Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.