AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF EDIBLE

SEAWEED (Caulerpa racemosa) HARVESTING IN SOME SELECTED

AREAS OF FIJI

by

HIKAIONE LOUMOLI

A thesis submitted for the fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Agriculture (Agricultural Economics)

Copyright © 2014 by Hikaione Loumoli

School of Agriculture Food and Technology

Faculty of Business and Economics

The University of the South Pacific

July 2014

ii

DECLARATION OF ORGINALITY

Except otherwise acknowledged in the text, this thesis reports the author’s original research.

Materials contained herein have not been submitted elsewhere, either in part or full, for any

degree at this or any other university.

Hikaione Loumoli (ID # S11059793)

Statement by Supervisors

The research reported in this thesis was carried out under the supervision of undersigned,

who testify that it is sole of Hikaione Loumoli.

Dr. Jagdish Bhati (Supervisor)

Senior Lecturer School of Agriculture, Food and Technology Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of the South Pacific Alafua, Samoa

Prof. Robin South (Associate Supervisor) Project Leader PARDI 2010-002 Value-adding & Supply Chain Development for Fisheries & Aquaculture Products in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga.

iii

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my dear parents (Sione Loumoli Fonua and Pulonga ‘a Tonga

Loumoli) for their extraordinary support. I am overwhelmed with gratitude for everything

that you have provided throughout my academic years.

iv

Acknowledgement

I would like to sincerely thank the Australian Center for International Agriculture Research

(ACIAR) for providing me with a scholarship through the Pacific Agribusiness Research for

Development Initiative 2010/002 to pursue a Master of Agriculture at the University of the

South Pacific.

I give my sincere gratitude to Dr. Jagdish Bhati and Prof. Robin South for timelessly

supervising the whole research work, your guidance and support is highly appreciated. I

gratefully acknowledge the support I got from Cherie Moris and Shireel Bala for their

invaluable support and their various contributions to the success of this work.

A big MALO ‘AUPITO to Kisione Finau and Viliame Lockwood and all my Tongan friends,

thank you for your support and for the good hospitality while I was doing my field work in

Fiji. Last but not the least I would like to thank to my loving girlfriend Akesa He’I Monesi

Hausia, for her encouragement, love and support while I was doing this research project.

Hikaione Loumoli (ID # S11059793)

v

ABSTRACT

In-depth understanding of employment and income earning patterns of rural people helps find

ways to alleviate rural poverty in the country. This study analyses employment and income

generated by seaweed harvesting activity in Fiji. The specific objectives of the research were:

(i) to study the personal characteristics of the seaweed harvesters; (ii) to estimate time spent

by workers in seaweed harvesting; (iii) to estimate quantity of seaweed harvested by workers;

(iv) to estimate income earned by workers from seaweed harvesting activity; (v) to

understand the seaweed marketing system in Fiji, and (vi) to suggest policy measures to

improve income and employment opportunities of the seaweed harvesters. Accordingly, a

sample of 46 seaweed harvesting households was randomly selected from four villages in the

coastal areas of Fiji. In addition five seaweed vendors of Lautoka market and 10 vendors of

Suva market were interviewed to understand the seaweed marketing system in the area.

The study found that in 46 sampled households, 68 members were engaged in seaweed

harvesting. The average family size of seaweed harvesters was six of which one-fourth

members were engaged in seaweed harvesting. Sixty one percent of the households had only

one seaweed harvester in the family. On the whole 82 percent of seaweed harvesters were

females and 19 percent were males. About 72 percent households had female seaweed

harvesters only. Majority of the workers was in the age group 30-50 years. The most

predominant age group for male workers was 50-60 years and for female harvesters was

below 40 years. Seventy nine percent of workers had seaweed harvesting experience of more

than ten years. Though seaweed harvesting this is the main economic activity for females,

male workers have more years of experience in seaweed harvesting,. The older female

workers take care of children and other household affairs. Three-fourths of all the seaweed

harvesters were educated up to secondary level. Since seaweed harvesting alone did not

provide full time employment to seaweed workers they pursued diverse income-earning

activities. About one-fourths of total seaweed workers were engaged in seaweed harvesting

only and the rest were doing combination of various activities. On average, workers spent

nineteen hours per week on seaweed harvesting; male workers worked for 21 hours while

female workers worked for about 19 hours per week in seaweed harvesting. The number of

hours devoted to seaweed harvesting has a negative relation with the educational level of the

worker. It was also noticed that as the number of workers increased in the family, the average

number of hours spent by the worker on seaweed harvesting declined. Overall, the quantity of

vi

seaweed harvested per worker was 31 kilograms per week; 32 kg by a female worker and 29

kg by a male worker. Per worker average earning from seaweed harvesting was $54 per

week. The regression analysis revealed that quantity of seaweed harvested as well as the per

week seaweed income of the worker have positive relationship with both their years of

experience and the number of hours spent on seaweed harvesting by the workers.

Seaweed marketing business is dominated by women marketing agents. While seaweed

harvesters received $1.50 per kg for their produce from the middle women the consumers

bought it at $7 per kg in Lautoka market and $10 per kg in Suva market. Thus, seaweed

harvesters’ share in the consumer’s dollar was only 15 cents in Suva market and 21 cents in

Lautoka market. The net profit (margin over and above the marketing costs) of the middle

women in marketing of seaweeds in Lautoka and Suva markets were 58 and 63 percent,

respectively. The labour cost was the main component of marketing costs of seaweeds which

accounted for about two-thirds of the total marketing cost. The another major cost component

was the transportation cost which accounted for 24 percent cost of marketing in Suva market

and 8 percent for marketing in Lautoka market which was located near to the seaweed

harvesters' villages. It is recommended that there is a need for (i) sustaining income and

employment of seaweed harvesters by better management of this open-access common

property marine resource, (ii) more research to help enhance production of this neglected

renewable resource, and (iii) wider community-level approach involving joint action of

people to manage sustainable harvesting and optimal control of seaweed harvesting activities.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Declaration ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgement iv

Abstract v-vi

Table of Contents vii-x

List of Tables xi-xiii

List of figures xiv

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of the study 1

1.2 Objectives of the Study 7

1.3 Implications 8

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9

2.1 Introduction 9

2.2 Seaweed enterprise in the Pacific Island Countries 9

2.3 Seaweed ( C.racemosa) in Fiji 11

2.4 Seaweed (C.racemosa) in Tonga 13

2.5 Village- level seaweed harvesting from other developing countries 14

2.6 Impact of livestock development projects on income and employment 15

2.7 Measuring income 16

2.8 Labor Use in Farming 18

2.9 Policies on resources allocation and management 19

viii

3 METHODOLOGY 20

3.1 Location of study area 20

3.2 Sampling and Data collection 20

3.3 Data Analysis 23

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 25

4.1 Introduction 25

4.2 Personal Characteristics of Seaweed Harvesters 25

4.2.1 Number and gender of seaweed harvesters 25

in the family

4.2.2 Distribution of seaweed harvesters by age 27

4.2.3 Experience of seaweed harvesters 27

4.2.4 Educational level of seaweed harvesters 28

4.2.5 Work activities performed by seaweed harvesters 29

4.3 Time Spent by Workers on Seaweed Harvesting 31

4.3.1 Number of workers in the family and the time spent 31

on seaweed harvesting

4.3.2 Age of Worker and the Time Spent on Seaweed 33

harvesting

4.3.3 Experience of the worker and the time spent on 33

seaweed harvesting

4.3.4 Education of workers and the time spent on seaweed 34

Harvesting

4.3.5 Quantifying Casual relation between hours and 35

Socio-economic

ix

4.3.6 Time Allocated to Different activities by Male Harvesters 36

4.3.7 Female Seaweed Harvesters’ Allocation of 38

Time to Different Work Activities

4.3.8 Total Time Allocated by Seaweed Harvesters to 39

Different Activities

4.4 Quantity of seaweed harvested by Workers 40

4.4.1 Composition of workforce in the family and 40

the quantity of seaweeds harvested

4.4.2 Quantity of seaweed harvested by different 41

Age group workers

4.4.3 Experience of the worker and the quantity 42

of seaweed harvested

4.4.4 Education of the workers and the quantity 42

of seaweed harvested

4.4.5 Quantity of seaweed harvested by workers 43

pursuing different combinations of activities

4.4.6 Regression analysis of quantity harvested 46

4.5 Income from Seaweed Harvesting 47

4.5.1 Per household and per worker income from 47

seaweed harvesting

4.5.2 Age-Group wise Income earned from seaweed 48

Harvesting

4.5.3 Work experience and the average income 49

earned from various activities

4.5.4 Education of the worker and Income from 49

x

seaweed harvesting

4.5.5 Income of male seaweed harvesters pursuing 50

different combinations of work activities

4.5.6 Source wise income of female workers pursuing 52

different compositions of work activities

4.5.7 Source wise income of all seaweed harvesters 53

4.6 Marketing of seaweeds 55

4.6.1 Brief overview of marketing of all products 55

of seaweed harvesters

4.6.2 Seaweed marketing Channels 57

4.6.3 Costs and Margins of Seaweed marketing 58

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECCMONEDATIONS 62

5.1 Summary and Conclusion 62

5.2 Recommendations 65

5.3 Limitations of the study 66

6 REFERENCES 67

7 APPENDICIES 73

1.Household questionnaire 73

2.Market questionnaire 77

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page No.

Table -1.1: Basic features of Fiji’s economy 2

Table -1.2: Uses of Carrageenan 5

Table -3.1: Sampling of households and seaweed harvesters 21

Table -4.1: Number and composition of seaweed harvesters in the family 26

Table -4.2: Age groups of seaweed harvesters 27

Table -4.3: Years of experience seaweed harvesters 28

Table – 4.4: Educational level of the seaweed harvesters 29

Table-4.5-: Distribution of seaweed harvesters by works performed 31

Table- 4.6: Number of hours spent by workers on seaweed harvesting 32

Table -4.7: Age of workers and the time spent on seaweed harvesting 33

Table -4.8: : Experiences of workers and the number of hours 34

spent on seaweed harvesting

Table-4.9 : Education of workers and the number of hours 35

spent on seaweed harvesting

Table-4.10: Regression of hours (H) spent on seaweed harvesting 36

per week on age (A), work experience (X) and education (E) of the

worker and the number of harvesters in the family (M).

Table-4.11: Male seaweed harvesters’ allocation of time to different 37

xii

work activities of the household

Table-4.12: Female seaweed harvesters’ allocation of time to different 38

work activities of the household

Table -4.13: Average allocation of time by harvesters to different work activities 39

Table-4.14: Number of seaweed harvesters in the family and the quantity of seaweed 41 harvested Table-4.15: Age-groups of workers and the quantity of seaweeds harvested 41

Table-4.16: Experience of the worker and the quantity of seaweed harvested 42

Table 4.17: Education of the worker and the quantity of seaweed harvested 43

Table 4.18: Quantity of seaweed harvested by workers pursuing 45

different compositions of work activities

Table -4.19: Regression of quantity (Q) of seaweed harvested in kg 46

per week on the number of hours (H) spent per week on seaweed

harvesting and the years of work experience (X) of the worker

Table -4.20: Number of workers in the family and the income 48

earned from seaweed harvesting

Table -4.21: Age of worker and the income from seaweed harvesting 48

Table -4.22: Experience of worker and the income from seaweed harvesting 49

Table -4.23: Education of the worker and the income from seaweed harvesting 50

Table -4.24: Weekly income of male seaweed harvesters 51

`pursuing different combinations of activities

xiii

Table -4.25: Average income of female seaweed harvesters 53

pursuing different compositions of activities

Table -4.26: Overall average income of seaweed harvesters 54

pursuing different compositions of activities

Table -4.27: Marketing of seaweeds in two markets of Fiji, 2013. 59

Table -4.28: Marketing Costs 60

Table 4.29 : Marketing margin and profits of middle women 61

doing seaweed marketing in Lautoka and Suva markets.

xiv

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Supply chain of Caulepa racemosa in Fiji 12

Figure 2.2 :Supply chain of C.racmosa in Tonga 13

Figure 3.1 :Somosomo, Nasoqo, Gunu and Vatutavui villages , Fiji (Google, 2014). 22

Figure 4.1: Pacific Coconut Industry Chain Map 56

Figure 4. 2: Breakdown of cost of marketing seaweed in Lautoka market 60

Figure 4.3: Breakdown of cost of marketing seaweed in Lautoka market 60

1

CHAPTER - 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Fiji is a nation of 332 small islands with a total land area of 18,333 km2. Her two largest

islands, Vitilevu and Vanualevu, make up about 88 percent of the total land area. As of 2013,

Fiji had a population of 881,100 persons. Almost half of the population lives in rural areas

and earn their livelihoods from agriculture and allied activities such as production of cassava,

taro, coconuts, papaya, and animal products (Fiji Agriculture, 2011). The density of

population is about 46 persons per square kilometer. Most areas of the country are hilly

terrains and about 30 percent land area is suitable for agriculture. The overall average size of

farms is 6.2 hectares, but majority (56.2 percent) of total landholdings is comprised of small

farms of size less than 2 hectares (see Table 1.1). About 87 percent of the total land holdings

in Fiji are under customary land tenure system. In the South Pacific region, land tenure issues

are the major hindrance to agricultural development as insecure land tenure creates crisis of

confidence among farmers in making long term investment in farm development.

Fiji’s economy is quite diverse which depends on agriculture, tourism, minerals,

manufacturing and service sector (Maps of World, 2011). Sugarcane is the main crop of Fiji,

but farmers also grow root and tuber crops, fruits, coconuts and spices. Although the share of

agriculture sector in the total gross domestic product of Fiji is only 13 percent but it is the

mainstay of the people and hence priority for agriculture in the development planning of the

country should not be undermined (Prasad & Ray 2008; Kumar & Bhati 2011). Boosting

rural development of small island countries like Fiji is important, where bulk of population

earn their incomes from agriculture, fisheries and allied activities.

2

Table 1. 1: Basic features of Fiji’s economy, 2012.

Particulars Amount

Total population (2013) 881,100

Rural population (2010) 401050.3

Total land area (km2 ) 18,271

Agricultural land area (km2 ) 5,480

Arable permanent crops area (km2) 2,850

Average farm holding size (Ha) 6.2

Percent of total holdings below 2 hectares 56.2

Land area by tenure system (Percent of total):

- Land under communal tenure

- State or public land

- Freehold land

87

6

7

Gross National Income per person (2012) $5,693

Structure of the economy:

- Share of Agriculture in the Gross Domestic Product (%)

- Share of forestry & logging (%)

- Share of fishing & aquaculture (%)

9.0

0.6

2.3

Source: Fiji Key Statistics, Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics (FIBOS), Suva, 2012; Data, The World Bank, 2014

Seaweed is the common name for countless species of marine algae that grow in

ocean, whereas other algae grow in rivers, lakes and other water bodies (Administration,

2013) . Algae are a very diverse group of organisms which include both prokaryotic and

eukaryotic forms (South and Whittick, 1987).

