DFID R 8119 FTR The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia Appendix I Asian Aquaculture, Livelihoods and Knowledge: A Critical Literature Review Dinah Rajak University of Sussex September 2003 An output of DFID supported AFGRP research project R8119: DFID R 8119 FTR The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia Asian Aquaculture, Livelihoods and Knowledge: A Critical Literature Review Dinah Rajak Preface This literature review is part of a larger research project on the impact of aquatic animal health strategies on the livelihoods of poor people in Asia. This project, supported by DFID (Research grant R8119) is part of the Aquaculture and Fish Genetics Research Programme and is being jointly undertaken by the Institute of Aquaculture at Stirling University, the University of Sussex, Research Institute for Aquaculture No.2 in Ho Chi Minh City, the Aquaculture and Fisheries Science Institute at Cantho, the Aquatic Animal Health Research Institute in Bangkok, the College of Fisheries, Mangalore, and the University of Liverpool. This review should be read in conjunction with the review of the scientific literature on aquatic animal health strategies. It aims to provide a broad analytical framework within which to contextualise the more specific case study findings from the primary research undertaken in Thailand, South West India and Vietnam as part of the project. The literature reviewed in this paper derives from a variety of sources including policy documents, empirical case studies and project reports. It draws significantly from anthropological approaches to understandings of ‘farmer’s knowledge’ and the relationship between knowledge and practice; and from debates within the wider arena of social science and development studies concerning processes of technology transfer, the impact of research and the construction of technical knowledge within the context of rural livelihoods. Ap pendix I 2 DFID R 8119 FTR The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface……………………………………………………………………..2 Table of Contents………………………………………………………….3 Acronyms………………………………………………………………….4 I. Introduction………………………………………………………………..5 II. Approaches to Aquaculture, Livelihoods and Poverty……………………10 2.1 Questions of Motivation.......................................................................12 2.2 Risk Management.................................................................................14 2.3 Labour and Employment......................................................................16 2.4 Impacts of Disease in Aquaculture..................................................….20 III. Impact Assessment......................................................................................22 3.1 Research...............................................................................................23 3.2 Linking Research and Technology Transfer........................................25 IV. Technology Transfer...................................................................................27 4.1 Knowledge...........................................................................................30 4.2 Tools of Transfer: Extension, Training and The Media......................32 V. Gender and Aquaculture.............................................................................39 VI. Shrimp Farming in Asia.........................................................................….45 VII. Conclusion………………………………………………………………..53 References………………………………………………………………..55 Ap pendix I 3 DFID R 8119 FTR The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia Acronyms AAH Aquatic animal health ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research ADB Asian Development Bank ADCP Aquaculture Development and Coordination Programme AIT Asian Institute of Technology APO Asian Productivity Organization (Tokyo) ASPAC Asian and Pacific Council DFID Department for International Development (UK) DoF Department of Fisheries EC European Commission FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations ICLARM International Centre for Living Aquatic Resource Management IDS Institute of Development Studies IDRC International Development Research Centre IIRR International Institute of Rural Reconstruction NACA Network of Aquaculture Centres for Asia-Pacific NORAD Norwegian Agency for International Development ODI Overseas Development Institute PRUS Poverty Research Unit at Sussex TNC Trans National Company UNRISD United Nations Research Institute for Social Development WWF World Wildlife Fund Ap pendix I 4 DFID R 8119 FTR The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia I. INTRODUCTION The FAO Technical Conference on Aquaculture, held in Kyoto in 1976 focused heavily on the role of technology and science, stating one of its key strategies as: To bring science into what had until then been very much a discipline that was based on tradition (Beveridge et al 2001: 41). The Bangkok Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium a quarter of a century later, reveals a marked change in thinking about policy, research and practice in the field of aquaculture. The emphasis has shifted from elevating science and technology as the future of aquaculture, to a broader focus on rural development, addressing issues of sustainability, integrating aquaculture into poverty reduction strategies and concern for rural livelihoods1. NACA’s 3rd Five-Year Work programme 2001-2005 qualifies this, stating that, As an economic activity, the exercise to derive higher returns has since been joined by schemes to distribute benefits equitably (NACA 2001: 1). This new mission is laid out in the Bangkok Declaration and Strategy’s Key Strategic Elements which include: Investing in people through education and training...improving information flow and communication...improving food security and alleviating poverty...integrating aquaculture into rural development (Aquaculture Development Beyond 2000: Bangkok Declaration and Strategy 2000: 3.1-3.6). Nevertheless technology transfer and science are still high on the agenda. Following shifts in thinking about technology and knowledge in the wider field of development, the new approach seems to be moving on from the traditional paradigm of technology transfer for development with calls to, Transform the emphasis of aquaculture from a resource-dependent activity to a knowledge-based activity (NACA 2001: 6), and, Harness and integrate both science-based and indigenous knowledge to improve aquaculture technology, systems and management (ibid). 