This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] On: 12 October 2013, At: 11:22 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Aquaculture Economics & Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaqm20 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF COMMUNITY- BASED FISH CULTURE IN SEASONALLY FLOODED RICE FIELDS IN BANGLADESH AND VIETNAM Madan M. Dey a , Mark Prein a , A. B. M. Mahfuzul Haque b , Parvin Sultana c , Nguyen Cong Dan d & Nguyen Van Hao e a The WorldFish Center , Penang, Malaysia b Proshika, Ramna, Dhaka, Bangladesh c The WorldFish Center , Penang, Malaysia d Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 1 , Ha Bac, Hanoi, Vietnam e Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 2, Ministry of Fisheries—Vietnam , Ho-Chi-Minh City, Vietnam Published online: 23 Feb 2007. To cite this article: Madan M. Dey , Mark Prein , A. B. M. Mahfuzul Haque , Parvin Sultana , Nguyen Cong Dan & Nguyen Van Hao (2005) ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF COMMUNITY-BASED FISH CULTURE IN SEASONALLY FLOODED RICE FIELDS IN BANGLADESH AND VIETNAM, Aquaculture Economics & Management, 9:1-2, 65-88, DOI: 10.1080/13657300590961591 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657300590961591 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 12 October 2013, At: 11:22Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Aquaculture Economics & ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaqm20
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF COMMUNITY-BASED FISH CULTURE IN SEASONALLYFLOODED RICE FIELDS IN BANGLADESHAND VIETNAMMadan M. Dey a , Mark Prein a , A. B. M. Mahfuzul Haque b , ParvinSultana c , Nguyen Cong Dan d & Nguyen Van Hao ea The WorldFish Center , Penang, Malaysiab Proshika, Ramna, Dhaka, Bangladeshc The WorldFish Center , Penang, Malaysiad Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 1 , Ha Bac, Hanoi, Vietname Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 2, Ministry ofFisheries—Vietnam , Ho-Chi-Minh City, VietnamPublished online: 23 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Madan M. Dey , Mark Prein , A. B. M. Mahfuzul Haque , Parvin Sultana , NguyenCong Dan & Nguyen Van Hao (2005) ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF COMMUNITY-BASED FISH CULTUREIN SEASONALLY FLOODED RICE FIELDS IN BANGLADESH AND VIETNAM, Aquaculture Economics &Management, 9:1-2, 65-88, DOI: 10.1080/13657300590961591
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657300590961591
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF COMMUNITY-BASED FISHCULTURE IN SEASONALLY FLOODED RICE FIELDSIN BANGLADESH AND VIETNAM
Madan M. Dey and Mark Prein & The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia
A. B. M. Mahfuzul Haque & Proshika, Ramna, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Parvin Sultana & The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia
Nguyen Cong Dan & Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 1, Ha Bac,Hanoi, Vietnam
Nguyen Van Hao & Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 2, Ministryof Fisheries—Vietnam, Ho-Chi-Minh City, Vietnam
& During the rainy season in extensive river floodplains and deltaic lowlands, floods lastingseveral months render the land unavailable for crop production for several months each year. Thesewaters are considerably underutilized in terms of managed aquatic productivity. This raises theopportunity to enclose parts of these annually occurring floodwater areas to produce a crop ofspecifically stocked aquatic organisms aside from the naturally occurring ‘wild’ species that are tra-ditionally fished and are not affected by the culture activity, overall resulting in more high-quality,nutrient-dense food production and enhanced farm income for all stakeholders, notably the poor.The WorldFish Center and its national partners recently tested two systems in a community basedmanagement approach in Bangladesh and Vietnam: (i) concurrent rice-fish culture in shallowerflooded areas, and (ii) alternating rice and fish culture in the deep-flooded areas. Results indicatethat community-based fish culture in rice fields is technically feasible, economically viable andsocially acceptable. It can increase fish production to about 600 kg=ha=year in shallow floodedareas and up to 1.5 t=ha=year in deep-flooded areas, without reduction in rice yield and wild fishcatch. For the overall system and in the trials conducted, an additional income of US$135 per hain southern Vietnam, and up to US$437 per ha in Bangladesh were achieved, which is an increaseof 20%to 85% over the previous profitability. The communities neighboring the trial sites havebeen adopting the technologies widely.
Address correspondence to Madan M. Dey, Regional Director (East and Southeast Asia) and SeniorScientist, the WorldFish Center, GPO Box 500, 10670 Penang, Malaysia. E-mail: [email protected]
The past decade has seen growing recognition of the crisis facing theworld’s water resources and the need for concerted action to use thesemore efficiently. The efficiency of water use (or water productivity) canbe increased by producing more output per unit of water used, or by reduc-ing water losses, or by a combination of both. So far, strategies for increas-ing output have been limited to crop cultivation only. Water productivity atseveral organizational levels can be increased further by integrating fishand other living aquatic resources into the existing water use systems. Suchopportunities of integration include community-based fish culture in seaso-nal floodplains.
Farming practices in the flood-prone ecosystem are governed by a num-ber of interacting physical factors, of which the chief ones are the floodingregime (onset, depth, recession, and variability), topography, rainfall pat-tern, soil texture, and water management regime. Traditionally, farmersused to grow deepwater rice and capture fish during the rainy=flood seasonand subsequently cultivate a wide range of crops (such as pulses, oil seeds,and vegetables) during the post-flood dry season.
During the last few decades, the flood-prone ecosystems in Asia haveundergone some dramatic changes due to the establishment of deep wells(for example, in Bangladesh and eastern India) and the construction of theFlood Control Drainage and Irrigation systems. With the availability of irri-gation facilities, farmers grow high-yielding varieties (HYV) of rice in thedry season under irrigated conditions. In Gangetic floodplains dominantfarming patterns can be distinguished according to two categories of flood-ing depths: (i) in shallow flooded areas irrigated HYV rice is grown duringthe dry season, followed by transplanted deepwater rice varieties during therainy season; (ii) in deep flooded areas single-crop irrigated HYV rice dur-ing the dry season followed by a fallow phase during the flood season. Theusual late harvest of HYV dry season (winter) rice does not allow for thetimely establishment of a deepwater rice crop in the deep-flooded areasduring the rainy season.
In shallow flooded areas in the Red River delta (in northern Vietnam),farmers generally grow high-yielding irrigated rice during the dry season,and a tall-growing local or higher-yielding variety during the rainy season.In the Mekong Delta of southern Vietnam, where rice fields are also deeplyflooded in the rainy season, two irrigated crops of high-yielding rice vari-eties are grown with a flood fallow period in between. In these seasonalfloodplains, fish production essentially emanates from capture activitiesby seasonal or part-time fisher-farmers where wild fish enter, reproduce,and are harvested from the flooded fields.