During the past 20 years the cultivation of Eucheuma (Rhodophyceae, Gigartinales)

has become a significant activity in a number of Pacific island countries. This development is

3

part of a world-wide trend on cultivating seaweeds commercially because they valuable

extract (gums, or phycocolloids). The algae are, ranging from single-celled forms to

aggregations of cells, filaments, or parenchymatous thalli. Algae range in size from

picoplankton as small as 0.2 - 2.0 urn in diameter, to giant kelps with fronds up to 60 m in

length (Harlin and Darley, 1988). The seaweeds include those algae normally growing

attached to the substratum in marine benthic habitats, and having a plant body readily visible

to the naked eye.

Seaweeds are autotrophic, photosynthetic plants and are important primary producers

and they are a significant feature of most shorelines and shallow water environments

throughout the world. They are an important food source for many grazing invertebrates and

vertebrates, a source of shelter for many organisms and, when present in abundance, may

substantially modify the environment to the benefit of many species. In addition, they may be

an important or even a primary substratum for the attachment of other, smaller algae and

sessile animals. The most abundant populations of seaweeds occur on hard substrata such as

rock and corals, as well as man-made structures, and on the breathing roots of mangroves.

South Pacific region has extensive coral reefs and lagoons characterized by slow to

moderate currents, clear water, and sandy or coralline bottoms provide ideal habitats for

seaweed farming (Littler and Littler, 1988; Adams and Foscarini, 1990; Ram, 1991). There

are rich beds of seaweed (C. racemosa) in the Yasawa Islands of Fiji and in Kiribati.

Seaweeds are of three colours: red, brown and green (Transform, 2001). Not all

seaweeds are edible. For example, Caulerpa racemosa Forsskål J.Agardh (Class

Bryopsidiophceae, order Bryosidales, Family Caulerpaceae) is an edible green seaweed

4

which is commonly consumed in the Pacific Islands (South, Morris, Bala, Lober, & Simos,

2010). In Fiji red seaweed (Kappaphycus, Eucheuma) has been farmed now for more than 50

years by coastal villagers (Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles. Fiji, 2009). Some of

them have been successful and consequently seaweed is their main source of income.

Tropical seaweeds have long been utilized by man as food, medicines, as ceremonial

objects and for ornaments (see table 1.2). Seaweed is prefered by the consumers because it is

quite delicious (Novaczek, 2001). Throughout the Pacific region, human consumption of

seaweeds is widespread, although few detailed statistics are available on the quantities

harvested. Chapman and Chapman (1980) list more than 60 species of seaweeds that are

consumed as human food, and this list is doubtless incomplete. Abbott (1988a) lists about 30

species favoured as food by humans. She notes that seaweeds used as human food fall into

two broad categories: those that are collected from the wild and those that are cultivated. As

there is no commercial cultivation of edible seaweeds in the South Pacific region, the entire

crop is gathered from the wild and consumed by the gatherer or sold in local markets.

Gordon-Mills (1986) has recommended that studies should be made of the possibility of

seaweed Caulerpa racemosa farming in Fiji. The potential of generating employment and

income from seaweeds harvesting in the South Pacific region and their uses are not well

understood.

5

Table 1.2: Uses of seaweed Carrageenan 1. Industrial uses Air freshener gels Tertiary oil treatment Cleaners Enzyme immobilization Electrophoretic and chromographic media 2. Medical and Pharamaceutical Applications Laxatives Bulking Agents Capsules and tablets Lotions and creams Shampoos Ulcer products Toothepastes Antibiotic ice 3. Food products Frozen foods Pastry fillings Syrups Bakery Icings Relishes Cooked and Instant Puddings Chiffons Desert Gels Fruit Juices Sauces and gravies Pimiento strips Salad Dressings Soft Drinks Dairy Products (milk drinks, milk shakes, cheeses) Eggnog Beer from stabilizer Beer clarification Fining and ageing of wines Bread dough Meringues Canned fish and meats (inlcluding pet foods) Synthetic meat fibres Sources: Chapman & Chapman, 1980; and Lewis, Stanely, & Guist, 1988

6

In island countries, rural people pursue both fishery and agriculture activities. In Fiji

people are well supported with many fisheries projects from both regional and international

aid agencies. Income and employment generation is one of the keystones of these

development projects. Income generation simply means gaining or increasing income.

Income generation does not always mean the immediate receipt of money, although in the

end we use money to place a measurable value on the goods and services people produce. An

example of income generation which does not lead to receiving money would be a situation

where a productive person produces enough food to feed his or her self and the family.

Transformation of the rural economy not only helps in improving farmers’ income,

but also helps in rapid growth of the economy as a whole due to its forward and backward

linkages with other sectors. Enhancing outputs of rural production systems and exports will

improve food security and reduce poverty in rural areas. The critical importance of linkage of

agriculture and fisheries for rapid national economic development is often not well

understood. With the increase in population and urbanisation in Fiji there is a further demand

for crop products and trading. Detailed studies on the functioning of rural production systems

and their inter-linkages are scarce in Pacific island countries. Achieving a broad based

agricultural development is a very challenging task for the policy planners. Rural

development policies and supporting institutions would be effective and efficient only if these

are based on in-depth analysis and understanding of the rural sector of the country. There is a

need to carry out esearch on income and employment generated by aquaculture activities

such as seaweed harvesting and the value adding to them in Fiji. It will enhance livelihood

systems in the coastal areas by supplementing crop based sectors.

Farming of seaweed Eucheuma is favoured in the Pacific islands, partly because it

requires a low level of technology and investment and is operable as a family activity, but

7

also because it has little environmental impact and is normally compatible with traditional

fishing and other subsistence uses of the inshore marine environment. In some countries, such

as Fiji, it is now seen by government as a potentially important source of income and

employment in the rural areas (Ram, 1991).

1.2 Objectives of the study

The overall objective of this study is to examine some socio-economic aspects of the

seaweed (C. racemosa) harvesting enterprises in Fiji. It mainly focuses on two aspects of

seaweed harvesting: on income and on the employment generated by seaweed harvesting.

However, it will also take into consideration the sustainability of the resources involved and

suggest some policy measures in this respect. The specific objectives of the study are as

follows:

� To study the socio-economic characteristics of the seaweed harvesters in Fiji;

� To estimate the number of hours of devoted by workers to seaweed harvesting;

� To find out the quantity of seaweed harvested by workers;

� To estimate the income generated by workers from seaweed harvesting;

� To study the seaweed marketing system in Fiji

� To suggest policy measures to improve income and employment of seaweed

harvesters.

8

1.3 Implications

Tonga, Samoa and Fiji have undertaken many important fisheries projects with

financial and technical supports from both regional and international aid agencies.

Accordingly, the findings of this study will be useful to government departments, donor

agencies and the non-government organizations interested in the faming of seaweed Caulerpa

racemosa. Consequently, this will be important for students, researchers and the Division of

Fisheries staff for future implementations of seaweed harvesting. This study thus would

contribute new knowledge in this respect.

9

CHAPTER - 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Seaweed harvesting has many issues that can be used to explain its economic

impacts. This review will focus mainly on five major aspects which emerge repeatedly in the

literature. These are: (i) seaweed enterprise in the Pacific Island Countries, (ii) impact of

different development projects on the income and employment generation, (iii) village-level

seaweed harvesting from other developing countries, (iv) measuring income earned from

seaweeds and (v) labor productivity. Although the literature presents these aspects in a

variety of contexts, this review will primarily focus on their application to income and

employment generation from seaweed harvesting activities.

2.2 Seaweed enterprise in the Pacific Island Countries

Bala (2012) found that there are more than thirty species of Caulerpa in the Pacific

region. They grow from the reef crest to the shallow back reef and lagoon and sometimes to

depths up to 30 m. Some species are strong and can survive in high wave-energy habitats and

others prefer sheltered conditions. C. racemosa favors a fully saline environment although

some species may grow well in low saline environments.

In Fiji, some seasonal aspects of the growth of C. racemosa were noted in part due to

weather variation ( Bala 2012). Cyclonic conditions temporarily destroy C. racemosa

populations but the solons allow a quick production of new thalli or uprights (Anyiro,

Emerole, Osondu, Udah, & Ugorji, 2013). The amount of C. racemosa harvested is more

seasonal compared to Hypnea and Gracilaria (G. South, 1993). The lack of dense stands of

seaweeds is apparently typical of many tropical areas, and may in part be due to high grazing

10

pressures from fish. An impression gained from the survey of Suva and Tailevu ( without the

benefit of any quantitative assessment of abundance and distribution) is that industrial-scale

quantities of local seaweeds for phycocolloid extraction could only come from managed

aquaculture activity (Pickering & Mario, 1999).

Pickering (2003) noted that farmer’s disillusionment with the delay between making

dried seaweed available and receiving payment for it (up to 6 months in some cases) was

attributed to a lack of seaweed collecting and payment infrastructure. The marketing

arrangements for seaweed were compared unfavorably to those in place for copra and beche-

de-mer which are highly organized and payment is very quick. Problems with domestic

market arrangements within Fiji as the major obstacle to futher expansion of the seaweed

industry and the main expanationation for why it is now in decline. He was of view that

perhaps seaweed marketing in Fiji had been privatised too early, before the industry was

ready for it. When government was solely purchasing seaweed, for example the industry in

Ono-i-Lau thrived. It was also noted, however that the commercial entity now responsible for

marketing (REL fisheries) was not present to give their perspective.

Seaweed farming trials in Tonga commenced in 1981 and in Fiji involved Coast

Biological Ltd, and funding assistance from the Commonwealth Fund for Technical

Cooperation. As a result of Trails, six areas in the Vava’u Group showed potential. In 1982

trails with both E.alvarezii and E. cottonir seeds stock from Kiribati were commenced. From

1983 to 1984, six farms operated on a fully commercial basis. In 1984, a joint venture

between the Tonga Government and Coast Biological was established to coordinate shipping

and marketing. By 1985-1986 there were 36 farms in operation, but in the following years the

numbers declined. The reasons for this were heavy grazing by rabbit fish and problems in

marketing. The targets set by the government and Coast Biological was not attained. Rabbit

fish grazing resulted in closing down most of the Vava’u farms (Fa'anunu, 1990).

11

Caulerpa harvesting and sales provide a part-time subsistence occupation for a good

number of villagers in Fiji and Samoa, with a potential income of more than FJD200 per

week for harvesters. The industry provides only a small proportion (< 1.0%) of the overall

national income from the inshore fishery, and Caulerpa sales are overshadowed by sales of

other seaweeds in Fiji (South, 1993; South et al., 2010).

2.3 Seaweed (C. racemosa ) harvesting in Fiji

MAFF (Fisheries Division) conducted surveys in Fiji's metropolitan seafood markets

in 1995, which show that Caulerpa was the main seaweed on sale at Suva and Nausori

markets in January 1995 (Pickering & Mario, 1999).

Chamberlain (1998), revealed that C. racemosa is found in Suva habour, Tailevu and

KabaPenisula. The major supply of C. racemosa in Municipal markets comes from the

Yasawa group and from Vatuloa. This survey showed that C. racemosa was the main

seaweed on sale at Suva and Nausori markets in January 1995. Marketing of C. racemosa in

Fiji is Fridays and Saturdays. Some harvesters do their own retailing but generally most stock

is sold direct to wholesalers and market vendors in Lautoka, Nadi, Sigatoka and Suva ( South

et al., 2010).

Harvesting of seaweeds in Fiji is mainly carried out by women, often assisted by their

children and sometimes by their partner or other male relatives. Harvesting is a family or

village-based activity. It follows a regular pattern and is usually done between Monday and

Wednesday, so that the plants can be transported to the main markets for sale on Friday and

Saturday. Some families may act as vendors however seaweeds are sold to middlemen who

organize the transport of the product. Plants not sold on Fridays and Saturdays often

consumed by the seller and their families. Consequently, the main supply of C. racemosa in

Fiji is from Gunu and Somosomo village in the Yasawa Islands (South et al., 2010).

12

Supply chain or marketing channel shows the path through which product moves from

the producing place till it reaches its ultimate consumer.(final user). Marketing channel of

seaweed is quite simple as no processing or storage is required in the marketing. The

wholesaler buys seaweed from the seaweed harvesters in the villages. After assembling and

cleaning the product the wholesaler distributes it to the retailers (vendors) in different

markets. Finally, consumers buy seaweeds from the vendors of seaweed in their local area. In

Fiji, C. racemosa is sold in several markets, of which the main one is located in Suva (see

Figure 2.1). It is sold in clumps at a price ranging from FJ$2.00 - $4.00 per clump, the weight

of which ranges from 250-500 g. The plants are displayed on woven coconut leaves, plastic

Figure 2.1. Marketing channels of seaweed in Fij

Source of figure: (Morris et al., 2014)

13

plates or a variety of other materials with a small plastic bag of fermented coconut and one or

two chilies (South et al., 2010).

2.2 Seaweed ( C.racemosa) in Tonga

Marketing channels of seaweed in Tonga is shown in Figure 2.2. The supply of

seaweed moves from harvesters to wholesalers, to retailers and finally to the ultimate

consumers. The harvesting of Caulerpa in Patagata village has been carried out by three

families. The frequency of harvest differs amongst these families. Family 1 harvest 8 to 10

sacks per week; Family two harvested 14 sacks (16 kg seaweed/ sack) full twice a week and

Family three harvested 9 sacks (16 kg seaweed/sack) in five 5 days . Subsequently, C.

racemosa is transported by boat and vehicle (10 minutes) to the market and costs range from

TOP$ 40-90 for fuel, food and for the purchase of onion sacks (Shrileen, et al, 2011).

Figure 2.2 Marketing channels of seaweed in Tonga

Source of figure : (Morris et al., 2014)

14

C. racemosa is sold plain in breatfruit and coconut leaves and sold for TOP$5.00 per

pack and packs are approximately 500 – 600g. About 10 packs are sold per day during the

week days and 20- 30 packs on Saturday. One vendor sells C. racemosa every day (Shrileen

Bala & Morris, 2011)

It has been found by Bala and Finau, 2012 that the annual production of C. racemosa

in Nuku’alofa market is 24,86 kg and in Vava’u market is 921.6 kg which is approximately

equal to a market value of TOP 4713/annum (Bala 2012).

