- Email: [email protected]
Opportunities for aquaculture in the ethnic Garo community of northern Bangladesh
Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Water resources and rural development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wrr
Opportunities for aquaculture in the ethnic Garo community of northern Bangladesh Nesar Ahmed a,⇑, Mark S. Flaherty b a b
SA Water Centre for Water Management and Reuse, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3R4, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 14 July 2013 Revised 26 February 2014 Accepted 2 March 2014 Available online 6 March 2014 Keywords: Small ponds Rice-fish culture Livelihoods Food security
a b s t r a c t The adoption of aquaculture in small shallow ponds, ditches and rice fields by the Garo households of northern Bangladesh has been limited. However, the results from the present study suggest that there is considerable potential for the development of small-scale aquaculture in the Garo community. The Delphi method identified a number of factors that would contribute to the development of aquaculture in the Garo community, including favourable water resources, economic profitability, suitable climatic conditions, access to inputs and the availability of labour. Survey results imply that small-scale aquaculture could bring wider benefits to the Garo community in terms of livelihood opportunities, food security, poverty alleviation, socioeconomic development and environmental sustainability. Despite potential benefits, the present study identified various social, economic, technical, environmental and institutional constraints for small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community. We suggest that technical and financial assistance as well as institutional and organisational support are needed for the development of aquaculture in the Garo community. Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Introduction Bangladesh is one of the poorest and most densely populated countries in the world, covering an area of 144,000 km2 with a population of 164 million. With 71% of the people live in rural areas, ⇑ Corresponding author. Present address: Fulbright Visiting Fellow, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, MI 48109-1041, USA. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (N. Ahmed), flaherty@office.geog.uvic.ca (M.S. Flaherty). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2014.03.001 2212-6082/Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
15
diversification of the rural economy has been a key component of many government and non-government organisation (NGO) poverty reduction initiatives [49]. Fish culture has been introduced into rural Bangladesh as part of poverty reduction programmes, and has made important contributions to livelihood opportunities, income generation and food security [7,20,35]. Aquaculture is the fastest growing food producing sector in Bangladesh and the country is ranked 5th in global production after China, India, Vietnam and Indonesia [25]. The total annual fish production in Bangladesh was estimated at 3.26 million tons in 2011–2012 fiscal year, of which 1.73 million tons (53%) were obtained from culture, 0.96 million tons (29%) from capture and 0.57 million tons (18%) from marine fisheries. The total annual fish production has gradually increased from 1.89 million tons in 2001–2002 to 3.26 million tons in 2011–2012, an average annual growth rate of 7% during the last decade [24]. Around 371,309 ha of freshwater ponds with 3.08 million farmers are involved in fish culture [19]. The adoption of aquaculture by the rural poor, however, has not been evenly spread throughout the country. This is particularly the case for many of the nation’s ethnic communities. Bangladesh’s ethnic population consists of around two million [50]. Over the years, the ethnic communities have experienced social oppression, economic deprivation and the lack of recognition [36]. Broadly the socioeconomic conditions of ethnic communities are distressing. Nevertheless, ethnic communities are strikingly diverse in their cultures and religions. Approximately 45 ethnic communities live primarily in the Chittagong Hill Tracks and in the rural regions of greater Mymensingh, Sylhet and Rajshahi [42]. Among them, the Garo is one of the largest ethnic communities in Bangladesh. Aquaculture has been identified as a potential source of income and alternative livelihood options for ethnic communities [43,50]. Their involvement in fish production has often lagged that of other rural communities, however, owing to the interplay of a variety of social, economic and institutional factors. Although a few members of the Garo community have adopted small-scale aquaculture to diversify their livelihoods, the pace of adoption has been slow. Aquaculture can be adopted in small shallow water1 in the Garo community. The use of ponds, ditches and rice fields for fish culture has long been practiced in rural Bangladesh [32]. Small shallow water aquaculture could play an increasingly important role in the rural economy of the Garo community. Our goal in this paper is to highlight key issues determining the effective utilisation of small shallow water for aquaculture in the Garo community to meet the social, economic and environmental challenges. We also examine how small-scale fish culture can bring benefits to the Garo households in terms of livelihoods, incomes, food security and environmental sustainability.
Garo community The Garo people were once a nomadic tribe of the Bodo group of Mongoloids. Around 4000 years ago, they migrated from the northwestern Chinese province of Chinghai to Tibet, and then began to settle in the forested areas of the Garo Hills. Over time the tribe adopted the name Garo. Most Garo people live in the region of Garo Hills across the border in northern Bangladesh and the adjacent Meghalaya state of India [14]. Many Garo people once living in the territory of Bangladesh migrated to India during the partition in 1947, communal violence in 1964, and war of liberation in 1971. Presently the number of Garo people in Bangladesh is estimated to be around 100,000 [33]. The Garo is a close-knit, ethnic community that continues to follow its own customary norms [8]. They live in an isolated world with distinct geographic, economic and cultural boundaries. The natural habitats of the Garo people are the hills, hillocks and places near water bodies. They have their own language although most people are fluent in Bengali. The Garo community is one of the few remaining matrilineal societies in the world. Under this system, a man moves to his wife’s family home after marriage and does not inherit property. The mother owns and controls all of a household’s property [16]. Historically, the Garo people have experienced social, economic and political exclusion, and a growing loss of cultural identity [17,18]. They live in a situation of extreme poverty, as mainstream devel1 Small shallow water refers to the ponds, ditches and rice fields that are common in rural Bangladesh, including in the Garo community.
16
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
opment efforts have largely ignored their needs [8,21,36]. They have little or no access to a wide range of basic needs and services. Most Garo people do not have access to land, which makes their livelihood options both limited and precarious. Jhum or shifting cultivation on hill slopes was one of the main professions of many Garo households [37,39]. Jhum cultivation involves cutting, drying and burning jungle vegetation and then cultivating land for a few years before moving to another patch [11]. In the Garo Hills, Jhum cultivation has historically been the principal mode of agricultural production. Traditionally, the Garo community is engaged in firewood collection, fishing and hunting of wild animals in the forest [44], though these activities are considered risky and unsustainable as sources of food and income [48]. With the decline of the native forest, firewood and forest foods have become increasingly scarce. The traditional livelihoods of the Garo people are increasingly pressure from the degradation of natural resources and population growth [50]. Methodology Study area The study was undertaken in the Kalmakanda sub-district under Netrokona district of northern Bangladesh (Fig. 1). Primary data were collected for a period of six months from January to June 2009 in Nazirpur and Langura unions2 along the River Someshwari3. However, an initial field survey was conducted for a period of eight months from October 2007 to May 2008 as part of the Adivasi (ethnic) Fisheries Project (2007–2009), funded by the European Union (EU). The aim of this project was to diversify livelihoods for ethnic communities in the northern and northwestern parts of Bangladesh. The project set out to devise different aquaculture technologies and associated enterprises for resource-poor ethnic communities [43]. Data collection The study employed a combination of participatory, qualitative and quantitative methods for triangulation in data collection. For aquaculture development in the ethnic communities the Farmer Field Schools (FFS) were formed by a NGO Caritas with support from the WorldFish Center. The schools promote group-based learning that builds knowledge and capacity among farmers. This enables farmers to analyse their problems, identify solutions, and develop and implement management plans [47]. The schools were formed based on the ownership of water resources and interest in aquaculture. The aim of the FFS was to build the capacity of ethnic communities. Each FFS was comprised of 25 to 40 men and women. For this study, a list of FFS was collected from the Adivasi Fisheries Project. Six FFS were selected for data collection, as they were working in our study area. The transect walk involves developing an understanding of a village and its associated farming and natural resource areas by, as far as is practicable, walking the area in a line. The transect walk is not passively observational; it allows researchers to discuss with villagers who accompany them on the walk. As it was difficult to cover the entire study area by walking due to the large distances involved, a vehicle was often used to take a cross section along the passable roads. The vehicle stopped every 2–3 km to allow the investigators to proceed on foot. This method provided a quick overview of the Garo community in terms of its small shallow water resources, socioeconomic conditions and livelihood situation. Pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted before personal interviews were undertaken with the Garo households. The questionnaire was subsequently modified to select a set of questions that would be easily understood by the respondents. Households were selected through stratified random sampling based on gender (female and male in different households). A total of 100 households, 50 in 2
Each union includes several wards. Usually one village is designated as a ward. The River Someshwari is a trans-boundary river. Rain and runoff water from the Garo hills to this river support agroecosystems in the Garo community. 3
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
17
Fig. 1. Study area where the Garo community lives in northern Bangladesh.