66 M. M. Dey et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
An opportunity for further increased production in the flood-proneecosystem is the concurrent integration of fish culture with rice farming.The flood-prone areas are seasonally flooded during the monsoon andremain submerged from 4 to 6 months. The vast water bodies can providenatural habitats for various aquatic resources. The yearly silt deposition andorganic matter decomposition favor the natural growth of flora and fauna.The abundance of natural organisms favors fish culture for 4 to 5 monthsin these flood-prone areas.
A number of studies have been conducted in the 1980s to test the techni-cal feasibility of culturing fish in seasonally flooded rice fields in India (Royet al., 1990; Das et al., 1990; Mukhopadhyay et al., 1991, 1992), Bangladesh(Ali et al., 1993, 1998), Cambodia (Gregory & Guttman, 1996; Guttman,1999, 2000), and Vietnam (Rothuis et al., 1998a, 1998b). These studies showthat fish production can be increased by more than 1mt=ha=year by stockingflooded ricefields with fish (i.e., individual farmers fencing their plots andstocking fish during the flood season). In addition, the culture of fish withinricefields can increase rice yields, especially on poorer soils and in unfertilizedcrops where the fertilizing effect of fish is greatest (Lightfoot et al., 1992a,1992b). Savings of pesticides, earnings from fish sales and increased yieldsresult in net incomes that are 7 to 65% higher than for rice monoculture(Waibel, 1992). Other studies have found either no or even negative effectsof fish on rice production when cultured concurrently (Berg, 2002; Vromantet al., 2002; Rothuis et al., 1998a). However, the adoption of the technology ofconcurrent culture of fish in deepwater rice fields by farmers has been verylow due to the high cost of completely fencing-in individual plots on all sides.
In these flood-prone areas, land ownership is fixed according to tenurearrangements during the dry season. However, during wet season floods,individual land holdings are not visible and waters are a community pro-perty granting all members access to fish in all areas of the community.Therefore, it is essential that the rice-fish culture activity in the flood-proneecosystem is undertaken by the rural community under a group approach.The group should include the landless who have traditionally accessed theflooded areas for fishing, but would lose this essential resource if they weredenied access because the areas are stocked with fish.
Generally, three types of rice-fish culture systems can be establishedin flood-prone areas: (i) concurrent culture of deepwater rice (with sub-mergence tolerance1) with stocked fish during the flood season followedby dry season rice in shallow flooded areas; (ii) concurrent culture of deep-water rice (with elongation ability2) with stocked fish during the floodseason, followed by dry season nonrice crops in deep flooded areas; and(iii) alternating culture of dry season rice followed by stocked fish onlyduring the flood season (that is, without rice) in the enclosed area (forexample, as in a fish pen) in deep flooded areas.
Community Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields 67
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
The WorldFish Center and its national partners tested concurrent rice-fish culture (option i above; two pictures on the left-hand side of Figure 1)in the shallower flooded areas and alternating rice and fish culture (optioniii above; two diagrams on the right hand side of Figure 1) in the deep-flooded areas of Bangladesh and Vietnam through a community-based3
management system over a three-year period4 (1998–2000). Under thisapproach, fish is cultured communally during the flood season while thesame land is cultivated with rice during the dry season by individual farmersin their separately owned plots. The main objective of this paper is to assessthe economic feasibility of these options.5
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A sound methodology was developed for this study after a review of anumber of different earlier investigations and through group discussionsamong personnel of participating agencies as well as with the participatingfarmers. The following steps were followed in implementing the study.
Identification of Landscape=Project Sites
After collecting relevant information on potential sites through thereview of secondary sources and reconnaissance field visits by multidisci-plinary teams, several rounds of group discussions were conducted togetherwith the users in each potential site. In selecting project sites, both theagroecological condition of the landscape and the socioeconomic insti-tutional aspects of the users of the landscape were considered. For eachproject site, a control site with a similar agroecological environment wasselected.
The project was implemented in four areas of Bangladesh representingthe floodplain ecosystems of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Meghna rivers,and in two areas of Vietnam representing the Red River and Mekong Riverfloodplains. The project areas represent varied biophysical environments(Table 1). These can be categorized as shallow and medium flooded (with50 to 150 cm flooding depth) and deep-flooded (150 to 250 cm floodingdepth). The flooding is generally uncontrolled in Bangladesh and in theMekong River floodplains of southern Vietnam, but it is controlled inthe shallow=medium flooded Red River delta in northern Vietnam.
Sites in BangladeshThe dominant farming system in the shallow- and medium-flooded pro-
ject areas in Bangladesh (Narail and Muktagacha-Mymensingh) is HYV(high-yielding variety) winter rice (known as Boro rice) during the dry sea-son grown with irrigation, followed by transplanted deepwater Aman rice
68 M. M. Dey et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
FIG
URE1Se
asonal
floodplains:Twooptionsforim
provemen
toffarm
ingsystem
sthrough
community-based
fish
culture.
69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
TABLE1
DescriptionoftheStudySitesforCommunity-Based
FishCulture
inSe
asonal
Floodplains
Country
Area=District=
Province
Floodplain
Flooding
duration
Maxim
um
flooding
dep
th(m
)Existing
farm
ingsystem
Floodco
ntrol
regime
Ban
glad
esh
Brahman
Baria
Meg
hna
May=June–
Nov=Dec
2.50
HYV
Rice(B
oro)–F
allow
None
Kishorgan
jBrahmap
utra
May=June–
Nov=Dec
1.80
HYV
Rice(B
oro)–F
allow
None
Narail
Gan
ges
June=July–D
ec1.25
HYV
Rice(B
oro)–T
DW
Aman
None
Mym
ensingh
Brahmap
utra
July=Aug–
Nov=Dec
1.25
HYV
Rice(B
oro)–T
DW
Aman
None
Vietnam
VuBan
(northernVietnam
)Red
River
Delta
June–
Dec
1.00
MVRice–
L=MVRice
(Spring=
Summer–A
utumn)
Availab
le
Thap
Muoi
(southernVietnam
)Mek
ongRiver
Delta
Aug–
Nov
2.20
MVRice–
MVRice
(Spring–
Spring)
Noeffective
floodco
ntrol
Note:
HYV
¼high-yieldingvariety,
‘Boro’,in
dry
season,irrigated;TDW
¼tran
splanteddeepwater,‘Aman
’,in
rainyseason;MV¼modernvariety,L¼local
variety(often
withelongationcapacity).
70
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
during the rainy season. In the deep-flooded project areas in Bangladesh(Kuliarchar-Kishorganj and Brahmanbaria), farmers usually grow single-crop irrigated HYV Boro during the dry season (January to June) and keepthe land fallow during the rest of the year. In these areas, late harvest ofBoro does not allow the establishment of a deepwater rice crop before thearrival of the flood (in May=June).
