Download Costa-Pierce (2002) - Ecological Aquaculture

Ecological Aquaculture: The Evolution of the Blue Revolution
Edited by Barry A. Costa-Pierce
Copyright © 2002 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Chapter 5
Farming Systems Research and Extension
Methods for the Development of Sustainable
Aquaculture Ecosystems
Barry A. Costa-Pierce
Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program
The importance of indigenous knowledge
Every culture has an indigenous bank of knowledge. Indigenous knowledge is the
information derived from intimate, day-to-day interactions between people and their
environments. Indigenous knowledge includes history, art, economics, linguistics,
science, engineering, medicine, politics and psychology, as well as agriculture, fishing,
hunting, and gathering, plus the activities of trade, economics and all other areas of
human enterprise. Indigenous knowledge is present in both traditional and urban
societies, and is taught to children through the family unit and the various institutions
in society. For example, in Bali, Indonesia, an ancient system of rice cultivation
involves terracing, irrigation and dikes that move the island's water to thousands of
rice paddies situated at all elevations on the mountainous island. Gadgil & Guha
(1992) stated that technical evolution of the Bali rice agroecosystem could only take
place if the indigenous knowledge was in harmony with a cultural evolution having a
common world vision. The Bali rice paddies are interwoven into a complex institutional system of common property, collective action, and Hindu spirituality.
Sustainability of the rice agroecosystem has been achieved because the maintenance
of the irrigation systems and food production is an institutionalized social responsibility of all participants.
Traditional land and water use practices are changing rapidly. Indigenous
knowledge built up over centuries about farming and fishing ecosystems is being lost
(Roling & Jiggens, 1998). The wisdom of rural societies and the benefits of nature's
good and services to society are being lost as the world grows more urbanized.
Holistic knowledge and the wisdom that incorporates the spiritual world and binds it
to the physical realities of everyday life are also endangered.
The need to evolve sustainable aquaculture ecosystems
Similar to sustainable agroecosystems like those in Bali, aquaculture has traditional knowledge systems and cultural, family, and community roots. States
Borgese (1980):
104
Ecological Aquaculture
`That aquaculture has a philosophical base in the East and a scientific base in the
West has far-reaching implications. In the East, it is culture, it is life: culture to
improve life by providing food and employment. It is embedded in the social and
economic infrastructure. All that science can and must do is to make this culture
more effective. In the West, aquaculture is science and technology, embodied in
industry and providing profits: money. It has no social infrastructure. In this, the
West has much to learn from the East.'
While aquaculture has cultural roots in the East and is most developed there, it is
still an uncommon occupation in Asia (Edwards, 1993). However, there are no
mysterious roots to the evolution of aquaculture. Aquaculture originated in China
when population densities exceeded the carrying capacities of the natural, oceanic,
and agricultural environments to support them in historical times. In order to support
these people, new, labor-intensive agricultural innovations such as intensive, small
scale agriculture involving intercropping, multistory agriculture, and a tight recycling
of nutrients through ecologically sophisticated composting and waste recycling
regimes became common (and are now endangered). Aquaculture, one of the most
complex and sophisticated of all possible agriculture innovations, arose to meet the
protein needs of many Asian societies who reached high population densities in
historical times (and possibly European and Hawaiian societies, see Beveridge &
Little, Chapter 1, and Costa-Pierce, Chapter 2, this volume). Aquaculture arose as an
integral part of a complex polyculture of agricultural systems, and was intricately
entwined into the existing water management system for mixed agriculture.
Aquaculture has traditional, community roots in Asia. In the West, population
densities exceeding environmental and agricultural and aquatic carrying capacities
have only recently reached critical stages, and aquaculture has been adopted. However, the rich West has nowhere near the pressing food needs of Asia, with numerous
and abundant `protein choices'. As such, commercial aquaculture in the West has
evolved similar to industrial agriculture to provide a diversity of products for high
priced, luxury protein markets. Western aquaculture is perceived by some as an
`industrial' development rather than a `community-based' development. In some
cases, the very communities that host new aquaculture operations consider industrial
aquaculture operations `outsiders'.
In the last decade there have been radical (and reasoned) concerns about aquaculture developments from the very communities that should be its natural supporters
± scientists, rural communities, and environmentalists (Barinaga, 1990; Black, 2000).
While the technical issues of pollution control can be resolved by incorporating
ecological or ecosystems technologies into aquaculture, public opposition to aquaculture will be a more difficult problem to solve if aquaculture in the West remains an
`industry' producing `wastes' and requiring evolution of a new regulatory structure
(Fig. 5.1).
Industrial agriculture is the largest source of pollution in the over-industrialized
countries. Dent & Anderson (1971) stated that agriculture in these countries has
`ignored the larger ecological framework in which farming is conducted and as a
result agricultural production has often exploited the natural environment'.
Methods for the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Ecosystems
105
Fig. 5.1 Ensuring the evolution of sustainability in aquaculture will require that the `industrial' model of
intensive aquaculture (a) that produces new sources of aquatic pollution, causing degradation of ecosystem
services and a new regulatory structure, will evolve into socially and environmentally sustainable `aquaculture ecosystems' (b) that turn wastes into resources using ecological engineering and systems approaches
that lead to technical and community sustainability and environmental enhancement (Costa-Pierce, 1996).
