Tropical Coasts Vol. 12 No. 2: Port Safety, Security, Health and Environment
Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
-
Upload
pemsea-partnerships-in-environmental-management-for-the-seas-of-east-asia -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
1/60
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
2/60
EditorialEditorial
Buy a man a ish and you will eed him or a dayteach a man to ish
and you will eed him or a lietime (Chinese Proverb).
Whoever irst coined this old adage would have second thoughts
about the wisdom o such a message today. The philosophy
probably made perect sense in a world where men were ew and
the oceans were abundant with ish; where you were ree to hunt
and plant your crops. But times are changing and this philosophy
o sel dependence and reedom to ish and harvest may not work
anymore. It has always been wise or men to exploit the land and
seas and be independent, but something has happened to change
all that.
The security o access to ood o communities, nations and the world
is jeopardized by the unmitigated and unprecedented degradation
o the environment. And the culprits are us our numbers are
increasing beyond the capacity o our planets ability to match our
consumption patterns, we overexploit our vast resources, oul our
air, and contaminate our water and sources o ood. Adding to these
problems is the impact o climate change, oil prices and growing
demands or alternative sources o energy, and the global economic
crisis, which are being elt today. Complex, interconnected and
cumulative, these issues have resulted in soaring prices in basic
commodities, which urther worsen the already existing problem
o insuicient ood access to poor populations in the world. There
are more than 840 million people in the world who are suering
rom chronic hunger. In the East Asian Seas (EAS) region alone, the
share o hungry population is at 28 percent people who do not
have access to suicient, sae, and nutritious ood or an active and
healthy lie. Most o these poor and hungry people are located in
the coastal areas o the region.
Rodrigo U. Fuentes, Executive Director o the ASEAN Center or
Biodiversity (ACB) expresses the concern emphatically (page 30, this
Issue) when he states, Ultimately, the loss o biodiversity is one o
the greatest threats that we ace. It is in the area o ood security,
perhaps more than any other, that biodiversitys value is most clear.
When we destroy biodiversity, we destroy our source o ood.
Public attention on the pressing problem o global ood security
has, in the past, mostly ocused on the role o agricultural ood
production. It is oten orgotten that the worlds oceans are one o
the largest ood reserves on the planet. The EAS region is home to
30 percent o the worlds coral rees and mangroves and considered
as the worlds center or tropical marine biodiversity. These serve asthe major resource or more than 1.5 billion people in the region o
whom live within 100 km rom the coastline. The region accounts or
about 40 percent o the world ish catch and 84 percent o the world
aquaculture production.
But these natural coastal and marine resources are under threat.
In the ASEAN region, or example, 80 percent o the coral rees are
at risk and i losses and destruction are not abated, the remaining
could disappear in the next 20 to 40 years. Similarly, 40 percent o
the mangroves in the world can be ound in Asia, but there are high
losses, about 60 percent, in diversity (D.J. Macintosh and M.M. Epps,
page 6). Losses in these habitats not only aect ecological diversity
and ood security (R. A. Inciong, page 4), but greatly endangers thelivelihood o ishers in the region. About 520 million people are
directly or indirectly dependent on the isheries and aquaculture
sector or employment, thats nearly eight percent o the world
population (see Back Cover, this Issue). Approximately 86 percent o
these people live in Asia.
This issue oTropical Coasts is a joint eort o PEMSEA and the ASEAN
Centre or Biodiversity. In this issue, we take a look at the linkages
between biodiversity and ood security, and some o the issues and
activities that are being pursued in the region and elsewhere.
Michael Kendall (Plymouth Marine Laboratory) explores areas o
research that require greater international cooperation to overcome
the threats posed to the ocean and its resources in a high carbon
dioxide world. While Jin Hwan Hwang (Dongguk University) calls
attention to the changing perspectives regarding climate change
adaptation measures or ood security, and the need to improve the
balance between ood productivity (direct impact) and ood supply
(virtual impact).
G. Robin South (International Ocean Institute - OceanLearn
Programme) shares the experience in the Paciic Islands Region
where IOI has been conducting modular training courses on the
management o isheries, using the FAO Code o Conduct or
Responsible Fisheries as a vehicle to review existing arrangements
and options or the management o oceanic and coastal isheries.
Donald J. Macintosh (Mangroves or the Future (MFF) Secretariat)
and Minna M. Epps (IUCN Asia Regional Oice) relate the eorts o
MFF to build knowledge, strengthen empowerment and enhance
governance to address the current and uture threats o natural
disasters, and to conserve and restore ecosystems. Natasja Sheri
(WorldFish Center), David C. Little (University o Stirling), and
Kwanta Tantikamton (Rajamangala Institute o Technology) outline
policy considerations regarding aquaculture and viable livelihood
alternatives or the poor, based on a research project conducted in
Southern Thailand.
Three on-the-ground examples o improved governance o coastal
and marine resources are also included in this issue. Darren Raeburn
and Katie Chalk (World Vision) relate the changes that have occurred
in Tabogan, Philippines, as a consequence o the development a
Coastal Resources Management Plan (CRMP), and the implementation
o a marine sanctuary. In Cavite, Philippines, Anabelle L. Cayabyab
and Evelyn M. Reyes (Provincial Government o Cavite) demonstrate
how ICM has strengthened the governance o marine and coastalresources and resulted in beneits to low-income, less privileged
isherolks and ish armers. Vitaya Khunplome (Provincial
Administrative Organization o Chonburi, Thailand) and Nisakorn
Wiwekwin (Sriracha Municipality, Chonburi Province) similarly explain
scaling up o ICM as a sustainable development strategy in Chonburi,
which is beginning to show results in terms o increased harvest o
crabs and other marine species, enhanced mangrove coverage and
restoration o seagrass beds.
In sum, this issue oTropical Coasts emphasizes that the teaching
a man to ish proverb is still relevant. What has changed over time
is the context o the philosophy, where the emphasis has shited
rom ishing to teaching, learning and living with the indisputableconnection between biodiversity and ood security.
Facing the Consequences
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
3/60
Contents
tropica
lcoast
s
www.pem
sea.org
Vol.15
No.2
December
2008
Contents
4306
17
04
12
Raphael P.M. LotillaExecutive Editor
S. Adrian RossEditor
Anna Rita CanoAssistant Editor
tropica
lcoast
s
www.pem
sea.org
The Partnerships in Environmental Management or the Seas o EastAsia (PEMSEA), Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Ofce or ProjectServices (UNOPS), publish Tropical Coasts Magazine biannually.
This issue on Food Security is co-published by the ASEAN Centreor Biodiversity. This publication is geared towards stimulating an
exchange o inormation and sharing o experiences and ideaswith respect to environmental protection and the management ocoastal and marine areas. Readers are strongly encouraged to send
their contributions to:
Executive EditorP.O. Box 2502,
Quezon City 1165,Metro Manila, Philippines
The contents o this publication do not necessarily reectthe views or policies o the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Ofce orProject Services (UNOPS), Partnerships in Environmental Managementor the Seas o East Asia (PEMSEA), ASEAN Centre or Biodiversity, and
other participating organizations, or the editors, nor are they an ofcialrecord. The designation employed and the presentation do not imply
the expression o opinion whatsoever on the part o GEF, UNDP, UNOPS,PEMSEA, and ACB concerning the legal status o any country, territoryor city or its authority, or concerning the delimitation o its territory or
boundaries.
ISSN 0117-9756
49
Jonel DulayRay Nonnato LeyesaDesign/Illustration/DTP
ContributorsAnabelle L. Cayabyab
Katie ChalkMinna EppsRodrigo U. Fuentes
Jin Hwan HwangRolando A. InciongMichael A. KendallVitaya KhunplomeDavid C. LittleDonald J. Macintosh
Darren RaeburnEvelyn M. ReyesNatasja Sheriff
34 52
38
06Mangroves in achanging climate
ICM at Work:
Harnessing
local initiative
to achieve food
security
24Utilizing ICM to address foodsecurity and improve livelihood ofcommunities in Chonburi
Fisheries
governance and
training in the
Pacific Islands
Region
Tropical coastal ecosystems in
a high carbon dioxide world; can
we predict the future?