1 This shift reflects movements in the development industry in general in the past decades which has been moving away from the dominant paradigm of technology transfer and modernisation to a focus on sustainable livelihoods. Ap pendix I 5 DFID R 8119 FTR The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia These new priorities and key strategies seem to suggest a greater focus on the socio- political dynamics of aquaculture. However, while the Bangkok Declaration recognises the need to prioritise rural livelihoods and small-scale fish-farming in aquaculture research, policy and programme planning, attempts to integrate social research into aquaculture and fisheries research have, for the most part, produced a flimsy framework in which livelihoods analysis is bolted on to scientific research. This approach sees social analysis reduced to a sustainable livelihoods framework or a naïve description of the socio-cultural context of technical research and interventions. Such naïve approaches to social analysis are clearly demonstrated in much of project literature, which tends to be characterised by crude over-generalisations and broad assumptions that represent a simplistic vision of social structures, practices and rural economies ignoring the politics of power relations and the political realities that shape people’s lives. Thus we are told by the World Bank’s 1991 Technical Paper on Fisheries and Aquaculture that The common villager does not understand the concepts of ownership of a pond or property rights or a pond (World Bank 1991: 19) People are represented, not as agents or actors within complex networks and social structures but merely as broad categories, ‘the poor’, ‘farmers’, ‘traders’, with a coherent and accessible system of practices and store of knowledge. Often they appear in the literature merely as passive receivers of new technologies, information or project outputs. In this way research has failed to move on from the technology-led approach that has dominated development since its earliest days. Statements such as the one quoted below are not uncommon in this kind of project writing Fishermen are widely acknowledged, through their close association with the sea and marine life as having a keen awareness of their immediate environment, which aids them in successful fishing and for their very survival…the poor adopt [livelihood strategies] to use the assets they can access, to respond to the structures and processes that influence them (IMM Ltd 2002: 9). One of the problems with this kind of research is that it represents a static picture of people’s lives ignoring the temporal trajectories of poverty and the dynamics of social change that define people’s lives and activities. Poverty may be seasonal according to crop or fishing cycles. The relative poverty or wealth of a rural household can change within the course of a year or a few years according to environmental, political or social factors: for many people Ap pendix I 6 DFID R 8119 FTR The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia poverty and correspondingly lack of it are temporary states (Lipton and Litchfield 2002: 3)2. It therefore seems essential, that if both social and technical research is to produce viable strategies which can be of use to farmers it must attempt to confront not only the socio-political context within which farmers operate but also the way in which livelihood strategies are not discrete, static packages which fit comfortably within a linear diagram, but are dynamic, mobile processes. It is perhaps this realisation that, in recent years, has prompted renewed calls from some corners of the development industry for effective inter-disciplinary research programmes which not only aim to situate technical research in a social context, but which have the potential to challenge the traditional models on which scientific research in the field of rural development have been based. The application of social science to agricultural research is now well documented, however only in recent years has this been followed in the study of aquaculture systems (for examples see Lewis et al 1996; Harrison 1994). To quote Lewis et al: ‘fish culture is...the perfect case for interdisciplinary treatment: the growth and habits of fish are determined through biological investigation, but they can only prosper when humans intervene, and this requires social investigation.’ (Lewis et al 1996: 30). However, at times an uneasy relationship between biological and social science threatens to be more a marriage of convenience in which methods are uncomfortably patched together, failing to bridge epistemological gaps and confront the underlying issues at stake. The privileged status that the positivist approach of biological and natural science holds in current science-led research frameworks has applied this reductionist approach to social analysis distilling the socio-political world to a livelihoods framework and an array of mechanical tools for translating dynamic social realities and processes into digestible data. An investigation of the social impact of aquaculture management strategies, research and intervention on poverty demands an interpretive, ethnographic approach. Such an approach allows us to engage with the way in which knowledge is constructed in different arenas; and to address the complex interweaving of social and economic structures with science/policy/practice 2 An interesting discussion of different methods of defining and measuring poverty from the economic perspective is presented institutes this paper (Lipton and Litchfield 2002: 3-4). Ap pendix I 7 DFID R 8119 FTR The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia processes and knowledge/power relations. This involves taking a more critical look at the interactions between