each female-headed and male-dominated were interviewed. Females and males were chosen to carry out comparative studies about their roles in small shallow water aquaculture. The interviews lasted about an hour on average, and focused on opportunities and challenges for fish culture by the Garo households with socioeconomic development. Twelve focus group discussions (two in each FFS) involving 6 to 12 individuals were conducted. The discussions were held at respondent’s homes, in front of village shops and under large trees. Each discussion lasted for about two hours. They provided an overview of opportunities and constraints that Garo people identified for becoming involved in small shallow water aquaculture. Delphi method The Delphi method is used to systematically combine expert knowledge and opinion to identify potential problems and solutions [23,29]. It has been used as a means of identifying constraints and opportunities of aquaculture without quantification [12,13,30]. A three-round common Delphi approach was conducted with 25 key informants, consisting of government fisheries officers, researchers, policymakers and NGO workers. In the first round, opportunities and challenges were identified based on responses from all the key informants. In the second round, participants were requested to rate them between 1 and 5, with 1 being least important and 5 the most important. During this round, the response rate was 92% (23 out of 25). In the third round, participants were requested to agree or revise summarised results of their ranking and to make further clarifications. This round also
18
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
gave participants an opportunity to make their judgments of the relative importance. The response rate during this round was 91% (21 out of 23). Results and discussion Small shallow water aquaculture A considerable area consisting of small shallow water provides opportunities for aquaculture in the Garo community. Most surveyed households have access to a pond, ditch or rice field. Most ponds and ditches are seasonal as they contain water for 6 to 8 months from April to November. Low-lying rice fields are also seasonal where water stands for about 4 to 6 months. The size of a rice field is from 800 to 2000 m2 while a pond size is about 400–1200 m2 which is larger than a ditch (less than 200 m2). The Garo households started fish culture in small shallow water through farmer schools owing to a combination of two factors: (1) push factors – those forcing them to survive and (2) pull factors – those reducing risks or enhancing their situation (Table 1). Regardless of gender, most respondents (73%) identified push factors as the main drivers, while the rest (27%) reported pull factors. Six types of aquaculture are taking place in small shallow water by the Garo households through field schools: (1) pond-fish culture, (2) rice-fish farming, (3) cage culture, (4) fry rearing, (5) seed trading and (6) fish marketing (Fig. 2). There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in participation rates across the activities between female and male respondents. Most surveyed households with access to water are involved in fish production, rather than marketing. Although Garo women are active due to the matriarchal system, they are also primarily interested in fish farming due to household work obligations. Most women reported that they could manage routine operations on their fish farms as their husbands are often busy, working away from their homes. The largest number of respondents (27%) participated in pond-fish culture of Indian major carp and exotic carp. However, productivity is low (1500–3500 kg/ha/yr) due to the use of extensive farming systems. Productivity could be increased significantly by adding more fry, feed and fertiliser, but this would result in higher production costs. There is also concern that an increase in intensity might be limited by water management. Moreover, environmental concerns including water pollution and eutrophication can result from intensive farming [22,27]. According to key informants, improvedextensive and semi-intensive aquaculture could be carried out in small shallow water, as the production costs and environmental impacts are not excessive. The adoption of rice-fish farming has been slow in the Garo community due to water scarcity during the dry season and flooding during the monsoon. Only 17% of respondents harvest fish from rice fields when wild fish enter during the monsoon. None of the households, however, deliberately stocks fish in their rice fields. Nevertheless, most key informants report that the stocking of fish in rice fields with rainfed conditions results in lower production costs, because rice-fish farming is an extensive culture system that primarily relies on natural foods (plankton, periphyton and benthos). Integrated rice-fish farming is appropriate for resource-poor farmers in Bangladesh, as it maximises returns from water [6]. Table 1 Reasons for adopting aquaculture in small shallow water by the Garo households. Key reason
Female n = 50
Male n = 50
Total n = 100
Push factor
Financial hardship Food deficit Existing livelihood threatened
19 (38%) 16 (32%) 1 (2%)
24 (48%) 10 (20%) 3 (6%)
43 (43%) 26 (26%) 4 (4%)
Pull factor
Increased income Enhanced food supply Sustainable livelihood Improved social status Suitable biophysical conditions
5 6 1 2 0
6 3 2 1 1
11 (11%) 9 (9%) 3 (3%) 3 (3%) 1 (1%)
n: Sample size of respondents.
(10%) (12%) (2%) (4%) (0%)
(12%) (6%) (4%) (2%) (2%)
19
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
Fish marketing 12% Seed trading 6%
Pond aquaculture 30%
Fry nursing 14%
Fish marketing 22%
Pond aquaculture 24%
Seed trading 10%
Rice-fish farming 16%
Cage culture 22%
Fry nursing 14%
Female
Rice-fish farming 18% Cage culture 12%
Male
Fig. 2. Participation in small shallow water aquaculture, as reported by female and male respondents during a household survey, 2009.
Only 17% of the households surveyed participated in cage culture through farmer schools as they set up cages in their ponds. According to key informants, cage culture is a pro-poor technology that has several advantages for Garo people. The integrity of the cage unit means that large communal water bodies including rivers and floodplains can be used as they are considered ‘common-pool resources’. Community-based fisheries management can be an option to manage open-water resources [46]. The adoption of aquaculture by the Garo community would be contingent upon the availability of fish seed. Meeting the demand for seed could be achieved through the establishment of fry nurseries. Although fry nursing is a relatively new technology for the Garo people, 14% of the households were involved in this activity through field schools. The Garo households could produce fingerlings within a relatively short period of time (4–8 weeks). According to key informants, the nursing of fry in seasonal ponds or ditches could increase water productivity4. Bamboo-made net cages are used to rear fry by ethnic communities in Bangladesh through the Adivasi Fisheries Project [43]. Only 8% of the households in our survey expressed interest in fry/fingerling trading through farmer schools. Seed trading requires technical skills and knowledge about handling and transportation that Garo people do not have. Moreover, it is necessary to establish a network among traders, intermediaries and hatchery operators. According to key informants, access to mobile phones could help facilitate the development of such a network. Fish fry can be transported from the private hatcheries in nearby Mymensingh, which dominate the seed supply of carp, tilapia and catfish [5]. Seed trading by landless households is promising in ethnic communities of Bangladesh [43]. A key consideration in developing small shallow water aquaculture is the marketing of fish. The demand for fish is generally strong in the Garo community as it is driven by population growth. However, only 17% of the households surveyed participate in fish marketing through field schools. According to key informants, integration of production, harvesting and transportation can help to develop fish marketing in the Garo community. Most community people report considerable potential for becoming involved in fish harvesting. Pond-netting is one of the aquaculture value-chain activities taken up by ethnic communities through the Adivasi Fisheries Project [43]. Opportunities for small-scale aquaculture The Delphi method identified seven factors that would contribute to the development of small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community (Table 2). The mean ordinal rank indicates that 4
Water productivity is defined as beneficial output per unit of water [10].
20
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
favourable water resources are the most important factor, followed by economic profitability, suitable climatic conditions and access to fry supply. The lowest ranked factors are availability unpaid family labour, locally available feed and fertiliser, and the technology to be environmentally friendly. The Kendall’s W value of 0.71 indicates ‘strong’ agreement and a ‘high’ confidence level of identified factors for small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community. Favourable water resources including accessible groundwater and surface water sources, and affirmative agro-ecological conditions can support the Garo community to become involved in various aquaculture practices. The principal water sources are rainfall, groundwater and river water in canals. Most key informants suggest that the carrying capacities of small shallow water are not fully utilised, which provides large scope for increasing fish production. Aquaculture can increase water productivity through efficient use of water resources [10]. The adoption of aquaculture is strongly influenced by its economic viability. Most key informants report that the profitability of aquaculture in small shallow water is considerably higher than agriculture because of the increasing demand for fish. According to community people, the farm-gate price of fish (US$1.05–1.47/kg) is significantly higher than rice (US$0.29–0.41/kg). However, the combination of rice-fish farming has provided good economic returns in the nearby Mymensingh area due to efficient, complementary use of land and water [6]. The climate in the study area is similar to Mymensingh, which is the hub of freshwater aquaculture in Bangladesh [3,5]. Due to its location, just south of the foothills of the Himalayas, where the monsoon winds turn west and northwest, the study area receives high levels of rainfall, an annual average 2174 mm [34]. According to key informants, optimum rainfall, year-round sunlight and suitable temperatures make the environment highly favourable for small shallow water aquaculture. Another key issue for small-scale aquaculture in the Garo community is ensuring an adequate supply of fish seed and feed. Fish fry can be available through nursing in seasonal ponds or ditches. According to key informants, a mixture of locally available feed ingredients such as rice bran, wheat bran and mustard oilcake can be used as aquafeed for fish culture. During field visits, it was found that these feed ingredients are on-farm byproducts for many households in the Garo community. Cow dung also is relatively cheap and available, and could be used instead of chemical fertilisers (urea, triple super phosphate). According to key informants, locally available aquafeed and organic fertiliser would support improved-extensive and semi-intensive aquaculture. The adoption of small shallow water aquaculture by the Garo households would require the allocation of family labour. For the typically large families in the Garo community, this could be an important consideration favouring its adoption. Community people suggest that all family members over 15 years could be directly engaged in small-scale aquaculture. According to key informants, if aquaculture is undertaken using unpaid family labour, water productivity would increase. Most women respondents report that they could be involved in fish culture, which is consistent with observations in rural Bangladesh [45]. The environmental impacts from small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community are likely to be minor, given it is a low-input extensive culture. According to the survey, small-scale
Table 2 Opportunities that respondents identified for small shallow water aquaculture by the Garo households (based on Delphi method). Key factor
Favourable water resources Economic profitability Suitable climatic conditions Access to fish fry Locally available feed and fertiliser Available and unpaid family labour Environmentally friendly *
Score
Mean ordinal rank
Mean
SD
4.95 4.29 4.24 4.05 3.29 3.24 2.90
0.22 0.46 0.44 0.59 0.72 0.70 0.89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SD: standard deviation. Kendall’s W = 0.71, agreement: strong, confidence: high.