In each of the four project areas in Bangladesh (Kuliarchar-Kishorganj,Brahmanbaria, Narail, and Muktagacha-Mymensingh) two project siteswere selected. A few of the project sites were discontinued due to varioussocial and technical reasons and new replacement sites were selected. Eachof the project sites had unique agroecological characteristics.
Sites in VietnamIn northern Vietnam, the project was implemented in the Vu Ban dis-
trict of Nam Dinh province, which is one of the typical lowland areas inthe Red River delta. In order to control flooding, irrigation systems wereconstructed all over the province during the 1960s and 1970s. The irri-gation systems include canals and pumping stations that can pump waterout of rice fields to protect rice from flooding in the rainy season. How-ever, the cost of pumping for the protection of the rice crop can be veryhigh during heavy rain. The study area is flooded during July to October,with a maximum water depth of about 100 cm in August. Rice fields areoften used for two rice crops per year. Rice yields are as high as5 t=ha=crop. During the last two decades, high yielding varieties of ricehave been cultivated to replace the traditional rice varieties. In generalin the shallow flooded project areas in the Red River delta, where flood-ing is relatively controlled, farmers grow high yielding irrigated rice dur-ing the dry season, and a tall-growing local or higher yielding varietyduring the rainy season.
In southern Vietnam, the project was implemented in the Trap Muoidistrict of Dong Thap Province. These areas represent the deep floodedzone of the Mekong River floodplain in Vietnam. Though there are somedike systems and sluice gates to control early floods, flooding in this areafor most part of the rainy season is generally uncontrolled. Flooding gener-ally begins in August and continues for about 13.5 weeks. The maximumlevel of flooding ranges from 150 to 220 cm in the study area(mean¼180 cm). The maximum depth of flooding occurs around the firstto the third week of October. After reaching the highest level, the flood-waters begin to recede and the farmers can start preparation for rice culti-vation activities in November. Where rice fields are also deeply flooded inthe rainy season and flooding is uncontrolled, farmers grow two irrigatedcrops of high-yielding rice varieties with a flood fallow period in between(i.e., from August to November).
Community Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields 71
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
Identification of Stakeholders and Assessment of their Needs
The users=stockholders included landowners as well as other people ofthe community who rely on the landscape for fishing during the rainy sea-son. In identifying users, discussions were held with representatives fromvarious classes of the society, namely poor farmers, rich farmers, landlesslaborers of the nearby communities, and members of local organizations.
The steps followed in assessing the users’ needs were: (i) diagnostic sur-vey conducted by scientists and representatives from local level organiza-tions (that is, NGOs in Bangladesh; local agriculture extension offices inVietnam); (ii) baseline surveys of socioeconomic, institutional, and biophy-sical conditions; and (iii) group discussions with users (see WorldFish Cen-ter, 2004 and Dey et al., 2005 for further details). Preliminary results ofdiagnostic and baseline surveys were presented and discussed during thegroup meetings. One main objective of the baseline survey was to generatebaseline information on various socioeconomic aspects of the farmers sothat the same parameters could be compared during the impact assessmentof the project.
Participatory Design and Testing of Technical Options
Technical options were designed by researchers in consultation withusers based on users’ needs and indigenous knowledge. As the conceptof community based fish culture in deepwater rice fields is new in south-ern Vietnam, a small-scale exploratory experiment was first initiated in1997 in Tien Giang6 province to determine the potential of the technicaloptions. The results of this trial were subsequently used as input toinitiate discussions between researchers and users about various aspectsof the trials, which were subsequently utilized in fine-tuning the technicaloptions.
Site-specific technical options were tested by users, with minimum sup-port from researchers. Users provided labor in managing experiments andcollecting simple experimental data (for example, input use level).Researchers basically acted as resource persons. The project providedfinancial support, as seed money, during the first year at each site to covermaterial costs. Users deposited a certain portion of the sale proceeds fromthe experiments to cover future project expenditures.
Enclosed areas of water were established utilizing existing elevations tominimize the length of the required fence perimeter. Fences were made oflocal materials such as bamboo and reeds to a height regarded as safeaccording to normal flood heights. In exceptional cases fence heightshad to be raised in response to uncommonly high floods, which on suchoccasions posed a risk to loss of some of the stocked fish.
72 M. M. Dey et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
Users designed institutional options (such as group formation, sharingarrangement) for testing technical options; researchers and NGO workersacted as facilitators. Users included participating farmers, nonparticipatingfarmers, and practicing nonfarmers (termed ‘‘landless’’) who used to relyon the landscape for fishing. Groups were formed with more or less hom-ogenous users.7 Arrangements between stakeholders were made within thecontext that during the flooded season when individual plots are not dis-cernable, the water body temporarily becomes a common propertyresource, in contrast to the dry season in which individual land holdingsare clearly discernable and respected.
A Project Implementation Committee (PIC) was formed in each sitewith representatives from different categories of users, local organizations(such as an NGO in Bangladesh), and the research team. The functionsof the PIC were: (i) preparation of a budget; (ii) finalization of the sharingagreement; (iii) overseeing the implementation of the project; (iv) settle-ment of disputes; (v) supervision of fish sales; (vi) distribution of proceedsfrom the community-based fish culture experiments; and (vii) manage-ment of the project account.
In the first year the communities received financial support for theinitial investment in fences. In subsequent years, communities re-investeda portion of their proceeds from the previous year’s fish sales into the sub-sequent year’s fish culture operation, e.g. for the purchase of fish finger-lings and the maintenance of the fence.
Monitoring and Evaluation
A range of variables including biophysical (water quality, soil quality),agricultural (input use, crop yield, fish culture, fish catch) and socioeco-nomic (input and output price, profitability, fish consumption) variableswere monitored in both the control and project sites. In addition, groupperformance (attendance in committee=group meetings, number of con-flicts aroused, number of conflicts resolved) was also monitored in the pro-ject sites. This information was used in analyzing the impact of thecommunity-based fish culture approach in the flooded rice ecosystem,namely the impact of both the technology and the community-based man-agement mechanism. Monitoring was done mostly by researchers and NGOrepresentatives because users were very busy in managing the site.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results reported in this paper are based on trials and monitoringactivities8 conducted in Bangladesh and Vietnam during 1998–2000. Themain focus of discussions is on the economical feasibility of the community
Community Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields 73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
based fish culture in seasonally flooded rice fields, though technical feasi-bility and social acceptability of the technology are also discussed forcompleteness.
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
The trials at the sites in Bangladesh and Vietnam lead to the conclusionthat the community-based approach is technically feasible (Table 2 and 3),confirming earlier experiments and trials on the basis of individually man-aged fenced-in plots (Ali et al., 1993, 1998; Das et al., 1990; Mukhopadhayet al., 1991; Rothuis et al., 1998a, 1998b; Roy et al., 1990). However the levelof success depended on the local agro-ecological situation and the prevail-ing sociocultural conditions. The main technical constraint is the vulner-ability of the system during heavy floods.