2.5 Village-level seaweed harvesting from other developing countries

Seaweed enterprise was the second most important income generating activity in

Chwaka Bay, Tanzania in 2003 (de la Torre-Castro & Rönnbäck, 2004). A estimated 482

people were involved in the process of harvesting, and drying. It is sold it to the C-Weed

Company and Zanzibar Shell export (Masuya, 2011a). Eklöf, Msuya, Lyimo, and Buriyo

(2012), revealed that the seaweed export companies for Chwaka village only sold to certain

buyers and farmers had tried to search for other buyers in terms of getting a good price for

what they had produced.

Espaldon, Sumalde, Rebancos, Villanueva, and Mercene-Mutia (2010), found that

ages of seaweed farmers in Calatagan, Batangas, Philipines ranged from 27 to 68 years with

an average age of 44 years. Seaweed farming is a family activity where 60% of the

respondents being male, 48% of these had reached elementary level of education while 24%

had finished high school. The average household size consists of five members with a range

of one to 11 members.

A report on the Social and Economic Dimensions of Seaweed Farming, in six

countries in Asia ( the Philippines, Indonesia, India), Africa (Tanzania), Oceania (Solomon

15

Islands) and Latin America ( Mexico ). This study revealed that a median farm-gate price was

USD 0.62/ kg with the cost of production was approximately USD 0.06/ kg. Consequently

this was generating employment relative to the other forms of aquaculture (Valderrama,

2012).

2.6 Impact of livestock projects on income and employment (Note: Rs 60 = 1 US$)

Mavi, Chauhan, and Das (2006), studied the impact of self-employment programmed

on dairy farming in Fatehgarh Sahib District of Punjab. The study revealed that there was a

significant increase in total income (Rupees 1,09,751 to Rupees 1,88,011), dairy income

(Rupees 23,434 to Rupees 1,03,948) herd size (4.4 to 15.5) of the farmers after participation

in the programme.

Significant income and employment were generated from processing and marketing

of soybeans, cassava and tobacco. The study revealed that in the case of processing and

marketing, total value added per year was about Rupees 77,000 of which about 60 percent

was produced on the farm and the rest was added in processing and marketing. If the

soyabean crop was shipped directly to other sectors, a little income was added to the village

community. Subsequently, a high contribution of marketing and processing to income is

expected when farm produce is processed in the village and then marketed (Kawagoe, Von

Broun, & Kenedy, 1994).

Jayachandra and Naidu (2006), carried out a study on the impact of dairy cooperatives

on income, employment creation of assets of marginal and small farmers. It has been found

that the increase in income from dairying Rs. 850 (25%) in the case study of marginal

farmers and Rs.1480 (23%) in the case of small farmers per annum. More idle women in the

families of both the categories of farmers have taken up dairying as a part time and full time

16

employment. The value of the asset has increased 15 percent in the case of marginal farmers

and 12.5 percent in the case of small farmers.

A study by Mian and Habibur (2007) on the impact of dairy farming on livelihood of

participating women under Grameen Bank in a selected area of Rangpur District in

Bangladesh revealed that increase in income from the dairy sector was the highest. In general

the average per family total income increased by 87.51%. It was indicated that the households

gained significant increase rented in land after being a member of Grameen Bank with a dairy

cow.

2.7 Measuring income

A study has been done by Kirsten and Moldenhauer (2006) on measurement and

analysis of rural household income in South Africa. The study revealed that the total income

was defined as the total amount generated from agricultural and nonagricultural activities.

This includes income generated from sales of crops, livestock and poultry, products from

crops, other farm income (e.g. hiring out of livestock for drafting and letting farm property to

others) and non-farm income ( e.g. cash, gifts, grants pension or retirement annuities).

Kirsten and Moldenhauer (2006) defined farmer income that is actually earned from

agricultural products sold, such as field crop products, animals and animal products, while

farming turnover referred to the total amount generated from agricultural activities, including

farm-related income such as hiring out of livestock for drafting purposes and the letting of

farm property to others, but excluding non-farm income such as grants, gifts cash gifts,

remittances and pensions.

Horngren, Sundem, and Elliott (1996) explained that there are multiple ways to

measure income, the most convincing of which were the cash basis and the accrual basis.

17

The increase basis recognizes the impact of transactions in the financial statements for the

time periods when revenues and expenses occur. That is, revenue is recorded as it is earned,

and expenses are recorded as they are incurred—not necessarily when cash changes hands. In

contrast, the cash basis recognizes the impact of transactions in the financial statements only

when cash is received or disbursed. Israr and Khan (2010), analyzed livelihood source in

Hilly Areas of Northern Pakistan. They found that livelihood sources in Northern Pakistan

are divided in to two categories, which is farm sources and non-farm sources income. It has

been found out by this case study that the contribution of the farm sector was 40.63% while

the rest of the income (59.37%) was from the off farm activities. Farm sources income is

mainly comes from crop sector followed by income from livestock.

Rusher and Nelson (2004) noted that there are two most widely used method of

measuring household income which is BEA’s Personal income and Census Bureau’s money

income. Personal income is the income received by persons from participation in production,

from government and business transfer payments, and from government interest. Ii includes

income received by non-profit institutions serving households, by private non-insured welfare

funds and by private trust funds. However, Current Population census (CPS) has been

mentioned by (Rusher & Nelson, 2004) and was used to measure the money income. It is the

total pre-tax income earned by a person, excluding certain lump sum payments and excluding

capital gains. It includes money wages and salaries, self-employment income, property

income, money transfer payments from a variety of government and private welfare and

social insurance schemes, private and government retirement income, interpersonal transfer

and other periodic income.

Frazis and Stewart (2011) studied how household production affects measured income

inequality. They found that extended income is more equally distributed than money income.

The distribution of extended income and money income is due to the value of household

18

production income. Therefore, if there is any change on the variance of household income

production across household or in the relationship between money income and the value of

household production are likely to have a small effect on measured trends.

Nicholas (2010), studied Micro-credit utilization and its impact on household income.

It was noted that 99 percent of the respondents had accessed for micro-credit facilities, 49.6

percent were the Nakigo SC and 50.4 percent in the Iganga TC. One percent of the

respondents had borrowed money from relatives, friends and people within their network.

However, the analyses revealed that respondents got credit facilities from various micro-

credit institutions in Iganga district and the neighboring districts and towns of Jinja and

Mayuge.

Kristen and Moldenhauer (2006), conducted a study on measurement and analysis of

rural household income in a dualistic economy in South Africa. This study reviewed different

surveys of rural and farm households since 1994 and highlighted the different approaches in

measuring household income of rural and farm households. This survey showed that there is

a lot of effort was put in to get a sense of the level of household income acknowledging that

most of these households have multiple livelihood strategies with agriculture generally

playing a small role in the household.

2.8 Labor Use in Farming

A study conducted by Anyiro et al. (2013) on labor use efficiency in smallholder yam

farms in Abia state Nigeria, found that farm households provided an average of 336 man-

days used in yam production activities, with 36.66% using hired labor while family labor

share croppers and exchange labor provided the balance labor (63.34%) required. The study

concluded that all the significant variables (quantity of harvested yam, size of cleared farm

19

land and quantity of fertilizer) had positive influence on the amount of labor used in yam

production.

Abatania, Hailu, and Mugera (2012) investigated technical efficiency differentials

among farms in Northern Ghana. The production function with hired labor, geographical

location of farms, and gender and age of head of household as the independent variables was

fitted. The marginal productivity analysis of the farm production revealed that these variables

have significant effect on technical efficiency of farms. The study estimated that the technical

efficiency of the sample farms was 77.26% and the scale efficiency of farming was 94.21%.

2.9 Policies on resource allocation and management

A policy paper issued by Tourism (2005) for the allocation and management of

commercial harvesting rights in the seaweed sector in South Africa made suggestion to

improve the transformation profile of the fishery sector, promote further investment in

seaweed beneficiation, expand the utilization of the resource, promote the involvement of

local communities in the harvesting of seaweed, support the economic viability of the sector

and ensure the environmental sustainability of the sector. It also suggested to allocate

commercial fishing rights to fishers who are dependent on the West Coast Lobster resource

for their main source of income, allocate a fair proportion of rights to applicants based at

fishing villages that are historically associated with WCRL catches, promote investment in

vessels, sustain the economic viability of the fishery and ensure the environmental

sustainability of the fishery.

20

CHAPTER - 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Location of study area

This study was conducted in four villages of Fiji: three in Naviti island (Somosomo,

Gunu and Nasoqo villages) and one in Viti Levu island (village Vatutavui). Naviti Island is

located in the Yasawa Group of Islands, in the Western Division of Fiji. Naviti Island is a

volcanic island located at latitude of – 17.116667 and – 177.250000. It covers a total area of

34 square kilometers with a maximum elevation of 388m. Vatutavui village is located at the

western side of Viti levu, Fiji. The study area was chosen because Naviti Island is the main

supplier (69 %) of seaweed (Caulerpa racemosa) in the local municipal markets in Fiji

(Shrileen Bala & Morris, 2011). Vatutavui was also selected to represent the other villages

they are doing seaweed harvesting in the main Island of Viti Levu. This study was

specifically targeted on seaweed harvesting activities being carried out by the people of

Somosomo, Vatutavui, Gunu and Nasoqo villages.

3.2 Sampling and Data collection

Sample villages were selected based on the report by Morris et al.( 2014) report on

supply chain and marketing of sea grapes in Fiji , Samoa and Tonga. Racemosa was the main

marine commodity harvested in Yasawa, Rakiraki and Tavua area The data were collected

from 46 households and found out these households provides 68 harvesters. The primary data

were collected using a questionnaire (see Appendix).

Required information was collected from 46 sample households. The village wise details of

the total households and sample households are given table 3.1.

21

Table 3.1: Household and No. of workers

Villages Total households

Sample

households

Somosomo 20 18

Gunu 30 19

Vatutavui 10 7

Nasoqo 5 3

Total 65 46

Data about marketing system of seaweed were obtained from the seaweed vendors of

Lautoka and Suva markets. For this study all the 10 vendors of Suva and all the 5 vendors of

Lautoka were interviewed for detailed data collection.

22

Figure 3.1: Somosomo, Nasoqo, Gunu and Vatutavui villages , Fiji (Google, 2014).

23

3.3 Data analysis

Data were analysed by using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods. In the

inferential methods, regression analyses were carried out to estimate causal relations among

selected variables. Quantification of causal relation between hours worked as well as

quantity of seaweed harvested and Socio-economic variables was done by regression

analysis. Regression of hours spent on seaweed harvesting per week on age of worker, work

experience of worker, education of the worker, and the number of harvesters in the family

was done. Similarly regression quantity of seaweed harvested on hours spent on seaweed

harvesting per week, age of worker, work experience of worker, education of the worker, and

the number of harvesters in the family was done. It was expected that these variables have

positive impact on the dependent variable.

Two separate linear regression equations, one for quantity harvested and the other about the

time spent on seaweed harvesting, were fitted by using ordinary least squares method. The

details of variable specifications of equations are as given below.

(i) Q = a + b1 A + b2 X + b3 E + b4 M + b5 H + e

(ii) H = a + b1 A + b2 X + b3 E + b4 M + b5 H + e

Where,

Q = Quantity of seaweed harvested (kg per week),

H = Number of hours per week spent on seaweed harvesting per week,

A = Age of seaweed harvester (years),

X = Experience of the harvester (years)

24

E = Education of the seaweed harvester,

M = Number of family members in seaweed harvesting.

a = equation intercept coefficient on vertical axis.

bi = respective regression coefficients of independent variables

e = random error term

In equation one, the a coefficient denotes the intercept estimate on y-axis of the quantity of

seaweed harvested when all the independent variables are at zero level. The bi coefficients

denote the change in the quantity of seaweed harvested when the ith explanatory independent

variable changes by one unit while other variables are kept at same levels. On the other hand,

in second equation the a coefficient denotes the intercept number of hours worked when all

the explanatory independent variables are at zero level. The bi coefficients in equation two

denote the respective change in hours worked when the ith independent variable changes by

one unit and other variables help at constant level.

25

CHAPTER - 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This study on socio-economic aspects of the seaweed (C. racemosa) harvesting mainly

focuses on two aspects of seaweed harvesting: on income and on the employment generated

by seaweed harvesting. The results of the study are discussed under five sections: (i) some

socio-economic characteristics of the seaweed harvesters, (ii) time spent by workers on

seaweed harvesting, (iii) quantity of seaweeds harvested per week, (iv) income earned from

seaweed harvesting, and (v) system of seaweed marketing in Fiji. Discussion of results is

organized around these sub-headings.

4.2 Personal Characteristics of Seaweed Harvesters

In this section main characteristics of workers, which have bearing on quantity of seaweed

harvested and hours devoted by worker for seaweed harvesting are discussed. The socio-

economic characteristics of seaweed harvesters studied include gender, age, experience and

education of the worker and the number of workers in the family.

4.2.1 Number and gender composition of seaweed harvesters in the family

The numbers of seaweed harvesters per household are shown in Table 4.1. There were 46

households in the sample. Average size of family was 6 members. On average there were

1.48 seaweed harvesters per family. Of the total seaweed harvesters, 41 percent harvesters

belonged to one member seaweed harvester families, another 41 percent harvesters belonged

to two member seaweed harvester families and 17.6 percent seaweed harvesters belonged to

three member seaweed harvester families

26

Survey showed that sixty one percent of households had only one seaweed harvester in the

family. Out of them 50 percent households had only one female seaweed harvester and 11

percent households had only one male seaweed harvester. In 17 percent of the households

each had only two female seaweed harvesters and in about four percent of the households

there were three female only seaweed harvesters. Hence, on the whole 71.7 percent

households had only female seaweed harvesters. In the total 68 seaweed harvesters in the

sample there were 55 (81%) female seaweed harvesters. Hence, it is clear that seaweed

harvesting is mostly carried out by women. It is because women are traditional food

gatherers and lack skills and opportunity for other high paying activities.

Table 4.1: Number and gender composition of seaweed harvesters in the family

(% of total harvesters)

No. of seaweed harvesters in the family No. of households

No. of workers in the category

One seaweed harvester - male only 10.9 (5)

7.4 (5)

One seaweed harvester - female only 50.0 (23)

33.8 (23)

Two seaweed harvesters – females only 17.4 (8)

23.5 (16)

Two seaweed harvesters – One male + one female worker

13.1 (6)

17.7 (12)

Three seaweed harvesters – females only 4.3 (2)

8.8 (6)

Three seaweed harvesters –One male + two female workers

4.3 (2)

8.8 (6)

Total 100 (46)

100 (68)

Source: Own survey

Notes: 1. Figures in parentheses denote actual number.

