming in the Asia-Pacific:environment and trade issues and regional cooperation.In: Trade and Environmetit: Prospects for Regional

Cooperation, pp. 161-186. Nautilus Institute, Berkeley,CA.

Primavera J.H. (1995) Mangroves and brackishwater pondculture in the Philippines. Hydrobiologia 295, 303-309,

Rajagopal A. (1995) Intensive shrimp culture and itsenvironmental impact in Tamil Nadu, India, Deep.

October, pp, 38-41.Rosenberry B. (ed.) (1989) World shrimp fanning 1989.

Aquaculture Digest. San Diego. CA.Rosenberry B (ed.) (1990) World shrimp farming 1990.

Aquaculture Digest. San Diego, CA.Rosenberry B (ed.) (1991) World shrimp farming 1991.

Aquaculture Digest. San Diego. CA.Rosenberry B (ed.) (1992) World shrimp farming 1992.

Aquaculture Digest. San Diego, CA.Rosenberry B (ed.) (1993) World shrimp farming 1993.

Aquaculture Digest, San Diego, CA,Rosenberry B (ed.) (1995) World shrimp farming 1995.

Aquaculture Digest, San Diego, CA.Ruitenbeek H.J. (1994) Modelling economy-ecology

linkages in mangroves: economic evidence for promotingconservation in Bintuni Bay, Indonesia. Ecological

Economics 10, 233-247.Saenger P., Hegerl E.J. & Davie J.D.S. (1983) Global status

of mangrove ecosystems. WCN Commission on Ecology

Papers No. 3, Gland, Switzerland.Salleh M.N. & Chan H.T. (1986) Sustained yield forest

management of the Matang mangrove. In: Matigroves of

Asia and the Pacific: Status and Management, TechnicalReport, UNDP/UNESCO Research and Training PilotProgramme on Mangrove Ecosystems in Asia and thePacific (RAS/79/002), pp. 319-324. Natural ResourcesManagement Center and National Mangrove Committee,Ministry of Natural Resources, Philippines.

Seabrook J. (1995) Malaysian farmers battle aquacultureproject. Third World Resurgence 59 ,14-17,

Shiva V, (1995) The damaging social and environment

effects of aquacitlture. Third World Resurgence 59,22-24.

826 © 1997 Biackweii Science Ltd, Aquaculture Research. 28, 815-827

Aquaculture Research. 1997. 28. 815-827 Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture / H Primavera

Sinh L.X. (1994) Mangrove forests and shrimp culture inNgoc Hien District, Minh Hai Province. Vietnam. Naga.the ICLARM Quarterly 17 (4), 15-16.

Tesoro F.O. (1984) Traditional utilization of mangrove

forests and management implications in the Philippines.Bakawan 3. 6-10.

Trinh L. (1993) Environmental issues in the Eastern CoastalRegion of the Mekong Delta. Asian Wetland News 5/6.17-18.

Untawale A.G. (1986) Asia country reports: India. In:

Mangroves of Asia and the Pacific: Status and Management.Technical Report, UNDP/UNESCO Research and Training

Pilot Programme on Mangrove Ecosystems in Asia andthe Pacific (RAS/79/002). pp. 51-87. Natural ResourcesManagement Center and National Mangrove Committee.Ministry of Natural Resources. Philippines.

World Bank (1989) Country Report: Philippines.Environmental and Natural Resources ManagementStudy. The World Bank. Washington. DC, 173 pp.

Yap W.G. (1990) Use of supra-tidal land for intensive shrimpfarming. In: Proceedings of the Shrimp Culture IndustryWorkshop (ed. by W.G. Yap), pp. 169-177. BrackishwaterAquaculture Development Centre, Jepara, Indonesia.

© 1997 BlackweU Science Ltd, Aquaculture Research. 28, 815-827 827

socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture

Documents