Developments in agricultural research towards evolving more sustainable
approaches, and new marketing trends towards certified organic products produced
from sustainable farming systems, provide the background for the evolution of sustainable aquaculture ecosystems. Like agriculture, aquaculture's evolution towards
social, economic, and ecological sustainability depends on innovative farmers, supportive policy makers and social institutions, educators, researchers, bankers, and
consumers working together to influence adoption and ensure sustainability (CostaPierce, 1998). Pioneering agriculture research in agroecology, agroecosystems, and
farming systems; and the participatory technology development framework
embedded in the `farmer first' extension and outreach methodologies provide a road
map for evolving sustainable aquaculture ecosystems (Conway, 1986; Alteri, 1987;
Chambers et al., 1989; Scarborough et al., 1997; Gliessman, 1998).
Clearly, the public will not tolerate the addition of any new sources of pollution or
the further degradation of the natural environment which is perceived to come at the
expense of the degradation of the quality of life. An increasingly skeptical public
determined to fight `the experts' is making connections between the disruption of our
environment and human health. In many cases the simple implication of the presence
of a chemical implies a hazard and a threat to human health. In order to change the
public perception of aquaculture as `outsiders' or `industrial polluters', intensive
aquaculture operations must plan to become part of a community and a region, and
have a wider plan for community development that works with leaders to provide
needed inputs, to recycle wastes, to create a diversity of unprocessed and value-added
products, to provide local market access, and to plan for job creation and environ-
106
Ecological Aquaculture
mental enhancement on local and regional scales. When viewed from these community development perspectives, aquaculture and the public it intends to serve have
many common objectives. Edwards (1993) states that the `problem for developing
countries is essentially how to stimulate agricultural (and aquaculture) productivity
and profitability without further environmental degradation, in contrast to the need
to reduce the level of intensification to a sustainable level in the developed world.'
As an infant enterprise the world over, aquaculture can ill afford to recreate the
evolution of commercial agriculture in the mid-twentieth century where huge, toxic,
nutrient and chemical loading were washed down a primitive path of the `solution to
pollution is dilution'. Rather, modern aquaculture should adopt a new strategy, a
model of `community-based, ecologically sustainable aquaculture' that produces
certified organic produce, similar to a strategy promoted in agriculture and industry
called `input management' (Odum, 1989). Folke & Kautsky (1991) state, `One must
expand the boundaries and one's actions far beyond the cultivation site, and realize
that there is an unavoidable complementarity between the life-support environment
and aquaculture production'. In addition, it is also essential to consider the social
ecology of aquaculture developments from the outset in order to articulate what are
the most important development goals for sustainable aquaculture systems, and to
define what will be required socially in order to develop community-based aquaculture ecosystems and `green' marketing approaches (ecolabelling, sustainable certification, etc.).
In order to ensure ecological sustainability of aquaculture, researchers must have
new methodologies available to capture both the global (macro) and the farm-level
(micro) social ecological processes occurring in order to determine the appropriate
paths for research and extension interventions. Technical adaptations alone are
inadequate to direct sustainability of complex, new agricultural enterprises such as
aquaculture. An improved and more participatory aquaculture research process can
stimulate a greater momentum for change and increase the effectiveness of aquaculture extension approaches.
Farmer participatory approaches to development of sustainable
aquaculture ecosystems
Scientific knowledge is a knowledge base developed and recorded by scientists.
Indigenous knowledge encompasses all aspects of life in an environment. Farmers
everywhere experiment. They adapt, innovate, and observe the results of their work,
and have been doing so for centuries. It is only recently that `farmer led' research
processes of agriculture and aquaculture development have been superseded by
scientist-directed agricultural and aquatic research. Farmers have invaluable indigenous knowledge and experiment using scientific principles, oftentimes without
recognizing their experimentation as science (Kansing & Kremer, 1995). McCorkle
(1994) found that farmers design, implement and evaluate farm trials by gathering
background information, selecting sites, identifying variables, and monitoring and
evaluating these trials. Today, increasing numbers of scientists are acting as facili-
Methods for the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Ecosystems
107
tators of collaborative research with farmers, in equal partnerships with farmers.
Farmers must be able to adapt to continuously changing conditions in order to evolve
sustainability. It therefore becomes critical that farmers be able to analyze, monitor,
adapt and innovate.
Farmers know best about their own land and water use systems, and their social
and economic realities. Farmers are skilled innovators who have developed ways of
experimenting through trial and error. Trust must be built up with farmers by
respecting local values and working together in the spirit of equality. For research
scientists this can be a challenge and a revelation since they have to reorient their
world views about the meaning of knowledge, science, the economy, gender roles and
relations, and the required methodologies needed in order to get buy-in to participatory research and learning processes. In participatory technology development
(PTD), farmers can design and experiment using strategies they have developed
themselves which they feel are appropriate to conditions they experience on their own
farms. Such participatory experimentation promotes empowerment and accountability. These processes lead to institution building, market reforms, and the farmerbased advocacy needed to secure policy reforms and rural economic development
(Veldhuizen, 1998).