a
Kendall’s W valuea
Chi-square (v2) value
0.71
99.42 (P < 0.0001)
*
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
21
aquaculture could enhance local environmental conditions due to efficient use of small shallow water. Water plays a key role in maintaining ecosystems through aquaculture [10]. Potential benefits from small shallow water aquaculture Survey results indicate that fish production through the utilisation of small shallow water could bring wider benefits to the Garo community, including livelihood opportunities, food security, poverty alleviation, socioeconomic development and reduced pressure on natural resources. The adoption of small-scale aquaculture would provide two broad elements of rural livelihoods for the Garo community: (1) on-farm livelihoods and (2) off-farm livelihoods. On-farm livelihood opportunities would include pond-fish culture, rice-fish farming, cage culture, fry nursing, aquafeed production, pond-dike cropping, fish harvesting and day labouring. A range of associated groups such as hatchery operators, fry traders, feed producers and traders, fish market actors, net makers and day labourers would also get advantage from off-farm rural livelihood opportunities. A network for fry trading could be developed involving hatchery operators, intermediaries, traders and farmers. A similar network for fish marketing could be established. Labourers would perform post-harvest tasks that include fish transporting, handling, cleaning, sorting, grading and icing. Most key informants suggest that the opportunities for landless Garo households to find work could increase significantly. Job opportunities for Garo women would also increase as a result of wider adoption of aquaculture in the Garo community. Small-scale aquaculture has already brought about diversifying livelihoods for the rural poor in many countries [7]. Food insecurity is one of the key dimensions of poverty in the Garo community. Most community people report that their situation has deteriorated in recent years, as the supply of food from natural resources has declined due to indiscriminate exploitation and population growth. Most Garo households live in chronic hunger and often go to bed hungry. However, there appears to be considerable potential for improving food security by the adoption of small shallow water aquaculture. Community people agreed that small-scale aquaculture could help the Garo households keep pace with rising demand for food. Fish production could provide nutritional advantages to the Garo households. Farming households could also sell large fish, which fetch a higher price enabling them to purchase other foods. Moreover, increased supplies of fish to markets could help lower the price of such commodity, thus making fish more accessible to the Garo people. There is a positive impact of fish production on food security [1]. Contributing to food security, aquaculture is an important and growing sector in Southeast Asia [31]. Pond-fish culture and rice-fish farming have already enhanced food security in rural communities [4,10,35]. Small-scale aquaculture has potential for increasing incomes in the Garo community. Most community people report that increased incomes are essential for improving their economic situation. The utilisation of small shallow water for fish production is an important mechanism that may allow the Garo community to achieve this. Most households believed that their involvement in small-scale aquaculture could increase their income by 25% to 40%. According to community people, income from fish production may allow them to invest in agriculture, livestock rearing and small business. Increased incomes would also reduce their vulnerability to illness and natural disasters. Key informants report that adequate and sustainable access to income through small-scale aquaculture can help them move out of poverty. Water contributes to poverty alleviation through improving water productivity by fish culture [51]. Fish as a ‘bank in the water’ as fish production appears to be the main source of income for farming households [9]. Aquaculture appears to deliver greater opportunities for income generation leading to poverty alleviation [7,15]. The socioeconomic conditions of the Garo households remain poor. Many are becoming increasingly impoverished with the ongoing degradation of natural resources. According to key informants, the adoption of small shallow water aquaculture by the Garo households would help to improve standards of rural living. Community people report that increased incomes would lead to an improvement in housing conditions, and greater access to health and education. They would allow Garo people to purchase transportation (bicycles) and communication (mobile phones) those are important livelihood assets for ethnic communities [43]. Small-scale aquaculture in environmentally acceptable water generates socioeconomic development for the rural poor [10]. Most key informants report that
22
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
the involvement of Garo women in aquaculture would enhance their position in families and rural society. Women respondents also believed that their income from fish production would give them economic power, and allow them to play a role in household decision-making. The involvement of women in small-scale aquaculture can play an important role in their empowerment [45]. Small shallow water aquaculture could bring a number of environmental advantages to the Garo community (Fig. 3). Small-scale aquaculture could help to reduce pressure on natural resources. Aquaculture could considerably reduce firewood collection by the Garo households, which would help to conserve local forests. The adoption of fish culture by the Garo households would also help to reduce fishing pressure on open-water resources. Community people suggest that aquaculture could also reduce the hunting of wildlife including birds, crabs, eels, frogs, molluscs, snails, snakes and turtles. Wildlife conservation would enhance ecosystem functioning to maintain biodiversity [38]. Rice-fish farming could also have positive effects on fish biodiversity, as rice fields are the natural habitat and breeding ground for many small indigenous species [2]. Integrated rice-fish farming is ecologically sound which is regarded as integrated pest management [28]. The cultivation of fish in rice fields increases rice yields by 8% to15% [40,41]. Integrated rice-fish farming is a form of sustainable intensification, i.e. producing more food from the same area of land and water without environmental impacts [26].
Challenges for aquaculture The Delphi method identified eight factors as possible constraints for small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community (Table 3). The mean ordinal rank indicates that inadequate technical knowledge is the most important constraint, followed by lack of financial support, high production costs and limited fry supply. The lowest ranking was poor institutional support, followed by social conflicts, lack of awareness and flooding. A Kendall’s W value of 0.66 indicates ‘moderate’ agreement and ‘fair’ confidence.
IMPACT
EFFECT
CAUSE
Small shallow water aquaculture
Reduce firewood collection, decline hunting from forests and decrease fishing from open-water
Reduce deforestation and destruction of hilly areas; improve wild habitat
Reduce killing and disappearing wildlife; increase wild flora and fauna
Forestation, productive forest, increase biodiversity and maintain ecosystems
Use small shallow water for fish production to provide food, income and livelihoods
Increase water productivity and improve aquatic environment for fish culture
Enhance water productivity through rice-fish farming
Increase food productivity, conserve fish biodiversity and maintain aquatic ecosystems
Fig. 3. Environmental benefits from small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community.
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
23
Table 3 Constraints that respondents identified for small shallow water aquaculture by the Garo households (based on Delphi method). Key factor
Inadequate technical knowledge Lack of financial support High production costs Limited fry supply Flooding Lack of awareness Social conflicts Poor institutional support *
Score
Mean ordinal rank
Kendall’s W valuea
Chi-square (v2) value
0.66
105.26 (P < 0.0001)
*
Mean
SD
4.71 4.24 4.19 4.09 3.67 3.62 3.19 3.14
0.46 0.44 0.40 0.44 0.66 0.67 0.40 0.36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SD: standard deviation. Kendall’s W = 0.66, agreement: moderate, confidence: fair.
a
Most households broadly identified the constraints as social, economic, technical, environmental and institutional (Fig. 4). Irrespective of gender, the highest number of respondents identified technical as the most important constraint while institutional was the least. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in the constraints identified by female and male respondents. Regardless of gender, 16% of the respondents identified social issues as the single most important constraint for small shallow water aquaculture. Social costs may be high for changing traditional occupations to aquaculture because of limited access to social capital, such as networks, cultural norms, social attributes and knowledge sharing. Although cage culture represents an opportunity to produce fish, access to water is likely to generate social conflicts. A further constraint is the multiple ownerships of ponds by household members, who may have conflicting interests. For conflict resolution, the Garo community prefers their existing social structure. Although Garo people are recognised for their honesty, sincerity, integrity, hard working attitude and polite behaviour, low participation in social organisations cannot protect their fundamental rights [43]. Inadequate financial support is one of the key constraints for small shallow water fish culture by the Garo community. About 24% of the households report that the major constraint to the adoption of aquaculture is economic in nature. Fish culture largely depends on production costs and returns. Fish production costs have risen considerably in recent years owing to the increased costs of seed, feed and fertiliser. Price increases for these inputs have been attributed to the high demand generated by the rapid development of aquaculture across the country. Moreover, concern was also expressed that
Time of exposure
Fig. 4. Constraints to the development of small shallow water aquaculture faced by the Garo households; the order of constraints such as: (1) social, (2) economic, (3) technical, (4) environmental and (5) institutional in relation to sequential involvement in aquaculture and time of exposure (straight dash line); curved dash line shows variation among different constraints with time of exposure.
24
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
farmers often found it difficult to obtain operating capital. Most key informants suggest that the availability of institutional credit is an essential prerequisite for aquaculture development in the Garo community. There is considerable apprehension within the Garo community regarding aquaculture in small shallow water due to their lack of technical knowledge. About 39% of the households identified limited understanding of aquaculture as a critical constraint. Having access to an adequate supply of fish fry is another major concern. Readily available fry would play an important role in facilitating the adoption of aquaculture within the community. However, nursing of fish fry requires technical skills, knowledge and water management. Maintenance of cages for fry rearing is one of the key problems faced by ethnic communities [43]. Integrated rice-fish farming also requires skills and knowledge of water management as fish require a minimum water depth of 15 to 20 cm. Moreover, rice-fish farming is also associated with the risk of invasion of predatory fish and escape of stocked fish [6]. Most key informants also report that poor water quality can hinder fish production. About 13% of the respondents identified environmental factors as the most important constraints for fish culture. Aquaculture in small shallow water is closely linked to the behaviour of the monsoon. There is excess water during the monsoon and no water during the dry season. According to key informants, sudden and/or prolonged floods often damage fish farms. Preventing the escape of fish from small shallow water is very difficult during the floods as farmers are reluctant to raise their low and narrow dikes. Most key informants report that rainfall variation could have a detrimental effect on fish growth. Drought is also one of the foremost environmental limits to aquaculture as a severe or prolonged drought shortens the culture period. Community people also report that aquaculture is not possible during the dry season because of water scarcity. A few respondents (8%) suggest that fish culture has not been adopted in small shallow water by the Garo community because of poor institutional support. They claimed that the Garo community is still behind other communities despite having similar water resources to Mymensingh. Aquaculture in Mymensingh has expanded from a long-running development project, namely the Mymensingh Aquaculture Extension Project (1989–2003), which has been funded by Danish International Development Agency. Bangladesh Agricultural University and Fisheries Research Institute have also played major roles in the development of aquaculture in Mymensingh [5]. As has happened across the country, fish culture in the Garo community warrants greater attention from government organisations, NGOs and development agencies.