2. There were 46 households in the sample and there were 68 seaweed harvesters in total.

3. Average family size was 6 and the average number of workers per family was 1.48.were seaweed harvesters

27

4.2.2 Distribution of seaweed harvesters by age.

Data in table 4.2 shows that most seaweed harvesters (39 %) are in the age range of 30 to 40

years old. About 28 percent of them are 40 years old and above, and 29 percent are in the age

range of 50 to 60 years old. The proportion of seaweed workers decreases as they approach

the age of 60 year and above. In this study the most predominant age group for female

harvesters is 30 to 40 years and for male are 50 to 60 years. This is probably the retired male

population cannot suit other employment, leading to younger men going offshore fishing, but

they complement females gathering food in the reef and other patty tasks where much

physical energy is not needed. For female workers there is a negative relationship between

the age of workers with the number of workers engaged in seaweed harvesting.

Table 4.2: Age groups of seaweed harvesters (% of total workers)

Age group (years)

Male workers Female workers All workers

Below 40 7.7 (1)

36.4 (21)

32 (22)

40 -50 15.4 (2)

30.9 (20)

32 (22)

50-60 53.8 (7)

23.6 (10)

25 (17)

60 + 23.1 (3)

9.1 (5)

12 (8)

Total 100 (13)

100 (55)

100 (68)

Source: Own survey

Figures in parentheses denote actual number of workers

4.2.3 Experience of seaweed harvesters

Table 4.3 depicts the level of experience of seaweed harvesters. Eighty percent of total

workers had seaweed harvesting experience of more than ten years. About twenty percent

workers had less than ten years experience. As regards gender differences, twenty two

28

percent of females and 15 percent of male workers had less than ten years experience. On the

other hand 23 percent of males and 18 percent of female workers had experience of more

than twenty years. Male seaweed harvesters though less in number but have more experience

than female workers.

Table 4.3: Years of experience of seaweed harvesters (% of total workers)

Experience (years)

Male workers

Female workers

All workers

Below 10 15.5 (2)

21.8 (12)

20.6 (14)

10- 14 30.7 (4)

32.7 (18)

32.4 (22)

15-19 30.7 (4)

27.3 (15)

27.9 (19)

20-24 23.1 (3)

18.2 (10)

19.1 (13)

Total 100 (13)

100 (55)

100 (68)

Source: Own survey

Figures in parenthesis denote actual number of workers

4.2.4 Educational level of seaweed harvesters

Data in table 4.4 shows that 70 percent of male workers reached up to secondary education,

23 percent reached primary level while only eight percent males reached tertiary education.

For female workers, about 80 percent of them attained secondary education and 20 percent

attended primary education. On the whole, the majority (78 %) of seaweed harvesters had

education up to secondary level. About 21 percent workers had education up to primary level

only while only 2 percent of workers attended tertiary education. this clearly shows that level

of education has limited implications for seaweed harvesting. highly educated workers will

look for works in other sectors. Also earnings/wages in seaweed harvesting are low for

education to make any impact on seaweed harvesting.

29

Table 4.4: Educational levels of seaweed harvesters (% of total workers)

Educational level Male workers Female workers All workers Primary 23.08

(3) 20.00 (11)

20.59 (14)

Secondary 69.23 (9)

80.00 (44)

77.94 (53)

Tertiary 7.69 (1)

-- (--)

1.47 (1)

Total 100 (13)

100 (55)

100 (68)

Source: Own survey

Figures in parentheses denote percentage to all workers.

4.2.5 Work activities performed by seaweed harvesters

Various activities are performed by workers in the sample villages. Coconut collection is one

of the main tasks of workers in additional to seaweed harvesting. People in the village collect

coconut fruits from the bush under coconut trees and remove the husk from the fruit. Some

seaweed harvesters also participate in fishing activity. Traditionally, Fijians spent much of

their time fishing on the reef flats or near the reef edge. Customarily, only men fished and

women and children waded on the reef at low tide with sharp sticks and knives to gather

small fish and invertebrates. Most fishing is accomplished by individuals on foot in seashore

areas next to their villages. While the gender division in fishing is not as strict as it was in the

past, women still predominantly engage in gathering shellfish and small fish in the intertidal

zone, while men fish farther off shore.

Many seaweed harvesters also engaged in making handicrafts to be sold to the tourists.

Female workers are the most dominant for doing this kind of job. The major role of women in

the family in the Islands was to prepare breakfast, dinner, look after the kids and house

cleaning. Therefore these seaweed collectors were doing their role in the family everyday but

if they have free time in a day then they make handicraft. They make different types of

30

handicrafts but mostly they made traditional fans, table mats and necklaces, because these

products are preferred by the tourist to buy when they visit the Island.

The results presented in Table 4.5 show various combinations of work activities performed

by seaweed harvesters. On the whole for about 25 percent of workers seaweed harvesting was

the only tasks as they had no other tasks to do. Twenty-four percent workers performed

seaweed harvesting as well as coconut related activities. About 18 percent workers were

engaged in seaweed harvesting and fishing activity. Thirteen percent workers performed

combination of seaweed harvesting, coconut activity and handicraft related works. And only

ten percent of workers did combination of seaweed harvesting, coconut and fishing activities.

Among male workers the combinations of seaweed harvesting and coconut activity, or the

combination of seaweed harvesting with coconut and fishing activities, were very popular.

Combinations of these activities were performed by 62 percent of total workers (31 % in each

of these work mixes). As regards female workers, 29 percent of them were doing seaweed

harvesting only. Twenty two percent women were doing combination of seaweed and

coconut activities. About 20 percent of female workers did combination of seaweed

harvesting and fishing activities. Hence, about 51 percent of female workers were engaged in

sea related income earning activities. Handicraft activities are also prevalent in the sample

villages but they played only a minor role as only four percent of female workers and eight

percent of male workers were doing combination of seaweed harvesting and handicraft.

There were 13 percent female workers and 15 percent of male workers doing combination of

seaweed harvesting, coconut collection and handicraft. Only two percent of female workers

were doing combination of seaweed harvesting, fishing and handicraft and six percent of

female workers were doing combination of seaweed harvesting, coconut collection, fishing

and handicraft activities. Thus, it can be seen that seaweed harvesting activity was the most

31

significant activity. hence, majority of workers was doing combination of seaweed

harvesting, fishing and coconut activity for their livelihood.

Table 4.5: Distribution of seaweed harvesters by works performed. (% of total workers)

Composition of activities pursued by seaweed harvesters

Male workers

Female workers

All workers

Seaweed harvesting only

7.7 (1)

29.1 (16)

25.0 (17)

Seaweed + Coconut activities

30.8 (4)

21.8 (12)

23.5 (16)

Seaweed + Fishing activities

7.7 (1)

20.0 (11)

17.6 (12)

Seaweed + Handicraft activities

7.7 (1)

3.6 (2)

4.4 (3)

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing activities

30.8 (4)

5.5 (3)

10.3 (7)

Seaweed + Coconut + Handicraft activities

15.3 (2)

12.7 (7)

13.2 (9)

Seaweed + Fishing + handicraft activities

--

1.8 (1)

1.6 (1)

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing + handicraft activities

--

5.5 (3)

4.4 (3)

Total (all activities)

100 (13)

100 (55)

100 (68)

Source: Own survey

Figures in parenthesis denote actual number of workers

4.3 Time spent by workers on Seaweed harvesting

In this section relations of the main personal characteristics of the workers (e.g. gender, age,

experience and education of the worker and the number of workers in the family) with their

times hours spent for seaweed harvesting are discussed.

4.3.1 Number of workers in the family and the time spent on seaweed harvesting

Table 4.6 shows the relationship between the number of workers in the family and the

number of hours they spent on seaweed harvesting. In families which have only one worker,

32

the male worker spends about 23 hours per week on seaweed harvesting and female worker

spends about 22 hours per week in harvesting. In a two worker family, both females, the

average time spent on seaweed harvesting by each worker was 19.5 hours per week. In a

three worker family, all females, the average time spent on seaweed harvesting by each

worker was 13.7 hours per week. In a three worker family, one male and two females, the

average time spent on seaweed harvesting by each worker was 14 hours per week. In a two

worker family, one male and one female, the average time spent on seaweed harvesting by

each worker was 24.6 hours per week. In general it was noticed that as the number of

workers increases in the family, the average number of hours spent on seaweed harvesting by

each worker declines.

One very striking revelation by the data in table 4.6 is that seaweed harvesting being an

inferior low yielding activity, workers devoted diminishing rate of time to this activity as the

number of workers increase in the family.

Table 4.6 : Number of hours spent by workers on seaweed harvesting

Number of seaweed harvesters in the family

Hours of work per worker per week

One seaweed harvester - male only 22.8

One seaweed harvester - female only 22.2

Two seaweed harvesters – females only 19.5

Two seaweed harvesters – one male + one female worker 24.6

Three seaweed harvesters – females only 14.2

Three seaweed harvesters –one male + two female workers 13.7

Overall 19.1 Source: Own survey

33

4.3.2 Age of Worker and the Time Spent on Seaweed Harvesting

Table 4.7 shows data on age of workers and the time spent by them on seaweed harvesting.

The study did not find any relationship between the age and work hours of worker.

Relatively, male workers devoted more time (21.3 hours) than female workers (18.6 hours)

on seaweed harvesting. On the whole workers devoted about 19 hours per week on seaweed

harvesting.

Table 4.7: Age of workers and the time spent on seaweed harvesting.

(Hours per worker per week)

Age group (years)

Males Females All workers

Below 40 28.0

16.5

17.5

40 -50 18.5

20.3

20.1

50-60 19.1

16.7

17.7

60 + 22.6

20.4

21.3

Overall 21.3

18.6

19.1

Source: Own survey

4.3.3 Experience of the worker and the time spent on seaweed harvesting

Table 4.8 shows the number of hours spent by workers with the years of experience. On the

whole, seaweed harvesters below 10 years of experience worked for 11.7 hours per week to

harvest seaweed. The harvesters with 10 to 14 years of experience spent average 20 hours per

week on seaweed harvesting. The seaweed harvesters with 15 to 19 years of experience spent

average 21.5 hours per week on seaweed harvesting. Workers with experienced of more than

20 years spent average of 22 hours per week on seaweed harvesting. Data analysis shows

that the those workers in the family (male or female) who have longer experience of seaweed

34

harvesting are generally preferred to be assigned this task as compared to other activities of

the family and thus, they devoted more time om this activity

Table 4.8: Experiences of workers and the time spent on seaweed harvesting.

(Hours /worker/week)

Experience (Years)

Male workers (hrs)

Female workers (hrs)

All workers hours

Below 10 12.0

11.6

11.7

10- 14 17.5

20.7

20.2

15-19 24.0

19.6

21.5

20-24 22.0

21.5

21.9

Overall 21.3

18.6

19.1

Source: Own survey

4.3.4 Education of workers and the time spent on seaweed harvesting

Table 4.9 shows the level of education and the number of hours spent by workers on seaweed

harvesting. On the whole, workers with primary education, secondary education and tertiary

education respectively devoted average 22 hours, 18.4 hours and 18 hours per week on

seaweed harvesting. There was a negative relationship between the level of education of the

worker and the number of hours spent on harvesting seaweeds. Male workers at every level

of education devoted more time on harvesting seaweeds as compared to the female seaweed

harvesters.

35

Table 4.9: Education of workers and the time spent on seaweed harvesting

(Hours /worker/week)

Educational level Male workers Female workers All workers Primary 26.0

20.9

22.0

Secondary 20.1

17.9

18.4

Tertiary 18.0

--

18.0

Overall 21.3 18.6

19.1

Source: Own survey

4.3.5 Quantifying Causal Relation between Hours worked and Socio-economic variables

Regression of hours spent on seaweed harvesting per week on age of worker, work

experience of worker, education of the worker, and the number of harvesters in the family

was done. The results of the linear regression equation fitted are presented in table 4.10.

Coefficient of determination (R2) showed that about 51 percent variation in the time spent on

seaweed harvesting was explained by these independent variables. Regression coefficients of

the independent variables show the marginal change in dependent variable (hours of work for

seaweed harvesting) due to one unit change in the independent variables.

Some independent variables have positive relation with, while others have negative relation

with, the time spent in seaweed harvesting. Only experience of the worker was found to have

positive and significant effect on the number of hours spent on seaweed harvesting. Other

socio-economic variables did not have any significant effect on the work effort in seaweed

harvesting. Both, the age and educational level of the worker had negative (though not

significant) relation with the time spent on seaweed harvesting. It has already been mentioned

that as the age of the workers advanced they work less hours in seaweed harvesting and

instead devote more of their time to other activities requiring less physical strain. Also, the

36

higher the educational level of the workers, the less the chances to work longer hours in

harvesting. They allocate more of their time to other high returning skilled activities..

Table 4. 10: Regression of hours (H) spent on seaweed harvesting per week on age (A), work experience (X) and education (E) of the worker and the number of harvesters in the family (M).

(Estimated linear equation is, H = 4.007 – 0.732 A + 0.179 X – 0.046 E – 0.201)

Parameter Coefficient Standard Error

t value t pr

Constant 4.007 2.049 1.956 0.055

Age of worker (A) -0.732 0.671 -1.091 0.280

Experience (yrs) (X) 0.179* 0.047 3.823 0.000

Education (E) -0.046 0.172 -0.268 0.789

No. of harvesters in the family (M) -0.201 0.392 -0.512 0.610

Source: Own survey

R2 = 0.512. Number of total observations = 68

4.3.6 Time Allocated to Different Activities by Male Harvesters

Table 4.11 shows the time allocated to different activities by male seaweed harvesters that

were also pursuing other activities. The worker doing seaweed harvesting alone has spent 11

hours per week. Male workers involved in seaweed harvesting as well as fishing activity have

spent average 12 hours per week in seaweed harvesting. Workers doing seaweed harvesting

combined with coconut have spent average 9 hours in seaweed harvesting. The workers

involved in seaweed harvesting and handicraft activities or in seaweed harvesting, coconut

and fishing activities, spent 12 hours per week in seaweed harvesting. While the workers

doing seaweed harvesting, coconut and handicraft activity spent about 10 hours per week on

37

seaweed harvesting. The data shows that the time spent by male workers on seaweed

harvesting ranges from 9 to 12 hours per week and hours of work devoted to seaweed

harvesting do not have any trend if the worker takes up other additional work activities. More

details are given in table 4.10.