PTD approaches have been used to initiate farmers and fishers who pursue conventional terrestrial agriculture or capture fisheries to incorporate aquaculture into
their farming/fishing systems. The overall objective of PTD is to elicit evolutionary
change towards sustainability in farming/fishing systems by merging aquatic and
terrestrial production systems; by using ecological principles as the basis for new
designs for food production systems; and by incorporating simple ecological
modeling into holistic systems analyses of production and natural systems. The
approach is to use the wisdom of ecology (Odum, 1975) and its underlying principles
of hierarchies, complementarity, redundancy, cycling, and diversity to not only meet
environmental goals, but also to improve farmer livelihoods by increasing whole farm
efficiencies and product values. PTD seeks to demonstrate that the complementarity
of systems and enhancement of recycling pathways of on-farm resources will lead to
greater resource efficiencies, long-term sustainability, and environmental protection
(Lightfoot, 1990).
The principal idea behind a participatory PTD approach is that farmers have to be
involved in the process of technology research development and dissemination from
the outset (Scarborough et al., 1997). Instead of scientists developing one fixed set of
techniques in isolation on a research station, then disseminating them as a `technology
package' to farmers, ideas from farmers are elicited first; then researchers and farmers
work to perfect technologies that suit the farming systems of the target group. Farmers
are invited to take part in the technological identification, research and development
and extension processes from the outset of the process in contrast to being a passive
recipient of technologies developed elsewhere. Farmers can comment on and criticize
as much as they want; they can test new technologies on their own farms or at research
stations; and they can modify technologies if they think necessary as long as the process
of technological modifications/innovations is monitored and recorded. Scarborough
et al. (1997) summarized the need for the PTD approaches on the basis of:
108
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Ecological Aquaculture
What works in one place, time and circumstance will not necessarily work in
another.
What suits one farmer may not suit another with different ideas and constraints.
The complexity of a farming situation and livelihoods affects the adoption of
interventions.
The message-based approach is the least effective teaching method.
An important characteristic of the PTD approaches is that the changes towards
sustainability are gradual. A new technology is an addition to or a modification of an
existing system, so that adoption is not a big step. This approach to sustainability is
rooted in indigenous farming communities, and is a long-term `evolutionary'
approach to aquaculture development. It is not a short-term `revolutionary' approach
with high capital costs and many exterior inputs. Pretty (1995) described adoption of
innovations as a three-step process facilitated by PTD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Evolutionary learning: step-by-step, cumulative participatory learning by
stakeholders.
Multiple perspectives: many ways of describing a situation.
Iterative group learning: the complexity of the world can only be learned by an
iterative process of group inquiry and learning.
Another characteristic of the PTD approach is that the responsibility for adopting
a new technology rests entirely with the farmer. The farmer decides whether or not to
try a new technology on the farm. Farmer refusal to implement a technology is an
important signal to the research or extension worker that something is wrong.
Farmers do not receive any financial assistance or other subsidies besides information
and engagement by the research and extension workers, and are not in a dependent
position. The relationship between farmers, extension agents and researchers is more
on an equal footing.
The goals of the PTD approaches are to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
find methods to elicit farmers' farming, aquaculture, fishing, gathering, etc.
knowledge systems and the constraints these pose to the adoption of aquaculture;
transfer results of collaborative on-station research to aquatic farmers;
obtain feedback from farmers in order to regularly revise on-station research
agendas;
identify areas for collaborative research with farmers on their farms, or together
on research stations, or both.
Participatory assessment and planning methods
Assessment is needed to evaluate objectives and needs, changes in production, and
impacts of collaborative experiments. Assessment involves analysis of the evolution
Methods for the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Ecosystems
109
of farming ecosystems to explain movements towards ± or away from ± sustainability.
Conventional assessments are made in economic terms only, and these usually
externalize social and environmental costs. A complete assessment methodology must
involve not only production but also impacts of innovations on processing, trade,
transport, communications, and consumers (Fig. 5.2). Because such a comprehensive
assessment can be very costly of time and money, choices have to be made so that a
focus is on key issues of direct importance to farmers/fishers. Participatory assessment supports farmers' analyses of factors that directly affect them, and which they
can influence. Wider assessments of factors which farmers are unlikely to influence
such as institutional factors are left to researchers and policy-makers.
Fig. 5.2 The evolution of aquatic and terrestrial farming ecosystems does not occur in a vacuum, nor do
biotechnical approaches completely resolve constraints. Farming ecosystems are influenced by the physical,
sociocultural and political environments in which they are located (modified from FAO, 1990).
Conventional scientific research in aquaculture and agriculture tends to have longterm goals, more generic applications, and more methodological rigor. Participatory
technology development provides rapid results to site-specific conditions and provides farmers with better tools to sustain the process of adapting to rapid change. This
contrasts with the top-down transfer of technology in which the farmer is perceived as
a passive receptor of technologies generated elsewhere on research stations (Netting,
1993). The success of PTD is not measured by outcomes since new problems arise
continually. The real success of PTD is its ability to build the farmers' capacity to
incorporate concepts of natural and social ecology, systems analyses, and ecological
110
Ecological Aquaculture
economics into the farming family. Questions have been raised, however, about the
universal applicability, rigor of research findings, and abilities of PTD to make
meaningful policy changes (Scarborough et al., 1997). PTD ecosystems diagnoses and
ecosystem modeling approaches allow the needed academic rigor and new methods of
communication to track the development agenda of change towards sustainability
(Roling, 1994; Dalsgaard et al., 1995).