In the concurrent rice-fish system in shallow-flooded rice fields, cul-ture periods ranging from 150 to 210 days were observed in Bangladesh,while 210 days were the norm in northern Vietnam, coinciding with theduration of rice cultivation. Stocking densities were moderate at 0.3 fishperm2 in northern Vietnam, while in Bangladesh they were high forrice-fish culture systems, i.e., ranging from 0.6 to 1.3 fish per m2, withan average of 0.9 fish per m2. Recovery rates were poor in the sites in Ban-gladesh, with an average of 26%, while they were slightly better in north-ern Vietnam at 53%. Yields were highest in the Red River delta with anaverage of 714 kg=ha=season, while they averaged at 459 kg=ha in the sitesin Bangladesh.
In the alternating system in deep-flooded rice fields without rice culti-vation during the floods, cultivation periods averaged 169 days in Bangla-desh, and were similar in duration in the last two trial years in the sitesin the Mekong Delta of southern Vietnam, averaging approximately 155days. This system is essentially similar to large shallow fish ponds with exten-sive management, i.e., no fertilization, and minimal or moderate sup-plementary feeding towards the end of the culture period, albeit thatthese systems have open water exchange to the floodplains through thefences. Stocking densities were lower in southern Vietnam at an averageof 0.43 fish per m2, while mean stocking densities in the alternating systemin Bangladesh were more than twice as high at 1 fish per m2. In Vietnam,cultured fish yields in the alternating system were low with an average of226 kg=ha=season, while in Bangladesh they were the highest of all systemswith an average of 863 kg=ha=season, with three sites achieving net yields ofbetween 1 and 1.5 tons=ha=season in the year 2000 trials. The latter aremoderate figures for extensive fish culture systems, and indicate that con-siderable improvement is possible through increases in managementefficiency and intensity.
74 M. M. Dey et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
TABLE2
FishStockingPeriod,StockingDen
sity,Recovery
Rate,
andYieldofCommunity-Based
FishCulture
inSe
asonal
Floodplainsin
Ban
glad
esh
Area(site)
Year
of
trial
Technical
option
tested
Culture
period
(days)
Stocking
den
sity
(No=m
2)
Recovery
rate
(%)
Yield
(kg=
ha)
Wild-fishcatch
(kg=
ha)
Net
return
from
fish
culture
(US$
=ha)
Rem
arks
Kuliarch
ar(M
onoharpur)
1998
Alternaterice-fish
175
0.65
3379
3—
151
Kuliarch
ar(B
agpara)
1998
Alternaterice-fish
175
0.51
1249
8—
�52
Flooden
abledescape
ofstocked
fish;
disco
ntinued
dueto
poorreturn
andsocial
conflict
Kuliarch
ar(M
onoharpur)
1999
Alternaterice-fish
180
0.75
3240
510
2�25
6Flooden
abledescapeofsome
stocked
fish;disco
ntinued
due
topoorreturn
andsocial
conflict
Kuliarch
ar(C
har
Kam
alpur)
1999
Alternaterice-fish
180
0.87
4248
064
264
Disco
ntinued
dueto
social
conflict
Brahman
baria
(Urshiura)
1999
Alternaterice-fish
180
1.79
2367
343
190
Brahman
baria
(Uzanisher)
1999
Alternaterice-fish
180
1.31
5617
9535
118
Narail(Sad
hukh
ali)
1999
Concu
rren
trice-fish
150
0.63
2030
131
�14
3Kuliarch
ar(A
garpur)
2000
Alternaterice-fish
150
1.00
917
841
�35
4Flooden
abledescape
ofsomestocked
fish
Kuliarch
ar(K
onap
ara)
2000
Alternaterice-fish
161
0.82
4411
6573
371
Brahman
baria
(Urshiura)
2000
Alternaterice-fish
145
1.41
2510
7917
258
1Brahman
baria
(Uzanisher)
2000
Alternaterice-fish
160
1.25
2215
5949
159
9
Narail(Sad
hukh
ali)
2000
Concu
rren
trice-fish
191
1.34
2261
449
220
Narail(M
aizpara)
2000
Concu
rren
trice-fish
176
1.03
2749
141
169
Muktagacha(H
alida)
2000
Concu
rren
trice-fish
210
0.75
2927
233
�15
Turbid
water,notsuitab
leforfish
culture
Muktagacha(K
uripara)
2000
Concu
rren
trice-fish
181
0.95
3261
730
138
Source:Project
fieldtrialsin
Ban
glad
esh(199
8–20
00).
75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
TABLE3
FishStockingPeriod,StockingDen
sity,Recovery
Rate,
andYieldin
Community-Based
FishCulture
inSe
asonal
Floodplainsin
Vietnam
Area
Year
oftrial
Site
Technical
option
tested
Stocking
eriod
(days)
Stocking
den
sity
(No=m
2)
Recovery
rate
(%)
Yield
(kg=
ha)
Net
return
from
fish
culture
(US$
=ha)
VuBan
–Red
riverDelta
1998
HienKhan
hConcu
rren
trice-fish
210
0.30
5911
3334
9
VuBan
–Red
riverDelta
1998
Tan
Khan
hConcu
rren
trice-fish
210
0.38
5647
270
VuBan
–Red
riverDelta
1999
HienKhan
hConcu
rren
trice-fish
210
0.30
6064
716
2
VuBan
–Red
riverDelta
999
Tan
Khan
hConcu
rren
trice-fish
210
0.30
6071
323
3
VuBan
–Red
riverDelta
2000
HienKhan
hConcu
rren
trice-fish
210
0.30
2367
319
4
VuBan
–Red
riverDelta
2000
Tan
Khan
hConcu
rren
trice-fish
210
0.30
5764
826
1
TrapMuoi–Mek
ongDelta
1998
DocBinhKieu
Alternate
rice-fish
800.20
6620
2�
TrapMuoiMek
ongDelta
1999
DocBinhKieu
Alternate
rice-fish
126–
145
0.82
13–4
734
511
6
TrapMuoi–Mek
ongDelta
2000
DocBinhKieu
Alternate
rice-fish
195
0.25
1211
9�
Source:Project
fieldtrials.
Note:�¼
detaileddatanotco
llected.
76
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
In all sites, a polyculture system of fish farming was tested, based on thepreferences of the farmers and the availability of fingerlings from localhatcheries. In Bangladesh, the species were silver carp, common carp, catlacarp, rohu carp, mrigal carp, grass carp, silver barb, Nile tilapia, and catfish(Pangasius sp.) in varying combinations, densities and sizes at stocking(Prein et al., 2005). In Vietnam, the species used were common carp, silvercarp, grass carp, rohu carp, silver barb, snakeskin gourami, and Nile tilapia,also in varying species combinations, ratios and densities, as preferred bythe farmers and according to fingerling availability.