Table 4.11: Male seaweed harvesters’ allocation of time to different work activities of the household (hours/worker/ week)

Compositions of work activities pursued by seaweed harvesters

Per worker per week number of hours spent on: Seaweed harvesting

Fishing activity

Coconut activity

Handicraft activity

Total hours

Seaweed harvesting only

11 (100)

NA NA NA 11 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing activities

12 (50.0)

12 (50)

NA NA 24 (100)

Seaweed +coconut activities

9 (63.2)

NA 5.25 (36.8)

NA 14.25 (100)

Seaweed + Handicraft activities

12 (66.7)

NA NA 6 (33.3)

18( 100)

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing activities

12 (39.3)

12 (39.3)

6.5 (21.4)

NA 30.5 (100)

Seaweed + Coconut + Handicraft activities

10 (44.4)

NA 10 (44.4)

2.5 (11.2)

22.5 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing + handicraft activities

-- -- -- -- --

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing + handicraft activities

-- -- -- -- --

Source: Own survey

Figures in parenthesis denote percentages to the total hours.

38

4.3.7 Female Seaweed Harvesters’ Allocation of Time to Different Work Activities

Table 4.12 shows time allocation to different work activities by female seaweed harvesters

pursuing different composition of activities. Female workers doing seaweed harvesting only

spent about 11 hours on this activity. Those female workers who are doing either seaweed

harvesting with coconut activity or seaweed harvesting with handicraft activity, or seaweed

harvesting, coconut and handicraft activity, spent on average 10 hours of their time on the

seaweed harvesting activity. While those female workers engaged in seaweed harvesting,

coconut and fishing activity spent 11 hours per week in doing seaweed harvesting.

Table-4.12: Female seaweed harvesters’ allocation of time to different work activities of the household (hours/worker/ week)

Compositions of activities pursued by seaweed harvesters

Per worker per week number of hours spent on: Seaweed harvesting

Fishing activity

Coconut activity

Handicraft activity

Total hours

Seaweed harvesting only 10.5 (100)

NA NA NA 10.5 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing activities

7.4 (32.2)

15.6 (67.8)

NA NA 23.0 (100)

Seaweeds +coconut activities

9.5 (66.9)

NA 4.7 (33.1)

NA 14.2 (100)

Seaweed + Handicraft activities

10.0 (74.1)

NA NA 3.5 (25.9)

13.5 (100)

Seaweeds + Coconut + Fishing activities

11.0 (44.2)

8.7 (34.9)

5.2 (20.9)

NA 24.8 (100)

Seaweeds + Coconut + Handicraft activities

9.8 (40.7)

NA 6.3 (26.1)

8.0 (33.2)

24.1 (100)

Seaweeds + Fishing + handicraft activities

8.8 (29.3)

13 (42.6)

NA 8.25 (27.1)

30.05 (100)

Seaweeds + Coconut + Fishing + handicraft activities

8.3 (25.5)

8.0 (24.5)

6.0 (18.4)

10.3 (31.6)

32.7 (100)

Source: Own survey

Figures in parenthesis denote percentages to the total hours

39

4.3.8 Total Time Allocated by Seaweed Harvesters to Different Activities

Table 4.12 shows the overall allocation of time to different activities pursued by seaweed

harvesters. Those workers involved in seaweed harvesting only spent about 11 hours per

person per week, while those workers involved in seaweed harvesting and fishing activity

spent 8 hours on seaweed harvesting. Workers doing seaweed harvesting and coconut activity

spent 9.4 hours while the workers doing seaweed harvesting and handicraft activity spent

10.7 hours per week in seaweed harvesting. Those workers doing all three activities of

seaweed harvesting, coconut and fishing spent 11.6 hours while those workers who were

involved in seaweed harvesting, coconut and handicraft activity have on average spent 9.8

hours per week on harvesting seaweeds. The worker doing seaweed harvesting, fishing and

handicraft spent 11 hours while the workers involved in seaweed harvesting, coconut, fishing

and handicraft activity have spent 8.4 hours per week on harvesting seaweeds.

Table 4.13: Average allocation of time by harvesters to different work activities

(hours/worker/week)

Compositions of activities pursued by seaweed harvesters

Per worker per week number of hours spent on: Seaweed harvesting

Fishing activity

Coconut activity

Handicraft activity

Total hours

Seaweed harvesting only 10.5 (100)

NA NA NA 10.5 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing activities

7.8 (33.8

15.3 (66.2)

NA NA 23.1 (100)

Seaweed +coconut activities

9.4 (66.2)

NA 4.8 33.8)

NA 14.2 (100)

Seaweed + Handicraft activities

10.7 (71,3)

NA NA 4.3 (28.7)

15.0 (100)

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing activities

11.6 (41.3)

10.6 (37.7)

5.9 (21.0)

NA 28.1 (100)

40

Seaweed + Coconut + Handicraft activities

9.8 (41.3)

NA 7.1 (30.0)

6.8 (28.7)

23.7 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing + handicraft activities

11.12 (35.5)

12 (38.2)

NA 8.25 (26.3)

31.3 (100)

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing + handicraft activities

8.4 (25.7)

8 (24.5)

6 (18.3)

10.3 (31.5)

32.7 (100)

Source: Own survey

Figures in parenthesis denote percentages to total hours

4.4. Quantity of Seaweed Harvested by Workers

In this section main characteristics of workers, which have bearing on quantity of seaweed

harvested are discussed. The personal characteristics of seaweed harvesters studied include

gender, age, experience and education of the worker and the number of workers in the family.

4.4.1 Composition of workforce in the family and the quantity of seaweeds harvested

Data presented in Table 4.13 show the number of workers in the family and the average

quantity of seaweeds harvested. In one-seaweed-harvester (male or female worker) family

about 28 kg of seaweed was harvested per week. In two-worker family, where both workers

were females the quantity of seaweed harvested was 35.3 kg and where one worker was male

and other female, the quantity harvested was 36 kg per worker per week. In a three-worker

(all female harvesters) family, average of quantity of seaweed harvested was 33.2 kg. On the

whole average output of a worker belonging to one-worker family was 28.2 kg, to two-

worker family was 35.6 kg and to three-worker family was 29.1 kg per week. This indicates

that the average output (quantity of seaweed harvested) per worker was higher in those

families which have two seaweed harvesters.

41

Table 4.14: Number of seaweed harvesters in the family and the quantity of seaweed harvested (Kg/worker/week)

Number of seaweed harvesters in the family

Quantity of seaweed harvested (Kg)

One worker - male only 28.6 One worker- female only 28.1 Two workers - females only 35.3 Two workers - one male + one female 36.0 Three workers - one male + two females 24.9 Three workers – females only 33.2 Family with one worker 28.2 Family with two workers family 35.6 Family with three workers 29.1 Over all workers 31.1 Source: Own survey

4.4.2 Quantity of seaweed harvested by different age group workers

Quantity of seaweed harvested by workers of different age groups is shown in Table 4.14.

Overall higher quantity of seaweeds was harvest by 30-40 age group workers. They harvested

32.4 kg per worker per week. Overall average quantity of seaweed harvested by all age group

workers was 31 kg per week. By and large, female workers’ average of quantity of seaweed

harvested was higher than male workers in almost all the age groups. Female worker

harvested 32 kg per week while male worker harvested only 29 kg per week per person. No

relationship was observed between the age of worker and the quantity of seaweed harvested.

Table 4.15: Age-groups of workers and the quantity of seaweeds harvested

(Kg/worker/week)

Age group (years)

Male workers Female workers All workers

Below 40 33.2

32.4

32.4

40 -50 33.2

30.7

30.9

50-60 27.5

33.2

30.8

60 + 27.0

33.2

31.1

Total 28.9

31.9

31.1

Source: Own survey

42

4.4.3 Experience of the worker and the quantity of seaweed harvested

Table 4.15 shows the quantity of seaweed harvested by workers with different years of

experience. Workers with less than 10 years of experience harvested an average quantity of

29.6 kg of seaweed per week. Workers with 10 to 14 years of experience harvested an

average quantity of 31.6 kg per week. Workers with 15-19 years of experience harvested 28

kg of seaweed per worker. Workers with 20-24 years of experience harvested an average

quantity of 38 kg seaweeds. Overall, the average quantity of seaweed harvested by workers

was 31 kg per week.

Table 4.16: Experience of the worker and the quantity of seaweed harvested

(Kg/worker/week)

Experience (Years)

Male workers Female workers All workers

Below 10 33.2

29.1

29.6

10- 14 29.1

32.3

31.6

15-19 21.2

29.9

28.0

20-24 34.9

38.2

37.7

Overall 28.9

31.9

31.1

Source: Own survey

4.4.4 Education of the workers and the quantity of seaweed harvested

Table 4.16 shows the quantity of seaweed harvested by workers with different levels of

education. Workers with primary education harvested 33.2 kg seaweed per worker per week.

Secondary level educated seaweed harvesters harvested 30.8 kg seaweed per week. The

43

tertiary educated harvester harvested 33.2 kg seaweeds. Hence there was no relationship

between educational level and the quantity of seaweed harvested by the workers.

Table 4.17: Education of the worker and the quantity of seaweed harvested

(Kg/worker/ week)

Education Male workers Female workers All workers Primary 38.7

31.7

33.2

Secondary 25.1

32.1

30.8

Tertiary 33.2

NA 33.2

Total 28.9

31.9

31.1

Source: Own survey

4.4.5 Quantity of seaweed harvested by workers pursuing different combinations of

activities.

Table 4.17 depicts the average quantity of seaweed harvested by workers pursuing different

combinations of work activities. In case of male workers, those who were doing seaweed

harvesting only they harvested 33.2 kg seaweeds per person per week For those male

workers who were doing combination of seaweed harvesting and fishing, they harvested 36

kg of seaweed per person per week. About 27 kg of seaweed per worker per week was

harvested by those male workers who were engaged in combination of seaweed harvesting

and coconut activities. An average quantity of 33.2 kg of seaweed was harvesting by those

workers who were doing seaweed and handicraft activity. About 27.4 kg seaweed per person

per week was harvested by male workers pursuing combination of seaweed, coconut and

fishing activities. Those male workers who were doing seaweed harvesting, coconut and

handicraft activities harvested an average of 21 kg of seaweed per person per week. The

quantity of seaweed harvested was 3 kg per hour of work for those male workers pursuing

44

combination of seaweed harvesting with fishing or coconut activities. It was lower for other

combinations of activities ranging from 2.1 to 2.8 kg per hour of work (see table 4.17).

As regards female workers, those that were doing seaweed harvesting work only they

harvested about 31 kg of seaweed per worker per week which comes to 3 kg of seaweed per

hour of work. Female workers doing combination of seaweed and fishing activities the

average quantity harvested was 33.2 kg of seaweed per worker per week. Average quantity of

seaweed harvested per hour of work was 4.5 kg. The female workers engaged in seaweed and

coconut activities harvested about 32 kg of seaweed per week. Their average output per hour

was 3.4 kg of seaweeds. About 33.2 kg seaweed was harvested per worker per week by those

female workers who were doing combination of seaweed harvesting and handicraft activities.

Their average seaweed harvested per hour of was 3.2 kg. Female workers engaged in

combination of seaweed harvesting, coconut and fishing activities harvested 27.7 kg of

seaweeds per person per week with an average of 2.5 kg seaweeds per hour of work. About

30.8 kg of seaweed harvesting per person per week was done by those female workers who

were combining seaweed harvesting with coconut and handicraft activities. Their average

output per hour was 3.1 kg of seaweeds. Female workers doing combination of seaweed

harvesting, fishing and handicraft activities harvested about 30 kg of seaweeds per person per

week with an average of 3.4 kg of seaweed per hour. About 33.2 kg of seaweed was

harvested per person per week by those female workers who were doing combination of

seaweed harvesting along with coconut, fishing and handicraft activities.

On the whole, for all workers, the average quantities of seaweed harvested are also shown in

table 4.17. Those workers who were doing only seaweed harvesting, the average quantity of

seaweeds harvested was 31.3 kg average per week. Workers who were doing combination of

seaweed and fishing activities harvested an average of 34.6 kg of seaweeds per person per

week. An average of 30.6 kg of seaweed per person per week was harvested by those workers

45

who were doing combination of seaweed and coconut activities. Workers engaged in seaweed

and handicraft activities harvested about 33.2 kg of seaweed per person per week. Those

workers who did combination of seaweed, coconut and fishing activities on average

harvested 27.5 kg of seaweeds per person per week. About 28.6 kg of seaweed per person

per week was harvested by those workers engaged in combination of seaweed, coconut and

handicraft activities. About 30 kg of seaweed was harvested per person per week by those

workers who were involved in seaweed, fishing and handicraft activities. For those workers

who were doing combination of seaweed, coconut, fishing, and handicraft activities the

average quantity of seaweed harvested was 33.2 kg. On the whole the quantity of seaweeds

harvested ranged from 2.4 to 4.4 kg per hour of work.

Table -4.18: Quantity of seaweed harvested by workers pursuing different compositions of work activities (Kg/worker)

Compositions of activities pursued by seaweed harvesters

Males Females All workers Per week

Per hour

Per week

Per hour

Per week

Per hour

Seaweed harvesting only

33.2 3.0 31.1 3.0 31.3 3.0

Seaweed + Fishing activities

36.0 3.0 33.2 4.5 34.6 4.4

Seaweed +coconut activities

27.0 3.0 31.8 3.4 30.6 3.3

Seaweed + Handicraft activities

33.2 2.8 33.2 3.3 33.2 3.1

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing activities

27.4 2.3 27.7 2.5 27.5 2.4

Seaweed + Coconut + Handicraft activities

20.8 2.1 30.8 3.1 28.6 2.9

Seaweed + Fishing + handicraft activities --

-- 30.0

2.7 30.0 2.7

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing + handicraft activities

-- -- 33.2 4.0 33.2 4.0

. Source: Own survey

46

4.4.6 Regression analysis of Quantity harvested

The quantity of seaweed harvested was regressed against the time spent by the harvesters on

seaweed harvesting, age of worker, experience of worker, educational level of the worker and

the number of harvesters in the family. The results of the linear regression equation estimated

are presented in Table 4. 18. Coefficient of determination (R2) showed that about 75 percent

variation in the quantity of seaweed harvested was explained by these independent variables.

Regression coefficients of the independent variables show the marginal change in dependent

variable (quantity harvested) due to one unit change in the independent variables. Some

variables have positive relation while others have negative relation with the quantity of

seaweed harvested.

Table 4. 19: Regression of quantity (Q) of seaweed harvested (kg per week) on per week hours (H) spent on seaweed harvesting, age (A), work experience (X) and education (E) of the worker and the number of harvesters in the family.