Conclusions Small-scale aquaculture could play an important role in the rural economy of the Garo community. However, the adoption of aquaculture in ponds, ditches and rice fields by the Garo households has been limited due to social, economic, technical, environmental and institutional constraints. A number of challenges, particularly lack of technical knowledge, inadequate financial support, high production costs and the supply of fish fry must be addressed in order to develop small-scale aquaculture in the Garo community. Garo households need to increase their basic knowledge and develop skills in pondfish culture, rice-fish farming, cage culture and fry nursing. Despite numerous challenges, there is considerable potential for small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community. Realising the potential of small-scale aquaculture, however, will require technical and financial assistance, as well as institutional and organisational support. Training and extension services are essential for aquaculture in the Garo community, as they enhance farmers’ ability and willingness to make changes in their livelihoods. Training is needed for pond-fish culture, rice-fish farming, cage culture and fry rearing. Technical assistance is also essential for water management in ponds, ditches and rice fields. Both public and private sectors will need to provide substantial technical assistance to the Garo households. Financial assistance is also recognised as being an essential component of small shallow water aquaculture. Access to credit at reasonable interest rates with appropriate repayment schedules will be essential if small-scale aquaculture is to become accessible to the Garo households. Thus, the government, national banks and NGOs should endeavour to provide better access to credit at low interest rates.
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
25
Several social and cultural issues within the Garo community must also be addressed. These include the stresses associated with moving out of traditional occupations, overcoming cultural barriers, and mitigating conflicts regarding access to water resources. Further research is also needed to better understand the socio-cultural dimensions of small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community.
Acknowledgements The study is based on a research project entitled ‘‘development of small-scale aquaculture entrepreneurs by ethnic households in northern Bangladesh’’ funded by the EU through the WorldFish Center, in association with the Bangladesh Fisheries Research Forum under the Adivasi Fisheries Project. We are grateful to Caritas for providing support during field visits. Thanks are due also to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors.
References [1] M. Ahmed, M.H. Lorica, Improving developing country food security through aquaculture development – lessons from Asia, Food Policy 27 (2002) 125–141. [2] N. Ahmed, Socio-economic and environmental impacts of self-recruiting species (SRS) culture in northwest Bangladesh, World Aquacult. 39 (2) (2008) 26–29. 31. [3] N. Ahmed, Revolution in small-scale freshwater rural aquaculture in Mymensingh, Bangladesh, World Aquacult. 40 (4) (2009) 31–35. 54. [4] N. Ahmed, S.T. Garnett, Integrated rice-fish farming in Bangladesh: meeting the challenges of food security, Food Secur. 3 (2011) 81–92. [5] N. Ahmed, K.A. Toufique, Greening the blue revolution of small-scale freshwater aquaculture in Mymensingh, Bangladesh, Aquacult. Res., in press (doi:10.1111/are.12390). [6] N. Ahmed, K.K. Zander, S.T. Garnett, Socioeconomic aspects of rice-fish farming in Bangladesh: opportunities, challenges and production efficiency, Aust. J. Agricult. Resour. Econ. 55 (2011) 199–219. [7] Asian Development Bank (ADB), An Evaluation of Small-Scale Freshwater Rural Aquaculture Development for Poverty Reduction, Asian Development Bank, Manila, 2005. [8] E. Bal, Becoming the Garos of Bangladesh: policies of exclusion and the ethnicisation of a tribal minority, South Asia 31 (2007) 56–75. [9] C. Béné, E. Steel, B.K. Luadia, A. Gordon, Fish as the ‘‘bank in the water’’ – Evidence from chronic-poor communities in Congo, Food Policy 34 (2009) 108–118. [10] E. Boelee (Ed.), Ecosystems for Water and Food Security, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, 2011. [11] O.K. Borggaard, A. Gafur, L. Petersen, Sustainability appraisal of shifting cultivation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, Ambio 32 (2001) 118–123. [12] S.W. Bunting, Horizontally integrated aquaculture development: exploring consensus on constraints and opportunities with a stakeholder Delphi, Aquacult. Int. 16 (2008) 153–169. [13] S.W. Bunting, Assessing the stakeholder Delphi for facilitating interactive participation and consensus building for sustainable aquaculture development, Soc. Nat. Resour. 23 (2010) 758–775. [14] R. Burling, Garo, in: G. Thurgood, R. LaPolla (Eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Curzon Press, London, 1999. [15] J. Cai, P. Leung, N. Hishamunda, Commercial aquaculture and economic growth, poverty alleviation and food security: assessment framework, FAO Fish. Aquacult. Tech. Paper 512 (2009) 58p. [16] K.A.N. Chowdhury, Residence, Gender and Power in the Garo Society of Bangladesh, Doctoral Thesis, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2007. [17] J. Cooper, The Garo of Bangladesh: a forest people’s struggle to survive, Ethnic Racial Studies 15 (1992) 85–101. [18] T.K. Das, S.M. Islam, Psycho-social dimensions of ethnicity: the situation of garo community in Bangladesh, Asian Affairs 27 (3) (2005) 45–54. [19] Department of Fisheries (DoF), National Fish Week 2013 Compendium (in Bengali), Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Bangladesh, 2013. [20] M.M. Dey, M.F. Alam, M.L. Bose, Demand for aquaculture development: perspectives from Bangladesh for improved planning, Rev. Aquacult. 2 (2010) 16–32. [21] S. Dey, S. Sultana, The socio-cultural impacts of economic changes to matrilineal Garo society in Bangladesh, Int. J. Green Econ. 3 (2009) 184–198. [22] J.S. Diana, Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation, Bioscience 59 (2009) 27–38. [23] H.M. Donohoe, R.D. Needham, Moving best practice forward: Delphi characteristics, advantages, potential problems, and solutions, Int. J. Tourism Res. 11 (2009) 415–437. [24] Fisheries Resources Survey Systems (FRSS), Fisheries statistical yearbook of Bangladesh 2011–2012, Department of Fisheries, Bangladesh, 2013. [25] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2012. [26] H.C.J. Godfray, J.R. Beddington, I.R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J.F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S.M. Thomas, C. Toulmin, Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people, Science 327 (2010) 812–818.
26
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
[27] S.J. Hall, A. Delaporte, M.J. Phillips, M. Beveridge, M. O’Keefe, Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture, The WorldFish Center, Penang, 2011. [28] M. Halwart, M.V. Gupta, Culture of fish in rice fields, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the WorldFish Center, 2004. [29] F. Hasson, S. Keeney, H. McKenna, Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique, J. Adv. Nurs. 32 (2000) 1008–1015. [30] N. Hishamunda, F. Poulain, N. Ridler, Prospective Analysis of Aquaculture Development: The Delphi Method, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2009. [31] N. Hishamunda, N.B. Ridler, P. Bueno, W.G. Yap, Commercial aquaculture in Southeast Asia: some policy lessons, Food Policy 34 (2009) 102–107. [32] K.M.S. Huda, P.J. Atkins, D.N.M. Donoghue, N.J. Cox, Small water bodies in Bangladesh, Area 42 (2010) 217–227. [33] M.R. Islam, The Changing Garo Adivasi Culture of Bangladesh: A Case Study of Marriage Rituals, M Phil Thesis, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tromso, Norway, 2008. [34] S. Islam (Ed.), Banglapedia – National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2012. [35] K.M. Jahan, M. Ahmed, B. Belton, The impacts of aquaculture development on food security: lessons from Bangladesh, Aquac. Res. 41 (2010) 481–495. [36] K. Khaleque, Ethnic Communities of Bangladesh, Society for Environment and Human Development, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2005. [37] K. Khaleque, M.A. Gold, Pipeline agroforestry: an indigenous system among the Garo community of Bangladesh, Soc. Nat. Resour. 6 (1993) 71–78. [38] M. Loreau, Linking biodiversity and ecosystems: towards a unifying ecological theory, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365 (2011) 49–60. [39] B. Mali, The problem of shifting cultivation in the Garo Hills of North-East India, 1860–1970, Conserv. Soc. 1 (2003) 87–114. [40] A. Mishra, R.K. Mohanty, Productivity enhancement through rice-fish farming using a two-stage rainwater conservation technique, Agric. Water Manag. 67 (2004) 119–131. [41] R.K. Mohanty, H.N. Verma, P.S. Brahmanand, Performance evaluation of rice-fish integration system in rainfed medium and ecosystem, Aquaculture 23 (2004) 125–135. [42] Oxfam, Oxfam’s Work in Bangladesh Indepth Work with Indigenous People, Oxfam Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2008. [43] J. Pant, B.K. Barman, K.M. Jahan, B. Belton, M. Beveridge, Can aquaculture benefit the extreme poor? A case study of landless and socially marginalized Adivasi (ethnic) communities in Bangladesh, Aquaculture 418–419 (2014) 1–10. [44] M. Rahman, The Cultural World of the Adivasis of Bangladesh, Society for Environment and Human Development, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2004. [45] S. Shirajee, M.M. Salehin, N. Ahmed, The changing face of women for small-scale aquaculture development in rural Bangladesh, Aquacult. Asia 15 (2) (2010) 9–16. [46] P. Sultana, P.M. Thompson, Community based fisheries management and fisher livelihoods: Bangladesh case studies, Human Ecol. 35 (2007) 527–546. [47] R. Tripp, M. Wijeratne, V.H. Piyadasa, What should we expect from farmer field schools? A Sri Lanka case study, World Dev. 33 (2005) 1705–1720. [48] M.K. Uddin, Rights of Indigenous People and Minority Issues in Bangladesh, Society for Environment and Human Development, Dhaka, 2005. [49] World Bank, World Development Indicators, World Bank, Washington DC, 2013. [50] WorldFish Center, Aquaculture options for alternative livelihoods: the experience of the adivasi fisheries project in Bangladesh, Factsheet 1946, the WorldFish Center, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2009. [51] World Water Assessment Program (WWAP), Water in a changing world, The United Nations World Water Development Report 3, UNESCO, Paris and Earthscan, London, 2009.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Water resources and rural development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wrr
Opportunities for aquaculture in the ethnic Garo community of northern Bangladesh Nesar Ahmed a,⇑, Mark S. Flaherty b a b
