a~- V r ~ M"'O - ~ -'4- Development of Aquaculture in the Philippines International Center for Aquaculture Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Auburn University David H. Teem, Acting Director Auburn University Alabama Research and Development Series No. 32 Contract: AID/DSAN-C-0053, November 1985 *1 I i ab~B~~ Pond-raised milkfish o sa~e in c akt DEVELOPMENT OF AQUACULTURE IN THE PHILIPPINES Study Period: February 15-March 25, 1982 Study team: Dr. Marietta Adriano Programs/Administration Dr. John H. Grover Institutional Development Dr. Aida R. Librero Fisheries Economics Dr. Susan Peterson Anthropology Mr. Aristeo A. Portugal Fishery Program Development Dr. Herminio R. Rabanal Aquacultural Development Dr. H. R. Schmittou Aquaculture/Team leader National Economic Development Authority Government of the Republic of the Philippines International Center for Aquaculture Auburn University, Alabama Philippine Council for Agricultural Resources Research and Development Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Massachusetts National Economic Development Authority Government of the Republic of the Philippines 8 Basilan Road, Philamlife Homes Quezon City, Metro Manila Philippines International Center for Aquaculture Auburn University, Alabama Sponsored by: AID/Washington (through AU/ICA contract AID/DSAN-C-0053) GRP/NEDA USAID/Philippines CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 5 AQUACULTURAL TECHNOLOGY........................................................................................ 5 Aquacultural Technology in the Philippines............................................................... 6 Milkfish Culture in Brackishwater Ponds ................................................................ 6 Milkfish and Tilapia Culture in Pens.................................................................... 7 Tilapia Culture in Cages............................................................................ 8 Tilapia Culture in Freshwater Ponds.................................................................. 8 Other Aquacultures................................................................................. 8 Integrated Agriculture/Aquaculture.................................................................... 8 ENVIRONMENT..................................................................................................... 8 Mangrove Development into Fishponds .................................................................. 9 Freshwater Aquaculture............................................................................. 11 Pens and Cages in Lakes............................................................................. 11 Introduction of Exotic Species ........................................................................ 11 Pesticides in Fishponds.............................................................................. 11 Other Environmental Considerations................................................................... 11 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS. IN AQUACULTURAL DEVELOPMENT..................................................... 11 Milkfish Producers................................................................................. 11 Labor Organization, Education, and Employment ......................................................... 12 Family ........................................................................................... 13 Fishpond Operators' Associations .... I,.................................................................. 13 Value of Fishponds ................................................................................. 13 Fishpond Operating Costs ........................................................................... 13 Milkfish Fry ...................................................................................... 13 Milkfish Fry Marketing.............................................................................. 13 Processing and Marketing ............................................................................ 14 Retail Prices of Milkfish by Region..................................................................... 15 Income from Fishponds, Fry, and Capture Fishing ........................................................ 15 Consumption ..................................................................................... 16 ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................... 16 Expansion to Increase Production...................................................................... 17 GOVERNMENTAL FACTORS........................................................................................... 19 Financial and Credit Institutions ...................................................................... 19 Recent Government Programs......................................................................... 19 Support Services for Aquacultural Development .......................................................... 20 PUBLIC SERVICE INSTITUTIONS....................................................................................... 20 Administrative Institutions........................................................................... 20 Educational Institutions............................................................................. 20 Research Institutions............................................................................... 22 Extension Institutions............................................................................... 