Biodiversity and
Food Security:
Understanding the
threat
Aquaculture and
the poor: Culturing
high-value fish
can be a viable
livelihood option
Agreement on the
Establishment of
the ASEAN Centre
for Biodiversity
Half the water,
double the fish;
the sanctuary that
brought security
From Production to
Supply: Changing
perspectives in the
adaptation system
for food security
30 Special feature:Biodiversity Loss The forgotten
crisis
Cover photo by:Raniel Jose CastaedaPhilippinesPhoto Location: Noveleta,Cavite
G. Robin SouthKwanta TantikamtonNisakorn Wiwekwin
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
4/60
4 December 2008
Biodiversity and food security:understanding the threat
By Rolando A. Inciong, Head Public Affairs, ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity
There is a growing evidence o the
narrowing biological diversity base or
ood production rom land and marine
sources in Southeast Asia and in other
parts o the world.
The Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) reported that the pressure to
produce ood to meet the worlds
increasing demand has intensied
over the past 100 years. As a result, the
natural unctions o ecosystems and
the variability o genes, species, and
populations is now severely aected.
Over the millennium, humans have
relied on over 10,000 various plants
species or ood. Now, there are barely
150 species under cultivation. Even
livestock diversity, according to FAO,is likewise signicantly under threat.
The rst global assessment o livestock
biodiversity indicated that 643 breeds
are at risk o extinction, 45 o which are
in Asia.
Deorestation, habitat destruction,
overshing and destructive shing
practices, coral rees degradation,
large-scale mining, poverty traps,inappropriate agricultural policies,
industrialization, and pollution are the
culprits that cause massive biodiversity
loss. Biodiversity loss is also caused
by emerging inuences, including
liberalization and globalization o
production, urbanization, invasive
alien species, climate change, and
shiting consumption patterns. All these
contribute to the reduction o ood
sources.
The Association o Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) region has one-third or
284,000 km2 o all coral rees, which are
among the most diverse in the world.
But 80 percent o the regions coral rees
are at risk. Sedimentation and pollution
rom upland and coastal developments
threaten coral rees. Destructive shing
methods destroy marine ecosystems
resulting in diminishing breedinggrounds or sh and other aquatic lie.
The prolieration o marine protected
areas (MPAs) in the region shows a
growing consciousness on the need to
deal with the increasing threats leading
to the degradation o the coastal and
marine resources o Southeast Asia and
to ood security. A marine protected
area is any area o inter-tidal or sub-tidal
terrain, together with its overlying waters
and associated ora, auna, historicaland cultural eatures, which has been
reserved by legislation to protect part or
all enclosed environments (IUCN, 1988).
ves oc v i ,accor ng o ,is likewise signicantly under threat.
e rst g o ss ssm st k
o t r
The Association oSoutheast Asian
A -
r , e
an ssoc a e ora, auna, s or caand cultural eatures, which has been
le o e a
n n , 9 8 ..
Photo by Leslie Jose
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
5/60
5Tropical Coasts
In 2002, UP-MSI, et al., conducted a
review o the marine protected areas o
Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Myanmar, Singapore, the Philippines,
Thailand, and Vietnam ocusing on the
sub-tidal areas and inter-tidal areas
essential or marine species, such as
coral rees and turtle nesting beaches.
Results indicated that environmental
degradation is causing the most
impacts on the marine environment
and MPAs in almost all countries. The
array and intensity o threats vary
rom site to site. For example, sites
in Peninsular Malaysia suer much
more rom development than those in
Sabah where coral mining is a bigger
problem. The amount, completeness
and accuracy o the data on MPAs vary
among countries, depending on the
amount o research and government
interest in the subject. Protected area
data held by dierent Southeast Asian
government agencies are not always
consistent. Some o the MPAs lack
inormation on their exact location and
most do not have a dened boundary
or size, making quantitative coverage
comparisons impossible.
During the 2nd ASEAN Heritage Parks
Conerence in Sabah, Malaysia, Dr. Chou
Loke Ming o the National University
o Singapore reported that out o the
total number o MPAs in the region, only
10 percent are eectively managed;
88 percent o the coral rees are under
threat, the regions MPAs cover only
eight percent o its rees; and only one
percent within MPAs are eectively
managed. The identied gaps include
management eectiveness including
transboundary management; eective
management network; prioritization
and identication o sites o global/
regional signicance to preserve
biodiversity; and coordination,
including inormation resources sharing,
and capacity building.
The ASEAN Centre or Biodiversity (ACB)
is working to address these gaps, and
in particular to increase the number o
marine protected areas and to ensure
that they are designed and located in
the best places to conserve biodiversity
and ensure ood security.
ACB is an intergovernmental regional
centre o excellence that acilitates
cooperation among the members o
ASEAN, and with relevant national
governments, regional and international
organizations on the conservation and
sustainable use o biological diversity,
and the air and equitable sharing o
benets arising rom the use o such
biodiversity.
On 4-7 November 2008, ACB convened
in Bali, Indonesia, an experts meeting
on marine gap analysis or the
Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and
Vietnam. The meeting served as initial
step or ASEAN Member States to
enhance understanding and agree
on the process o marine protected
area gap analysis. Experts identied
representation, ecological and
management gaps o marine protected
areas, and established regional and
national action points or marine
protected area gap analyses. These are
very important in conserving coastal
and marine biodiversity which could
contribute to ood security (Fuentes,
2008).
Todays challenge is how to increase
agricultural and sheries yield while
conserving biodiversity ecosystems.
We have a menu o available options
or sustainable ood production which
involves mixed arming systems,
integrated pest management, crop
rotation, organic agriculture, recycling
o crop and animal wastes, regulated
shing, and other mechanisms.
However, it should be pointed out that
there is a very limited adoption rate o
these options. The international regime
is unable to touch the heart o the
issues. The heart o the issues is within
us. We have to examine our way o
consuming resources, and know that in
our little ways, we can do a lot to curb
biodiversity and ood insecurity.
There is a need to develop and expand
the knowledge base rom the scientic
arena, and all practical means o using
biodiversity resources. We also have to
recognize the importance o building
alliances to address the issue o ood
security.
Understanding the threat is good, but
not good enough. I we acknowledge
that biodiversity loss in both land and
marine resources has implications
on ood security, and recognize that
everyone is entitled to access to ood, as
philosopher Onora ONeill has said, let
us start to dene who will do what, or
whom and when.
Reerences
Fuentes, R. U. 2009. Seminar on Biodiversity
and Food Security: Are we really
understanding the threat?, held in Los
Baos, Laguna, Philippines. Southeast
Asian Regional Center or Graduate Study
and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) -
Agriculture and Development Seminar
Series (ADSS) and ASEAN Center or
Biodiversity. www.aseanbiodiversity.org
Fuentes, R. U. 2008. Experts Meeting on
Marine Gap Analysis or the Philippines,
Malaysia, Indonesia, and Viet Nam,
held on 4-7 November 2008, Bali,
Indonesia. ASEAN Centre or Biodiversity
(ACB), Indonesias Ministry o Forestry,
Conservation International, and Haribon
Foundation. www.aseanbiodiversity.org.
International Union or Conservation o
Nature (IUCN). 1988. 1988 IUCN Red List
o Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.: 154 pp.
UP-MSI, ABC, ARCBC, DENR and ASEAN. 2002.Marine Protected Areas in Southeast
Asia. University o the Philippines-Marine
Science Institute (UP-MSI), Asian Bureau
or Conservation (ABC), ASEAN Regional
Centre or Biodiversity Conservation
(ARCBC), Department o Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR),
Association o Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN). ASEAN Regional Centre or
Biodiversity Conservation, Department o
Environment and Natural Resources, Los
Baos, Philippines, 142 pp., 10 maps.
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
6/60
6 December 2008
INTRODUCTION
Coastal areas have been centers o
human settlement and economic
activities or thousands o years
due to their easy accessibility rom
the sea, their remarkable biological
productivity, and the wide array o
goods and services that they provide.Today, many o the worlds largest
cities occupy coastal locations; ports,
shipping and other major industries
are also concentrated here; while
beaches, coral rees and islands have
become a magnet or tourism. Coastal
ecosystems are also our best allies in
the ace o climate change.
Coastal ecosystems, especially
mangrove orests, act as buers against
extreme weather conditions and
natural disasters, thereby reducing the
vulnerability o coastal communities
and investments. The important role
o healthy mangrove orests gained
recognition ater the December 2004
Tsunami where areas with extensive
mangrove coverage suered less
damage compared to areas which had
been cleared or other orms o land
use. Despite the global awakening to
the importance o mangroves and their
interdependence with other coastal
ecosystems such as coral rees and
seagrasses, many coastal areas and
resources remain under severe pressure.
High population growth, compounded
by migration into coastal areas,
overshing, habitat conversion and
poor development planning, have led
to increasing pressure on the remaining
resources and the vital ecosystem
processes that sustain them.