SA Water Centre for Water Management and Reuse, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3R4, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 14 July 2013 Revised 26 February 2014 Accepted 2 March 2014 Available online 6 March 2014 Keywords: Small ponds Rice-fish culture Livelihoods Food security
a b s t r a c t The adoption of aquaculture in small shallow ponds, ditches and rice fields by the Garo households of northern Bangladesh has been limited. However, the results from the present study suggest that there is considerable potential for the development of small-scale aquaculture in the Garo community. The Delphi method identified a number of factors that would contribute to the development of aquaculture in the Garo community, including favourable water resources, economic profitability, suitable climatic conditions, access to inputs and the availability of labour. Survey results imply that small-scale aquaculture could bring wider benefits to the Garo community in terms of livelihood opportunities, food security, poverty alleviation, socioeconomic development and environmental sustainability. Despite potential benefits, the present study identified various social, economic, technical, environmental and institutional constraints for small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community. We suggest that technical and financial assistance as well as institutional and organisational support are needed for the development of aquaculture in the Garo community. Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Introduction Bangladesh is one of the poorest and most densely populated countries in the world, covering an area of 144,000 km2 with a population of 164 million. With 71% of the people live in rural areas, ⇑ Corresponding author. Present address: Fulbright Visiting Fellow, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, MI 48109-1041, USA. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (N. Ahmed), flaherty@office.geog.uvic.ca (M.S. Flaherty). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2014.03.001 2212-6082/Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
15
diversification of the rural economy has been a key component of many government and non-government organisation (NGO) poverty reduction initiatives [49]. Fish culture has been introduced into rural Bangladesh as part of poverty reduction programmes, and has made important contributions to livelihood opportunities, income generation and food security [7,20,35]. Aquaculture is the fastest growing food producing sector in Bangladesh and the country is ranked 5th in global production after China, India, Vietnam and Indonesia [25]. The total annual fish production in Bangladesh was estimated at 3.26 million tons in 2011–2012 fiscal year, of which 1.73 million tons (53%) were obtained from culture, 0.96 million tons (29%) from capture and 0.57 million tons (18%) from marine fisheries. The total annual fish production has gradually increased from 1.89 million tons in 2001–2002 to 3.26 million tons in 2011–2012, an average annual growth rate of 7% during the last decade [24]. Around 371,309 ha of freshwater ponds with 3.08 million farmers are involved in fish culture [19]. The adoption of aquaculture by the rural poor, however, has not been evenly spread throughout the country. This is particularly the case for many of the nation’s ethnic communities. Bangladesh’s ethnic population consists of around two million [50]. Over the years, the ethnic communities have experienced social oppression, economic deprivation and the lack of recognition [36]. Broadly the socioeconomic conditions of ethnic communities are distressing. Nevertheless, ethnic communities are strikingly diverse in their cultures and religions. Approximately 45 ethnic communities live primarily in the Chittagong Hill Tracks and in the rural regions of greater Mymensingh, Sylhet and Rajshahi [42]. Among them, the Garo is one of the largest ethnic communities in Bangladesh. Aquaculture has been identified as a potential source of income and alternative livelihood options for ethnic communities [43,50]. Their involvement in fish production has often lagged that of other rural communities, however, owing to the interplay of a variety of social, economic and institutional factors. Although a few members of the Garo community have adopted small-scale aquaculture to diversify their livelihoods, the pace of adoption has been slow. Aquaculture can be adopted in small shallow water1 in the Garo community. The use of ponds, ditches and rice fields for fish culture has long been practiced in rural Bangladesh [32]. Small shallow water aquaculture could play an increasingly important role in the rural economy of the Garo community. Our goal in this paper is to highlight key issues determining the effective utilisation of small shallow water for aquaculture in the Garo community to meet the social, economic and environmental challenges. We also examine how small-scale fish culture can bring benefits to the Garo households in terms of livelihoods, incomes, food security and environmental sustainability.
Garo community The Garo people were once a nomadic tribe of the Bodo group of Mongoloids. Around 4000 years ago, they migrated from the northwestern Chinese province of Chinghai to Tibet, and then began to settle in the forested areas of the Garo Hills. Over time the tribe adopted the name Garo. Most Garo people live in the region of Garo Hills across the border in northern Bangladesh and the adjacent Meghalaya state of India [14]. Many Garo people once living in the territory of Bangladesh migrated to India during the partition in 1947, communal violence in 1964, and war of liberation in 1971. Presently the number of Garo people in Bangladesh is estimated to be around 100,000 [33]. The Garo is a close-knit, ethnic community that continues to follow its own customary norms [8]. They live in an isolated world with distinct geographic, economic and cultural boundaries. The natural habitats of the Garo people are the hills, hillocks and places near water bodies. They have their own language although most people are fluent in Bengali. The Garo community is one of the few remaining matrilineal societies in the world. Under this system, a man moves to his wife’s family home after marriage and does not inherit property. The mother owns and controls all of a household’s property [16]. Historically, the Garo people have experienced social, economic and political exclusion, and a growing loss of cultural identity [17,18]. They live in a situation of extreme poverty, as mainstream devel1 Small shallow water refers to the ponds, ditches and rice fields that are common in rural Bangladesh, including in the Garo community.
16
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
opment efforts have largely ignored their needs [8,21,36]. They have little or no access to a wide range of basic needs and services. Most Garo people do not have access to land, which makes their livelihood options both limited and precarious. Jhum or shifting cultivation on hill slopes was one of the main professions of many Garo households [37,39]. Jhum cultivation involves cutting, drying and burning jungle vegetation and then cultivating land for a few years before moving to another patch [11]. In the Garo Hills, Jhum cultivation has historically been the principal mode of agricultural production. Traditionally, the Garo community is engaged in firewood collection, fishing and hunting of wild animals in the forest [44], though these activities are considered risky and unsustainable as sources of food and income [48]. With the decline of the native forest, firewood and forest foods have become increasingly scarce. The traditional livelihoods of the Garo people are increasingly pressure from the degradation of natural resources and population growth [50]. Methodology Study area The study was undertaken in the Kalmakanda sub-district under Netrokona district of northern Bangladesh (Fig. 1). Primary data were collected for a period of six months from January to June 2009 in Nazirpur and Langura unions2 along the River Someshwari3. However, an initial field survey was conducted for a period of eight months from October 2007 to May 2008 as part of the Adivasi (ethnic) Fisheries Project (2007–2009), funded by the European Union (EU). The aim of this project was to diversify livelihoods for ethnic communities in the northern and northwestern parts of Bangladesh. The project set out to devise different aquaculture technologies and associated enterprises for resource-poor ethnic communities [43]. Data collection The study employed a combination of participatory, qualitative and quantitative methods for triangulation in data collection. For aquaculture development in the ethnic communities the Farmer Field Schools (FFS) were formed by a NGO Caritas with support from the WorldFish Center. The schools promote group-based learning that builds knowledge and capacity among farmers. This enables farmers to analyse their problems, identify solutions, and develop and implement management plans [47]. The schools were formed based on the ownership of water resources and interest in aquaculture. The aim of the FFS was to build the capacity of ethnic communities. Each FFS was comprised of 25 to 40 men and women. For this study, a list of FFS was collected from the Adivasi Fisheries Project. Six FFS were selected for data collection, as they were working in our study area. The transect walk involves developing an understanding of a village and its associated farming and natural resource areas by, as far as is practicable, walking the area in a line. The transect walk is not passively observational; it allows researchers to discuss with villagers who accompany them on the walk. As it was difficult to cover the entire study area by walking due to the large distances involved, a vehicle was often used to take a cross section along the passable roads. The vehicle stopped every 2–3 km to allow the investigators to proceed on foot. This method provided a quick overview of the Garo community in terms of its small shallow water resources, socioeconomic conditions and livelihood situation. Pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted before personal interviews were undertaken with the Garo households. The questionnaire was subsequently modified to select a set of questions that would be easily understood by the respondents. Households were selected through stratified random sampling based on gender (female and male in different households). A total of 100 households, 50 in 2
Each union includes several wards. Usually one village is designated as a ward. The River Someshwari is a trans-boundary river. Rain and runoff water from the Garo hills to this river support agroecosystems in the Garo community. 3
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
17
Fig. 1. Study area where the Garo community lives in northern Bangladesh.