24 EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE.............................................................................................. 25 Technical Assistance from United Nations Agencies.........................................................2 Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) ................................................. 25 The International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM).................................. 26 U.-S. Agency for International Development (USAID) ...................................................... 26 Other Bilateral Programs............................................................................ 27 Impact of Donor Assistance on Training................................................................. 27 Impact of Donor Assistance on Commodities............................................................. 27 Impact of Donor Assistance on Capital Development ...................................................... 27 CONSTRAINTS ON AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONTINUED AQUACULTURAL DEVELOPMENT.................................... 27 Technical Factors .................................................................................. 27 Social Factors ..................................................................................... 28 Economic Factors .................................................................................. 28 Institutional Factors ................................................................................ 28 Information contained herein is available to all persons regardless Of race, color, sex, or national origin. Development of Aquaculture in the Philippines H.R. SCHMITTOU, J.H. GROVER, S.B. PETERSON, A.R. LIBRERO, H.B. RABANAL, A.A. PORTUGAL, and M. ADRIANO edited by Susan Peterson and H.R. Schmittou INTRODUCTION M OST COUNTRIES have participated in international devel- opment, either as donors or recipients, through bilateral and/or mul- tilateral projects. In the United States, international development assistance has been supported for almost four decades, yet it is not well understood. Long-term impacts on country development are seldom measured by the typical end-of-project evaluations, and in- formation that would contribute to the understanding of the devel- opment process is rarely available. One way to understand devel- opment better is to ensure that adequate information to measure project impact is generated throughout the process. Frequently, im- pact assessments are not performed because decision makers realize the lack of sufficient, reliable information. If the information is not adequate to measure impact after a project is completed, it is likely that information was not sufficient to do realistic planning and begin implementation. A second problem is that teams of specialists sent to conduct pre- and post-project studies may be poorly prepared for their tasks. Although team members may be well-trained in individ- ual disciplines, the team is often: (1) not balanced or represented by all relevant disciplines, (2) not trained in international development, and (3) not prepared with guidelines and procedures on what infor- mation is needed and how to obtain it. Information for planning and evaluation should be completed rel- ative to the social, economical, institutional, governmental, environ- mental and technological factors involved. This report is not an ex- ample of the ideal impact assessment. It is a compromise between what was desired and what was possible, given constraints on such essentials as data collection and recording. What was attempted was to describe the system and its evolution, and then to see if existing data could be used to indicate any cause/effect relationships be- tween development assistance and economic/social well-being in the country. The objectives of the study were to: 1. determine the impact of aquacultural development, in general, and the contribution of cooperative (private, public and donor sec- tors) projects, specifically, on consumers, producers, Government of Republic of Philippines (GRP) service institutions, the environ- ment, and overall socio-economic development of the country; 2. measure donor-assisted aquacultural project contribution to country development goals; 3. determine the return in social, economic, and other benefits to project costs; 4. identify existing and potential constraints and opportunities for future, long-range aquacultural development, and recommend ways constraints may be minimized and opportunities maximized. This report describes the past, present, and expected future trends in Philippine aquaculture development and assesses the roles that private, public, and donor sectors have played or might play in this process. 'This report is dedicated to the memory of Tirso Jamandre, Jr., who ex- emplified the spirit and dedication prevalent among the past and present pri- vate and public sector pioneers of Philippine fish farming. The Philippines was chosen because of its freshwater, brackish- water, and marine aquacultures using ponds, cages, pens, and racks. The history of Philippine aquaculture spans a period of some 500 years, and fish produced through aquaculture are significant in the Filipino diet. Fish from aquaculture were from 8 percent to 12 percent of all fish produced from 1951 to present (9), with milkfish constituting 90 percent of all aquaculture production. The benefits of milkfish farming throughout the country include fry gathering and distribution, nursery and rearing pond production and marketing. These activities generated slightly less than 0.5 percent of the GNP (16). The Philippines has increased aquaculture production over the past decade, has great potential for continued growth, and has had a long and varied experience