Mangroves are one o the most
productive ecosystems worldwide,
which millions o people in the Indian
Ocean still depend upon. In addition
to timber, mangroves provide a wide
range o goods and services, and
even cultural attributes. These include
valuable shery and aquaculture
resources, wildlie, medicines, gums,
tannins, honey and ruits (Saenger,
2002). Mangroves also protect
shorelines rom erosion and ooding,
and provide storm protection; they are
also efcient in carbon sequestration
and nutrient retention. Thus, mangroves
are oten seen as the backbone o
tropical ocean coastlines, yet many
Mangroves in a changingclimate
By Donald J. Macintosh, Coordinator, Mangroves for the Future (MFF) Secretariat
Minna M. Epps, Regional Communications Officer, IUCN Asia Regional Office
Mangroves at Ranong, Thailand. Mangroves protect against erosion, storms and sea level rise.
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
7/60
7Tropical Coasts
mangrove ecosystems are under
severe threat because o climate
and human-induced changes, the
latter being mainly attributable
to increasing population, coastal
inrastructure development
and rising demand or shery
products.
There are more than 70 mangrove
and associate species in the
world. Approximately 40 percent
o all mangroves occur in Asia
(and Australia) (Spalding, et. al,
1997). Thousands o hectares
o mangrove orests have been
cleared or shrimp arming
and other orms o coastal
development across the region.
In several Asian countries
mangrove loss has exceeded 60
percent, on average, in recent
decades (Macintosh and Ashton,
2002), while the total area has
decreased to less than 15 million
ha worldwide rom an estimated
32 million ha originally. Globally,
mangroves provide more than 10
percent o the essential dissolved
organic carbon that is supplied
to the ocean rom land (Dittmar,
et. al., 2006), yet less than one
percent o the worlds mangroves
are adequately protected.
Seagrasses, which provide
indispensable nursery grounds
or many sh species and eeding
habitats or turtles and dugongs, have
also declined at an alarming rate and
even disappeared in some parts o the
Indian Ocean. A Rees at Risk study in
2002 ound that 88 percent o coral
rees in Southeast Asia aced medium
to high threats rom human impacts
(Wilkinson, 2002). Climate change is
a actor that urther threatens these
ragile ecosystems and is exacerbating
the existing environmental problems
caused by human impacts. Rising sea
temperature is considered to be the
largest threat to coral rees today.
According to the CORDIO 2008 Status
Report released by the Global Coral Ree
Monitoring Network, 19 percent o the
worlds coral rees have already been
lost and the remaining may disappear
within 20-40 years i current trends in
carbon dioxide emissions continue
(Obura, et al., 2008). However, coastal
ecosystems would have a better chance
o survival i other stress actors related
to human activity were minimized.
Climate Change Efects on Coastal
Communities
The eects o climate change, as
maniested by sea level and sea
temperature rise, greater climatic
variability, increased requency and
magnitude o tropical storms
and other extreme events will
have negative impacts on both
ecosystems (coral bleaching,
saltwater intrusion, ooding,
erosion) and human well-being
(loss and/or reduced productivity
o goods and services provided by
ecosystems). Reduced protective
and regulatory services o coastal
ecosystems will leave coastal
communities more vulnerable
to climate-related disasters.
Further loss, or degradation, o
mangroves will urther jeopardize
the livelihoods and ood
security o marginalized coastal
communities with already limited
resilience or adaptive capacity.
Low-lying coastal areas, such
as the Mekong Delta region o
Vietnam, have already suered
rom more requent and severe
climatic extremes between
ood and drought conditions,
with serious consequences or
agriculture, aquaculture and
even salt production. Climate
change impacts are already being
witnessed across the region.
The Role o Mangroves in
Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation
Mangroves are natures rst
line o deence against climate
change along the land-sea margin o
many o the worlds most populated
countries, where people now exist at
very high densities within low-lying
and vulnerable coastal zones (e.g.,
Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and
Vietnam). Mangroves produce a vast
array o goods and services, which
millions o already marginalized
communities depend. These goods
and services provide not only economic
benets, but also ood security and
other environmental support. More
specically in relation to climate
change, mangroves: (a) eliminate or
reduce coastal soil erosion by trapping
Top to Bottom: Mudskipper caught in the mangroves o the Mekong Delta; whiteshrimp harvested by cast net rom mangrove channels in Java; mud crab seed arecaught in mangroves throughout Asia or rearing in aquaculture ponds.
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
8/60
8 December 2008
sediments, thereby promoting land
conservation as a vital contribution
against sea level rise; and (b) hold back
the sea and reduce wave orces with
their extensive and dense above ground
roots by an estimated 70-90 percent
on average, or by 20 percent per 100
m in the case o mangrove green belts
in Vietnam, which were planted or
coastal protection purposes (Mazda et
al., 1997). Mangrove orests moderate
climate extremes by providing shade
and increased air-humidity, while also
reducing wind velocity and soil water
evaporation. Mangrove ecosystems
nurture coastal sh and shellsh stocks
by providing rich eeding and nursery
grounds, thereby contributing to the
livelihood and ood security o millions
o coastal dwellers around the region.
An early shery-coastal habitat study
in Indonesia, or example, revealed a
direct correlation between the area o
mangroves adjacent to coastal shing
grounds and the yield o shrimp caught
by shers (Martosubroto and Naamin,
1977).
Even today, shrimp and other
mangrove-dependent species, such
as mudskippers (Pseudapocryptes)
and mud crabs (Scylla) support the
subsistence needs o millions o poor
aquatic collectors, who include some
o the most vulnerable people in Asia.
Moreover, many o these mangrove
products are sold to pond owners, who
rear them commercially as part o the
very important coastal aquaculture
industry ourishing throughout the
region. Thus, mangroves are not only
a vital rst line o deence against sea
level rise and storms, they are also
undamental to ood security and to
sustaining livelihoods.
Mangroves and the global carbon
cycle
Mangroves are proving to play a
vital role in the global carbon cycle.
Despite covering less than 0.1
percent o the global land surace,
they nonetheless account or 10
percent o the dissolved organic
carbon (DOC) that ows rom land
to the ocean (Dittmar, et al., 2006).
Researchers at the Florida State
University have noted that the
organic matter that is dissolved
in the world oceans contains a
similar amount o carbon as that
stored in the skies as atmospheric
carbon dioxide (Dittmar, et al.,
2006). Dissolved organic matter
is an important player in the
global carbon cycle that regulates
atmospheric carbon dioxide and
climate.
There is also growing awareness,
backed by scientic studies,
showing the value o mangroves
or carbon sequestration. Their
aboveground biomass can
contribute 100-200 tonnes C per
hectare, with annual productivity in
the range 9-12 t C/ha (Ong, 1993). The
belowground accumulation o carbon
by the root systems o mangroves is
harder to estimate, but could approach
700 t C/m depth o soil/peat per
hectare, with an estimated rate o
carbon sequestration o 1.5 t C/ha/year
(Ong, 1993).
Mangrove oliage production results
in an annual rate o lea litter all in
the order o one to several tonnes per
hectare, much o which leaches into
coastal seas, or becomes converted
into particulate detritus as a key ood
source or sh, shrimp and other aquatic
consumers that make up mangrove-
dependent coastal ood webs. However,
lea-burying (by crabs), other orms o
litter build up, and soil surace carbon
accumulation can be signicant under
certain local conditions, especially
where tidal water ows are impeded.
Moreover, as mangrove orests
have declined in extent, or become
increasingly isolated rom the sea by
dyke and canal-building, ever smaller
quantities o mangrove-derived detritus
have become available or the ormation
and export o organic matter oshore.
Researchers speculate that the rapid
decline in mangrove cover threatens the
delicate ecological balance in coastal
waters and may eventually shut o
the important link between land and
ocean along previously mangrove-
dominated coastlines, with potentially
adverse consequences on atmospheric
composition and climate stability.
One area o particular concern is that
climate change may lead to more
requent and severe storm events,
especially in cyclone (= typhoon/
hurricane) prone areas o the tropics.
Severe storms have the potential to
cause signicant mangrove damage and
even mass tree mortality which, coupled
with sediment removal and related
hydrological changes, could threaten
the ability o mangroves to recover
(Gilman, et al., 2008). In Honduras,A subsistence sher in the Mekong Delta .
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
9/60
9Tropical Coasts
or example, mass mortality o
mangroves caused by Hurricane
Mitch also led to the collapse o
the peat soil layer, which in turn
reduced the mangroves rate o
recovery (Cahoon, et al., 2003).
