Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture

Download Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture

Post on 06-Jul-2016




1 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>Aquaculttjre Research, 1997, 28,815-827</p><p>Socio-economic impacts of siirimp cuiture</p><p>J H PrimaveraSouth-east Asian Fisheries Development Centre, Iloilo, Philippines</p><p>Correspondence: Dr J Honculada Primavera, Aquaculture Department, South-east Asian Fisheries Development Centre, Tigbauan.Iloiio, Phiiippines 5021 (Fax: + 63 33 335 1008: E-maii:</p><p>AbstractFarmed 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>IntroductionIn 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</p><p>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).</p><p>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 &amp; Skladany1991).</p><p>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),</p><p>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</p><p> 1997 Biackweii Science Ltd. 815</p></li><li><p>Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture / H Primavera Aquaculture Research, 1997, 28, 815-827</p><p>esh</p><p>Philippines</p><p>Figure 1 Production (thousand tonnes) of cultured shrimp in leading Asian countries (data from Rosenberry 1989-95;Ferdouse 1990),</p><p>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 &amp; Phillips (1992), Primavera (1993),Briggs &amp; Funge-Smith (1994), and Funge-Smith &amp;Stewart (no date). The large demand for resourcesand ecosystem services (Ehrlich &amp; Mooney 1982:Folke 1991) by shrimp farming is described inLarsson, Folke &amp; Kautsky (1994),</p><p>Socio-economic effects</p><p>Modem shrimp farming has socio-economic costs(Bailey 1988; Primavera 1993; Baird &amp; Quarto1994; Barraclough &amp; 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</p><p>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,</p><p>Barraclough &amp; 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 &amp;Kautsky 1992).</p><p>Loss of mangrove ecosystems, goods andservices</p><p>Culture ponds for shrimp and fish account for thedestruction of 20-50% of mangroves worldwide in</p><p>816 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Aquaculture Research. 28 , 815-827</p></li><li><p>Aquaculture Research, 1997, 28, 815-827 Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture / H Primavera</p><p>Mangroves Culture Ponds</p><p>-70 -60 -50 -40 - 3 0 30</p><p>llocos Region (I)Cogayan Valley (II)Central Luzon (111)+NCRSouthern 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)</p><p>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).</p><p>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 &amp;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&amp; 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.</p><p>Mangroves have contributed significantly to the</p><p>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 &amp;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).</p><p>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 &amp; Davie1983; HamUton &amp; Snedaker 1984),</p><p>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}^</p><p> 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Aquarulture Research. 28, 815-827 817</p></li><li><p>Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture / H Primavera Aquaculture Research, 1997, 28, 815-827</p><p>1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990</p><p>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),</p><p>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 &amp; Islam et al. 1994).</p><p>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</p><p>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).</p><p>Most mangrove valuation efforts cover onlymarketed resources (Hamilton &amp; 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 (&lt; 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</p><p>818 1997 Blackweil Science Ltd, Aquaculture Research, 28 , 815-827</p></li><li><p>Aquaculture Research, 1997, 28, 815-827 Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture / H Primavera</p><p>Table 1 Economic values placed on products and services of mangrove systems (after Primavera 1993)</p><p>Country</p><p>Puerto RicoTrinidad</p><p>riji</p><p>IndonesiaindoneslaThailandThailand</p><p>Thailand</p><p>BrazilMalaysia</p><p>Malaysia</p><p>MalaysiaIndia</p><p>Year</p><p>19731974</p><p>, 1976</p><p>19781978n.d.1979</p><p>1982</p><p>1981-21979</p><p>n.d.</p><p>n.d.1985</p><p>Product or service</p><p>Complete mangrove ecosystemComplete mangrove ecosystemFishery productsForestry productsComplete mangrove systemFishery productsFishery productsForestry (charcoal, wood chips)Charcoal productionFish (inside mangroves) and mangrove-</p><p>associated species (caught outside)Fish and shrimpForestry productsFish (based on extent of open water)Shrimp and fish (including estuaries and</p><p>lagoons)Fishery productsForestry productsManaged forest (sustained harvest)Complete system (including fishery products</p><p>maintenance of fauna, air/waterpurification)</p><p>Value (USSha"' year')</p><p>155060012570</p><p>950-125064050</p><p>10-204000</p><p>130</p><p>30-200030-400</p><p>7692772</p><p>750225</p><p>11 56111314</p><p>Reference</p><p>Hamilton &amp; Snedaker (1984)Hamilton &amp; Snedaker (1984)</p><p>Hamilton &amp; Snedaker (1984)</p><p>Hamilton &amp; Snedaker (1984)Hamilton &amp; Snedaker (1984)McNeely &amp; Dobias (1991)Christensen (1982)</p><p>Hamilton &amp; Snedaker (1984)</p><p>Kapetsky(1987)Gedney, Kapetsky &amp; Kuhnhold (1982)</p><p>Ong (1982)</p><p>Salleh &amp; Chan (1986)Untawale (1986)</p><p>&amp; 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),</p><p>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.</p><p>Land conversion, privatization andexpropriation</p><p>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.</p><p>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</p><p> 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Aquaculture Research, 28, 815-827 819</p></li><li><p>Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture / H Primavera Aquaculture Research. 1997, 28. 815-827</p><p>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) t...</p></li></ul>


View more >