9.1. A Redefinition of Rural Aquaculture Systems in the Philippine Context
9.2. Production Systems, Facilities, Species
The Philippines has a vast potential for aquaculture development. With the dwindling catch from coastal waters, the uncertainty of sustaining the present level of deep sea fisheries and the increased competition for fish resources in international waters leading to border conflicts, aquaculture remains the only hope for self-sufficiency in fish and for maintaining or even increasing the role of fish in food security.
Aquaculture also is the most logical livelihood option for the small fisherfolk who can no longer catch enough fish even to feed themselves. As it is now the aquaculture industry in the Philippines is still mainly in the hands of the rich and the privileged. There is a real need to widen the ownership base of aquaculture production systems and make the industry one of the livelihood options in the rural area whether inland or coastal.
Based on the definition of Edwards and Demaine (1997), for an aquaculture activity to be classified rural it should ideally meet the following requirements:
If this definition were to be strictly applied most of Philippine aquaculture cannot be considered part of rural aquaculture. Yet without a doubt many such aquaculture activities are in fact rural in nature. The given definition appears to be oriented towards aquaculture units that are based in, or integrated with, agricultural farming units rather than as stand-alone aquaculture units. Other than the freshwater fishponds, all other aquaculture systems regardless of scale and ownership, while definitely not industrial cannot be considered rural aquaculture either under the given definition. Even the seaweeds farm and the oyster and mussel farms, which are mostly small-scale, do not quite fit into the definition. The seaweeds, particularly the Eucheuma, while of relatively low value, are mostly sold, not to poor consumers, but to processors and exporters. Oysters and mussels, while cheap to produce, have much potentially higher market values than poor consumers can afford and are in fact set up more to generate cash than to produce food for the family.
If rural aquaculture is limited to freshwater fishpond then in its present state it is a very small base for rural aquaculture in the Philippines. The total freshwater fishpond area in the entire Philippines is 14,531 ha of which two thirds are in the Central Luzon region only, making up 0 14% of total fish and shellfish production from aquaculture. Thus such a restrictive definition is not realistic in the Philippine context.
There is a need to encourage freshwater aquaculture in the Philippines particularly small-scale aquaculture integrated with agriculture. However this should be done without leaving the impoverished fishing communities behind.
The Philippines, an archipelagic country, with a strong tradition for coastal aquaculture requires a broader definition of rural aquaculture. The definition should be centered more on the ownership and control of the means of production rather than on trophic level consideration of the species involved and on the cost of the final product and target market. There is an inherent fallacy in insisting that the poor should only produce for the poor, except if the intention is to keep them poor in perpetuity. Aquaculture should be viewed as a means for the rural poor to be more financially secure so that they can afford to provide themselves with more than just food, clothing and shelter.
In the Philippines this is nowhere more acute as in the coastal area. Municipal capture fisheries had been declining at an average rate of 1.54% since 1992. There is no sign of recovery and there is not likely to be unless drastic measures are taken to reduce the fishing pressure. Aquaculture is a viable alternative to fishing. With coastal aquaculture the fishing families will still be in working within the environment and commodities that they are familiar with. As already discussed in an earlier section most of the oyster, mussel and seaweed farmers had fishing as their previous or their concurrent means of livelihood.
Additionally, in the Philippine situation, there is no choice but to provide the poor with water-based livelihood, whether in lakes or in marine waters. So much land is still in the hands of the rich. There is still a very strong resistance on the part of those who are in a position of power and influence to have these lands equitably distributed. Even the public lands that have been converted to fishponds are mostly large tracts that are not under the control of the local people or community but by an absentee leaseholder. To make matters worse fishponds are exempted from agrarian reform. The lakes and the seas at least are still common property.
Thus a less restrictive definition of rural aquaculture is in order so that any future program to help this sector will benefit a larger number of people or families. For the Philippines rural aquaculture should include the farming and husbandry of aquatic organisms which meet the following conditions:
Under the foregoing conditions the following culture systems should be considered part of rural aquaculture in the Philippines:
a) small-scale freshwater fishponds that are part of agricultural farms;The non-inclusion of stand-alone freshwater fishponds and all brackishwater fishponds will reduce ambiguity as to the target sector. While there may be small-scale stand alone freshwater fishponds and brackishwater fishponds these are exceptional. Under the present socio-political system it is not likely that the number of such small pond holdings can still increase or can be increased. The only way a brackishwater pond system could be made part of rural aquaculture is by developing it specifically for smallholders using the nucleus-estate concept. However this type of development is expensive and the Rate of Return is not likely to be attractive. It also suffers from a long gestation period since it takes time even just to rehabilitate or convert existing fishpond to small holders ponds
b) culture of fish in cages;
c) oyster and mussel culture;
d) open-sea seaweed culture (as opposed to pond-based);
e) culture of any edible or marketable species in swamps, marshes, mangroves (e.g. mud crab culture in mangrove-based pens).
On the other hand while it is true that many of the present fish cages are not owner-operated, it is realistic to offer such culture system as an alternative livelihood to coastal or municipal fishing since the investment required is minimal. Oyster, mussel and seaweed farming, as has been determined in various surveys, are mostly small-scale and family operated and should therefore be considered part of rural aquaculture. It should be noted that NGOs involved in rural development such as the Philippine-based International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) and the PBSB are also partial to cage culture, seaweed culture and other types of culture systems which are not land-based, as livelihood alternatives for the coastal poor.
