A brief review of small-scale aquaculture in Asia, its potential for poverty alleviation, with a consideration of the merits of investment and specialization

摘要

Drawing on the research undertaken by the Department for International Development (DFID) CAGES project and subsequent work for the Mekong River Commission, this paper briefly reviews small-scale cage aquaculture in some parts of Asia and its potential as a tool for poverty alleviation. The CAGES research in Bangladesh identified a set of criteria for assessing suitability of an enterprise for poverty alleviation and concluded that the small cages developed by CARE Bangladesh scored highly against most criteria. Work in Viet Nam also suggested that family-scale cage culture was an important contributor to poverty alleviation and economic development. Since the research ended, cage culture has continued to flourish in Viet Nam - indeed so rapidly insome places that environmental quality is threatened - but very small-scale cage culture has probably declined in Bangladesh. Several possible reasons for this are presented and discussed, including the absence of appropriate pro-poor extension systems capable of delivering flexible extension advice, the quality and availability of seed and feed, the relatively high production costs compared with pond culture and the real opportunity costs of labour. Another possible, if controversial, explanation closely related to the labour issue is that very small cages represent too small an investment (in both time and money), coupled with too limited and variable a return. It is simply not worth the bother, even for poor people, to look after the stock. The rather higher investment and return in Viet Nam on the other hand allows for whole families to "live" above cages. The investment forces commitment and the return rewards that commitment - and the entire livelihood of the household is transformed. This goesagainst the traditional development view that very low investment systems are essential for poor people, and that new enterprises must "fit in" with peoples livelihoods and other activities. A simpler approach based around a robust appraisal of financialfeasibility and comparative advantage may be more appropriate. Small may be, but is not necessarily, beautiful. And fitting in with livelihoods is all very well, but development is also about significant increases in income and the transformation of peoples' lives.