each female-headed and male-dominated were interviewed. Females and males were chosen to carry out comparative studies about their roles in small shallow water aquaculture. The interviews lasted about an hour on average, and focused on opportunities and challenges for fish culture by the Garo households with socioeconomic development. Twelve focus group discussions (two in each FFS) involving 6 to 12 individuals were conducted. The discussions were held at respondent’s homes, in front of village shops and under large trees. Each discussion lasted for about two hours. They provided an overview of opportunities and constraints that Garo people identified for becoming involved in small shallow water aquaculture. Delphi method The Delphi method is used to systematically combine expert knowledge and opinion to identify potential problems and solutions [23,29]. It has been used as a means of identifying constraints and opportunities of aquaculture without quantification [12,13,30]. A three-round common Delphi approach was conducted with 25 key informants, consisting of government fisheries officers, researchers, policymakers and NGO workers. In the first round, opportunities and challenges were identified based on responses from all the key informants. In the second round, participants were requested to rate them between 1 and 5, with 1 being least important and 5 the most important. During this round, the response rate was 92% (23 out of 25). In the third round, participants were requested to agree or revise summarised results of their ranking and to make further clarifications. This round also
18
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
gave participants an opportunity to make their judgments of the relative importance. The response rate during this round was 91% (21 out of 23). Results and discussion Small shallow water aquaculture A considerable area consisting of small shallow water provides opportunities for aquaculture in the Garo community. Most surveyed households have access to a pond, ditch or rice field. Most ponds and ditches are seasonal as they contain water for 6 to 8 months from April to November. Low-lying rice fields are also seasonal where water stands for about 4 to 6 months. The size of a rice field is from 800 to 2000 m2 while a pond size is about 400–1200 m2 which is larger than a ditch (less than 200 m2). The Garo households started fish culture in small shallow water through farmer schools owing to a combination of two factors: (1) push factors – those forcing them to survive and (2) pull factors – those reducing risks or enhancing their situation (Table 1). Regardless of gender, most respondents (73%) identified push factors as the main drivers, while the rest (27%) reported pull factors. Six types of aquaculture are taking place in small shallow water by the Garo households through field schools: (1) pond-fish culture, (2) rice-fish farming, (3) cage culture, (4) fry rearing, (5) seed trading and (6) fish marketing (Fig. 2). There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in participation rates across the activities between female and male respondents. Most surveyed households with access to water are involved in fish production, rather than marketing. Although Garo women are active due to the matriarchal system, they are also primarily interested in fish farming due to household work obligations. Most women reported that they could manage routine operations on their fish farms as their husbands are often busy, working away from their homes. The largest number of respondents (27%) participated in pond-fish culture of Indian major carp and exotic carp. However, productivity is low (1500–3500 kg/ha/yr) due to the use of extensive farming systems. Productivity could be increased significantly by adding more fry, feed and fertiliser, but this would result in higher production costs. There is also concern that an increase in intensity might be limited by water management. Moreover, environmental concerns including water pollution and eutrophication can result from intensive farming [22,27]. According to key informants, improvedextensive and semi-intensive aquaculture could be carried out in small shallow water, as the production costs and environmental impacts are not excessive. The adoption of rice-fish farming has been slow in the Garo community due to water scarcity during the dry season and flooding during the monsoon. Only 17% of respondents harvest fish from rice fields when wild fish enter during the monsoon. None of the households, however, deliberately stocks fish in their rice fields. Nevertheless, most key informants report that the stocking of fish in rice fields with rainfed conditions results in lower production costs, because rice-fish farming is an extensive culture system that primarily relies on natural foods (plankton, periphyton and benthos). Integrated rice-fish farming is appropriate for resource-poor farmers in Bangladesh, as it maximises returns from water [6]. Table 1 Reasons for adopting aquaculture in small shallow water by the Garo households. Key reason
Female n = 50
Male n = 50
Total n = 100
Push factor
Financial hardship Food deficit Existing livelihood threatened
19 (38%) 16 (32%) 1 (2%)
24 (48%) 10 (20%) 3 (6%)
43 (43%) 26 (26%) 4 (4%)
Pull factor
Increased income Enhanced food supply Sustainable livelihood Improved social status Suitable biophysical conditions
5 6 1 2 0
6 3 2 1 1
11 (11%) 9 (9%) 3 (3%) 3 (3%) 1 (1%)
n: Sample size of respondents.
(10%) (12%) (2%) (4%) (0%)
(12%) (6%) (4%) (2%) (2%)
19
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
Fish marketing 12% Seed trading 6%
Pond aquaculture 30%
Fry nursing 14%
Fish marketing 22%
Pond aquaculture 24%
Seed trading 10%
Rice-fish farming 16%
Cage culture 22%
Fry nursing 14%
Female
Rice-fish farming 18% Cage culture 12%
Male
Fig. 2. Participation in small shallow water aquaculture, as reported by female and male respondents during a household survey, 2009.
Only 17% of the households surveyed participated in cage culture through farmer schools as they set up cages in their ponds. According to key informants, cage culture is a pro-poor technology that has several advantages for Garo people. The integrity of the cage unit means that large communal water bodies including rivers and floodplains can be used as they are considered ‘common-pool resources’. Community-based fisheries management can be an option to manage open-water resources [46]. The adoption of aquaculture by the Garo community would be contingent upon the availability of fish seed. Meeting the demand for seed could be achieved through the establishment of fry nurseries. Although fry nursing is a relatively new technology for the Garo people, 14% of the households were involved in this activity through field schools. The Garo households could produce fingerlings within a relatively short period of time (4–8 weeks). According to key informants, the nursing of fry in seasonal ponds or ditches could increase water productivity4. Bamboo-made net cages are used to rear fry by ethnic communities in Bangladesh through the Adivasi Fisheries Project [43]. Only 8% of the households in our survey expressed interest in fry/fingerling trading through farmer schools. Seed trading requires technical skills and knowledge about handling and transportation that Garo people do not have. Moreover, it is necessary to establish a network among traders, intermediaries and hatchery operators. According to key informants, access to mobile phones could help facilitate the development of such a network. Fish fry can be transported from the private hatcheries in nearby Mymensingh, which dominate the seed supply of carp, tilapia and catfish [5]. Seed trading by landless households is promising in ethnic communities of Bangladesh [43]. A key consideration in developing small shallow water aquaculture is the marketing of fish. The demand for fish is generally strong in the Garo community as it is driven by population growth. However, only 17% of the households surveyed participate in fish marketing through field schools. According to key informants, integration of production, harvesting and transportation can help to develop fish marketing in the Garo community. Most community people report considerable potential for becoming involved in fish harvesting. Pond-netting is one of the aquaculture value-chain activities taken up by ethnic communities through the Adivasi Fisheries Project [43]. Opportunities for small-scale aquaculture The Delphi method identified seven factors that would contribute to the development of small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community (Table 2). The mean ordinal rank indicates that 4
Water productivity is defined as beneficial output per unit of water [10].
20
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
favourable water resources are the most important factor, followed by economic profitability, suitable climatic conditions and access to fry supply. The lowest ranked factors are availability unpaid family labour, locally available feed and fertiliser, and the technology to be environmentally friendly. The Kendall’s W value of 0.71 indicates ‘strong’ agreement and a ‘high’ confidence level of identified factors for small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community. Favourable water resources including accessible groundwater and surface water sources, and affirmative agro-ecological conditions can support the Garo community to become involved in various aquaculture practices. The principal water sources are rainfall, groundwater and river water in canals. Most key informants suggest that the carrying capacities of small shallow water are not fully utilised, which provides large scope for increasing fish production. Aquaculture can increase water productivity through efficient use of water resources [10]. The adoption of aquaculture is strongly influenced by its economic viability. Most key informants report that the profitability of aquaculture in small shallow water is considerably higher than agriculture because of the increasing demand for fish. According to community people, the farm-gate price of fish (US$1.05–1.47/kg) is significantly higher than rice (US$0.29–0.41/kg). However, the combination of rice-fish farming has provided good economic returns in the nearby Mymensingh area due to efficient, complementary use of land and water [6]. The climate in the study area is similar to Mymensingh, which is the hub of freshwater aquaculture in Bangladesh [3,5]. Due to its location, just south of the foothills of the Himalayas, where the monsoon winds turn west and northwest, the study area receives high levels of rainfall, an annual average 2174 mm [34]. According to key informants, optimum rainfall, year-round sunlight and suitable temperatures make the environment highly favourable for small shallow water aquaculture. Another key issue for small-scale aquaculture in the Garo community is ensuring an adequate supply of fish seed and feed. Fish fry can be available through nursing in seasonal ponds or ditches. According to key informants, a mixture of locally available feed ingredients such as rice bran, wheat bran and mustard oilcake can be used as aquafeed for fish culture. During field visits, it was found that these feed ingredients are on-farm byproducts for many households in the Garo community. Cow dung also is relatively cheap and available, and could be used instead of chemical fertilisers (urea, triple super phosphate). According to key informants, locally available aquafeed and organic fertiliser would support improved-extensive and semi-intensive aquaculture. The adoption of small shallow water aquaculture by the Garo households would require the allocation of family labour. For the typically large families in the Garo community, this could be an important consideration favouring its adoption. Community people suggest that all family members over 15 years could be directly engaged in small-scale aquaculture. According to key informants, if aquaculture is undertaken using unpaid family labour, water productivity would increase. Most women respondents report that they could be involved in fish culture, which is consistent with observations in rural Bangladesh [45]. The environmental impacts from small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community are likely to be minor, given it is a low-input extensive culture. According to the survey, small-scale
Table 2 Opportunities that respondents identified for small shallow water aquaculture by the Garo households (based on Delphi method). Key factor
Favourable water resources Economic profitability Suitable climatic conditions Access to fish fry Locally available feed and fertiliser Available and unpaid family labour Environmentally friendly *
Score
Mean ordinal rank
Mean
SD
4.95 4.29 4.24 4.05 3.29 3.24 2.90
0.22 0.46 0.44 0.59 0.72 0.70 0.89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SD: standard deviation. Kendall’s W = 0.71, agreement: strong, confidence: high.