Coping with ClimateChange
Mangrove Clearance and Sea
level rise The case o Demak,
Central Java, Indonesia
The Demak District o Central
Java illustrates the damaging
consequences o mangrove
clearance in relation to sea level
rise. The north coast o central
Java used to eature extensive
mangrove orests until rapid
land use changes resulted in the
mangroves being cleared or
shrimp arming (tambak) in the
1970s. With little or no mangroves
to sustain the topography and
productivity o this coastline, a
combination o land subsidence and
sea level rise has resulted in an average
increase o 50 cm in mean sea level over
the past 12 years. Villages that used to
be several kilometers rom the sea are
now ooded at high tide and many o
the tambak can no longer be operated
because the pond dykes are too low
to prevent tidal inundation (see aerial
photograph).
The local government has responded
to this rapid environmental change by
relocating more than 200 households.
However, most amilies in the area
did not want to relocate since their
main livelihoods are based on tambak
sh and shrimp arming, or shing. A
relocation programme would have to
be coupled with training and other
support to help generate alternative
income-generating opportunities. Stilt
houses have also been built as part o
a government initiative in the worst-
aected areas as a means o adapting to
a changing environment. This appears
to be an adaptation response welcomed
by the local communities, as they
are able to continue their traditional
tambak and shery livelihoods.
The tambak owners also need nancialand technical assistance to enable them
to raise the height o the pond dykes
and to introduce new technologies
to arm alternative and higher value
species. The communities are well
aware o the need to replant mangroves,
but eel that they lack the technical
skills to select the most suitable
species and locations or mangrove
rehabilitation. The tambak operators
have noticed that dierent species o
sh and shrimp now enter the canalsand the tambak, such as white shrimp
(Penaeus indicus), which they attribute
to the rising sea level. There is an
overall consensus that their livelihoods
rom shing and aquaculture are much
poorer and less secure than beore. The
drastic decline in tambak production
has resulted in a shit rom arming to
capture sheries due to the lack o other
employment opportunities, which is
urther increasing pressure on coastal
resources.
Climate change mitigation
The case o Vietnam
Vietnam is a low-lying country and
one o the countries most at risk rom
climate change, especially sea level
rise. Following a massive typhoon
in November 1997 (Typhoon Linda),
amilies living in the mangrove areas
in the lower Mekong Delta were
evacuated and with Government and
international support, a 500-km long
protection belt o mangroves was
re-established. People were resettled
in better houses behind the saety oa sea dyke along the back o the new
mangrove protection zone. They were
given small plots o land and helped to
learn how to develop their livelihoods
based on arming and aquaculture.
The mangroves also helped to enrich
the coastal sheries where shrimp,
crab and sh culture are thriving today.
Still there are many risks rom climate
change due to the extremely low
Tambak (shrimp arms) submerged in seawater in Demak District, Central Java.
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
10/60
10 December 2008
land level in the delta and the huge
population it supports. The climate is
becoming more extreme with several
severe droughts in recent years,
creating water shortages and extreme
salinities that threaten agricultural
and aquacultural production. In
response, the Government o Vietnam
is carrying out large-scale mangrove
rehabilitation, sea-dyke upgrading and
other investments or climate change
mitigation. Mangroves or the Future
(MFF) is helping to promote positive
examples like Vietnam to show the
world why investing in mangroves
and other coastal ecosystems is so
important and cost-eective, and how
community groups and governments
can take action to prevent urther
losses.
Mangroves or the Future (MFF)
MFF is a regional multi-partner initiative
to promote investment in coastal
ecosystems. MFF is partnership-based,
people-ocused and policy-relevant,
and climate change is o direct
relevance. The MFF programmes o
work reect this through its adoption
o climate change considerations as
a cross-cutting programme o work.
MFF is also adopting a new approach
by moving rom a reactive response to
a more proactive one. The aim is to
address long-term sustainable coastal
management needs and develop
community resilience, including
building awareness and capacity or
improved ood and livelihood security,
and to ensure that environmental
considerations are included in disaster
preparedness and climate change
adaptation responses.
Methods or integrating climate
change considerations into all MFF
activities have been developed based
on existing climate proong tools.
MFF also conducts regional and in-
country training courses on the use
o practical climate proong tools
and methods applicable to the eld/
project level. Incorporating climate
change adaptation considerations and
enhancing adaptive capacity o coastal
communities is crucial to ensure the
long-term sustainability o coastal
development projects.
In recognition o the importance
o mangroves and other coastal
ecosystems, MFF is encouraging the
countries around the Indian Ocean
region to increase their investment
in these vital coastal ecosystems and
to share knowledge and experiences
about the best ways to cope with
climate change along their vast
coastlines. A recent Scientic and
Technical Symposium on Sustainable
Mangrove Ecosystem Management
was held in Ranong, Thailand ,
which brought together close to 200
mangrove experts/scientists and local
community representatives engaged in
mangrove management. The aim was
not only to illustrate the value o local
and traditional knowledge and how it
can help shape sustainable mangrove
orests, but also to share experiences
and lessons learned in post-tsunami
mangrove reconstruction eorts across
the region, as well as approaches
or understanding and embedding
stakeholder interests more eectively
in uture mangrove rehabilitation
initiatives.
Mangroves or the Future Initiative (MFF)
MFF builds on a history o coastal management interventions beore and ater the 2004
tsunami, especially the call to continue the momentum and partnerships generated by
the immediate post-tsunami response. It ocuses on the countries worst-aected by the
tsunami with projects in India, Indonesia, Maldives, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.
MFF also includes other countries o the region that ace similar issues, with an overall
aim to promote an integrated ocean wide approach to coastal zone management.
Its long-term management strategy is based on identied needs and priorities that
emerged rom extensive consultations with over 200 individuals and 160 institutions
involved in coastal management in the region.
The initiative uses mangroves as a agship ecosystem in recognition o the important
role mangroves played in reducing the damage caused by the tsunami, and the
implications on livelihoods because o mangrove orest destruction. But MFF is inclusive
o all coastal ecosystems, including coral rees, estuaries, lagoons, sandy beaches,
seagrasses and wetlands.
MFF is based on a vision o a healthier, more prosperous and secure uture or all
sections o coastal populations in Indian Ocean countries. It is a unique partnership-
led initiative working in our key areas o inuence: regional cooperation, national
programme support, private sector engagement and community action.
MFF undertakes collective actions to build knowledge, strengthen empowerment, and
enhance governance through 15 broad programmes o work to address the current and
uture threats, and to conserve and restore coastal ecosystems. These are implemented
through a series o on-the- ground projects, through small and large grant modalities.
MFF seeks more eective and inclusive institutions, policies and mechanisms
or cooperation at national and regional levels by prioritizing coastal ecosystem
management across national development agendas, policies and budgets.
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
11/60
1Tropical Coasts
Mangroves in the uture
MFF and its partners are seeking to
develop and test climate proong tools
at project sites in the region. It will
urther identiy mechanisms or REDD
(Reducing Emissions rom Deorestation
and Ecosystem Degradation), based on
an ecosystem approach that enhances
natural sequestration and storage o
carbon in existing mangrove orests and
restored degraded mangroves areas.
The eectiveness o REDD activities will
ultimately depend on the success o its
contribution to the development needs
o communities that rely on mangrove
products. Considering the large number
o people in coastal areas that climate
change impacts could displace, MFF
would seek to conduct activities
to: mobilize local communities and
governments to undertake joint actions
or sustainable coastal management;
ensure ood security through sound
ecosystem management; build
knowledge to better understand the
links between livelihoods and climate
systems; and increase adaptive capacity
to meet the long-term development
needs o coastal communities, while
securing their livelihoods against
climate change impacts and helping
coastal communities prepare or
potential climate-related disasters.
Reerences:
Cahoon, D.R., P.R. Hensel, K.L. Rybczyk, E.E.
McKee Proitt and B.C. Perez. 2003.
Mass tree mortality leads to mangrove
peat collapse at Bay Islands, Honduras
ater Hurricane Mitch. Journal o
Ecology, 1:1093-1105.
Dittmar, T., N. Hertkorn, G. Kattner, and
R. J. Lara. 2006. Mangroves, a majorsource o dissolved organic carbon
to the oceans. Global Biogeochem.
Cycles, Vol. 20, No. 1, GB101210, doi:
10.1029/2005GB002570, 2006.
Gilman, E.L., J. Ellison, N. Duke and C.
Field. 2008. Threats to mangroves
rom climate change and adaptation
options. Aquatic Botany.
Gilman, E., H. Van Lavieren, J. Ellison,
V. Jungblut, L. Wilson, F. Areki, G.
Brighouse, J. Bungitak, E. Dus, M. Henry,
I. Sauni Jr., M. Kilman, E. Matthews, N.
Teariki-Ruatu, S. Tukia, K. Yuknavage.