Across all sites and systems, the recovery of stocked fish was low. However,for large-area systems as these, where juvenile fish of small size are stocked(usually between 5 and 20 g=fingerling) losses due to handling stress at stock-ing of such large quantities, predation, escape, and occasional poaching areknown to be higher compared to fish losses incurred in fish ponds which areusually of much smaller size, embanked, and offer greater control over pre-dation and poaching. However, the low recovery figures point to the require-ment for more research to improve survival in these systems.
Wild-fish catch was determined directly in the trials in Bangladesh only,resulting in approximately 37 kg=ha=season in concurrent systems, whilealternating systems produced an average of 128 kg=ha=season, with one site(Uzanisher in Brahmanbaria district) harvesting 491 kg=ha of wild fish inthe flood season of 2000.
In the two sites in the Red River delta, the average wild fish catch for theyears 1998 to 2000 was 35 kg=ha=season, compared to control sites with20 kg=ha=season. In the Mekong River sites in 1999, wild-fish catch was118 kg=ha=season compared to 122 kg=ha=season in the control site. Hereit was observed that snakehead (Ophicephalus sp.) abundance was increasedwithin the fenced area using the alternating system.
It was generally concluded that wild-fish biodiversity and abundancewas not affected by the culture operation, although no specific analyseswere conducted as part of these trials. The conclusion is based on compar-isons of wild-fish catch both in terms of biomass and species composition,which was essentially similar, except for predators such as snakehead (Ophi-cephalus sp.) and catfish (Clarias sp.), which were reduced in most cases(with the exception of the Mekong River floodplain trials as stated above).However, in some cases (e.g., in Bangladesh in the alternating system)farmers observed that the biomass of small indigenous species were con-siderably higher than in neighboring unfenced areas, and few species thathad previously been seldom in their areas, had appeared again in theircatches inside the fenced areas. This was attributed to the strongly reducedabundance of predators within the fenced area. More detailed studies arerequired to establish the benign effect of stocking fenced areas of season-ally flooded waters but controlling for predator access to the fenced areas.
Community Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields 77
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
The capture phase for wild fish and the harvest phase are bound tocoincide as they both depend on the flood duration, levels, and recessionpattern. However, the culture operation can be staged over a longer periodthrough sequential harvests leading to thinning out of the standing fishstock for higher growth, and greater returns. Furthermore, deeper pits inthe harvest area can be used to keep fish beyond the normal capture seasonuntil fish prices increase and greater returns from markets can be achieved.This was done by some of the trial groups.
ECONOMIC VIABILITY
Criteria used to assess economic viability of community based fish cul-ture in flooded rice fields are (1) net return from fish culture (i.e., enter-prise profitability) and (2) additional annual net return per hectare fromfish and rice9 (i.e., system profitability). All the costs involved in growing riceas well as fish and returns from rice and fish were recorded through periodicmonitoring and converted to U.S. dollars using the prevailing exchangerate. Net returns were calculated as gross returns (from fish culture forenterprise profitability and from both rice and fish for system profitability)less total cost (both variable and fixed costs). The fixed costs included in theanalysis are depreciation of the fence (mostly in Bangladesh and southernVietnam) and depreciation of the construction costs of the trench and dike(mostly for the concurrent system in northern Vietnam). Both family andhired labor used for crop husbandry, guarding, harvesting and post har-vesting operations were included as variable costs. Therefore, netreturns reported in this study represent returns to land and management(McConnel & Dillon, 1997). The Net returns were allocated betweenland-owners (both participating and nonparticipating) and poor fishers=landless depending on the contribution of their land and managementinputs=operational responsibilities.
Net Return from Fish Culture
The results show that community-based fish culture in flooded ricefields was very profitable at most sites in Bangladesh and at all sites in Viet-nam (Tables 2 and 3). At few sites in Bangladesh, farmers incurred netlosses due to natural calamities (floods and storms) and poor water quality.For instance, at Bagpara during 1998 and at Agarpara during 2000, floodsdestroyed the fences which resulted in high loses of stocked fish and lowrecovery rates at harvest (around 10% only). The Halida site proved tobe technically unsuitable for fish culture due to high water turbidity. Over-all, the profitability of the community-based fish culture approach washigher for the alternate rice-fish system practiced in deeper flooded areas
78 M. M. Dey et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
of Bangladesh and for the concurrent system practiced in relatively floodcontrolled areas of the Red River delta.
The result of the experiments in 1998 at Hien Khanh and Tan Khanhsites immediately encouraged farmers in neighboring communes of Vu Bandistrict to adopt the technology. Results on the profitability of these second-ary adopting farmers during 1999 and 2000 are presented in Table 4. On anaverage, fish yield was around 652 kg=ha and 564 kg=ha during 1999 and2000, respectively. These yields are on the same level with the yields inproject sites. The overall profit (i.e., profit from both rice and fish) wasUS$991=ha and US$958=ha during 1999 and 2000, respectively.
From the results of the experiments on community-based fish culture inseasonally flooded rice ecosystems conducted over a three-year period(1998–2000) in three different environmental situations, it can be con-cluded that fish culture along with rice (concurrent rice-fish culture) orduring the fallow period (alternate rice-fish culture) is profitable. The mainproblem is to save the stocked fish during abnormally high floods.
Cost of Community-Based Fish Culture
Tables 5 and 6 show the overall cost of community based fish culture inflooded rice fields in Bangladesh, based on trials conducted during 1998 to
TABLE 4 Profitability (US$=ha=year) of Fish Culture in the Seasonally Flooded Rice Ecosystem bySpontaneous Adopter Groups Using the Concurrent System, Red River Delta, Vu Ban District, NorthernVietnam
Source: Project field survey and monitoring.Note: �One crop of rice and two crops of fish; other groups had two crops of rice and one crop of fish.
Community Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields 79
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
2000. The per-hectare cost of community based fish culture in flooded ricefields varies from US$168 to US$811. Cost varies from site to site due to thevariation in area of site, the type of enclosure required and the feedingregime followed. The trial sites in Bangladesh can be categorized into 3types: (type 1) small area (<5ha), 30% to 60% perimeter fence required,minimal feeding; (type 2) small area (<5ha), less than 30% perimeterfence required, minimal feeding; and (type 3) large area (10–20 ha), lessthan 30% perimeter fence required, moderate feeding. The topographiccharacteristics of the area determined the size of operation and the fencingrequirement.10
It was observed that fingerling cost is the main operational cost, repre-senting 49 to 75% of the total cost. Fence cost would be minimal (about4 to 33% of the total cost) if less than 30% of the perimeter requires beingfenced (Table 6). Except in Monoharpur, the fence was not a major costitem (Table 5). In general, the fence was made of cheap, locally availablematerials like bamboo, reed, and wood, and lasted 2–3 years. The costof fencing was high in Monoharpur as farmers had to protect the trialsfrom an unprecedented high flood in 1998 using high fences (i.e., raisingthe height of the fence above the maximum water level of the floods). In
TABLE 5 Cost of Community Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields in Bangladesh
Type 1: small area (<5ha), 30 to 60% perimeter need fence, minimal feeding.Type 2: small area (<5ha), less than 30% perimeter need fence, minimal feeding.Type 3: large area (10–20ha), less than 30% perimeter need fence, moderate feeding.