a
Kendall’s W valuea
Chi-square (v2) value
0.71
99.42 (P < 0.0001)
*
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
21
aquaculture could enhance local environmental conditions due to efficient use of small shallow water. Water plays a key role in maintaining ecosystems through aquaculture [10]. Potential benefits from small shallow water aquaculture Survey results indicate that fish production through the utilisation of small shallow water could bring wider benefits to the Garo community, including livelihood opportunities, food security, poverty alleviation, socioeconomic development and reduced pressure on natural resources. The adoption of small-scale aquaculture would provide two broad elements of rural livelihoods for the Garo community: (1) on-farm livelihoods and (2) off-farm livelihoods. On-farm livelihood opportunities would include pond-fish culture, rice-fish farming, cage culture, fry nursing, aquafeed production, pond-dike cropping, fish harvesting and day labouring. A range of associated groups such as hatchery operators, fry traders, feed producers and traders, fish market actors, net makers and day labourers would also get advantage from off-farm rural livelihood opportunities. A network for fry trading could be developed involving hatchery operators, intermediaries, traders and farmers. A similar network for fish marketing could be established. Labourers would perform post-harvest tasks that include fish transporting, handling, cleaning, sorting, grading and icing. Most key informants suggest that the opportunities for landless Garo households to find work could increase significantly. Job opportunities for Garo women would also increase as a result of wider adoption of aquaculture in the Garo community. Small-scale aquaculture has already brought about diversifying livelihoods for the rural poor in many countries [7]. Food insecurity is one of the key dimensions of poverty in the Garo community. Most community people report that their situation has deteriorated in recent years, as the supply of food from natural resources has declined due to indiscriminate exploitation and population growth. Most Garo households live in chronic hunger and often go to bed hungry. However, there appears to be considerable potential for improving food security by the adoption of small shallow water aquaculture. Community people agreed that small-scale aquaculture could help the Garo households keep pace with rising demand for food. Fish production could provide nutritional advantages to the Garo households. Farming households could also sell large fish, which fetch a higher price enabling them to purchase other foods. Moreover, increased supplies of fish to markets could help lower the price of such commodity, thus making fish more accessible to the Garo people. There is a positive impact of fish production on food security [1]. Contributing to food security, aquaculture is an important and growing sector in Southeast Asia [31]. Pond-fish culture and rice-fish farming have already enhanced food security in rural communities [4,10,35]. Small-scale aquaculture has potential for increasing incomes in the Garo community. Most community people report that increased incomes are essential for improving their economic situation. The utilisation of small shallow water for fish production is an important mechanism that may allow the Garo community to achieve this. Most households believed that their involvement in small-scale aquaculture could increase their income by 25% to 40%. According to community people, income from fish production may allow them to invest in agriculture, livestock rearing and small business. Increased incomes would also reduce their vulnerability to illness and natural disasters. Key informants report that adequate and sustainable access to income through small-scale aquaculture can help them move out of poverty. Water contributes to poverty alleviation through improving water productivity by fish culture [51]. Fish as a ‘bank in the water’ as fish production appears to be the main source of income for farming households [9]. Aquaculture appears to deliver greater opportunities for income generation leading to poverty alleviation [7,15]. The socioeconomic conditions of the Garo households remain poor. Many are becoming increasingly impoverished with the ongoing degradation of natural resources. According to key informants, the adoption of small shallow water aquaculture by the Garo households would help to improve standards of rural living. Community people report that increased incomes would lead to an improvement in housing conditions, and greater access to health and education. They would allow Garo people to purchase transportation (bicycles) and communication (mobile phones) those are important livelihood assets for ethnic communities [43]. Small-scale aquaculture in environmentally acceptable water generates socioeconomic development for the rural poor [10]. Most key informants report that
22
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
the involvement of Garo women in aquaculture would enhance their position in families and rural society. Women respondents also believed that their income from fish production would give them economic power, and allow them to play a role in household decision-making. The involvement of women in small-scale aquaculture can play an important role in their empowerment [45]. Small shallow water aquaculture could bring a number of environmental advantages to the Garo community (Fig. 3). Small-scale aquaculture could help to reduce pressure on natural resources. Aquaculture could considerably reduce firewood collection by the Garo households, which would help to conserve local forests. The adoption of fish culture by the Garo households would also help to reduce fishing pressure on open-water resources. Community people suggest that aquaculture could also reduce the hunting of wildlife including birds, crabs, eels, frogs, molluscs, snails, snakes and turtles. Wildlife conservation would enhance ecosystem functioning to maintain biodiversity [38]. Rice-fish farming could also have positive effects on fish biodiversity, as rice fields are the natural habitat and breeding ground for many small indigenous species [2]. Integrated rice-fish farming is ecologically sound which is regarded as integrated pest management [28]. The cultivation of fish in rice fields increases rice yields by 8% to15% [40,41]. Integrated rice-fish farming is a form of sustainable intensification, i.e. producing more food from the same area of land and water without environmental impacts [26].
Challenges for aquaculture The Delphi method identified eight factors as possible constraints for small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community (Table 3). The mean ordinal rank indicates that inadequate technical knowledge is the most important constraint, followed by lack of financial support, high production costs and limited fry supply. The lowest ranking was poor institutional support, followed by social conflicts, lack of awareness and flooding. A Kendall’s W value of 0.66 indicates ‘moderate’ agreement and ‘fair’ confidence.
IMPACT
EFFECT
CAUSE
Small shallow water aquaculture
Reduce firewood collection, decline hunting from forests and decrease fishing from open-water
Reduce deforestation and destruction of hilly areas; improve wild habitat
Reduce killing and disappearing wildlife; increase wild flora and fauna
Forestation, productive forest, increase biodiversity and maintain ecosystems
Use small shallow water for fish production to provide food, income and livelihoods
Increase water productivity and improve aquatic environment for fish culture
Enhance water productivity through rice-fish farming
Increase food productivity, conserve fish biodiversity and maintain aquatic ecosystems
Fig. 3. Environmental benefits from small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community.
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
23
Table 3 Constraints that respondents identified for small shallow water aquaculture by the Garo households (based on Delphi method). Key factor
Inadequate technical knowledge Lack of financial support High production costs Limited fry supply Flooding Lack of awareness Social conflicts Poor institutional support *
Score
Mean ordinal rank
Kendall’s W valuea
Chi-square (v2) value
0.66
105.26 (P < 0.0001)
*
Mean
SD
4.71 4.24 4.19 4.09 3.67 3.62 3.19 3.14
0.46 0.44 0.40 0.44 0.66 0.67 0.40 0.36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SD: standard deviation. Kendall’s W = 0.66, agreement: moderate, confidence: fair.
a
Most households broadly identified the constraints as social, economic, technical, environmental and institutional (Fig. 4). Irrespective of gender, the highest number of respondents identified technical as the most important constraint while institutional was the least. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in the constraints identified by female and male respondents. Regardless of gender, 16% of the respondents identified social issues as the single most important constraint for small shallow water aquaculture. Social costs may be high for changing traditional occupations to aquaculture because of limited access to social capital, such as networks, cultural norms, social attributes and knowledge sharing. Although cage culture represents an opportunity to produce fish, access to water is likely to generate social conflicts. A further constraint is the multiple ownerships of ponds by household members, who may have conflicting interests. For conflict resolution, the Garo community prefers their existing social structure. Although Garo people are recognised for their honesty, sincerity, integrity, hard working attitude and polite behaviour, low participation in social organisations cannot protect their fundamental rights [43]. Inadequate financial support is one of the key constraints for small shallow water fish culture by the Garo community. About 24% of the households report that the major constraint to the adoption of aquaculture is economic in nature. Fish culture largely depends on production costs and returns. Fish production costs have risen considerably in recent years owing to the increased costs of seed, feed and fertiliser. Price increases for these inputs have been attributed to the high demand generated by the rapid development of aquaculture across the country. Moreover, concern was also expressed that
Time of exposure
Fig. 4. Constraints to the development of small shallow water aquaculture faced by the Garo households; the order of constraints such as: (1) social, (2) economic, (3) technical, (4) environmental and (5) institutional in relation to sequential involvement in aquaculture and time of exposure (straight dash line); curved dash line shows variation among different constraints with time of exposure.
24
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
farmers often found it difficult to obtain operating capital. Most key informants suggest that the availability of institutional credit is an essential prerequisite for aquaculture development in the Garo community. There is considerable apprehension within the Garo community regarding aquaculture in small shallow water due to their lack of technical knowledge. About 39% of the households identified limited understanding of aquaculture as a critical constraint. Having access to an adequate supply of fish fry is another major concern. Readily available fry would play an important role in facilitating the adoption of aquaculture within the community. However, nursing of fish fry requires technical skills, knowledge and water management. Maintenance of cages for fry rearing is one of the key problems faced by ethnic communities [43]. Integrated rice-fish farming also requires skills and knowledge of water management as fish require a minimum water depth of 15 to 20 cm. Moreover, rice-fish farming is also associated with the risk of invasion of predatory fish and escape of stocked fish [6]. Most key informants also report that poor water quality can hinder fish production. About 13% of the respondents identified environmental factors as the most important constraints for fish culture. Aquaculture in small shallow water is closely linked to the behaviour of the monsoon. There is excess water during the monsoon and no water during the dry season. According to key informants, sudden and/or prolonged floods often damage fish farms. Preventing the escape of fish from small shallow water is very difficult during the floods as farmers are reluctant to raise their low and narrow dikes. Most key informants report that rainfall variation could have a detrimental effect on fish growth. Drought is also one of the foremost environmental limits to aquaculture as a severe or prolonged drought shortens the culture period. Community people also report that aquaculture is not possible during the dry season because of water scarcity. A few respondents (8%) suggest that fish culture has not been adopted in small shallow water by the Garo community because of poor institutional support. They claimed that the Garo community is still behind other communities despite having similar water resources to Mymensingh. Aquaculture in Mymensingh has expanded from a long-running development project, namely the Mymensingh Aquaculture Extension Project (1989–2003), which has been funded by Danish International Development Agency. Bangladesh Agricultural University and Fisheries Research Institute have also played major roles in the development of aquaculture in Mymensingh [5]. As has happened across the country, fish culture in the Garo community warrants greater attention from government organisations, NGOs and development agencies.
