Fish aquaculture in the Ping River
By Phimphakan Lebel & Louis Lebel (May 07)
Activities
At the M-POWER 2006 meeting the USER group proposed a case study of the aquaculture industry that has grown up-around rearing hybrid red tilapia industry in floating cages in the Upper Ping River. That research would be a contribution to the fisheries thematic area. At that time we had completed a basic survey of farming rearing and business management practices but had not yet completed analysis or begun the more livelihood and governance oriented research we proposed.
During the past 15 months or so we have completed several major data campaigns combining both quantitative and qualitative research methods and complete two working papers and are well on way to completing a third while the fourth is still only an extended outline. This briefing note is a concise summary of our findings to date and our plans for publication and use of findings in management and policy.
Rearing and Business Practices
Our first working paper documents the rearing and business practices of fish farmers [1]. We document the extent to which freshwater fish aquaculture in cages in the Upper Ping river is a profitable activity, both as a component to the livelihood portfolio or rural households for many living near the river, and as a core business for a few. These findings are contrary to the common perception of it as a minor “supplementary livelihood”. Through a large set of in-depth interviews we were able to obtain a richer understanding of contract-farming and loan-credit schemes that underpin the industry. Tilapia farms have left the pond and entered the mainstream with very few questions being asked. For long-term sustainability, ecologically, socially and economically, steps need to be taken now to assess, set standards, regulate, and improve practices at farm, reach and industry levels.
The findings of this study were presented by P. Lebel at a Thai conference on aquaculture and fisheries management hosted by Mae Joh University in December 2006.
Women farm fish
One of the un-anticipated and significant findings of the initial survey of fish farms was a prominent role of women in day-to-day management and suggestions also of key roles in decision-making. Based on these initial findings we then conducted a more detailed study of gender issues focusing on the opportunities and constraints to women of being engaged in fish farming as a “supplementary” or “core” livelihood activity [2].
Women are frequently engaged in day-to-day management of fish farms, most often working as part of a household team, but sometimes in a leadership position. We find some evidence that commercial aquaculture has empowered women relative to men by giving them a way to make a clear claim on their labor contributions through taking care of fish. But control so gained is tenuous: men can re-secure “control” by relatively modest and occasional contributions of strength, such as in helping save the crop from floods. Women’s views on the capacity of women to farm fish varied according to their current roles and their perceptions of themselves relative to other women. In general women who lead or had a dominant role in farm management were more confident and assertive about their capacity to farm fish effectively than those who had more junior assistant or supporting roles to their husbands.
Access to some resources and decision-points, however, remains largely closed regardless of class and strategy. Women take loans and enter into contracts less frequently than their roles in actual management might suggest instead relying on their male counterparts to play “official” roles. Women hold few elected positions in local government in our study area (stats) and have limited roles in fisheries and agricultural bureaucracies. All in all we conclude that it would all be much easier if the way aquaculture and fisheries management was integrated into rural development policies took note that many of the farmers they are supposed to serve are women, diverse in their interests, situations and influence.
Rules of entry and access to river resources
Aquaculture in rivers and other public water bodies raises important questions for access that are more familiar to fisheries management than aquaculture in fish ponds. In particular: Who gets to farm fish when and where?
As a follow-up to earlier survey which suggested key roles of location and contracting opportunities we carried out a case-control study of households living in administrative villages with bank access to the Ping River [3]. This was supplemented by a set of more than 60 in-depth interviews which included probing of management practices. Our study was aimed at improving understanding for management and future policy of the on-the-ground rules of entry to fish farming and access to river waters. We designed our surveys to help explore three initial alternative hypotheses about access. The household survey went extremely well thanks to a very tenacious group of students who tackled dogs and other barriers fearlessly. Although we have finished the main analysis of the household-based survey we have not yet integrated these results with the case study details present in-depth interviews transcripts. We expect to do so over the next 2-3 months.