2006. Paciic Island Mangroves in a
Changing Climate and Rising Sea. UNEP
Regional Seas Reports and Studies
No. 179. United Nations Environment
Programme, Regional Seas Programme,Nairobi, Kenya.
Macintosh, D.J. and E.C. Ashton. 2002.
A Review o Mangrove Biodiversity
Conservation and Management. Centre
or Tropical Ecosystems Research,
University o Aarhus, Denmark. 134pp.
Martosubroto, P. and N. Naamin. 1997.
Relationship between tidal orests
(mangroves) and commercial shrimp
production in Indonesia. Marine
Research in Indonesia, No 18: 81-86.
Mazda, Y., M. Magi, M. Kogo, and P.N.
Hong. 1997. Mangroves as a coastal
protection rom waves in the Tong King
Delta, Vietnam. Mangroves and Salt
Marshes, 1:127-135.
Obura, D.O., J. Tamelander, and O. Linden
(eds.). 2008. Ten years ater bleaching-
acing the consequences o climate
change in the Indian Ocean. CORDIO
Status Report 2008. CORDIO (Coastal
Oceans Research and Development
in the Indian Ocean)/ Sida-SAREC.
Mombasa. www.cordioea.org. 489pp.
Global Coral Ree Monitoring Network.
Ong, J. E. 1993. Mangroves a carbon
source or sink. Chemosphere 27: 1097-
1107.
Saenger, P. 2002. Mangrove Ecology,
Silviculture and Conservation. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
Netherlands. 360pp.
Souter, D. and O. Linden (eds.). 2005.
Coral Ree Degradation in the
Indian Ocean: Status Report 2005.
CORDIO, Department o Biology andEnvironmental Science, University o
Kalmar, Sweden. 285pp.
Spalding, M. D., F. Blasco and C.D. Field
(eds). 1997. World Mangrove Atlas.
ISME, Okinawa, Japan. 178pp.
Wilkinson C. (ed.). 2002. Status o Coral
Rees o the World: 2002. Australian
Institute o Marine Science, Townsville,
Australia. 378pp.A mangrove protection zone, or green belt now extends around the
Lower Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
12/60
12 December 2008
Introduction
When the role o aquaculture in
ood production is considered in
combination with the importance
o sh in the diets o many o the
worlds poorest nations, it is clearly
central to meeting the Millennium
Development Goal o halving poverty
and hunger by 2015. In addition
to providing ood, the benets o
aquaculture in terms o employment
and income are widely cited. However,
the ability o the poorest to engage in
aquaculture or derive benets rom it
may be questioned. The poor are oten
excluded rom aquaculture by the lack
o land or access to nancing, water or
seed sh.
Extensive sh culture systems are
generally credited with poverty
mitigation. As extensive systems
require ew inputs and produce
cheap sh or the household to
consume or sell in local markets,
they are considered suitable or
poor households. In contrast, rearing
high-value marine sh in cages is an
intensive orm o aquaculture that
produces sh or export and is seen
as an unlikely option or the poor.
However, data rom a case study o
grouper aquaculture in southern
Thailand show that, under certain
conditions, culturing high-value
sh has the potential to generate
substantial benets or poor
households.
Background
Thailands maritime provinces have
cultured grouper and other high-
value marine nsh or three decades,
driven by the live ree sh trade (LRFT).
Keeping sh alive until minutes beore
cooking them has been popular or
centuries in Chinese communities,
with live sh locally supplied until
recently. A preerred species was
red grouper (Epinephalus akaara)
until overshing o adults and later
ngerlings or culture in Hong Kong
waters severely depleted local stocks.
The international LRFT began in the
1960s to supply sh markets in Hong
Kong, and it has expanded rapidly
since the early 1990s. Thailand has
become an important contributor to
the LRFT, with most green grouper
(E. coioides) sourced rom Thai
mariculture. In 1997, over hal o
Hong Kongs imports oE. bleekeri
and E. aerolatus were also rom Thai
mariculture (Lau and Parry-Jones,
1999).
The development and expansion
o the LRFT has raised concerns
Aquaculture and the poor:Culturing high-value fish
can be a viablelivelihood option
By Natasja Sheriff, WorldFish Center, Malaysia
David C. Little, Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK
Kwanta Tantikamton, Faculty of Science and Fisheries Technology, Rajamangala Institute of Technology, Thailand
regarding impacts on ree sheries
and the broader coastal environment.
O particular concern are destructive
shing practices, including the use o
cyanide and explosives. In response
to these concerns, culturing grouper
has been promoted as an alternative
livelihood option or coastal shers
(Haylor, et al., 2003; and Pomeroy, et
al., 2006). However, little is known
about the socioeconomic context o
aquaculture in coastal communities
or the potential o grouper culture as
an alternative livelihood option. This
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
13/60
1Tropical Coasts
paper presents the ndings o a study
that addressed these questions.
Grouper aquaculture
Cultured grouper are sh o the amily
Serranidae, subamily Epinephilae,
variously called grouper, coral trout,
rock cod and gag. Widely distributed
as 159 species in the tropics and
subtropics (Heemstra and Randall,
1993), grouper is economically
valuable in sport and artisanal sheries
throughout their distribution (Seng,
1998). Grouper culture is largely
conned to Asia. In Thailand, production
is dominated by small-scale producers,
but there is interest in developing
larger, oshore systems (Kongkeo and
Phillips, 2002). Culture is predominantly
in cages and, to a lesser extent, in ponds
and net pens. As hatchery production o
grouper ry is sporadic, with survival o
grouper juveniles to 2.2 cm at less than
ve percent (Marte, 2003), most grouper
armers depend on seed sh rom the
wild, either caught by the armer or
purchased rom a sher or sh trader.
Study methodology
A study carried out in three phases
in southern Thailand over 15 months
between March 2000 and October
2001 had as its principal objective:
understanding grouper culture in the
livelihood strategies o coastal shers
and its potential as an alternative
option or coastal shers engaged in
destructive practices. An initial survey
was carried out in six provinces o
southern Thailand, rom which two
provinces, Trang and Satun, were
selected or more detailed analysis,ollowed by case studies in three
communities.
The ndings presented here ocus on
the extent to which poor households
are able to benet rom culturing
high-value sh like grouper and the
necessary conditions or success.
Wealth ranking within communities
generated an understanding o how
members dened wealth and allowed
individual households to be assignedto a wealth category. Key inormants
in each o the three case study villages
dened household wealth similarly,
with a key criterion being types o
income-generating activities, as these
determined households ability to save
money or build up assets. Households
engaged in sh trade or who owned a
rubber plantation, or example, were
considered wealthy, as these activities
required large investments. Fishing
did not necessarily dene the poorest
households, but the types o shing
in which a household was engaged
and the gear used were indicative o
household wealth. Small-scale shing
was generally an activity undertaken
by middle-to-lower wealth groups.
Results
Grouper culture An activity or a
wealthy minority?
Initial surveys indicated that
grouper culture was primarily in
the hands o wealthier members o
rural communities. The high initial
investment cost, estimated at 20,000
Thai baht (US$460) or two cages,
was reported as a principal constraint
to uptake. Once grouper arms are
established, maintaining production
depended on the availability o
seed sh. Although purchasing seedwas beyond the means o most
households, the second phase o the
study ound that poor households
need not be excluded rom grouper
culture (Sheri, 2004 and Sheri, et al.,
2008). Research carried out in Trang
and Satun provinces revealed that
the uptake o grouper culture varied
greatly among communities. The
number o households practicing cage
culture o grouper or other high-valueLittle grouper (E. coioides).
Fish cages
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
14/60
14 December 2008
species such as seabass or red snapper
averaged 12.5 percent in the 27 villages
surveyed. The adoption o sh culture
and specically o grouper culture
was not conned to any wealth
category but occurred in the livelihood
portolios o all wealth groups and was
equally prevalent among the wealthiest
and poorest households (Figure 1). How
was it possible or poorer households to
establish and maintain grouper culture?
Institutional dimensions and access
to nance
Lack o nancing was among
the most requently reported
constraints to the uptake
o grouper aquaculture
throughout southern Thailand.
Yet the residents o one village
in Satun Province, where a
remarkable 69 percent o
households cultured grouper,
were able to overcome this
constraint regardless o wealth
group. This can be largely
attributed to the involvement
o external organizations,
particularly the Department o
Fisheries (DOF), which helped
shers in coastal villages to
adopt sh culture or other
alternative activities, principally
to curtail the use o destructive
shing gears. Selected villages
were given materials sufcient to allow
20 to 30 amilies to construct two
cages. Extension ofcers rom DOF then
showed the new armers how to build
cages, nurse seed sh, grade sh and
recognize disease.