PTD methodologies to develop sustainable aquaculture ecosystems
PTD has also been called `participatory learning for action'. PTD uses assessment
tools to enable farmers to analyze their own social ecological situation and to
develop a common perspective on natural resources management and food production at the local level. PTD empowers farmers by creating a new information database that they need for action. PTD involves: group facilitation methods; methods
for interviewing and dialogue; and visualization/diagramming methods (Pretty,
1995).
PTD uses a dynamic set of assessment tools applicable to both researchers and
extension agents in order to gather information about an area quickly without getting
involved in expensive, large-scale, or highly technological (e.g. GIS) surveys. PTD
tools are used by these workers who go into a new area to get acquainted with the
situation, then return again and again to perform and update previous assessments.
Information on all aspects of society is gathered, such as crops, livestock, businesses,
social customs, soils, etc. Complementing the resource surveys are separate interviews
to complete gender analyses (GAs). GA analyzes and monitors the roles of men and
women in the evolution of farming systems development. It focuses on social
relationships and division of resources within social units in order to distinguish
impacts of agricultural innovations such as aquaculture on gender activities,
aspirations, needs and interests (Feldstein & Poats, 1989).
These tools are described below. All of them depend on farmer interviews during
which the following data are gathered:
a target group of farmers is identified;
the order of questions is determined by the flow of conversation and not by an
artificial list of ordered questions;
l questions are asked in the field because farmer answers are more detailed when
they can show what is happening directly;
l researcher questions focus on farm typology, descriptions of farming and ecological processes and material flows; rationales and difficulties; and key biological
and economic parameters.
l
l
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) uses a participatory approach to assess progress towards sustainability (IUCN, 1997). These
involve methods that assess the systems, the farmers, and the collaborations. The
following questions are at the heart of this approach:
Methods for the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Ecosystems
111
What is the condition of the environment and the people?
What are the nature of the people and their environment?
l What motivates people to do what they do?
l What actions are required to improve their situation and that of their environment?
l How do people know if things are getting better or worse?
l
l
PTD uses tools such as aqua/agroecosystem mapping, pictorial modeling, problem
diagramming, and system diagramming to obtain information needed to answer the
questions posed by IUCN (1997).
Aqua/agroecosystem mapping
Farmers routinely classify areas of their land and aquatic holdings as well as crop and
fish varieties in unique ways that attempt to decrease risks (Richards, 1986). Aqua/
agroecosystem mapping enables researchers and extension workers to identify suitable farmers, land types and enterprise mixtures that are most likely to benefit from
exposure to aquaculture as a new enterprise. Mapping also helps in identifying current aquatic farmers who may benefit from technologies developed by the sustainable
aquaculture group of collaborative researchers, extension agents, and interested
farmer investigators.
Aqua/agroecosystem mapping methodology is based on Lightfoot et al. (1989a, b;
1990, 1991). Maps are produced for an area illustrating topography and hydrology
and distribution of agricultural enterprises. Next, line transects of aqua/agroecological zones are drawn to show the entire range of farm/fishing enterprises, soil
types, and problems which occur in each zone. A topography and hydrology map is
made by eliciting from farmers each land type they distinguish and then placing these
on a spatial map that has roads, homes, watercourses and social functions such as
churches/temples, etc. (Fig. 5.3). Areas of standing water, directions of drainage and
drainage patters and areas that flood are also indicated. Defining boundaries requires
a considerable amount of ground-truthing and interviewing.
Aqua/agroecosystem transects are constructed by making a composite section
through each land type that is defined by the farmer (Fig. 5.4). For each land type, a
local name/soil type, crops, trees, livestock and other enterprises are listed.
Pictorial modeling
Pictorial modeling has been developed to help farmers/fishers understand the way in
which the farmers/fishers manage inputs, outputs and the recycling of materials
between various farm/fishing enterprises, and the household. Pictorial modeling has
also been shown to aid greatly in technology transfer to new farmers/fishers who are
in the process of adopting aquaculture (Noble et al., 1990; Strong & Arrhenius, 1993).
Pictorial modeling is a process in which farmers are asked to draw diagrams of their
112
Ecological Aquaculture
Fig. 5.3 Aqua/agroecosystem map and transect indicating topography and hydrology and transportation
access. Transects across each land/water habitat the farmer/fisher identifies are constructed with each
enterprise system indicated. Problems and opportunities are also noted during the participatory assessment
process (from Lightfoot et al., 1989b).
crop, livestock, home and other farm enterprises, and the resource flows between
them. During the aqua/agroecosystem mapping exercises, fishers/farmers are asked
to identify problems and opportunities in each land or enterprise system type they
identify. Pictorial modeling is done as a group activity with several farmers/fishers
participating. The exercise enables farmers to visualize their own farming systems as
integrated units, and to see where resource links are lacking between enterprises. In
addition, farmers/fishers exchange knowledge concerning their activities with others,
and illustrate these pictorially (Fig. 5.5). Researchers and extension workers can
identify from farmers' diagrams where technological help might improve the overall
farming/fishing ecosystem and how aquaculture might assist in enhancing the productivity and efficiency of resource flows (Figs 5.6, 5.7). Pictorial models can also be
combined with aqua/agroecosystem maps (Fig. 5.8).