Management and Policy
The final piece of new work we have planned for this year is to complete a review of management and policies “on paper” to contrast with our field-based observations. To this end we have started a drafting, but left half-finished, pending more information, a synthetic paper on management and policies for aquaculture in Rivers [4]. This analysis will have to grapple with at least three governance issues: fish farmers are “building” in public space; fish farmers are drawing on valuable, but free, ecological services, without much consideration of the impacts of such use; fish farming is a profitable livelihood embedded in an industry with a history of vertical integration by large firms and government support. We are hoping that a stakeholder-sensitive and informed analysis will help assess better why the benefits of fish farming distributed the way they are, and help us make recommendations on the proper roles for local government and the key line agencies.
Plans
Taken together this empirical research has provided USER with a good foundation to engage constructively in a process that we imagine will require participation of a range of stakeholders fish farmers, input firms, consumers, others users of the river and its bank areas, researchers and responsible authorities.
Workshops
Having completed virtually all the main data collection and much of the analyses our emphasis to end of 2007 will be on completing writing and convening more formal workshops related to management policy.
Two workshop events are planned at this stage. The first is likely to be held in October and focus and largely be by and for fish farmers. The second is planned as part of a Fisheries Conference at Mae Joh University in December and we are tentatively considering a half-day “policy round-table” with a more mixed group of participants to discuss management and policy.
Outputs
By the end of 2007 we expect to have submitted the first three working papers to peer-reviewed journals with the first two within the next two months. The management and policy working paper is still in early draft form and will needs to be updated and reflect on the outcomes of the workshops.
A Thai language Master’s Degree Thesis by Phimphakan Lebel at the Faculty of Aquatic Resources and Fisheries Technology, Mae Joh University will be submitted in early 2008.
Our initial plans for a short documentary film have been put on-hold after collecting some initial footage. We may return to this in the future.
Finally, we expect to issue a short policy-oriented summary soon after drawing on highlights of research and the results of the two workshops. This would complete this phase of research on the fish cage industry. We are considering but not yet committed to follow-up activities.
Acknowledgements
Sirikul Leudpasuk and Nuanchan Laisuphanwong have helped with much of the survey work. Nutthawat Subsin made a helpful contribution to interviewing in the field. Thanks also to the team of Thai students who helped with the access and livelihood surveys. Finally, thanks to Dr. Prachuab Chaibu for his advice and support. This research was funded in part by an M-POWER Partner Organization grant to USER through the CPWF grant.
Literature Cited
1. Lebel P, Chaibu P, Lebel L. 2006. Fish farm management practices in the upper Ping River, northern Thailand. USER Working Paper WP-2006-07. Unit for Social and Environmental Research: Chiang Mai University. (281) WP-2006-07
2. Lebel, P., P. Chaibu, B. Jaichaichom, and L. Lebel. 2008. Gender and the culture of Tilapia in the Upper Ping River in Chiang Mai and Lamphun Provinces [in Thai]. Journal of Fisheries Technology 2:168-178.
3. Lebel P, Chaibu P, Lebel L. 2007. Rules of entry and access to river waters: fish cage aquaculture in the Upper Ping River, northern Thailand. USER Working Paper WP-2007-06. Unit for Social and Environmental Reseach, Chiang Mai University: Chiang Mai.
4. Lebel P, Chaibu, P, Lebel L. 2007. Aquaculture in rivers: a stakeholder analysis of the fish cage industry in the Upper Ping River, northern Thailand. USER Working Paper WP-2007-08. Unit for Social and Environmental Reseach, Chiang Mai University: Chiang Mai.
Source: Lebel P, Lebel L. 2007. Fish aquaculture in the Ping River. USER Briefing BN-2007-05.Unit for Social and Environmental Research: Chiang Mai. On-line: http://www.sea-user.org/uweb.php?pg=26
A version of this briefing note was circulated at theM-POWER 2007 annual meeting.
|