By providing all the materials necessary
or cage construction, the project
allowed poor households to overcome
this biggest hurdle to entry. DOF
provided seabass ngerlings, but many
armers subsequently stocked grouper
ngerlings rom their own sh catch.
It is signicant that DOF did not
provide money or burden households
with a debt they might be unable
to repay. Successul armers repaid
into a village und 50 percent o the
value o the materials and seed they
received, with payments spread over
two years. I a armer experienced
problems, repayment was rescheduled
without penalty. The unds were used
to nance other villagers entry into
aquaculture. The scheme has clearly
been successul, as the number o
households in the village involved in
grouper culture rose rom an initial 40
households in 1996 to 60 in 2000.
Livelihood synergy and capital
substitution
Important links were ound to exist
between activities in the livelihood
portolios o shers that enabled poor
households to maintain and develop
their culture systems. This synergy
was particularly pronounced between
shing and aquaculture. Ranking
and preerence matrices completed
by ocus groups in the case study
communities revealed that dierent
livelihood activities contributed in
a variety o ways. Villagers ranked
activities by importance according
to participant-dened criteria, which
included the activities: (1) importance
as a source o income; (2) contribution
to household ability to save money;
(3) degree o nancial or personal
risk; (4) level o investment required;
(5) importance in relation to other
activities; (6) required physical capital
and its liespan; and (7) length o time
beore the investment was recouped.
The matrices constructed in showed
that sh culture and shing were
closely related. Villagers reported being
willing to undertake a relatively risky
method o shing because it provided
trash sh with which to
eed cultured sh, reducing
or eliminating the need
to buy eed. The extent to
which households were
prepared to take risks to
supply eed or grouper
culture clearly indicated the
importance they attached
to it. Similarly, shers
ability to source seed sh
rom their own catch was
important to maintaining
grouper culture. In 2000
2001, the cost o a seed sh
measuring 1014 cm was
20 baht ($0.50). Stocking
500 sh per cage was thus a
considerable investment in
a region where the average
annual household income
in 2000 was $3,062. However, shers
were able to oset this investment by
replacing nancial capital with natural
capital.
Strategies to cope with risk and
uncertainty
Fish disease was ound to be the
biggest risk to grouper culture
throughout southern Thailand. Many
risk-averse grouper armers oset risk
by stocking an additional species, most
commonly seabass. Seabass enabled
producers to minimize risk, as they
are less vulnerable than grouper to
salinity uctuations and disease, and
Figure 1. Relationship between wealth statusand fsh culture. a
a Shown as the percentage o households in each wealth group whose livelihood
portolios include sh culture (no signicant association P = 0.065).
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
15/60
1Tropical Coasts
can be sold on the relatively stable
local market, which is indierent to the
more expensive grouper. Seabass seed
is easily obtained rom government
or private hatcheries and grows more
quickly that grouper. The downside is
that seabass requires more eed than
grouper and, whereas grouper can
be ed every 23 days without any
detriment to sh health or growth (an
important advantage to shers who
may be away rom home or some
time), seabass must be ed daily.
Grouper armers also
managed risk by varying
the culture cycle. They did
not generally adhere to a
strict regime o stocking
and harvesting, primarily
because o the variable
availability o grouper seed.
Instead, they stocked and
harvested continuously as
long as juvenile sh were
available. As one armer
reported, the culture cycle
cannot be planned, as
ngerlings o dierent sizes
reach a market size o 1.2
kg at dierent times. This
prevents their managing
the culture cycle so that
harvesting coincides with Chinese New
Year, when grouper prices spike. Many
wealthier armers expressed the wish
or hatchery-produced ngerlings o
standard size that would allow precise
scheduling o stocking and harvesting,
but the cost would be more than what
most grouper armers could aord.
Instead, armers with limited nances
distributed the costs and benets o
grouper culture over time.
The strategies o armers rearing
grouper in oating cages in the case
study communities can be divided
into two broad categories: (1) a short
grow-out period o 36 months to
minimize risk; and (2) a long grow-out
period o 613 months to obtain the
maximum price or sh o market size.
The preerred total length o juvenile
grouper or stocking was 2023 cm or
short grow-out and 1014 cm or long
or partial grow-out.
Grouper culture is vulnerable to
the international market. However,
predominantly small-scale production
holds down supply and supports
prices. At the time o the study,
grouper had a arm-gate value o 300
baht per sh weighing 1.2 kg, enabling
armers to generate income, or at least
breakeven, despite high mortality o
up to 80 percent (Sheri, 2004 and
Sheri, et al., 2008). Sensitivity analysis
indicated that grouper culture could
remain viable in the ace o signicant
increases in eed and seed sh prices
and a all in marketprice to 100 baht.
Grouper culture would thereore
appear to pose little risk to households
and is unlikely to increase vulnerability
when carried out as part o a diverse
set o livelihood activities.
The role o grouper aquaculture in
household livelihood strategies
Grouper culture is considered a main
occupation by ew villagers in any o
the communities studied (Figure 2).
Rather, it is primarily or saving money
Figure 2. Signifcance o grouper culture inhousehold livelihood strategiesaggregated or all three case studycommunities.
and building up assets. Other activities,
such as shing, trading and wage labor,
are generally accorded more time and
provide income to meet daily needs. This
suggests that eorts to encourage shers
to leave shing or sh culture are likely
to ail or make shing households more
vulnerable unless alternative options or
daily income are provided (Sheri, 2004).
Conclusions and policyimplications
The study ound that culturing
grouper can generate
substantial nancial benets
or poor households. However,
this depends on a number o
conditions:
1. Support rom external
agencies allows poor
households to overcome
investment constraints.
Providing materials or
cage construction and
establishing a village und
allows poor households to
take up grouper culture.
2. Natural capital substitutes
or nancial capital. The
availability o wild-caught
seed and eed allows poor
shing households to stock
and eed grouper.
3. Grouper culture is compatible with
other livelihood activities. Fishers
are able to integrate grouper
aquaculture into their livelihood
strategy without narrowing
livelihood diversity. Modest time
demands and the ability o grouper
to withstand inrequent eeding
leaves armers ree to pursue
additional occupations.
4. Farmers can manipulate the culture
cycle to suit their risk prole. This
was acilitated by the existence o a
market or juvenile sh or urther
growing out.
5. Grouper is highly valued on the
international market. The high price
armers get or their sh ensures
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
16/60
16 December 2008
that grouper culture is economically
viable even i market prices decline.
The current lack o hatchery-
produced seed keeps production
low and prices high.
The ollowing policy considerations
aect the success o grouper
aquaculture:
1. Aordable and accessible credit.
DOF support in the orm o training
and extension, together with the
provision o unds or getting started,
were crucial to making the benets
o grouper culture accessible to all
wealth groups in the community.
Without external support or credit,
grouper culture is dominated by
wealthier households.
2. Livelihood synergy. Synergy in
livelihood activities is essential to
the ability o poor households to
maintain grouper culture despite
lack o capital. Yet synergy is a
livelihoods aspect o the poor that is
oten overlooked, as recent studies
suggest that aquaculture may
provide an alternative livelihood
or shers, replacing rather than
supplementing shing. The study
made clear that livelihood activities
perorm a variety o roles. Failure to
understand the unctions o each
activity will cause interventions
to ail and may worsen household
vulnerability.
3. Hatchery-produced seed.The
development o grouper broodstock
and hatchery production technology
is currently a major area o research
in the Asia-Pacic region, reecting
the hope that grouper cultured
rom hatchery-produced seed will
lit pressure on wild sh stocks.
However, requiring a closed culture
cycle may be inappropriate in
the case o grouper. Commercial
hatchery seed production is likely
to stimulate grouper production
and encourage its emergence
on an industrial scale, boosting
supply, undermining market prices
and making grouper culture less
attractive as a livelihood option or
poor shers. The uture o the sector,
and its role in reducing pressure on
ree sheries, is more likely to be
sustained by keeping production in
the hands o small-scale armers.
ReerencesHaylor, G., M. R. P. Briggs, L. Pet-Soede, H. Tung,
N. T. H. Yen, B. Adrien, B. OCallaghan, C. Gow,
L. DeVantier, C. Cheung, R. Santos, E. Pador,
M. de la Torre, P. Bulcock and W. Savage.
2003. Improving coastal livelihoods through
sustainable aquaculture practices: A report
to the collaborative APEC grouper research
and development network (FWG/01/2001).