80 M. M. Dey et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
Vietnam, fingerlings are also the largest cost item, representing 54 to 60%of the operational cost (Table 7).
Impact on Net Farm Income
The impact of community based fish culture in seasonally flooded riceecosystems on farm income was estimated by comparing the total farm sys-tem income (that is, total net return from rice and fish production) in pro-ject sites (with fish culture) to that in control sites (without fish culture).The total farm system income in the project sites comprises net returnsobtained from rice production, cultured fish production and wild-fishcatch, while that in control sites comprises net returns obtained from riceproduction and wild-fish catch only.
In Bangladesh, detailed monitoring of control and project sites wasundertaken in 2000. Results show that, on average, concurrent and alter-nate systems of community-based fish culture in the seasonally flooded riceecosystem generated an additional annual income of US$169=ha=year andUS$506=ha=year, respectively (Table 8). The increase in total net return washigher in areas where the alternate system is applied. Alternating fish andBoro rice farming is usually conducted in deep-flooded areas, which aremore conducive for fish culture and give higher fish yield.
In Vietnam, detailed information on cost and return of agriculturalactivities were collected from both the control and project sites in HienKhanh and Tan Khanh communes in the Red River delta (northern Viet-nam) during 1988–2000 and in Trap Muoi district in the Mekong Delta(southern Vietnam) during 1999. Results show that on an average, fish cul-ture in seasonally flooded rice ecosystems generated an additional annualincome of US$346=ha in the Red River delta and US$211=ha in theMekong delta (Table 9).
Overall, farmers obtained additional income from fish culture withoutreduction in income from rice cultivation11 and wild-fish catch. In Vietnam,farmers in project sites had substantially higher rice income compared tocontrol farmers; in the Red River delta of northern Vietnam, the cost of ricecultivation in the project was about 17% lower than in the control site dueto non application of pesticide and lesser weeding.
TABLE 7 Cost (US$=ha) of Community-Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields inVietnam, 1998–2000
Site Fingerlings Feed, antibiotics Fence, net Trench digging Labor
�Average of the two sites (Hien Khanh and Tan Khanh).
Community Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields 81
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY
In the trials conducted over a three-year period in Bangladesh andnorthern and southern Vietnam, the approach taken was such that com-munities were encouraged to themselves determine the management cri-teria and institutional arrangements that they considered suitable to theirlocal conditions and social environment. A group approach was used withlandowners, fishers of the community and landless laborers (with custom-ary access rights for fishing in the flood season). In Bangladesh, averagegroup size was 38, comprising 15 participating landowners, 8 nonparticipat-ing landowners, and 15 landless laborers.
Before stocking, group members negotiated and agreed on cooperativesharing arrangements, rules, technical details and schedules for the oper-ation. Net returns were distributed between landowners and landless labor-ers=poor fishers depending on their contribution. Landless laborersreceived a share of net returns for their role in managing the operations(as group members). Non–participating landowners received a sharedepending on their land. Landowners participating actively in the groupactivities received an additional share of benefits for their role as groupmembers (on top of the share they already received through mereprovision of their land). The general sharing agreement of net returns inBangladesh was as follows: landowners 30–40%, labor group members40–55%, and savings=institution building 0–10%.
Within the property rights framework for natural resources of Schlagerand Ostrom (1992), the institutional arrangements arrived at by the
TABLE 8 Total Net Benefit (US$=ha=y) Obtained by the Project and Control Farmers, Bangladesh,2000
Project ControlTotal increasein income(US$=ha)System Site Rice1
Culturedfish Wild-fish Total Rice1 Wild-fish Total
Average 440 401 116 957 433 87 520 437All average — — — 897 — — 560 288
Source: Project field trials.1 Two rice crops (rice in dry season and rice and fish in wet season) in concurrent system and one rice
crop (in dry season) in alternating system.
82 M. M. Dey et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
communities comprise the ‘‘owners’’ with full access rights (even during theflood season when the boundaries of their individual rice plots are not dis-cernable), as well as the landless, who under the rules of the arrangementare ‘‘authorized users’’ with granted rights to access and withdrawal on atemporary basis, i.e., for the duration of the joint fish culture operationduring the flood season.
Overall, the results show that the community-based fish cultureapproach in seasonally flooded rice ecosystems as described in this paperhas benefited both landowners as well as landless participants and is sociallyacceptable. It was found that existing social harmony among the groupsbefore the introduction of the community-based fish culture approachwas a requirement for its successful implementation. Artificial member-ships based on previous linkages with facilitating organizations such asNGOs (in Mohoharpur, Bangladesh), or the inclusion of persons in the
TABLE 9 Total Net Benefit (US$=ha=y) Obtained by the Project and Control Farmers in Vietnam
Sites Total increasein income(US$=ha)Particulars Project Control
Net benefitFrom rice 670 648 22From both wild and cultured fish 200 87 113
Total benefit 870 735 135
Source: Project field trials.1Cost and return from two rice crops.2Averages for 1998–2000.31999.
Community Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields 83
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
groups who were not customarily accessing or were not known neighbors inthe particular site (in Char Kamalpur and Bagpara in Bangladesh), or pre-existing conflicts (in Bagpara), proved to have destabilizing effects or wereeven detrimental. Due to these reasons, some of the trial sites (Mohohar-pur, Bagpara and Char Kamalpur in Bangladesh) had to be abandoned(see last column of Table 2).
Adoption and Spread
The local population in Bangladesh and Vietnam are convinced of thebenefit of this technology. Numerous communities neighboring the trialand demonstration sites have already copied the technology for their situ-ation. Their established group arrangements seem more harmonious andlonger lasting than those orchestrated by external organizations underthe project. In Vietnam in the Red River delta, the results of the firstexperiments in 1998 at the sites at Hien Khanh and Tan Khanh hadalready encouraged farmers in neighboring communes of the Vu Ban dis-trict to adopt the technology. The technology was also adopted by 369farmers in other provinces in northern Vietnam (Bac Ninh, Yen Bai,and Hanoi) in 1999. In contrast, in southern Vietnam, at the beginningof the project’s implementation (in 1997), there was hardly any personwho believed in the feasibility of the project, and it was very difficult tofind farmer cooperators.
CONCLUSIONS
Results of the trials conducted over a three-year period (1998–2000) inBangladesh and Vietnam indicate that community-based fish culture inflooded rice fields is technically feasible, economically viable and sociallyacceptable. After three years of project implementation with a small num-ber of trial farmers, increasing numbers of farmers have become convincedof the technical feasibility and economic viability of this technology.