various actors involved in these processes, from researcher to extension worker, farmer to government planner. This has serious implications for the practice of research and intervention and has begun to have an effect in recent shifts in development thinking (this is demonstrated in the recent DFID draft policy paper on Research for Poverty Reduction (Surr et al.3 2002: 3). The purpose of this literature review is not to provide an exhaustive and comprehensive review of the recent literature on aquaculture but to point to issues, themes and questions raised by the literature that may provide useful conceptual and methodological tools for investigating the impact of aquaculture strategies, specifically those concerned with aquatic animal health (AAH), on livelihoods and poverty. This review aims to provide an analytical framework within which to view the case study findings from the situation appraisals. Chapter II focuses on approaches to studying the role of aquaculture and aquaculture research in rural economy and livelihoods. The intersections of poverty, aquaculture and practice are explored through the central themes of motivation, risk and vulnerability, and the specific significance of aquatic animal disease. Chapter III moves on to look at questions concerning impact and the ways in which development research programmes have attempted to address the issue of impact assessment. This involves an analysis of the role of research in development and the links between research, innovation and technology transfer. The process of technology transfer is explored in Chapter IV, which reviews critical perspectives on the conventional models of technical innovation and change upon which development research and interventions have been based. The concept of knowledge is, of course, central to ideas about technology transfer and the question of impact on poverty. This chapter addresses questions concerning the construction of knowledge in development research and practice: ‘who knows what’, ‘how is ‘farmers’ knowledge seen’, ‘how is knowledge generated’, and ‘how does knowledge relate to practice’. This chapter moves on to look beyond the generation of strategies 3 This draft paper highlights the need to ‘go beyond dissemination’ to more pro-active uptake’ (Surr et al 2002: vi) of strategies, implicit in this is a renewed focus on impact of strategies produced through development research. Ap pendix I 8 DFID R 8119 FTR The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia to the channels through which information is communicated. It looks at the various frameworks and media mobilised for the communication of information and the ways in which people engage with chosen sites and paths of communication. Chapter V is concerned with gender and aquaculture. Looking specifically at the relationship between gender and technical strategies, it highlights the way in which research and interventions in the field of aquaculture need to re-evaluate current thinking on technology transfer from a gendered perspective. Technology transfer, the dynamics of innovation and farming practices are viewed within the broader context of global commodity and value chains and the relationship between knowledge, extension systems and the market. Finally, Chapter VI looks specifically at the Asian shrimp industry, the way in which transnational corporate interests have impacted on the practice of aquaculture and occupy a central role in research on aquatic animal health and the surrounding mechanisms of technology transfer. Ap pendix I 9 DFID R 8119 FTR The Impact of Aquatic Animal Health Strategies on the Livelihoods of Poor People in Asia II. APPROACHES TO AQUACULTURE, LIVELIHOODS AND POVERTY In his attempts to break down the academic dichotomy between fisheries and aquaculture, Kai Lorenzen calls for the conventional notion that ‘aquaculture’ is the ‘pastime of rich investors’ while fisheries support ‘millions of poor fishers’ to be dismantled saying, To millions of people involved in inland fish production, particularly in Asia, aquaculture and fisheries are but the endpoints of a continuum, and much of their food and income derives from systems that combine aspects of both. Hatchery produced juveniles are stocked into communal or public water bodies, often leading to new use rules and thereby transforming both technological and institutional aquatic resource use. On the other hand, self- recruiting fish and invertebrates, whether indigenous or introduced, contribute substantially th the catch from many rural aquaculture systems. Systems such as these have been much neglected by research and extension. (Lorenzen 2002: 12). Similarly, Edwards asserts that, ‘the promotion of aquaculture for rural development has had a poor record’ and is ‘commonly equated with intensive culture of salmon in developed countries and culture of shrimp in developing countries4; both of which carried out mainly by better-off farmers to provide a high-value product for wealthy consumers. However, he goes on to state that aquaculture does in fact ‘contribute to the livelihoods of the poor, particularly in areas of Asia where it is a traditional practice’ (Edwards 2000: 1). Edwards describes this form of rural aquaculture as Low-cost production with extensive and semi-intensive technologies most appropriate for the limited resource base of small-scale households...fertiliser and feed may be derived from on-farm by-products...By contrast, intensive systems invariably depend on relatively high-cost nutritionally complete diets (ibid). However, Edwards seems to advocate the traditional ‘technical fix’ solution to what he perceives as the constraints to the expansion of aquaculture for rural development: ‘recent adoption of new technology suggests that, with adequate support, aquaculture could...contribute significantly to rural development’ (ibid). Both Lorenzen’s adherence to the ‘systems’ approach as the natural order of the natural and social 4 Edwards points out that while ‘shrimp and salmon receive most publicity’ this focus does not reflect the available statistics on aquaculture production: shrimp and salmon, in fact ‘comprise less than 10% Ap pendix I 10