Problem diagramming
Problems are identified from farmer interviews undertaken during the aqua/agroecosystem analyses. During these sessions, farmers work with scientists/extension
agents in a two-part process to diagram interactions between biophysical causes and
socio-economic constraints for each central problem identified (Lightfoot et al.,
Methods for the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Ecosystems
113
Fig. 5.4 Aqua/agroecosystem transect across an integrated aquaculture ecosystem with multiple farmer
enterprises in southern Malawi, Africa. Local names in the indigenous languages are used along with
English characterizations to describe natural and cultivated habitat types (from Lightfoot, 1990).
1989b). The first exercise is to construct a problem tree (Fig. 5.9). The objective of this
exercise is to fully understand the farmers' complex system of activities associated
with a problem, and to identify constraints that may be solved by researchable areas
for on-farm and/or on-station experimentation, or socio-economic research (Lightfoot et al., 1989b). The farmers'/fishers' central problem is put in the center of a piece
of paper, then they are asked to identify the primary causes ± both biophysical and
socio-economic ± for the problem (Fig. 5.9). Next, farmers/fishers are asked the
secondary causes of the primary causes and so on until all linkages are established. By
the time the exercise is completed, constraints at the tertiary and higher levels are
often the greatest opportunities for interactions with scientists' and extension agents'
work with farmers/fishers. A result from the field is shown in Fig. 5.10.
Aqua/agroecosystem analysis and systems diagnoses of problems help identify
farmers' problems on individual farms. The biological and socio-economic constraints underlying each problem are first outlined with farmers/fishers. Combining
results across an area can allow researchers and extension agents to identify if certain
problems are widespread among farmers/fishers ± systematic constraints ± allowing
greater in-depth analyses. Oftentimes, there is a set of underlying reasons for a
problem.
Once problem diagrams are collected from a number of farmers in an area,
problems can be ranked considering the number of farmers affected, the importance
of the farm enterprise involved, and the consequent losses of production and income
114
Ecological Aquaculture
Fig. 5.5 Bioresource modeling of products and waste flows from numerous farm enterprises on an integrated aquaculture ecosystem in Uttar Pradesh, India (modified from Lightfoot et al., 1991).
entailed (Fig.5.11). Such an exercise provides an opportunity for generating ideas for
intervention points where specific technological assistance may be required.
Farmers respond well to these problem analysis sessions because their problems
are always on their minds and they enjoy talking to someone who expresses a real
interest in their problems. Indeed these sessions are invaluable in that they can find
the root causes of persistent and long-term problems to which collaborative solutions can be found. In addition, because farmers are involved in the problem
analysis, they are often very motivated to participate in finding and trying out a
solution.
Systems diagramming
A systems diagram is constructed by placing the farmer's problem in the center of a
circle, then surrounding it with primary biophysical and socio-economic constraint
circles (Fig. 5.12). The size of the box circles depends on the frequency of responses
received as to the weight of the causes.
Methods for the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Ecosystems
115
Fig. 5.6 Modeling of biological and social resources at the coastal land±water interface. Exchanges of land
and sea products, cash and land tenure systems can be analyzed holistically using participatory technology
development tools (from Padilla & De Los Angeles, 1992).
The objective of a systems diagram is to order root causes of farmer problems in a
simple manner so that opportunities arise to solve the central priority issue across
many farmers/fishers and a large area or region. Once common problems/issues are
found, fishers/farmers are prompted to suggest what experiments, ideas or experience
they have to solve the issue, and scientists can suggest what technologies or new
management options are available. Such interaction leads farmers and research
directly into the experimental design for new collaborative research.
The role of the aquaculture research station
The overall objective of research in aquaculture is to evolve sustainable farming
systems (economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable). PTD methodologies are used due to their low costs, simplicity, and sustainability over the long
term with few external subsidies. Adoption of low cost PTD methodologies could
save funds, which could be devoted to accelerate research needed to evolve economically viable ecologically sustainable aquaculture ecosystems. PTD has not only
the capability of fundamentally revising the means by which researchers and
116
Ecological Aquaculture
Fig. 5.7 Incorporating aquaculture into traditional farming systems offers farmers more options for
sustainability and income generation, turning exploitative land uses into sustainable, regenerative integrated aquaculture±agriculture farming ecosystems (from Lightfoot, 1990).
Fig. 5.8 Bioresource flows shown on an aqua/agroecosystem transect of an integrated aquaculture ecosystem in Uttar Pradesh, India (modified from Lightfoot et al., 1991).