with donor-assisted aquaculture proj- ects. In addition, the Philippines was considered a good developing world example of the partnership among producers, government in- stitutions, and donor agencies. The information base from which an impact assessment could be compiled without generating new infor- mation was considered to be as good for the Philippines as for any other developing country. The Philippines has had a relatively stable social-political system since World War II. Many people who played roles in aquacultural development are still active. Their experi- ences, for the most part unrecorded until this study, provide valu- able insight into the process of aquacultural development in the Philippines. AQUACULTURAL TECHNOLOGY Aquaculture is defined as a form of agriculture, the controlled raising of selected animals or plants in aquatic environments. Aqua- culture is intended to produce harvests in greater quantity than would be naturally produced. It permits control over the production and harvest and takes advantage of areas marginally productive for other crops. The amount of control an aquaculturist exerts on pro- duction is relative. For the most part the aquaculturist manipulates only certain components of the environment to enhance natural pro- duction. A knowledge of the amount of control exercised over the culture environment is useful in assessing the status and potential for development of aquaculture in a country. Production technologies are determined by the interaction of five factors: the physical environment, culture facilities, available nu- trient inputs, species feasible for culture, and the ability of produc- ers to balance all the factors in a profitable package. The geophysical environment is an independent variable; it is essentially fixed, though subject to minor modifications. It includes such climatic con- ditions as temperature cycles, rainfall patterns, and typhoons; land elevation and topography; soil characteristics (particularly water holding capacity and acidity); water availability, manageability, and quality; and geographical barriers to supplies and/or markets. If these conditions are not suitable for aquacultural development, little can be done to change them. In the Philippines, many sites in a va- riety of different environments are well-suited for aquacultural de- velopment. These sites include freshwater upland ponds, rice pad- dies, eutrophic lakes, coastal brackishwater mangrove swamps and estuaries, and shallow seas. An analysis of the amount of control over the environment allows aquaculture to be grouped into technological levels based on three criteria: (1) the degree of physical modification of the natural envi- ronment, (2) the amount of managerial control over the natural en- vironment, and (3) the quality and quantity of nutrient inputs added to enhance, supplement, or replace the natural food base. We group aquaculture systems into seven general technological levels. Level 1. Extensive-only slight modification of the environment; little or incomplete control over such factors as water flow and num- ber and weight of species raised and harvested; no nutrient inputs to enhance natural foods. Level 2. Extensive fertilization-slight to moderate modification of the environment; moderate but generally incomplete control over water and species raised and harvested; low quality and/or quantity of fertilizer added to stimulate production of natural foods. Level 3. Intensive fertilization-original environment modified into a distinctly new environment; generally complete control over water and species raised and harvested; quality and quantity of fer- tilizer used to achieve near maximum yields. Level 4. Extensive feeding-modification and control as in 3; nu- trient inputs low quality or quantity feed, usually feedstuff or agri- cultural by-product to supplement natural foods with or without fer- tilizer. Level 5. Intensive feeding-environmental modification and con- trol greater than 4; high quality feed, not necessarily nutritionally complete, used to supplement natural foods at near maximum quan- tities without aeration. Level 6. Hyperintensive feeding-environmental modification similar to 5; control similar to 5 except much greater control over water quality, especially in terms of water flow and aeration; feed nutritionally complete and used in quantities to essentially replace natural foods; requires aeration and periodic water replacement. Level 7. Ultra-hyperintensive feeding-totally modified, manu- factured environment such as tanks and aquaria; control is relatively complete over temperature, pollution, dissolved oxygen (DO) and C02 levels, and other physical, chemical and biological activities; feed similar to 6 but in much higher quantity per unit of space. Aquacultural Technology in the Philippines Aquacultural practices in the Philippines are not as diverse as might be expected from a country with such a long history and di- verse environments, that also is one of the world's leading produc- ers. Milkfish culture in brackishwater ponds accounts for approxi- mately 90 percent of total production. The remaining 10 percent comes from milkfish in lake pens, tilapia in mono- and polyculture systems in brackishwater and freshwater ponds, oysters and mussels on stakes in shallow coastal waters, and Eucheuma seaweed on sub- merged netting and racks. Other species inadvertently raised and harvested from culture facilities, especially brackishwater ponds,include a variety of finfishes, shrimps, and crabs. Technolo- gies exist for raising these species at greater intensities, and for cul- turing other species presently not cultured or cultured in insignifi- cant