Inland capture fisheries are the most threatened globally, with aconstant negative trend (FAO, 2002). These fish are of highest importanceto the rural poor for income, nutrition and food security, but the demand isincreasing, and that is reflected in constant price increases. Fish also havea high value for nutrition of the poor due to their nutrient density andquality (protein, oils, micronutrients) that is in highly bio-available formin most small fish species.
Fish production from the fenced floodplain areas can be increased atleast two- to tenfold over the natural catch through the culture activities,as shown from this work in Bangladesh and Vietnam. Harvests are in bulk
84 M. M. Dey et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
and therefore are sold on the market, producing cash returns that areshared among group members, including the landless. Capture ofnonstocked, small indigenous species by landless with traditional fishingmethods within the culture areas during the culture period is specificallypermitted by the groups, and thereby ensure their continued supply ofprotein and income over the culture season from the fenced areas. Cashincome will increase for all involved, notably for the landless relative totheir base income. In the longer term, the approach aims at providingthe rural populations in the floodplain areas with an equitable sourceof additional income and supply of fish on a seasonal basis, both fromnatural fish production, as well as from stocked culture species. This willdirectly benefit the members of the communities involved, but also fishconsumers outside the culture areas due to increased supply on themarkets, thereby countering the negative trend of inland fisheriesproduction.
The main technical limitation of this approach is the vulnerability ofthe system during heavy floods, which can destroy the fences resulting inhigh losses of stocked fish and low recovery rates at harvest. Subsequently,a poor harvest can trigger social conflict. A delayed outset of the rainyseason is also a limiting factor; it shortens the length of the fish culture per-iod and thereby reduces fish yields. The availability of fingerlings of species(desired by farmers) in appropriate sizes and quantities for stocking canpose problems and should be planned for. The presence of, or possibilityof forming, rural organizations and=or farmers groups, is essential forsuccessful adoption of this approach. The community-based fish culturein rice fields is not suitable for areas where framers are highly adverse toany form of group arrangements.
Although this study in Vietnam and Bangladesh demonstrated the feasi-bility of the community-based fish culture systems, much more work isneeded to understand the social and institutional viability of theseapproaches under different sociocultural and institutional environments,and to design appropriate institutional arrangements for different socialsettings. Further assessments on the attributes of successful groupapproaches and the reasons for spontaneous adoption and spread of thetechnology are needed. Additional improvements in fish culture manage-ment are also possible, potentially leading to greater income.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A multipartner, multisite project such as this, involving action researchat the local level, would not have been possible without the cooperationand support of many people. Foremost we wish to thank the communitiesin Bangladesh and Vietnam who willingly cooperated in this project over
Community Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields 85
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
several years and from whom many insights were gained. We are grateful toour colleagues of the project partner institutes who were involved in thefield work: in Bangladesh at the Fisheries Research Institute, Director Gen-eral Dr. M. A. Mazid, who served as National Project Director, andat Proshika Mannobik Unnayan Kendra, Senior Coordinator, FisheriesDevelopment Programme, Mr. M. A. Abdur Rahman; the Deputy Directorfor Programmes, Mr. M. Fazlul Huq; and the Director for Programmes,Mr. Qazi Khaze Alam; in Vietnam at the Research Institute for AquacultureNo. 1 in Hanoi, Directors Dr. Tran Mai Tien, Dr. Le Tanh Luu, and Mr. BuiHuy Cong; and at the Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 2 in Ho-Chi-Minh-City, Ms. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Tinh and Mr. Nguyen Van Sang; and theInternational Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, Dr. D. Senadhira,who lost his life during a field trip in this project, and Dr. MahabubHossain. Funding for the project by the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment (IFAD) through TAG-350 is hereby gratefully acknowledged,as well as support by Mr. Ferdinand Paraguas of the WorldFish Center inPenang for data analysis. Staff of the WorldFish Center’s South Asiaregional office in Dhaka provided crucial logistical and administrativesupport. This is WorldFish Center Contribution No. 1749.
NOTES
1. Rice variety used in areas of shallow to moderate flooding depths, in which young plants toleratetotal submergence of leaves for up to 10 (some varieties maximum 20) days, and after this periodgrow quickly and produce panicles.
2. Rice variety used in deepwater areas with longer flooding durations of up to 4 to 5 months in whichthe stems have the ability to elongate quickly, in response to increasing flooding depth.
3. ‘‘Community based’’ is a term used in this study for ‘‘institutional arrangements’’ established at locallevel for the specific purpose of this technology implementation and duration of one season.
4. In addition, a small exploratory trial (with only one farmer) was conducted in the Tien Giangprovince of southern Vietnam in 1997.
5. Further details on technical feasibility, economic viability and social acceptability of the technology(i.e., community-based fish culture in seasonally flooded rice fields) are provided in Dey and Prein(2000, 2003, 2005), Dey et al. (2005), Prein and Dey (2001, 2003), and WorldFish Center (2004).Two separate papers specifically focusing on biotechnical and ecological issues are forthcomingin Hydrobiologia and Plant Production Science (Dey and Prein, 2005; Prein et al., 2005)
6. Tien Giang is a neighboring province of Dong Thap province, southern Vietnam, where thetechnical options were tested during 1998–2000.
7. Socially harmonious groups, which can often have a longer local residence history together, even ifof different cultural=religious background.
8. The results of the baseline surveys and impact assessment are not within the scope of this paper.Detailed information on these (baseline surveys and impact assessment) and other project activitiesare available in WorldFish Center (2004) and Dey et al. (2005).
9. Rice followed by fish (cultured and wild) and fish (culture and wild) in between two rice crops werepracticed under the alternating rice fish system in Bangladesh and southern Vietnam, respectively.While rice followed by rice and fish (cultured and wild) was practiced under the concurrent rice-fishsystem in Bangladesh and northern Vietnam. Rice and fish were the only two crops produced in theexperimental and control plots in the study areas.
86 M. M. Dey et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
10. In each site, natural or existing artificial elevated lands (e.g., raised homesteads, dams for roads,train tracks, etc) enclose the rice field to a varying degree (sometimes up to three sides) and a fenceis used to close the remaining sides.
11. Lightfoot et al. (1992b) have reported that increases of 10–20% can be expected in rice yields whenfish are cultured in ricefields.
REFERENCES
Ali, M.H., Miah, M.N.I. & Ahmed N.U. (1993) Experiences in Deepwater Rice-Fish Culture. Bangladesh RiceResearch Institute Publication No. 107, Gazipur, Bangladesh, 28 p.
Ali, M.H., Miah, M.N.I. & Elahi, M.N. (1998) Increasing farm income by incorporating fish culture indeepwater rice environment. Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries Research, 2(2), 183–188.