(Estimated linear equation: Q = 9.615 + 0.005 A + 0.284 X – 0.654 E + 1.951H + 0.007 M)

Parameter Coefficient Standard Error

t value t pr

Constant 9.615 4.138 2.323 0.023

Age of worker (A) 0.005 0.102 0.053 0.958

Experience (yrs) (X) 0.284 0.341 0.834 0.407

Education (E) – 0.654 1.338 – 0.489 0.627

Per week hours worked (H) 1.951* 0.251 7.764 0.0001

No. of harvesters in the family (M) 0.007 0.775 0.009 0.993

Source: Own survey

R2 = 0.751. Number of total observations = 68

Results indicated that change in the quantity of seaweed harvested was positively and

significantly affected by the number of hours spent on harvesting. Educational level of the

worker has negative (though insignificant) effect on the quantity harvested. Indicating that as

47

education level of the worker increases the lower is the participation in and contribution to

seaweed quantity harvested by the family. Other factors, age, experience, and number of

workers in the family have positive but insignificant effect on the quantity harvested.

4.5 Income from Seaweed Harvesting

In this section relations of personal characteristics of workers (i.e. gender, age, experience

and education of the worker and the number of workers in the family) with the income

generated from seaweed harvesting are discussed.

4.5.1 Per household and per worker income from Seaweed Harvesting

Table 4.19 shows weekly average income per household and per worker. Households with

one male seaweed harvester earned income of $ 48 per week from seaweeds and those with

one female seaweed harvester earned $59 per week. For households having two female

seaweed harvesters the average per household per week earning from seaweeds was $ 108.75.

Those households which have one male and one female seaweed harvester earned $ 110 per

week from seaweeds. Households with three workers (one male and two female seaweed

harvesters) earned weekly income of $ 120 from seaweeds. On the other hand, families with

three seaweed harvesters (all females) earned $150 per household per week from seaweed

harvesting.

On the whole average earning per worker per week was $54, which ranged from $40 to 59

per week. Per worker highest earning was of those families having two workers.

48

Table-4.20: Number of workers in the family and the income earned from seaweed harvesting (FJ$/week)

Number of seaweed harvesters in the family

Average income Per household

Average income Per worker

One worker -male only 48.00 48.00 One worker - female only 59.10 59.10 Two workers – females only 108.80 54.40 Two workers -one male + one female 110.00 55.00 Three workers - one male + two females 120.00 40.00 Three workers – females only 150.00 50.00 Overall workers 79.78 54.00 Source: Own survey

4.5.2 Age-Group wise Income earned from seaweed harvesting

Income per week of workers of different age groups is shown in Table 4.20. On average a

female worker earned weekly income of $55 and the male worker earned $50. Workers of

both genders in the age group of 60 years and above earned relatively higher income from

seaweed harvesting than the other age group workers.

Table 4.21: Age of worker and the income from seaweed harvesting

($ per worker/week)

Age group (years)

Male workers Female workers All workers

Below 40 50.0

54.5

54.3

40 -50 50.0

56.8

56.1

50-60 48.6

46.5

47.4

60 + 53.3

66.0

61.3

Overall 50.0 54.9 53.9 Source: Own survey

49

4.5.3 Work experience and the average income earned from various activities

Table 4.21 shows incomes earned by workers having different years of work experience. On

the whole the income earned by workers having less than 10 years of experience was $ 47 per

harvester. The income earned by harvesters with 10 to 14 years of experience was $ $53. The

income earned by the 19 harvesters with 15 to 19 years of experience was $ 56. The income

earned by the workers with more than 20 years of experience was $ 59. Overall, for all the

68 workers the average income from seaweed harvesting was $ 54.

Table 4.22: Experience of workers and the income from seaweed harvesting

(FJ$/ worker/week)

Work experience (Years)

Male workers

Female workers

All workers

Below 10 50.0

46.6

47.1

10- 14 45.0

55.6

53.6

15-19 60.0

54.6

55.8

20-24 43.3

64.0

59.2

Overall 50.0

54.9

53.9

Source: Own survey

4.5.4 Education of the worker and Income from seaweed harvesting

Table 4.22 shows income from seaweed harvesting with level of education of the worker. The

primary educated seaweed harvesters earned an average income of $ 61.10. The secondary

educated seaweed harvesters earned an average income of $ 52.17 per week. While only one

tertiary educated seaweed harvester earned an average income of $ 50 from seaweed

harvesting. Overall seaweed harvesters earned an average of $ 53.97 per week from

50

seaweeds. Interestingly, income earned by female harvesters was higher than male harvesters

at every level of education.

Table 4.23: Education of the worker and the income from seaweed harvesting

(FJ$/worker/week)

Educational level Male workers Female workers All workers Primary 43.3

65.9

61.1

Secondary 52.2

52.2

52.1

Tertiary 50.0

NA

50.0

Overall 50.0

54.9

53.9

Source: Own survey

4.5.5 Income of male seaweed harvesters pursuing different combinations of work

activities

Table 4.23 shows the source wise income of male seaweed harvesters pursuing different

compositions of work activities. A male worker doing seaweed harvesting only earned a total

income of $ 50 per week. Those male workers engaged in seaweed and fishing earned weekly

income $ 100 in which share of seaweed income was 30 percent only. Male workers

involving in seaweed and coconut activities earned a total of $ 91.30 per week in which share

seaweed income was 49 percent. About $ 83.3. income per week was earned by male

workers pursuing combination of seaweed and handicraft activities in which share of seaweed

income was 60 percent. Highest per week income of $ 232.50 was earned by those male

workers who were engaged in combination of seaweed, fishing and coconut activities.

However, in this income the share of income earned from seaweed was only 22 percent.

51

Those male workers engaged in seaweed, coconut and handicraft activities earned a moderate

income of $ 141 per week in which share of seaweed income 50 percent.

Table 4.24: Weekly income of male seaweed harvesters pursuing different combinations of activities

(FJ$/worker/week)

Combinations of activities pursued by seaweed harvesters

Per week income earned from: Seaweed harvesting

Fishing activity

Coconut activity

Handicraft activity

Total

Seaweed harvesting only

50.0 (100)

NA NA NA 50.0 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing activities

30.0 (30.0)

70.0 (70.0)

NA NA 100.0 (100)

Seaweed +coconut activities

45.0 (49.3)

NA 46.3 (50.7)

NA 91.3 (100)

Seaweed + Handicraft activities

50.0 (60.0)

NA NA 33.3 (40.0)

83.3 (100)

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing activities

50.0 (21.5)

95.0 (40.9)

87.5 (37.6)

NA 232.5 (100)

Seaweed + Coconut + Handicraft activities

70.0 (49.8)

NA 45.0 (32.0)

25.6 (18.2)

140.7 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing + handicraft activities

NA NA NA NA NA

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing + handicraft activities

NA NA NA NA NA

Source: Own survey

Figures in parenthesis denote percentages to the total income.

52

4.5.6 Source wise income of female workers pursuing different compositions of work

activities.

Table 4.24 shows source wise income of female workers pursuing different combinations of

work activities. Female workers doing only seaweed harvesting earned income of $ 51 per

week. Female workers engaged in combination of seaweed harvesting and fishing earned

income of $ 225 in which share of seaweed income was 28 percent only. Those female

workers involved in seaweed and coconut activities earned total income of $ 96.70 in which

contribution of seaweeds was 51 percent. Female workers engaging in seaweed and

handicraft activities had total earnings worth $ 85 in which major share was of seaweeds

(59%). Fmale workers engaged in seaweed, coconut and fishing activities earned total income

of $ 252 and those involved in seaweed, fishing and handicraft activities earned total income

of $ 295. But in these the contribution seaweed income was about 26 percent only. Female

workers involved in activities of seaweed, coconut and handicraft were able to earn a total

income of $ 180 in which 30 percent contribution was of seaweed income.

53

Table -4.25: Average income of female seaweed harvesters pursuing different compositions of activities

(FJ$/worker/week)

Combinations of activities pursued by seaweed harvesters

Per week income earned from: Seaweed harvesting

Fishing activity

Coconut activity

Handicraft activity

Total

Seaweed harvesting only

51.3 (100)

NA NA NA 51.3 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing activities

62.3 (27.7)

162.7 (72.3)

NA NA 225.0 (100)

Seaweed +coconut activities

49.6 (51.3)

NA 47.1 (48.7)

NA 96.7 (100)

Seaweed + Handicraft activities

50 (58.8)

NA NA 35.0 (41.2) 85.0

(100) Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing activities

66.7 (26.5)

123.3 (49.0)

61.7 (24.5)

NA 251.7 (100)

Seaweed + Coconut + Handicraft activities

54.3 (30.3)

NA 63.6 (35.4)

61.6 (34.3)

179.5 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing + handicraft activities

75.0 (25.4)

200.0 (67.8)

NA 20.0 (6.8)

295.0 (100)

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing + handicraft activities

55.0 (26.2)

28.3 (13.4)

70.0 (33.3)

57.0 (27.1)

210.3 (100)

Source: Own survey

Figures in parenthesis denote percentages to the total income.

4.5.7 Source wise income of all seaweed harvesters

The overall average income all seaweed harvesters is shown in table 4.25. Those workers

involved in only seaweed harvesting earned weekly income $ 51. For workers involved in

combination of seaweed harvesting and fishing the total income per week was $ 214.60 in

which share of seaweed income was 28 percent. Those workers engaged in seaweed

54

harvesting and coconut they earned a total income of $ 95 per week. The highest average

income of $295 was earned by those workers who were engaged in combination of seaweed,

fishing and handicraft activities. The second highest average income ($241 per week) was

earned by those workers who were engaged in combination of seaweed, fishing and coconut

activities. In both these combinations of activities the share of seaweed income was around

25 percent only.

For the workers involved in seaweed harvesting and handicraft, the total income earned was $

84.4. The workers engaged in seaweed harvesting, coconut and handicraft activities earned a

total of $ 170.8. The workers engaged in all activities including seaweed harvesting, coconut,

fishing earned a total of $ 210.3. Overall, the workers earned a total of $ 137.8.

people supplement their income with alternative activities, mostly coconut, fishing and

handicraft. Data shows that as the diversification of activities of the worker increases the

total income increases and the percent share of seaweed income in the total income decreases.

Table -4.26: Overall average income of seaweed harvesters pursuing different compositions of activities (FJ$/ worker/week)

Combinations of activities of seaweed harvesters

Per week income earned from: Seaweed harvesting

Fishing activity

Coconut activity

Handicraft activity

Total

Seaweed harvesting only

51.2 (100)

NA NA NA 51.2 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing activities

59.6 (27.8)

155.0 (72.2)

NA NA 214.6 (100)

Seaweed +coconut activities

48.4 (50.8)

NA 46.9 (49.2)

NA 95.3 (100)

Seaweed + Handicraft activities

50.0 (59.2)

NA NA 34.4 (40.8)

84.4 (100)

55

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing activities

57.1 (23.7)

107.2 (44.5)

76.4 (31.8)

NA 240.7 (100)

Seaweed + Coconut + Handicraft activities

57.8 (33.8)

NA 59.4 (34.8)

53.6 (31.4)

170.8 (100)

Seaweed + Fishing + handicraft activities

75.0 (25.4)

200.0 (67.8)

NA 20.0 (6.8)

295.0 (100)

Seaweed + Coconut + Fishing + handicraft activities

55.0 (26.2)

28.3 (13.5)

70 (33.3)

56.9 (27.0)

210.3 (100)

Source: Own survey

Figures in parenthesis denote percentages to total income

4.6. Marketing System of Seaweeds

4.6.1 Brief overview of marketing of all products of seaweed harvesters

Marketing is defined as the performance of all business activities involved in the flow of

products and services from the point of initial production until they are in the hands of

consumers (Kohls and Uhl 1998). Marketing channels are the ways that goods and services

are made available for use by the consumers. All goods go through channels of distribution,

and marketing will depend on the way items produced are distributed. The route that the

product takes on its way from production to the consumer is important because a marketer

must decide which route or channel is best for his particular product.

As described in previous sections, the seaweed harvesters perform combination of various

activities. Before we discuss details of seaweed marketing system a brief explanation of

marketing of products is given below.

(i) Seaweed activity: Caulerpa harvesting in Fiji is mainly carried out by harvesters between

Mondays and Wednesdays. This enables sufficient time for the product to reach the consumer

56

markets for sale on Fridays and Saturdays. Harvesting of Caulerpa in the Gunu village

developed a significant income stream from sales to mainland Fiji. Seaweed is packed in

empty flour and potato sacks. These are put under shelter from sun and rain, avoiding any

contact with fresh water to avoid quality deterioration. The harvesters from Vatutavui village

sell their products directly in the consumer market, while those from the Yasawas normally

sell to middlemen on Thursdays who sell products to consumers.

(ii) Coconut activity: The collecting of coconut was carried out by the workers from Monday

to Wednesday. Collecting of mature fruits was mainly doing in early in the morning and late

in the afternoon. People in the village collect fruits from the bush remove the husk and put

them into 50 kg bags, and sold it to middlemen by an average price of $ 2.50 for a dozen.

They load coconut bags into the ferry on every Thursday morning and middlemen were

picking it from the Lautoka wharf on Thursday evening. The diagram below is the clear

snapshot flows of the coconuts from the collectors to the market.

Figure 4.1 Pacific Coconut Industry Chain Map

Source : (Initiative, 2011)

57

(iii) Fishing activity: Some seaweed harvesters also participate in fishing activity as another

source of their income. Most harvesters actually do fishing for home consumption and if

there are surpluses, they are sold for income. Traditionally, Fijians spent much of their time

fishing on the reef flats or near the reef edge. Fishing was actually done by fishers from

Monday to Saturday. Customarily, only men fished and women and children waded on the

reef at low tide with sharp sticks and knives to gather small fish and invertebrates. Most

fishing is accomplished by individuals on foot in areas next to their village. While the gender

division in fishing is not as strict as it was in the past, women still predominantly engage in

gathering shellfish and small fish in the intertidal zone, while men fish farther off shore.

The fish that has been caught by the fishers were actually used for family consumption and

the surplus were for selling in the village for those that are not able to go fishing.

(iv) Handicraft activity: Lately there has been focus of rapid development in the tourism

industry in Fiji. Most of the seaweed harvesters are also doing handicrafts for selling to

tourists. They prepare their handicraft products to sell to the tourists every week and female

workers are the most dominant for doing this kind of job. Therefore female seaweed

collectors were doing their role in the family everyday but if they have free time in a day then

they making handicraft. The ladies actually make different types of handicrafts but mostly

they make traditional fans, table mats and necklaces because these products are preferable by

the tourist to buy.

4.6.2 Seaweed marketing channels

A marketing channel is a set of practices or activities necessary to transfer the ownership of

goods, and to move goods, from the point of production to the point of consumption and, as

such, which consists of all the institutions (intermediaries) and all the marketing activities in

the marketing process. An intermediary (or go-between) is a third party that offers

58

intermediation services between two trading parties. For marketing of seaweed the channel is:

Seaweed harvester �� Middle women � Consumer.