Methods for the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Ecosystems
117
Fig. 5.9 A problem tree for diagramming problems and causes on individual farms and fishing enterprises.
Farmers/fishers are asked about the main problems, primary and secondary causes, and causal linkages to
the problems. Problems are separated into biophysical and socio-economic problems (from Lightfoot et al.,
1990).
extension agents relate to farmers, but also of revising the way research agendas and
priorities are generated and funded.
Connell (1990) defined an approach to participatory extension, which he termed
`minimalist'. The objective of this approach is to `deliver sets of viable technologies to
farmers in diverse environments'. The minimalist approach is to offer farmers a
`supermarket' (Conway, 1986) or `basket' (Chambers et al., 1989) of technologies at
the research station; then to allow farmers sufficient `creative distance' to evaluate the
applicability of the technologies to their farming systems; then to encourage farmers
to identify areas for collaborative on-farm research.
The research station is set up with a continually changing set (the `basket') of
technologies that may or may not be of interest to farmers but have been developed
collaboratively by researchers and farmers/fishers using PTD methods (Fig. 5.13).
Farmers/fishers are invited on a regular basis for `open days' to witness these technologies. Farmers/fishers are encouraged to criticize the demonstrations and comment on better methods to increase production and farm sustainability. Farmers/
fishers are encouraged to return to the research station with ideas, further criticism, or
proposals to work with researchers on their farms/boats.
Combination of agroecosystem analysis, pictorial modeling, and systems diagnosis
118
Ecological Aquaculture
Fig. 5.10 Example of a problem tree for an integrated aquaculture ecosystem identifying `slender fish' as
the main problem in the aquaculture subsystem of a farm in southern Malawi, Africa. Primary and secondary causes are indicated. `Striga' is a local word for rooted aquatic plants. Complete identification of the
relationships to central problems creates unique opportunities for extension and research interventions
(from R. Noble, unpublished data).
of farmers' problems helps in development of appropriate technology, assists in
developing a farmer/fisher-centered research agenda on agriculture/aquaculture
experiment stations or research institutes, and facilitates more rapid, efficient, and
lower cost transfer of new information to farmers/fishers (Lightfoot & Noble, 1993).
Defining sustainable, ecological aquaculture
The Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987) defined sustainable development as `the
ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future
generations to meet their own needs.' Some forms of intensive aquaculture
development have caused severe social and environmental impacts (Pullin et al., 1993;
Black, 2000). The degraded state of most aquatic ecosystems combined with public
concerns about adding any `new' sources of aquatic pollution to already overburdened ecosystems will require aquaculture to develop new, ecosystems approaches
and sustainable operating procedures; and to articulate a sustainable, ecological
pedagogy. In the twenty-first century, aquaculture developers will need to spend as
much time on technological advances coming to the field as they do in designing
ecological approaches to aquaculture development that clearly exhibit stewardship of
the environment.
An alternative model of aquaculture development called `ecological aquaculture' is
Methods for the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Ecosystems
119
Fig. 5.11 Problem ranking table summarizing common problems for groups of farmers/fishers across a
region or watershed. Farmers are asked to rank problems they identify as systemic across their enterprises.
Problems are ranked using three criteria: (a) the distribution of the problem, (b) the importance of the
enterprise to the farming system, and (c) the loss of income for which the problem is responsible (from
Lightfoot et al., 1990).
needed that not only brings the technical aspects of ecological principles and systems
thinking to aquaculture, but incorporates ± at the outset ± principles of natural and
social ecology, planning for community development, and concerns for the wider
social, economic, and environmental contexts of aquaculture. Sustainable, ecological
aquaculture is the development of aquatic farming systems that preserve and enhance
the forms and functions of the natural and social environments in which they are
situated. Such a vision incorporates the following ideas about ecological aquaculture
systems.
First, ecological aquaculture systems are planned using systems ecology approaches that develop aquaculture production networks for various species in a highly
diversified, segmented manner, with numerous interconnections that supply inputs
and outputs using: (a) local resources, (b) recycled wastes and materials and closing
120
Ecological Aquaculture
Fig. 5.12 A farming ecosystems diagram that links primary and secondary constraints to productivity with
biophysical and socio-economic causes. The systems diagram is constructed by arranging primary and
secondary constraints into circles surrounding the central problem with biophysical causes on the right and
socio-economic constraints on the left. The size of each circle is determined by the number of responses
obtained at a group meeting (from Lightfoot et al., 1990).
leaky loops of energy and materials that can potentially degrade natural ecosystems,
and (c) planning for maximal job creation and local markets (Costa-Pierce, 1992).
Aquaculture depends upon inputs from various food, processing and transportation
industries and produces valuable wastewaters, manures and fish wastes, all of which
can be a vital part of an ecological system that can be planned and organized for
community-based ecosystem rehabilitation, reclamation and enhancement ± not
degradation.
Secondly, ecological aquaculture treats and recycles its own wastes ± rather than
relying upon public subsidies ± and integrates people with technologies in new
synergies to create new employment and biotechnical advances with earth-centered
knowledge (information science) and appropriate technologies (wind, solar and
biomass). Transitions to a sustainable, ecological aquaculture will require a move-
Methods for the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Ecosystems
121
Fig. 5.13 Participatory technology development (PTD) methodologies help researchers and extension
workers define new collaborative research opportunities both on research stations and on-farm/in the field.