Conclusions Small-scale aquaculture could play an important role in the rural economy of the Garo community. However, the adoption of aquaculture in ponds, ditches and rice fields by the Garo households has been limited due to social, economic, technical, environmental and institutional constraints. A number of challenges, particularly lack of technical knowledge, inadequate financial support, high production costs and the supply of fish fry must be addressed in order to develop small-scale aquaculture in the Garo community. Garo households need to increase their basic knowledge and develop skills in pondfish culture, rice-fish farming, cage culture and fry nursing. Despite numerous challenges, there is considerable potential for small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community. Realising the potential of small-scale aquaculture, however, will require technical and financial assistance, as well as institutional and organisational support. Training and extension services are essential for aquaculture in the Garo community, as they enhance farmers’ ability and willingness to make changes in their livelihoods. Training is needed for pond-fish culture, rice-fish farming, cage culture and fry rearing. Technical assistance is also essential for water management in ponds, ditches and rice fields. Both public and private sectors will need to provide substantial technical assistance to the Garo households. Financial assistance is also recognised as being an essential component of small shallow water aquaculture. Access to credit at reasonable interest rates with appropriate repayment schedules will be essential if small-scale aquaculture is to become accessible to the Garo households. Thus, the government, national banks and NGOs should endeavour to provide better access to credit at low interest rates.
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
25
Several social and cultural issues within the Garo community must also be addressed. These include the stresses associated with moving out of traditional occupations, overcoming cultural barriers, and mitigating conflicts regarding access to water resources. Further research is also needed to better understand the socio-cultural dimensions of small shallow water aquaculture in the Garo community.
Acknowledgements The study is based on a research project entitled ‘‘development of small-scale aquaculture entrepreneurs by ethnic households in northern Bangladesh’’ funded by the EU through the WorldFish Center, in association with the Bangladesh Fisheries Research Forum under the Adivasi Fisheries Project. We are grateful to Caritas for providing support during field visits. Thanks are due also to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors.
References [1] M. Ahmed, M.H. Lorica, Improving developing country food security through aquaculture development – lessons from Asia, Food Policy 27 (2002) 125–141. [2] N. Ahmed, Socio-economic and environmental impacts of self-recruiting species (SRS) culture in northwest Bangladesh, World Aquacult. 39 (2) (2008) 26–29. 31. [3] N. Ahmed, Revolution in small-scale freshwater rural aquaculture in Mymensingh, Bangladesh, World Aquacult. 40 (4) (2009) 31–35. 54. [4] N. Ahmed, S.T. Garnett, Integrated rice-fish farming in Bangladesh: meeting the challenges of food security, Food Secur. 3 (2011) 81–92. [5] N. Ahmed, K.A. Toufique, Greening the blue revolution of small-scale freshwater aquaculture in Mymensingh, Bangladesh, Aquacult. Res., in press (doi:10.1111/are.12390). [6] N. Ahmed, K.K. Zander, S.T. Garnett, Socioeconomic aspects of rice-fish farming in Bangladesh: opportunities, challenges and production efficiency, Aust. J. Agricult. Resour. Econ. 55 (2011) 199–219. [7] Asian Development Bank (ADB), An Evaluation of Small-Scale Freshwater Rural Aquaculture Development for Poverty Reduction, Asian Development Bank, Manila, 2005. [8] E. Bal, Becoming the Garos of Bangladesh: policies of exclusion and the ethnicisation of a tribal minority, South Asia 31 (2007) 56–75. [9] C. Béné, E. Steel, B.K. Luadia, A. Gordon, Fish as the ‘‘bank in the water’’ – Evidence from chronic-poor communities in Congo, Food Policy 34 (2009) 108–118. [10] E. Boelee (Ed.), Ecosystems for Water and Food Security, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, 2011. [11] O.K. Borggaard, A. Gafur, L. Petersen, Sustainability appraisal of shifting cultivation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, Ambio 32 (2001) 118–123. [12] S.W. Bunting, Horizontally integrated aquaculture development: exploring consensus on constraints and opportunities with a stakeholder Delphi, Aquacult. Int. 16 (2008) 153–169. [13] S.W. Bunting, Assessing the stakeholder Delphi for facilitating interactive participation and consensus building for sustainable aquaculture development, Soc. Nat. Resour. 23 (2010) 758–775. [14] R. Burling, Garo, in: G. Thurgood, R. LaPolla (Eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Curzon Press, London, 1999. [15] J. Cai, P. Leung, N. Hishamunda, Commercial aquaculture and economic growth, poverty alleviation and food security: assessment framework, FAO Fish. Aquacult. Tech. Paper 512 (2009) 58p. [16] K.A.N. Chowdhury, Residence, Gender and Power in the Garo Society of Bangladesh, Doctoral Thesis, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2007. [17] J. Cooper, The Garo of Bangladesh: a forest people’s struggle to survive, Ethnic Racial Studies 15 (1992) 85–101. [18] T.K. Das, S.M. Islam, Psycho-social dimensions of ethnicity: the situation of garo community in Bangladesh, Asian Affairs 27 (3) (2005) 45–54. [19] Department of Fisheries (DoF), National Fish Week 2013 Compendium (in Bengali), Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Bangladesh, 2013. [20] M.M. Dey, M.F. Alam, M.L. Bose, Demand for aquaculture development: perspectives from Bangladesh for improved planning, Rev. Aquacult. 2 (2010) 16–32. [21] S. Dey, S. Sultana, The socio-cultural impacts of economic changes to matrilineal Garo society in Bangladesh, Int. J. Green Econ. 3 (2009) 184–198. [22] J.S. Diana, Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation, Bioscience 59 (2009) 27–38. [23] H.M. Donohoe, R.D. Needham, Moving best practice forward: Delphi characteristics, advantages, potential problems, and solutions, Int. J. Tourism Res. 11 (2009) 415–437. [24] Fisheries Resources Survey Systems (FRSS), Fisheries statistical yearbook of Bangladesh 2011–2012, Department of Fisheries, Bangladesh, 2013. [25] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2012. [26] H.C.J. Godfray, J.R. Beddington, I.R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J.F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S.M. Thomas, C. Toulmin, Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people, Science 327 (2010) 812–818.
26
N. Ahmed, M.S. Flaherty / Water resources and rural development 3 (2014) 14–26
[27] S.J. Hall, A. Delaporte, M.J. Phillips, M. Beveridge, M. O’Keefe, Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture, The WorldFish Center, Penang, 2011. [28] M. Halwart, M.V. Gupta, Culture of fish in rice fields, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the WorldFish Center, 2004. [29] F. Hasson, S. Keeney, H. McKenna, Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique, J. Adv. Nurs. 32 (2000) 1008–1015. [30] N. Hishamunda, F. Poulain, N. Ridler, Prospective Analysis of Aquaculture Development: The Delphi Method, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2009. [31] N. Hishamunda, N.B. Ridler, P. Bueno, W.G. Yap, Commercial aquaculture in Southeast Asia: some policy lessons, Food Policy 34 (2009) 102–107. [32] K.M.S. Huda, P.J. Atkins, D.N.M. Donoghue, N.J. Cox, Small water bodies in Bangladesh, Area 42 (2010) 217–227. [33] M.R. Islam, The Changing Garo Adivasi Culture of Bangladesh: A Case Study of Marriage Rituals, M Phil Thesis, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tromso, Norway, 2008. [34] S. Islam (Ed.), Banglapedia – National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2012. [35] K.M. Jahan, M. Ahmed, B. Belton, The impacts of aquaculture development on food security: lessons from Bangladesh, Aquac. Res. 41 (2010) 481–495. [36] K. Khaleque, Ethnic Communities of Bangladesh, Society for Environment and Human Development, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2005. [37] K. Khaleque, M.A. Gold, Pipeline agroforestry: an indigenous system among the Garo community of Bangladesh, Soc. Nat. Resour. 6 (1993) 71–78. [38] M. Loreau, Linking biodiversity and ecosystems: towards a unifying ecological theory, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365 (2011) 49–60. [39] B. Mali, The problem of shifting cultivation in the Garo Hills of North-East India, 1860–1970, Conserv. Soc. 1 (2003) 87–114. [40] A. Mishra, R.K. Mohanty, Productivity enhancement through rice-fish farming using a two-stage rainwater conservation technique, Agric. Water Manag. 67 (2004) 119–131. [41] R.K. Mohanty, H.N. Verma, P.S. Brahmanand, Performance evaluation of rice-fish integration system in rainfed medium and ecosystem, Aquaculture 23 (2004) 125–135. [42] Oxfam, Oxfam’s Work in Bangladesh Indepth Work with Indigenous People, Oxfam Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2008. [43] J. Pant, B.K. Barman, K.M. Jahan, B. Belton, M. Beveridge, Can aquaculture benefit the extreme poor? A case study of landless and socially marginalized Adivasi (ethnic) communities in Bangladesh, Aquaculture 418–419 (2014) 1–10. [44] M. Rahman, The Cultural World of the Adivasis of Bangladesh, Society for Environment and Human Development, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2004. [45] S. Shirajee, M.M. Salehin, N. Ahmed, The changing face of women for small-scale aquaculture development in rural Bangladesh, Aquacult. Asia 15 (2) (2010) 9–16. [46] P. Sultana, P.M. Thompson, Community based fisheries management and fisher livelihoods: Bangladesh case studies, Human Ecol. 35 (2007) 527–546. [47] R. Tripp, M. Wijeratne, V.H. Piyadasa, What should we expect from farmer field schools? A Sri Lanka case study, World Dev. 33 (2005) 1705–1720. [48] M.K. Uddin, Rights of Indigenous People and Minority Issues in Bangladesh, Society for Environment and Human Development, Dhaka, 2005. [49] World Bank, World Development Indicators, World Bank, Washington DC, 2013. [50] WorldFish Center, Aquaculture options for alternative livelihoods: the experience of the adivasi fisheries project in Bangladesh, Factsheet 1946, the WorldFish Center, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2009. [51] World Water Assessment Program (WWAP), Water in a changing world, The United Nations World Water Development Report 3, UNESCO, Paris and Earthscan, London, 2009.