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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


8/60

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 .


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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

tropical coasts vol. 15 no. 2: coastal resources: productivity and impacts on food security

Documents