As a result, the design of proper components to merge in assembling aquaculture ecosystems is relevant to
the local farming/fishing situation and the local ecosystems. This integrated aquaculture±silviculture±
agriculture ecosystem was implemented on a research station with farmers and eventually spread widely in
southern Malawi, Africa (Noble & Costa-Pierce, 1992).
ment from the sewage treatment and assimilative concepts of waste management,
towards the concepts of input management and integrated waste treatment technologies.
Lastly, ecological aquaculture takes a global view, integrating ecological science
and sharing technological information with innovation in the global marketplace,
avoiding the proprietary. It is community-based, having positive societal impacts,
and is analyzed holistically, incorporating social and environmental costs, not
externalizing them.
Some characteristics of ecological aquaculture are that it:
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
preserves the form and functions of natural ecosystems;
derives most of its energy from renewable sources (solar, wind, water, biomass);
relies on waste animal- or plant-based proteins for feeds, decreasing dramatically
the use of fish meals and oils;
does not produce nutrient or chemical pollution or antibiotics harmful to human
or ecosystem health;
develops a systems approach to nutrient recycling and regeneration;
plans for ecosystem rehabilitation and enhancement;
is integrated with agriculture and capture fisheries;
uses native or resident species, or has complete containment procedures in place;
is integrated with communities to maximize job creation in local industries;
produces organic or ecolabelled products using sustainable farming practices;
is a global partner, producing information for the world.
Clear, unambiguous linkages between aquaculture and the environment must be
created and fostered, and the complementary roles of aquaculture in contributing to
environmental sustainability, rehabilitation and enhancement must be developed and
122
Ecological Aquaculture
clearly articulated to a highly concerned, increasingly educated and involved public.
Planning for aquaculture development as community development must include
planning for aquaculture's vital support industries and for the reuse of aquaculture
wastes in agriculture or in environmental enhancement projects. Ecological aquaculture will create new opportunities for a wider group of professionals to get
involved in aquaculture since new advances will be needed not only in technology but
also in information, community development and facilitation.
Conclusions
PTD methodologies are low-cost and sustainable. They put the farmer/fisher first in
terms of developing technology appropriate for the evolution of sustainable aquaculture ecosystems. Aqua/agroecosystem analyses, pictorial modeling, problem diagramming, and systems diagnoses are important tools that recognize social and
farming systems diversity, and the fact that no single aquaculture technology is
universally applicable. There are many aqua/agroecological `niches' and farmers
must be allowed to adopt and modify technologies as they see fit to suit their particular circumstances.
In farming and fishing systems PTD approaches, the natural and social ecological
sciences come together in a very unique form of interdisciplinary environmental
scholarship. Fixed answers derived from agriculture/aquaculture experiment stations
and passed down to farmers in a top-down manner are too inflexible. These
approaches cannot solve the problems of sustainability which require more sitespecific, integrated, social and ecological methodologies. Farmers must be able to
choose from a basket of technologies and management approaches. With innovative
technologies such as aquaculture, farmers often know as much as researchers ±
making the reversal of traditional extension roles a given which should be embraced
as a set of unique opportunities for collaborative work, not challenged or fought. By
initiating a new era of cooperative research with farmers, a more detailed and very
intimate knowledge of the natural and social ecology of farming systems can be
combined with useful scientific knowledge to evolve sustainable aquaculture ecosystems.
References
Alteri, M. (1987) Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture. Intermediate
Technology Publications, London.
Barinaga, M. (1990) Fish, money, and science in Puget Sound. Science, 247, 631.
Black, K.D. (2000) Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Borgese, E.M. (1980) Seafarm, The Story of Aquaculture. H.N. Abrams, New York.
Chambers, R., Pacey, A. & Thrupp, L.A. (1989) Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Connell, J. (1990) A `minimalist' approach to participatory extension. Paper presented at the
Methods for the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Ecosystems
123
Asian Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium, Bangkok, Thailand, 19±22
November 1990.
Conway, G. (1986) Agroecosystem Analysis for Research and Development. Winrock International, Bangkok, Thailand.
Costa-Pierce, B.A. (1992) Rice±fish systems as intensive nurseries. In: Rice±Fish Research and
Development in Asia (eds C.R. de la Cruz, C. Lightfoot, B.A. Costa-Pierce, V.R. Carangal &
M.P. Bimbao), pp. 117±130. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines.
Costa-Pierce, B.A. (1996) Environmental impacts of nutrients from aquaculture: towards the
evolution of sustainable aquaculture systems. In: Aquaculture and Water Resource
Management (eds D.J. Baird, M.C.M. Beveridge, L.A. Kelly & J.F. Muir), pp. 81±113.
Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Costa-Pierce, B.A. (1998) Constraints to the sustainability of cage aquaculture for resettlement
from hydropower dams in Asia: an Indonesian case study. Journal of Environment and
Development, 7, 333±363.