The major supply of seaweed (C. racemosa) in the Suva and Lautoka markets comes from

Naviti Island, Yawasa. Therefore, all the vendors from both markets also acted as middle

women. They were actually bought seaweed from the Yasawa by cash on every Thursday at

Lautoka wharf, therefore Wednesday and Thursday are those two days in the week they were

actually travel to Lautoka to pick up the seaweed that it had been delivered by the producers

from Naviti Island, Yasawa. They went to Lautoka by bus and they came back to Suva or

Lautoka market by taxi but some vendors were using their own vehicle. Subsequently, they

start selling it on Friday, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday. Each day of marketing, vendors

were ultimately start selling from 6am up to 6pm, and after that then they leave the left over

seaweed inside flour bags and locked it inside the market.

4.6.3 Costs and margins of seaweed marketing

Marketing cost includes total costs associated with delivering goods or services to customers.

Marketing firms incur a number of costs when performing marketing functions. The cost

components include, labour cost, packaging material, transportation, processing, storage,

spoilage, rent, market fees, taxes, energy cost, etc. Consumer food expenditures can be

broken down into their constituent marketing cost and producer cost components. The

proportion of the consumer’s food dollar that goes to food marketing firms is referred to as

the marketing margin. This is the difference between what the consumer pays for food and

what the producer/harvesters receives. The proportion that goes to producer is called as

producer’s share in the consumer dollar.

In a sense, the marketing margin is the price of all utility-adding activities and functions

performed by food marketing firms. This price includes the expenses of performing

59

marketing functions and also food marketing firm’s profits (Kohls and Uhls, 1998). The size

of food marketing margin is a result of performing additional marketing functions and is

composed of both marketing costs and profits. The division of the consumer’s dollar between

producers and marketers is determined by competition and bargaining between these two

sectors of the food marketing system.

Tables 4.30 and 4.31 show the marketing costs of seaweed in Lautoka and Suva markets. The

labour cost is the main component of marketing costs in both the markets accounting for

about two-thirds proportion. The next major cost was transportation cost accounting for 24

percent in Suva market and 8 percent in Lautoka market. Since Suva, the major market, lies

far from the seaweed harvesting area the cost of transporting produce was higher.

Table 4. 27: Marketing of seaweeds in two markets of Fiji, 2013.

Particulars Lautoka Market (5 vendors)

Suva Market (10 vendors)

1. Quantity of seaweed bought from the harvesters (kg/week)

66.4 165.2

2. Amount paid to harvesters to buy seaweed ($/week)

114.0 285.0

3. Quantity spoiled (kg/week) 1.9 3.5 4. Value of spoiled quantity ($/week) 12.4 34.8 5.Transportation cost ($) 7.0 89.7 6.Market fees ($) 7.1 18.0 7. Cost of preparing and packing ($/week) - chilies …….. - plastic bags …….

14.6 9.9 4.7

17.3 10.0 7.3

8.Labour Cost ($/week) 63.7 237.9 9. Total marketing Cost (2 through 8) 287.1 851.4 10. Revenue from sale of seaweed ($/week) 430.7 1059.7 11. Net earnings (10 minus 9) ($/week) 143.6 208.3 Number of plates sold per week 154.0 383.0 Weight of seaweed in plate (kg) 0.4 0.3 Price of plate ($) 2.6 3.0 Number of plates spoiled 4.4 11.6 Source: Own survey

60

Table 4.28: Marketing Costs ($/kg of produce)

Cost Items Lautoka market % Suva market % Plastic bags $ 0.07/kg 4.9 $0.04/kg 1.8 Chillies $ 0.15/kg 10.5 $0.06/kg 2.7 Transport $ 0.11/kg 7.6 $ 0.54/kg 24.4 Wastage/Spoilage $ 0.03/kg 2.2 $ 0.02/kg 0.9 Market fees $0.11/kg 7.7 $ 0.11/kg 5.0 Labour cost $0.96/kg 67.1 $ 1.44/kg 65.2 Total $1.43/kg 100 $ 2.21/kg 100 Source: Own survey

Plastic bags5%

Chillies10%

Transport 8%

Wastage/Spoilage

2%Market fees

8%Labour

67%

0% Lautoka market

Figure 4. 2: Breakdown of cost of marketing seaweed in Lautoka market

Plastic bags2%Chillies

3%

Transport 24%

Wastage/Spoilage 1%Market fees

5%

Labour65%

0%

Suva Market

Figure 4.3: Breakdown of cost of marketing seaweed in Lautoka market

61

Table 4.32 shows the price-spread and profit margin of middle women operating in seaweed

marketing in Fiji. The market margin of seaweed marketing was 79 percent in Lautoka

market and 85 percent in Suva market. Excluding the cost incurred in marketing the profit

margin of middle women was 58 percent and 63 percent in Lautoka and Suva markets

respectively. Hence, the middle women earn quite remunerative profit excluding their own

labour.

Table 4.29: Marketing margin and profits of middle women doing seaweed marketing in Lautoka and Suva markets.

Particulars Lautoka Suva

Price paid to the seaweed harvester by middle women ($/Kg)

1.50 (21.43)

1.50 (15.00)

Cost incurred by middle women in marketing ($/kg)

1.43 (20.43 )

2.21 (22.10)

Profit of middle women in seaweed marketing ($/kg)

4.07 (58.14)

6.29 (62.90)

Price charged from seaweed consumer ($/Kg) 7.0 (100)

10 (100)

Source: Own survey

Marketing margin was: Lautoka market $5.5 per Kg (i.e., 79%) and in Suva market $8.5 per Kg (i.e.,85%)

62

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIOS

This chapter has two objectives: It summarizes the finds of the study and draws conclusions

from those findings. Secondly, it makes certain policy recommendations based on the

summary of findings and conclusion made.

5.1 Summary and conclusions

This study was undertaken to assess the seaweed harvesting and marketing in Fiji,

basically in the Island of Naviti (Yasawa) and the village of Vatutavui with the following

objectives: (i) To study the socio-economic characteristics of the seaweed harvesters in Fiji;

(ii) to estimate the number of hours of devoted by workers to seaweed harvesting; (iii) to find

out the quantity of seaweed harvested by workers; (iv) to estimate the income generated by

workers from seaweed harvesting; (v) to study the seaweed marketing system in Fiji, and (vi)

to suggest policy measures to improve income and employment of seaweed harvesters.

The study was conducted in coastal areas of Fiji. A sample of 46 households was

drawn randomly from the four sample villages. There were 68 seaweed harvesters in the

sample households. Information about all of them was obtained on the structured

questionnaire by personal interview method. As regards marketing of seaweeds, all the five

vendors of Lautoka and 10 vendors of Suva market were interviewed to obtain information

on seaweed marketing practices, costs and margins.

63

The average size of the family of seaweed harvesting workers was 6 and one-fourths

of them were engaged in seaweed harvesting. Eighty-one percent of seaweed harvester were

females 19 percent were males. Sixty-one percent of the households had only one seaweed

harvester in the family. On the whole, 71.7 percent households had only female seaweed

harvesters. Hence, it is clear that the seaweed harvesting activity is dominated by women

workers of the household. As regards workers’ age structure, about 32 percent workers were

below 40 years age, another 32 percent workers were in the age group of 40-50 years and the

rest 44 percent were above 50 years age. The most predominant age group for male workers

was 50 to 60 years and for female harvesters was below 40 years.

Seventy-nine percent of total workers had seaweed harvesting experience of more

than ten years. Male workers have more experience than female seaweed harvesters. Three-

fourths of seaweed harvesters had education up to secondary level. Workers in the villages

indulge in various rural activities, but one-fourth of them were working as seaweed harvesters

only. Twenty four percent were doing combined work of seaweed harvesting and coconut

activity. About 17.6 percent of workers were combining seaweed harvesting with fishing

activity. Combination of seaweed harvesting, coconut activity and handicraft activity was

done by 13 percent workers. Overall a worker devoted 19 hours per week to seaweed

harvesting work; male workers worked 21.3 hours while female workers worked about 18.6

hours per week for seaweed harvesting. The hours of work in seaweed harvesting had

negative relation with level of education of the worker. Average hours of work of primary

educated worker were 22 as against 18 hours of secondary and higher educated workers. It

was noticed that as the number of workers increased in the family, the average number of

hours spent on seaweed harvesting by each worker declined. The time spent by male workers

on seaweed harvesting ranged from 9 to 12 hours and by female workers ranged from 10 to

11 hours per week. For all combination of activities, those workers who were doing seaweed

64

harvesting, fishing and coconut collecting were found to spent highest number of hours (11.6)

per person per week on seaweed harvesting.

Furthermore, the average seaweed output of a worker belonging to one-worker family

was 28.2kg, to two-worker family was 35kg and for three-worker family was 29.1 kg per

week. Therefore, the average output (quantity of seaweed harvested) per worker was higher

in those families which have two seaweed harvesters. For all combinations of activities, those

workers who were doing fishing and seaweed harvesting had harvested higher quantity of

seaweed per person per week. The change in the quantity of seaweed harvested was

positively and significantly affected by the number of hours spent on harvesting.

Overall the quantity of seaweed harvested was 31 kilograms per week. The average

quantity harvested by female worker was 32 kg as against 29 kg harvested by the male

seaweed harvester. Average quantity of seaweed harvested per worker was higher for those

workers who were doing seaweed harvesting and fishing combination as compared to other

combination of works.

The average earning from seaweed harvesting per worker per week was $54, which

ranged from $40 to 59 per week. Per worker highest earning per worker was of those families

having two workers. The highest income per worker per week was for those workers doing

the combination of seaweed harvesting, fishing and handicraft activities. The second highest

average income per worker was earned by those workers who were combining seaweed,

fishing and coconut activities. In both these combinations of activities the share of seaweed

income was around 25 percent only. Hence, it has found that as the diversification of the

activities of worker increases the percent share of seaweed incomes decreases.

There was a positive relationship between the experience of the worker with the

hours devoted to seaweed harvesting, quantity of seaweed harvested and the seaweed income

65

earned by the workers. The income earned by harvesters with 10 to 14 years of experience

was $53. The income earned by the 15 to 19 years of experience worker was $ 56. The

income earned by the workers with more than 20 years of experience was $ 59. Overall, the

average income per worker from seaweed harvesting was $ 54 per week.

The study showed that the marketing cost is quite high, which means that middle agents earn

more than fair share of their income. The market margin of seaweed marketing was 79

percent in Lautoka market and 85 percent in Suva market. The net profit margin (over the

marketing costs) of the middle women in marketing seaweeds in Lautoka and Suva markets

was 58 and 63 percent, respectively. The labour cost was the main component of marketing

costs of seaweeds which accounts for about two-thirds amount of the total cost. The next

major component was transportation cost accounting for 24 percent for marketing in Suva

market and 8 percent while marketing in Lautoka market. Since Suva, the major market, lies

far from the seaweed harvesting area, the cost of transporting seaweed produce was higher.

The study clearly showed that in seaweed marketing the middle women earned a good

income per week start from picking of the seaweed lot from the Lautoka wharf and then

selling it in nearby Lautoka market and in Suva market about 200 km away.

5.2 Recommendations

The study recommends the following measures:

i. Sustaining income generation from seaweed harvesting activities. Seaweed

harvesting is an important common property natural resource of supplementing

family income as such this resource should be protected from overexploitation

and needs to be harvested sustainably in such a way that it continues to provide

regular income for the workers.

66

ii. Research on seaweed production methods to make it a commercial activity: The

research emphasis needs to be put in this important resource of the coastal people

to find ways to efficiently cultivate seaweeds on commercial basis on a larger

scale.

iii. . Establishing institutional mechanism for regular monitoring the harvest levels

so that any limitations that would hinder seaweed production potential for

sustainable provision of income and employment opportunities for the rural

people can be avoided timely at community level itself. For this purpose local

community-based management and control of seaweed harvesting activities is

very important.

5.3 Limitations of the Study

The study examined the socio-economic aspects of seaweed harvesting in Fiji. Socio-

economic analysis examined how social norms and other social viewpoints influence

producer behavior within the economy. Accordingly, it is a way to develop an understanding

about the social and economic conditions dealing with groups, communities and

organizations. However, this study will be limited to ascertain information from people that

are doing seaweed harvesting in a small geographical area of the country where the main

harvesting sites are located. The study mainly focused on two aspects: income and

employment generation. The issue of social aspects of seaweed harvesting and marketing in

Fiji has been limited only to the education, experience, age, and gender aspects of workers

and the number of workers in the family. It did not go into details of social structure and

social control system of seaweed workers in the sample villages of the study.

67

REFERENCES

Abatania, L. N., Hailu, A., & Mugera, A. W. (2012). Analysis of farm household technical efficiency in Northern Ghana using bootstrap DEA. Paper presented at the 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Freemantle, Australia.

Abdrabo, M. A. (2006). Socioeconomic conditions in coastal areas. A comparative analysis.

The Mediterranean coastal areas from watershed to the sea: Interactions and changes, 73-82.

Abbott, LA. (1988a). Food and food products from algae. In Algae and Human Affairs, (C.A.

Lembi, and J.R. Waaland, eds.), pp. 135-147, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge Administration, N. O. A. (2013). "Seaweed" is the common name for countless species of

marine plants and algae that grow in the ocean as well as in rivers, lakes, and other water bodies Retrieved 6, 2013, from http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seaweed.html

Agriculture, S. S. (2005). Socio-economic Impact Assessment Toolkit. Canberra, Australia:

Australian Government Bureau of Rural Science. Anyiro, C. O., Emerole, C. O., Osondu, C. K., Udah, S. C., & Ugorji, S. E. (2013). Labour-Use

Efficiency By Smallholder Yam Farmers In Abia State Nigeria: A Labour-Use Requirement Frontier Approach. LABOUR, 1(1), 151-163.

Bala, S., & M, F. (2012). Supply chain analysis of sea grapes (Caulerpa racemosa) in Tonga,

Preliminary report. Unpublished: University of the South Pacific Bala, S., & Morris, C. (2011). [Supply Chain of Seagrapes (Caulerpa racemosa) in Fiji

,Technical Report 5; 12pp]. Basavaraj, B. (2008). A study on impact of income generating activities on sustainable rural

livelihoods of KAWAD project beneficiaries. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES.

Borowitzka, M. A., Critchley, A. T., Kraan, S., Peters, A., Sjtun, K., & Notoya, M. (2009).

