nonsustainable, socially inequitable
development and one not to emulate.
Parallel to the milkfish pens' rise and
fall, there was a rise (and has recently
been a fall, because of deteriorating water
quality) in small-scale tilapia cage culture
in Laguna de Bay. As it developed, this
tilapia growout operation generated a
large demand for tilapiafry and fingerlings
which was met by small-scale hatchery
operators in the villages of lakeside
provinces. There were probably over 600
hatcheries in 1983. They also sold tilapia
seed to other farmers countrywide. The
benefits that accrued to hatchery operators,
their families and communities were great
(Gaite et al. 1985; Yater and Smith 1985).
The subsequent decline of these
hatcheries because of the decline of the
Layna de Bay tilapia cage growout
operations and competition for markets
elsewhere from new tilapia seed suppliers
does not negate the very real benefits in
terms of improved housing, purchase of
household appliances, education, etc., that
this tilapia hatchery development gave to
some lakeside villages for a short but
significant period. Since in most
aquaculture worldwide hatcherylnursery
and growout operations are separate,
such examples of interdependence,
competition and change are common. This
development was not sustainable, but still
helped some villages for a significant
period.
In both these examples, environmental
degradation, in this case of the lake water,
was a contributing factor to their
nonsustainability.
The environmental problems caused
by the expansion of shrimp farming in
Latin America and Asia (another
aquaculture goldrush) are also becoming
serious. These include destruction of
mangroves, salinization of inland areas
(soils and aquifers used for domestic water
supply), land subsidence and watertable
changes due to excessive pumping,
pollution of adjacent areas by farm
effluents, poor hygiene favoring the spread
of diseases, misuse of antibiotics and other
chemicals, and social disruption (New
1990).
Small-scale hatchery and growout
operations are socially and
environmentally desirable. Small-scale is
a term synonymous with the householdl
village-level, i.e., operations run by an
individual smallholder and family or a
village community group. The bulk of the
food production in developing nations will
be by small-scale producers for the
foreseeable future. The Brundtland Report
stated:
Most developing nations need
more effective incentive systems to
encourage production, especially of
food crops. In short, the 'terms of
trade' need to be turned in favour of
the small farmer.
This applies to aquaculture as well as
agriculture. It would be socially,
politically and environmentally
undesirable to promote new technologies
for aquaculture development that would
lead to this food production role being
substantially transferred from small-scale
producers to larger concerns. The
aquaculture systems best suited to small-
scale producers are low-input systems,
particularly small ponds, cages and pens.
It has been previously argued (Pullin
1989) that small-scale, semi-intensive
aquaculture systems, particularly those
integrated with agriculture, are less
environmentally disruptive thanlarger or
more intensive systems. Nature
conservation organizations worldwide
have recognized that small-scale, diverse
farming systems permit much better
coexistence of agriculture and wildlife, in
terms of the latter's abundance and
diversity, than larger-scale monocrop or
factory farming systems.
Nevertheless, the long-term survival
and improvement of small-scale farms,
while advantageous for the needs of rural