Dalsgaard, J.P.T., Lightfoot, C. & Christensen, V. (1995) Towards quantification of ecological
sustainability in farming systems analysis. Ecological Engineering, 4, 181±189.
Dent, J.B. & Anderson, J. (1971) Systems, management and agriculture. In: Systems Analysis in
Agricultural Management (eds J. Dent & J. Anderson), pp. 3±14. Wiley, New York.
Edwards, P. (1993) Environmental issues in integrated agriculture±aquaculture and
wastewater-fed fish culture systems. In: Environment and Aquaculture in Developing Countries
(eds R. Pullin, H. Rosenthal & J. Maclean), pp. 139±170. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1990) Farming Systems
Development. FAO, Rome.
Feldstein, H.S. & Poats, S.V. (1989) Working Together: Gender Analysis in Agriculture. Vol. 1.
Case Studies; Vol. 2. Teaching Notes. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, CT.
Folke, C. & Kautsky, N. (1991) Ecological economic principles for aquaculture development.
In: Nutritional Strategies and Aquaculture Wastes (eds C.B. Cowey & C.Y. Cho), pp. 207±
222. University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Gadgil, M. & Guha, R. (1992) The Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. Oxford
University Press, India.
Gliessman, S. (1998) Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Ann Arbor
Press, Chelsea, MI.
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) (1997) An Approach to Assessing
Progress Toward Sustainability. Tools and Training Series. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Kansing, S. & Kremer, J. (1995) A sociological analysis of Balinese water temples. In: The
Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge Systems (eds D. Warren, L.
Slikkerveer & D. Brokensha), pp. 258±269. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Lightfoot, C.W. (1990) Integration of aquaculture and agriculture: a route to sustainable
farming systems. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly, 13, 9±12.
Lightfoot, C., Bottrall, A., Axinn, N., Conway, G. & Singh, P. (1989a) Training Resource Book
for Agro-Ecosystem Mapping. International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines &
Ford Foundation, New Delhi, India.
Lightfoot, C., Singh, V.P., Paris, T., Mishra, P. & Salman, A. (1989b) Training Resource Book
for Farming Systems Diagnosis. ICLARM Contribution No. 581. International Center for
Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), Manila, Philippines.
124
Ecological Aquaculture
Lightfoot, C., Singh, V.P., Paris, T., Mishra, P. & Salman, A. (1990) Training Resource Book
for Farming Systems Diagnosis. International Rice Research Institute, Manila, and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines.
Lightfoot, C., Axinn, N., John, K.C. et al. (1991) Training Resource Book for Participatory
Experimental Design. ICLARM/IRRI, ICLARM Contribution No. 764. Narendra Dev
University of Agriculture and Technology, Uttar Pradesh, India; International Center for
Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines, International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), Manila.
Lightfoot, C. & Noble, R.P. (1993) A participatory experiment in sustainable agriculture.
Journal of Farming Systems Research and Extension, 4, 11±34.
McCorkle, C. (1994) Farmer Innovation in Niger. Studies in Technology and Social Change 21.
Iowa State University Center, Ames, IA.
Netting, R.Mc. (1993) Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive,
Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Noble, R., Lightfoot, C. & Bage, J. (1990) Training notes to accompany a video on pictorial
modeling: a farmer-participatory method for modeling bio-resource flows in farming systems. ICLARM Contribution No. 662. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines.
Noble, R. & Costa-Pierce, B. (1992) Aquaculture technology research for smallholder farmers
in rural Malawi. In: Aquaculture and Schistosomiasis (ed. National Research Council),
pp. 11±25. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Odum, E.P. (1975) Ecology. Holt-Saunders, New York.
Odum, E.P. (1989) Input management production systems. Science, 243, 177±181.
Padilla, J.E. & De Los Angeles, M.S. (1992) Economic policies and the sustainable development of coastal resources in the Philippines. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly, 15, 36±38.
Pretty, J.N. (1995) Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and SelfReliance. Earthscan Press, London.
Pullin, R., Rosenthal, H. & Maclean, J.L. (1993) Environment and Aquaculture in Developing
Countries. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 31. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines.
Richards, P. (1986) Coping with Hunger: Hazard and Experiment in an African Rice Farming
System. Allen and Unwin, London.
Roling, N. (1994) Platforms for decision-making about ecosystems. In: Future of the Land:
Mobilizing and Integrating Knowledge for Land Use Options (eds L.O. Fresco, L. Stroosnijder, J. Bouma & H. van Keulen), pp. 385±393. Wiley, New York.
Roling, N.G. & Jiggens, J. (1998) The ecological knowledge system. In: Facilitating Sustainable
Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental
Uncertainty (eds N.G. Roling & M. Wagemakers), pp. 105±125. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Scarborough, V., Killough, S., Johnson, D. & Farrington, J. (1997) Farmer±led Extension:
Concepts and Practices. Intermediate Technology Press, London.
Strong, M. & Arrhenius, C. (1993) Closing linear flows of carbon through a sectoral society:
diagnosis and implementation. Ambio, 22, 414±416.
Veldhuizen, L. (1998) Principles and strategies of participation and cooperation: challenges for
the coming decade. Advances in Geoecology, 31, 979±983.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.