Nineteenth International Seaweed Symposium: Proceedings of the 19th International Seaweed Symposium, Held in Kobe, Japan, 26-31 March, 2007 (Vol. 2): Springer.

Bhati, Jagdish P. and Kumar, S. 2011. “What ails Fiji’s rural economy? A diagnosis and prescription”, Journal of South Pacific Agriculture. (ISSN 1018-7774) Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 98 -109. (2011) Chamberlain, T. (1998). Field Surveys, Proximate Analysis, Shelf-life Extension Experiments

and Culture Experiments for the Edible Seaweed Caulerpa Racemosa: Marine Studies Programme, University of the South Pacific.

68

Chapman, V. J., & Chapman, D. J. (1980). Seaweeds and their uses. Seaweeds and their

uses.(3nd ed.). Chidumu, J. I. (2007). The impact of “One village One Product (OVOP) on household income–

implications on food security: the case of Bvumbwe operation area, Thyolo District, Malawi: Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.

Comley, J., Tuveng, L., Crabbe, M., & Raines, P. (2005). Yasawa Islands Coral Reef

Conservation Project. Community, S. O. T. P. (2011). Fiji and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Noumea,

New Caledonia Coppejans, E., & Beeckman, T. (1989). Caulerpa section Sedoideae (Chlorophyta,

Caulerpales) from the Kenyan coast. Nova Hedwigia, 49(3-4), 381-393. de la Torre-Castro, M., & Rönnbäck, P. (2004). Links between humans and seagrasses—an

example from tropical East Africa. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47(7), 361-387. Eklöf J.S., Msuya F.E., Lyimo T.J. and Buriyo A.S. 2012. Seaweed Farming in Chwaka Bay: A

Sustainable Alternative in Aquaculture? In: People, Nature and Research in Chwaka Bay, Zanzibar, Tanzania, de la Torre-Castro, M. and T.J. Lyimo (eds.). Pp. 213 – 233. ISBN: 978-9987-9559-1-6. Zanzibar Town: WIOMSA

Espaldon, M. V. O., Sumalde, Z. M., Rebancos, C. M., Villanueva, J. D., & Mercene-Mutia, M.

T. (2010). Sustainable livelihood and seaweed farming in Calatagan, Batangas, Philippines.

Fa'anunu, U. (1990). Tonga : In Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Seaweed Culture

and Marketing. Suva, Fiji. Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, 2007. Population Census. [Online]. Available at http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/cens&surveys/cens&surveystats_index.htm.[Accessed

27Feb.2012].

Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, 2010. National Income [Online]. Available at

http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/Key%20Stats/National%20Income/2.2_GDP%20Current.pdf[Accessed 11 Mar.2012].

Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles. Fiji, R. (2009, 1 October 2009). Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles Retrieved 3, 2014, from http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/FJI/en

Frazis, H., & Stewart, J. (2011). How does household production affect measured income

inequality? Journal of Population Economics, 24(1), 3-22.

69

George, S. N. (2004). Saint Lucia. Socio-economic indicators in integrated coastal zone and

community-based fisheries management, 65. Google (Cartographer). (2014). Fiji Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/@-

17.4004569,178.3696675,258364m/data=!3m1!1e3 Gordon-Mills, E. (1986). Marine phycocolloids in Asian-Pacific regions. The Pacific Region.

Report on the exploratory trip for the Commonwealth Science Council Project (91-687/3). 20 pp. (mimeographed).

Guiry, M. D. R. (2000). The Seaweed Site: information on marine algae. from

http://www.seaweed.ie/irish_seaweed_contacts/index.php Haouas, I., Yagoubi, M., & Heshmati, A. (2002). Labour-use efficiency in Tunisian

manufacturing industries: A flexible adjustment model: WIDER Discussion Papers//World Institute for Development Economics (UNU-WIDER).

Hill, N. A. O. (2011). Livelihood diversification for conservation: Interactions between

seaweed farming and fishing in Danajon Bank, central Philippines. University of London.

Horngren, C. T., Sundem, G. L., & Elliott, J. A. (1981). Introduction to financial accounting:

Prentice-Hall. Horngren, C. T., Sundem, G. L., & Elliott, J. A. (1996). Introduction to financial accounting:

Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Israr, M., & Khan, H. (2010). An Analysis of Livelihood sources in Hilly areas of Northern

Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric, 26. Jayachandra, K., & Naidu, Y. G. (2006). Impact of dairy cooperatives on income, employment

and creation of assets of marginal and small farmers - a case study. Indian Cooperative Review 43(4): 719-724.

Kawagoe, T., Von Broun, E., & Kenedy, E. (1994). Income and employment generation from

agricultural processing and marketing at the village level: A study in Upland Java, Indonesia. Agricultural commercialization, economic development, and nutrition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 176-186.

Kelly, L., Collier, L., Costello, M. J., Diver, M., McGarvey, S., Kraan, S., Giury, M. (2001).

Impact assessment of hand and mechanical harvesting of Ascophyllum nodosum on regeneration and biodiversity.

Kirsten, J., & Moldenhauer, W. (2006). Measurement and analysis of rural household

income in a dualistic economy: The case of South Africa. Agrekon, 45(1), 60-77.

70

Krishnan, M., & Narayanakumar, R. (2013). Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan

seaweed farming. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper(580), 163-184.

Kristen, J., & Moldenhauer, W. (2006). Measurement and analysis of rural household

income in a dualistic economy: The case of South Africa. Agrekon, 45, 18. Kumar, S. and Bhati, Jagdish P. 2011. ”Challenges and opportunities for agrarian transformation and development of agribusinesses in Fiji”, Asia Pacific Journal of Rural Development, ((ISSN 1018-5291) Vol. 21, No. 2, Pp. 19- 38. (2011)

Lewis, J. R., Stanely, N. F., & Guist, G. G. (1988). Commercial production and application of algal hydrocolloids. In Algae and Human Affairs: Cambridge University.

Loga, M. (2012). Seaweed farming on the rise. Retrieved 21 of Agust 2013 from

http://www.fbc.com.fj/fiji/12131/seaweed-investments-likely Maps of World, 2011. Fiji Economy.[Online].Available at

http://www.mapsofworld.com/fiji/economy/ [Accessed 2Mar.2012].

Masuya, F. E. (2011a). The impact of seaweed farming on the socioeconomic status of costal

communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. World Aquaculture, 42, 45-48. Mavi, K., Chauhan, J., & Das, B. (2006). Impact of self employment programme on dairy

farming. Rural India, 70(3), 47-49. McClelland, A. and Donnelly, D. (2009) Pervasive Area Poverty: a pilot study applying

modelled household income in a NILS Context . OFMDFM. [Project 025] Mian, R. U., & Habibur, J. R. (2007). Impact of Dairy Farming on Livelihood of Participating

Women under Grameen Bank in a Selected Area of Rangpur District in Bangladesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Ministry of Agriculture. 2010. Agriculture Statistics - Agriculture Imports

http://www.agriculture.org.fj/_resources/main/files/Agriculture%20Import%202008.pdf

Morris, C., Bala, S., South, G., Lako, J., Lober, M., & Simos, T. (2014). Supply chain and

marketing of sea grapes, Caulerpa racemosa (Forsskål) J. Agardh (Chlorophyta: Caulerpaceae) in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. Journal of Applied Phycology, 26: 783-789.

71

Msuya, F. E. (2006). The impact of seaweed farming on the social and economic structure of seaweed farming communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. World Seaweed Resources, Version, 1, 27.

Nicholas, M. (2010). Micro-credit utilization and its impact on household income: A

comparative study of rural and urban areas in Iganga district (Master Master), Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. (Book)

Novaczek, I. (2001). A guide to the common edible and medicinal sea plants of the Pacific

Islands (Vol. 3): University of the South Pacific. Pickering, T., & Mario, S. (1999). Survey of commercial seaweeds in south-east Viti

Levu (Fiji Islands): a preliminary study on farming potential of seaweed species present in Fiji Project reports (not in a Series) - No.1 1999 p.53 pg

Pickering, T. D. (2003). Report on the outcomes of the train-the-trainers workshop on

Kappaphycus seaweed farming in Pacific Island countries: Marine Studies Programme, University of the South Pacific, Department of Fisheries, Government of Fiji.

Planning, P. O. O, & Centre, U. P. (2008). Palau analysis of the 2006 household income and

expenditure survey: final report on the estimation of basic needs poverty lines, and the incidence and characteristics of poverty in Palau: Palau Office of Planning and Statistics.

Po, J. Y., Finlay, J. E., Brewster, M. B., & Canning, D. (2012). Estimating Household

Permanent Income from Ownership of Physical Assets (No. 9712). Program on the Global Demography of Aging.

Poehl, J., & Cunningham, B. (2011). Labour market engagement of mature-age workers.

Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 14(3), 237. Prasad, B. C. 2010. “Global Crisis, Domestic Crises and Crisis of Confidence: Which Way

Forward for Fiji?” Pacific Economic Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2010, pp 1-24.

Prasad, B. C. and Roy, K. C. (eds.), 2007. Development Problems and Prospects in Pacific Island Countries. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Prasad, B. C. and Roy, K. C. 2008. “Growth and Development in the Pacific Islands: An Overview of Issues.” In Development Economics Research Trends, (ed.). G. T. Roche New York: Nova Science Publishers, Pp. 165-172.

Ram, V. (1991). The seaweed industry in Fiji, with special reference to Eucheuma

(Rhodophyta). Univ. S. Pacific Marine Studies Programme Tech. Rept. 1991(2). Rusher, J., & Nelson, C. (2004). Alternative Measures of Household Income: BEA Personal

Income, CPS Money Income and Beyond.Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee Working paper.

72

Sharpe, A., Arsenault, J.-F. c., & Harrison, P. (2008). The relationship between labour

productivity and real wage growth in Canada and OECD countries,1961-2006: Center for the Study of Living Standards.

Simos, T. (2011). Caulerpa Value Chain Review 2011: Fiji & Samoa. Australia: University of

Adelaide. Socioeconomics. (2013). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved 25, 2013, from

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socioeconomics South, G. (1993). Edible seaweeds of Fiji: An ethnobotanical study. Botanica marina, 36(4),

335-350. South, G. R., Morris, C., Bala, S., & Lober, M. (2012). Value adding and supply chain

development for fisheries and aquaculture prioducts in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga: Scoping study for Calerpa (Sea grapes). Suva, Fiji.Istitute of Marine Science Tech Report.

South, R., Morris, C., Bala, S., Lober, M., & Simos, T. (2010). Supply chain and marketing of

sea grapes, Caulerpa racemosa (Forsskål) J. Agardh (Chlorophyta: Caulerpaceae) in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. Fiji.

Statistics, O. F. N. (2009). Living Costs and Food Survey, 2009 :Expenditure and Food Survey;

LCF; EFS. UK. Tanzania, C. S. O. (2007). Tanzania - Analytical Report for Integrated Labour Force Survey

2006. United Republic of Tanzania. Tourism, D.O. E. A. A. (2005). Policy for the allocation and management of commercial

harvesting rights in the seaweed sector. 477. Transform, A. C. (2001). Farming weed in the Sea. Retrieved 22, 2013: from

www.act.or.ke/?wpdmact=process&did=MS5ob3RsaW5r Valderrama, D. (2012). Social and Economic Dimensions of Seaweed Farming: A Global

Review. Corvallis. Zamhuri, M. Y. (2013). Human Resources, Social Capital and Income Structure : A

Comparative Study on Seaweed Farmers Household at Two Villages, Indonesia. Retrieved 11, 2014, from http://repo.lib.ryukoku.ac.jp/jspui/handle/10519/5041

73

APPENDICIES

7.1 Household Questionnaire

Seaweed collector # Sample

First name: Viema Last name: luti

Country: Fiji Village: Somosomo

Part time job Full time job

1. Educated Uneducated 2. Level of education

Primary Secondary Tertiary 3. How many people stay in this household?

4. How many family members are involved in harvesting of seaweeds?

5. Do you harvest the Caulerpa yourself? If not then who does it (kids, wife/ husband

etc)?

6. Age of every member involved in seaweed harvesting?

7. What other jobs apart from harvesting seaweed/ other source of income?

Job Job description ( other source of income)

8. How much time you actually spend to work ;

Job Time (number of hrs/days/moths) $ / week

74

9. How much time you actually spend on harvesting of seaweed (Caulerpa racemosa)?

Duration

Days (hours in a day)

Weeks (days in a week)

Months (weeks in a month)

Year (months in a year)

10. How often you harvest caulerpa racemosa ? Number of harvest

In a Day

In a week

In a month

In a year

11. How much of the Caulerpa racemosa is harvested?

Amount ( in kilogram)

In a day

In a week

In a month

In a year

12. What are the costs involved in harvesting and how much?

Cost Items/week

Qty Amount Value

Potato bags Boat fare to the reef

75

11. The income from selling nana? Place of sale:

Time or date of sale Quantity Price Total Value

12. How do you sell your nana to the market?

Agency Quantity Price Value

13. Do you have any loan for supporting you in harvesting of seaweed and help in other expenses? Source of loan Amount Rate of interest Payment

14. How long you been doing this kind of work?

Handling and Storage

1. How long can the Caulerpa racemosa last after the harvest? Duration of storage Amount stored Amount Spoilage Amount sold

76

2. What are the storage methods used to store the Caulerpa racemosa before sales to

maintain its quality and freshness? Methods 3. What are the storage materials, Cost? Storage materials Amount Price ($) Total

4. How long you use these storage materials? Storage materials Duration

Transport

1. How is the Caulerpa racemosa transported to the market for sales? Transportation Methods Cost

2. Do you sell your seaweed to some agency or you just sell it by yourself in the market? Agency By yourself

3. How do you negotiate with the agency?

77

Issue

7.2 Market Questionnaire

Name …………………………………………………

Country ……………………………………………...

Village ………………………………………………...

1. What amount of nama that you actually buy in every week?

Amount Spoilage Amount

Yasawa

Other places

1. Where do you actually sell nama ?

a.Market

b.Hotel

c.Restaurant

d.Agency

2. a. Selling of nama in the market?

Yourself

Other ……………….

2.a. Are you manage to sell all these nama in the market?(Week)

i.Yes Amount sold…………………….

ii.No Amount left………………………

2.a.i.How many days you manage to sell all these nama?

78

2.a. How many hours you actually spend in a day to sell nama in the market?

2.b. What approximate amount of nama you supply to the Hotel/ restaurant in a week?

Hotel…………………………….

Restaurant……………………

3. What are the Cost involve in marketing of nama?

Items Cost $

transportation

Market fees

3. What other sources of income?

Sources of income Hrs/days/week(time spend ) $/weekly

4. How many people stay in your house?

5. How many people help out in transporting and marketing of nama