STREAM Initiative, Network o Aquaculture
Centres in Asia-Paciic (NACA), Bangkok,
Thailand.
Heemstra, P.C. and J. E. Randall. 1993. FAO species
catalogue. Groupers o the world (amily
Serranidae, subamily Epinephelinae).An
annotated and illustrated catalogue o the
grouper, rockcod, hind, coral grouper and
lyretail species known to date. Vol. 16. Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome.
Kongkeo, H. and M. Phillips. 2002. Regional
overview o marine inish arming, with
an emphasis on groupers and regional
cooperation.In: APEC/NACA/BOBP/GOI(eds). Report o the Regional Workshop on
Management Strategies or Sustainable
Seaarming and Grouper Aquaculture, Medan,
Indonesia, 1720 April 2000. Collaborative
APEC grouper research and development
network (FWG01/99). Network o Aquaculture
Centres in Asia-Paciic (NACA), Bangkok,
Thailand.
Lau, P. and R. Parry-Jones. 1999. The Hong Kong
trade in live ree ish or ood. Hong Kong:
TRAFFIC East Asia and World Wide Fund or
Nature Hong Kong.
Marte, C. L. 2003. Larviculture o marine species in
Southeast Asia: Current research and industry
prospects.Aquaculture227:293-304.
Pomeroy, R. S., J. E. Parks, and C. M. Balboa. 2006.
Farming the ree: Is aquaculture a solution
or reducing ishing pressure on coral rees?
Marine Policy30(2):111130.
Seng, L. T. 1998. Grouper culture.In: de Silva,
S. S. (ed). Tropical mariculture, pp 423448.
Academic Press, New York.
Sheri, N. 2004. Fisher livelihoods in southern
Thailand: Sustainability and the role o grouper
culture.PhD dissertation, University o Stirling.
Available online at https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/
dspace/handle/1893/72.
Sheri, N., Little, D.C., and Tantikamton, K. 2008.
Aquaculture and the Poor - Is the culture o
high-value ish a viable livelihood option or the
Poor?Marine POlicy 32:1094-1102.
Fry sher in Koh Khiam
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
17/60
1Tropical Coasts
Aside rom its rich historical legacy
and culture, the Province o Cavite,
which is one o the provinces bordering
the Manila Bay in the Philippines, is
blessed with natural resources that have
provided ood and sources o livelihood
or the people. It has 71,202.76 ha oagricultural land avorable or growing
major crops such as rice, corn, coee
and others. Its orest area o 8,624 ha
supports diverse ora and auna. Cavite
has eight coastal municipalities and one
city with a total coastline o about 85
km stretching rom the municipalities
o Maragondon to Bacoor. It has an
estimated coastal water o about 93,679
ha that supports coastal habitats and
diverse marine resources (Figure 1).
Moving towards industrialization
In the 1990s, Cavite transormed itsel
rom an agricultural province into a highly
commercialized province that serves
as haven or a number o world-class
industrial estates situated both in thecoastal and non-coastal municipalities.
These estates house companies mostly
engaged in manuacturing o electronics,
clothing, ood and beverage, plastics and
pharmaceuticals. Cavites industrialization
and its proximity to Manila enabled a
large segment o the population to be
employed in the industries.
In recent years, the province is
acing various challenges, including
pollution rom land- and sea-based
sources, habitat degradation and
overexploitation o resources, illegal
shing and intensive land development
or industrial and human settlements.
As migration rom neighboring
provinces and the metropolis sets in,more and more people are settling in
the coastal area. Coupled with rapid
industrialization, this has caused
environmental problems particularly
the deterioration o water quality
and destruction o coastal habitats.
Operators o illegal structures or sh
production and other marine products
likewise sprouted up in the coastal
waters o Cavite. Such illegal structures
hampered navigation o small boats,
ICM at Work:Harnessing Local Initiative
to Achieve Food
Security
By Anabelle L. Cayabyab, Supervising Environmental Management Specialist and Head ICM Division PG-ENRO
Evelyn M. Reyes, Community Affairs Officer II PICAD
Historic Cavite, home o modern
revolutionary Caviteos braving the
challenges o protecting the coastal areas
and securing the needs o the people.
At the end o implementing and adopting
management strategies and approaches
to attain sustainable coastal
development, integration, coordination
and sectoral participation remain key to
the success or ailure o management
programs.Figure 1. Map o Cavite Province
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
18/60
18 December 2008
obstructed the circulation o water and
aected the mussel and oyster arms
in the area. Legitimate sh cage and
mussel culture operators were aected
due to competition or space with these
illegal structures.
The total population o the province
was estimated to be almost 2.9 million
in the recent 2008 census, representing
an average growth rate o 4.59%.
There are about 17,400 shers whose
livelihoods mainly depend on shing in
three major bays, namely: Manila Bay,
Bacoor Bay and Caacao Bay. Cavite
is also known or the production o
mussels, oysters, milksh, prawns and
tilapia.
Provincial GovernmentTaking the Lead
In 2001, the Provincial Government
took concrete steps to address the
environmental issues and threats
in the coastal areas o Cavite. While
the national government denes the
policy ramework or development
and proper management o Manila
Bay, the provincial government o
Cavite took the lead role in establishing
and operating a province-wide
management system to address the
multiple and conicting uses o the
coastal waters and to ensure that
the livelihoods o the people were
sustained.
Cavite embraced the integrated
management approach when it became
an integrated coastal management
(ICM) parallel site in March 2004, when
it signed a Memorandum o Agreement
with PEMSEA and the Philippines
Department o Natural Resources and
Environment (DENR).
Establishing mechanisms to sustain
the ICM program
The ICM Program was institutionalized
rom provincial to barangay or
community levels through the creation
o the Provincial ICM Council (PICMC)
and Municipal/City ICM Councils in 9
coastal towns. Each Council consists
o representatives rom government
agencies, private sector and the civil
society (Figure 2 and 3). The two levels
o Council serve as policy making
bodies o the program at the provincial
and municipal levels, respectively. The
Project Management Ofce (PMO),
which coordinates the day-to-day
activities o the ICM program was
created and likewise institutionalized
under the Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Ofce (PG-ENRO)
on November 2004 through Executive
Order No. 48. The Governor, who serves
as Chair o PICMC, mandated the
nine coastal Mayors to designate one
permanent coordinator either rom the
Municipal Planning and Development
Ofce, Municipal Environmental and
Natural Resources Ofce, or Municipal
Agriculture Ofce. The coordinators
automatically served as Vice-Chairs o
the Municipal/City Council.
The ICM program is nanced by the
provincial and municipal governments.
Replicating the Province o Bataans
experience, which serves as a shining
example on how the private sector
support can be tapped, Cavite also
managed to entice the participation
o a number o private sector
enterprises, which recently evolved into
a council, the Cavite Corporate Social
Responsibility Council (CCSRC). Among
the activities supported by the private
Mussel and oyster culture methods in Cavite.
Committee Operations,Monitoring and
Evaluation
PROJECT MANAGEMENTOFFICE (Secretariat)
PRIVATE SECTORFOUNDATION (CCSRC)
Committee onLegal
CHAIRGovernor
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEICM Council
Committee onWays and Means
LivelihoodProgram
Administrationand Finance
ResourceMobilization
Committee onTraining Researchand Development
Communicationand Advocacy
Media andNetworking
Committee onPublic Inormation
MAYORS L EAGUE
PEMSEA
Figure 2. Cavite Provincial ICM Council.
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
19/60
1Tropical Coasts
sector included providing assistanceor alternative livelihood projects
or coastal communities, especially
the sher olks, adopting a highway
program, participating in conservation
programs, and participating in regular
coastal clean-ups and other relevant
projects coordinated by the Province.
Sta rom the local governments,
private sector, academe, non-
government organizations and peoples
organizations o the 9 coastal townso Cavite have attended trainings on
ICM and specialized training courses
including resource valuation, integrated
inormation management system,
advocacy and communication. The
Province is also a member o the
PEMSEA Network o Local Governments
or Sustainable Coastal Development,
which serves as a platorm or the local
governments to share knowledge and
good practices in ICM implementation.
Recognizing the importance o broad-
based stakeholders support
ICM requires the involvement and
mobilization o stakeholders to
develop their sense o ownership o the
program. Stakeholders who derived
benets rom the coastal resources
were encouraged to participate in the
program through various means. A
series o consultation seminars were Aerial photo o illegal sh pens and sh cages along coastal water o Cavite
Figure 3. Cavite Municipal/City ICM Council.