Berg, H. (2002) Rice monoculture and integrated rice-fish farming in the Mekong Delta. Vietnam—economic and ecological considerations. Ecological Economics, 41, 95–107.
Das, D.N., Roy, B. & Mukhopadhay, P.K. (1990) Fish culture with DW rice in West Bengal. In: Deepwaterand Tidal Wet Land Rice Bulletin, No. 17, November 1990, International Rice Research Institute,Philippines.
Dey, M.M. & Prein, M. (2000) Case 3: Fish in deepwater ricelands. In: Equity, Well-Being, and Ecosystem Health:Participatory Research for Natural Resources Management (eds PRGA Program), pp 19–20. CGIAR Programon Participatory Research and Gender Analysis, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 62 p. Text available at: hhttp://www.prgaprogram.org/download/equity_well-being_ecosystem-health_text-only.pdfi.
Dey, M.M. & Prein, M. (2003) Participatory research at landscape level: floodprone ecosystems inBangladesh and Vietnam. In: Uniting Science and Participation for Sustainable Livelihoods and AdaptiveNatural Resource Management (eds B. Pound, S.S. Snapp, C. McDougall, & A. Braun), Earthscan=IDRC. Full text of case study available at: hhttp://www.prgaprogram.org/download/chatham99_case_studies.pdfi. Summary as in book available at: hhttp://web.idrc.ca/ev_en.php?ID=43448_201i & ID2 ¼ DO_TOPICi.
Dey, M.M. & Prein, M (2005) Increased income from the seasonally flooding rice-fields through com-munity based fish culture in Bangladesh and Vietnam. Plant Production Science, 8(3), 347–351.
Dey, M.M., Prein, M., Haq, A.B.M. M., Hussain, M.G., Hao, N.V., Dan N.C., Sultana, P. & Siddiqui, M.R.(2005) Community-Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooding Ecosystems. WorldFish Center TechnicalReport. (Forthcoming)
FAO. (2002) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002. Food and Agriculture Organisation of theUnited Nations, Rome, 150 pp.
Gregory, R. & Guttman, H. (1996) Management of ricefield fisheries in South East Asia: capture orculture? ILEIA Newsletter, 12(2), 20–21.
Guttman, H. (1999) Rice field fisheries – a resource for Cambodia. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly, 22(2),11–15.
Guttman, H. (2000) Importance of Aquatic Products to Rural Households. Poster-paper contributed to theDFID Email Conference on Aquatic Resources Management for Sustainable Livelihoods of PoorPeople. July 2000, DFID=NACA, Bangkok, Department for International Development, UK andNetwork of Aquaculture Centers in Asia, Bangkok.
Lightfoot, C., Costa-Pierce, B.A., Bimbao, M.P. & dela Cruz, C.R. (1992a) Introduction to rice-fishresearch and development in Asia. In: Rice-Fish Research and Development in Asia (eds C.R. dela Cruz,C. Lightfoot, B.A. Costa-Pierce, V.R. Carangal & M.P. Bimbao), pp 1–10. ICLARM ConferenceProceedings 24, ICLARM, Manila, Philippines, 457 p.
Lightfoot, C., Van Dam, A. & Costa-Pierce, B.A. (1992b) What’s happening to the rice yields in rice-fishsystems? In: Rice-Fish Research and Development in Asia (eds C.R. dela Cruz, C. Lightfoot, B.A. Costa-Pierce, V.R. Carangal & M.P. Bimbao), pp 177–183. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 24,ICLARM, Manila, Philippines, 457 p.
McConnell, D.J. & Dillon, J.L. (1997) Farm Management for Asia: A Systems Approach. FAO Farm SystemsManagement Series 13. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. 335 p.
Mukhopadhyay, P.K., Das, D.N. & Roy, B. (1991) Deepwater Rice-Fish Farming Bulletin, 1, 1–4 (February),Rice Research Station, Chinsurah, West Bengal, India.
Community Based Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Rice Fields 87
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
22 1
2 O
ctob
er 2
013
Mukhopadhyay, P.K., Das, D.N. & Roy, B. (1992) On-farm research in deepwater rice-fish culture in WestBengal, India. In: Rice-Fish Research and Development in Asia (eds C.R. dela Cruz, C. Lightfoot, B.A.Costa-Pierce, V.R. Carangal & M.P. Bimbao), pp 255–272. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 24,ICLARM, Manila, Philippines, 457 p.
Prein, M. & Dey, M.M. (2001) Rice and fish culture in seasonally flooded ecosystems. In:Utilizing DifferentAquatic Resources for Livelihoods in Asia: a Resource Book (eds IIRR, IDRC, FAO, NACA & ICLARM),pp 207–214. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Silang, Cavite, Philippines, 416 p.Available in HTML at: hhttp://www.iirr.org/aquatic_resourcesi and hhttp://www.worldfishcenter.org/Pubs/IIRR/iirr.htmi.
Prein, M. & Dey, M.M. (2005) Community based fish culture in seasonal floodplains. Proceedings of theFAO-WARDA Technical Workshop on Integrated Irrigation-Aquaculture, Bamako, Mali, 4 to 7November 2003. FAO, Rome (in press).
Prein, M., Dey, M.M., Hussain, M.G., Kohinoor, A.H.M. & Mazid, M.A. (2005) Community basedintegrated aquaculture-agriculture system in Bangladesh. Hydrobiologia (forthcoming).
Rothuis, A.J., Nhan, D.K., Richter, C.J.J. & Ollevier, F. (1998a) Rice with fish culture in the semi-deepwaters of the Mekong delta, Vietnam: a socio-economic survey. Aquaculture Research, 29, 47–57.
Rothuis, A.J., Nhan, D.K., Richter, C.J.J. & Ollevier, F. (1998b) Rice with fish culture in the semi-deepwaters of the Mekong delta, Vietnam: interaction of rice culture and fish husbandry managementon fish production. Aquaculture Research, 29, 59–66.
Roy, B., Das, D.N. & Mukhopadhay, P.K. (1990) Rice-fish-vegetable integrated farming: towards a sustain-able ecosystem. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly, 13(4), 17–18.
Schlager, E. & Ostrom, E. (1992) Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis.Land Economics, 68, 249–262.
Vromant, N., Duong, L.T. & Ollevier, F (2002) Effect of fish on the yield and yield components of rice inintegrated concurrent rice-fish systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, 138, 63–71.
Waibel, H. (1992) Comparative economics of pesticide use in rice and rice-fish farming. In: Rice-FishResearch and Development in Asia (eds C.R. dela Cruz, C. Lightfoot, B.A. Costa-Pierce, V.R. Carangal& M.P. Bimbao), pp 245–254. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 24, ICLARM, Manila, Philippines,457 p.
WorldFish Center (2004) Increasing and sustaining the productivity of fish and rice in the flood-proneecosystems in South and Southeast Asia. Final Report. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia, andInternational Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, 157 p.