Chair
(Mayor)
Vice-Chair(ICM Coordinator)
Project Manager
Committee on TrainingResearch and Development
Committee Operations,Monitoring and Evaluation
Committee onWays and Means
Committee onLegal
LivelihoodProgram
Administrationand Finance
ResourceMobilization
CLUSTER C(Barangay level)
CLUSTER B(Barangay level)
CLUSTER A(Barangay level)
Communicationand Advocacy
Media andNetworking
Committee onPublic Inormation
conducted or various groups suchas barangay (community) leaders,
religious groups, nongovernmental
organizations, local government units,
the academe, sherolks, the youth
sector and the private sector to explain
the ICM program, discuss issues and
solicit their respective views and
commitments to attaining sustainable
development o the coastal areas o
Cavite. For the creation o the councils
at the various municipalities, extensive
stakeholders consultations wereundertaken to ensure transparency
and awareness o the ICM program.
This process has resulted in high public
acceptability and participation in ICM
implementation.
Contributing to bay-widemanagement o Manila Bay
Being part o Manila Bay, where a
bay-wide environmental management
program is in place, Cavite participated
in the development o the Manila Bay
Coastal Strategy. The Manila Bay Coastal
Strategy was developed through
consultations with various stakeholders
rom the three regions surrounding the
bay, the National Capital Region and
Regions 3 and 4, which included Cavite.The strategy provided a comprehensive
environmental ramework, targeted
outcomes and a series o action
programs involving the participation
o relevant stakeholders o Manila Bay
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
20/60
20 December 2008
including local governments. With
the passing o a landmark decision by
the Supreme Court o the Philippines
in December 2008, requiring 12
government agencies and LGUssurrounding Manila Bay to clean and
rehabilitate the bay, the Cavite ICM
Program is playing a key role towards
acilitating the implementation o the
Operational Plan or the Manila Bay
Coastal Strategy at the provincial and
municipal levels.
Achieving a SustainableFishery Industry
Fisheries is one o the majorcomponents o the agriculture sector in
Cavite. It is also one o the main sources
o livelihood and ood production. In
Rosario, Tanza, Noveleta and Cavite
City, sh drying, smoking, ermentation
and salting o various sh species
known locally as tinapa, tuyo, daing and
binanlian are recognized alternative
livelihoods o sher amilies, as is
production opatis (sh sauce) and
bagoong (sh paste). Among the sh
products produced in the province, thetinapa is gaining markets both locally
and internationally.
Mussel industry in Cavite
Mussel culturing is widespread in the
province. It is reported that the mussel
industry in the Philippines began in
1962 at the Binakayan Demonstration
Oyster Farm, in Binakayan, Kawit,
Cavite, with
the Philippine
Fisheries
Commission,
now Bureau
o Fisheries
and Aquatic
Resources
(BFAR). Earlier,
mussels
had been
considered
by oyster
growers as a
ouling organism and were neglected
most by shellshers. The movement and
spreading o mussel culture in Manila
Bay came when oyster growers, who
attempted to collect oyster spats in
less silty oshore waters, accidentally
obtained heavy and pure mussel
seedlings. Mussel culture gained urther
recognition due to the act that it does
not require sophisticated techniques
or methods compared to other
aquaculture technologies.
In 2007, the province registered the
highest annual oyster production o
1,578 mT and mussel production o
4,580 mT proving its viability as a source
o livelihood and its marketability
within and outside the province. In a
survey conducted by the Ofce o the
Provincial Agriculturalist rom 2005
to 2007, oyster production or three
consecutive years increased, while the
mussel industry production uctuated.
The production level was aected by
several actors, including the number
o operators, extent o the area and the
situation and quality o the water (see
Table 1).
Likewise, with regards to milksh, prawn
and tilapia production, there is evidence
increased production rom 2006 to
2007 o about 872 percent or tilapia,
18 percent or prawn and 26 percent
or milksh. The drastic increase in the
production o the species was mainly
because o the increasing number o
illegal sh pens and sh cages in the
coastal area as shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Dismantling o illegal sh pens and
sh cages
One o the threats to sustainable
aquaculture identied by the
ICM Division o PG-ENRO was the
mushrooming o illegal sh pens and
other structures along the coastal
waters which are owned by local
Caviteos and commercial trespassers.
Based on the survey conducted, there
were 98 units obaklad(sh corral)
mostly situated in Cavite City, 44 total
sh pens and sh cages with the biggest
sh pen area o about 130,000 m2, and
679 saprahan (stationary lit net) in
Bacoor Bay.
Under the stewardship o Governor
Ayong S. Maliksi, in partnership with
DENR, the rst phase o dismantling
was enorced in July 2008 in Bacoor Bay,
comprising o three municipalities and
Fish pens and sh cages in Bacoor Bay
Governor Maliksi (3rd rom let) and DENR Secretary Jose Atienza (2nd rom let) during the actual dismantling o sh pens and sh
cages.
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
21/60
2Tropical CoastsTropical o
one city (Noveleta, Kawit, Bacoor and
Cavite City). To support this initiative,
the Provincial Government issued
Executive Order 69 that prohibits the
prolieration o the illegal structures.EO 69 also required the adoption o a
holistic and integrated management
approach or managing the coastal
areas o Cavite and more importantly
the development o the Coastal Use
Zoning Plan or Cavite. This action is
expected to address the multiple use
conicts and result to better water
quality in the area.
Table 4 summarizes the dismantled
structures in Caacao Bay and BacoorBay. It is expected that the potential
long-term socioeconomic benets o
the activity conducted will ultimately
translate to sheries productivity
capable o providing sufcient marine
harvest or Caviteo amilies, increased
tourism revenues, sustained coastal
resources, and reduced water pollution.
Maliksing Isda, Masaganang
Pangisdaan (Agile Fish, Healthy
Fishery)
Geared towards sustainable production
in support o the Department o
Agricultures Productivity Enhancement
Program, the Provincial Government
through its implementing arm, the Local
Development and Livelihood Ofce and
the Ofce o the Provincial Agriculturalist
is vigorously pursuing a pro-poor program
called Maliksing Isda, Masaganang
Table 1. Production o Oysters and Mussels based on the number o operators and area.
Year
No. o Operators Area (ha) Production (mT)
Oyster Mussel Oyster Mussel Oyster Mussel
2005 395 306 15.18 120 674.50 3,630.08
2006 395 191 15.28 145.87 708.76 4,707.84
2007 426 117 31.93 155.52 1,578.48 4,580.40
Table 2. Annual Production o Milkfsh, Tilapia and Prawn in 2006.
Municipality
No. o Operators Area (ha) Annual Production (mT)
Brackish Freshwater Brackish Freshwater Milksh Tilapia Prawn
Bacoor 28 40 14.1 11.1
Cavite City 0.09
Kawit 107 257 105 69.2
Noveleta 21 1 71.50 1 2.5 13
Tanza 50 11.55 21.27
Imus 7 0.21 0.19
Maragondon 2 30 2 1.2 0.94
Naic 17 47 3.6 4.16 11.18
Ternate 45 8 47 1 9.8
Table 3. Annual Production o Milkfsh, Tilapia and Prawn in 2007.
Municipality
No. o Operators Area (ha) Annual Production (mT)
Brackish Freshwater Brackish Freshwater Milksh Tilapia Prawn
Bacoor 67 93.75 56.75 56.25 18.75
Cavite City 4 0.15 0.09 0.03 0.03
Kawit 107 257 105 60
Noveleta 21 1 71.50 257.40 42.90
Tanza 64 10.80 23.76
Imus 7 0.21 0.25
Maragondon 2 30 2 1.2 0.92 0.87
Naic 17 47 3.6 4.16 6.20 11.40
Ternate 45 8 72 1 23.50 0.95
-
8/9/2019 Tropical Coasts Vol. 15 No. 2: Coastal Resources: Productivity and Impacts on Food Security
22/60
22 December 2008
Pangisdaan (Agile Fish, Healthy Fishery).
The program, which is being spearheaded
by the Governor ocuses on ehancing
sh production through utilization osh hatchery technologies and providing
aquaculture technical extension services.
Furthermore, the program is in support
o the President o the Philippines
Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (Golden
Harvest) Program and the Department
o Agricultures thrust o developing rural
areas through aquaculture.
Major activities have been implemented
that are expected to benet the low-
income, less privileged sherolks and
sh armers. The ollowing are some othe major projects:
1. Establishment o Tropical Fish Ponds.
Six shponds were established in
2007-2008 to propagate tropical
shes that are known or their
ornamental value.
2. Fish/Fingerlings Dispersal. This is