quantities. Milkfish Culture in Brackishwater Ponds Table 1 illustrates how milkfish aquaculture might be practiced at any of six levels as an example of how the concept is applied and what options might be available in the Philippines. TABLE 1. EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF AQUACULTURE TECHNOLOGY USING MILKFISH CULTURE IN BRACKISHWATER PONDS IN THE PHILIPPINES AS THE EXAMPLE Level/ Environment Nutrient description Modification Management control inputs 1. Extensive .................. Dikes low, narrow, weak, crooked; Water flow through break in dike; Food base exclusively naturally occur- seaward side only. Gates: none. Man- level variable; drainage difficult with ring including human caused nu- grove incompletely cleared; bottom ir- potholes; quality not controlled; flood- trients entering water. Fertilizers and regular. Canals and nursery ponds- ing over likely. Stocked by entrap- feeds-none. none. Original habitat not changed. ment-number, species not con- trolled. Harvest difficult, incomplete. 2. Extensive fertilization ....... .Dikes moderate height, width; irreg- Water flow control by gate; level vari- Food base primarily naturally occur- ular to straight; on more than seaward able; drainage difficult with potholes; ring lalab or lumut but stimulated by side. Gates wooden. Mangrove incom- quality not controlled; flooding over addition of low quality and/or quantity pletely cleared. Bottom not level; likely. Stock by entrapment and/or by fertilizers. stumps not removed. Canals and nurs- species and number with little or no ery ponds-none or poorly developed, control over wild species. Harvest dif- Original habitat recognizable, but ficult. with distinct look of a fishpond. 3. Intensive fertilization ........ Dikes high, wide, strong; completely Water flow and level controlled by Food base generally lalab and some- enclosing pond area. Gates wooden gate; depth relatively uniform; no times plankton, by design. Fertilizer and/or concrete. Mangrove com- potholes; drains completely; quality high quality and quantity to achieve pletely cleared; bottom leveled. Ca- not controlled; flooding over pre- near maximum yields. Both inorganic nals/nursery ponds well developed, vented. Stock by species and number and organic. Feeds-none or insignif- Original habitat completely changed with control of wild species; stock ma- icant. to ponds. nipulation often practiced, especially in linking pond system. Harvest com- plete and not difficult. 4. Extensive feeding............Similar to level 3 but with better qual- Similar to level 3 but with better Similar to level 3 but using low quality ity design and construction. water flow; depth and quality control; and/or quantity feed. perhaps using pump. Stock manipu- lation likely using linking pond sys- tem. Harvest at will if using pump. 5. Intensive feeding* .......... Similar to level 4. Similar to level 4 but likely with Similar to level 4 but with higher pumps. quality and quantity of feed. 6. Hyperintensive* ............ Similar to level 4. Similar to level 5 but pumps for water Similar to level 5 with higher quantity transfer and standby aeration perhaps feed. essential. *Levels 5 and 6 are not presently practiced in the Philippines. M ilkf"ish pond aquaculi[tre w5as prob~aly intiroduced inm the Phil ippines on Mactan Island in the Visas as (hiring the 15th century from Indonesia or China. From- its introduction until welli into the 20th centurN, per haps about 1930, it wxas practiced only at a leve cI1 technologs table I, Y ields v aried b~etwseen 50 and 25f) kilograms per hiectai e wxith an a\ eragc of not more than 100 kilogi ais per hectare. es'12 technology becam-e significant around 19.30, leve ci3 about 1946, and some, leveli 4 lax 1960. Howev er, le\ els 1 and 2 are the pre- doiminant technology lexvels applied to (late, espceiallx on the cast- emn side of the conntry F? omn Luzon to \1 mndaniao. Progressisve fishpond a(190L t~rists, esp~ecially those in western I'uion prov inces an d Iloilo 1prsvince, practice a(ls aneed lc\ eA 3 wsith son i leel 4 technology, lesvels which appear to he the most appro- tpriate at this time. Pond ensvironments of maore pi 0grc(ss s e farmers are muodifiedl and subjct to lexe i.5 and some lesvel 6 technologies, I oss eser, feeds and feeding methodologies are lacking, especially at lesvel 6. WXhether feeds wsill be desvelopedi to advxancee miikfish pond culture to leve(ls 5. 6, or 7 wSill be influencedl by ecoimiics rather than lack of technologs. Fish feeds need to be higher in prmoteini than those for poul11try and lsvestock. Local lax piodlults and] feedstuffs high in protein arc scarce, forcing feed] producers to impoxrt fish and sos bean meals and similar Dprotein-rich materials to inec t present poulti 5 andl hog (diet requirements. The tirendl tossard feeding is accompanied byv a trend tosward moore sp)ecializedl pond~ design, such as those used wsith the linking 1 )ond or modular s,, stemns. Farners are beginning to use 1)11111) to ini- ite or eliminate dependoeace on tidal fluctuations. Not only are parodlucers using mor e lei till/e thes, are using a higher per.cci iage of inorganic forms. Although sonic producers has e shifted from iikfish to penlaeid shrimp culture, the trend toswardl greater intenisificatio in some areas appears to he couintered lby (decreased intensification in others. The latter are most]), in remote areas swhere poor comn tnication, transportation, andl access to markets are accompanied by securits. problems. Intensification is often hamperedl by inadequate capital credit, shortages ofinijuls such ias fertilizers andl frI. decline or sift in consumer de(man a n .aro 0io)us economic and eon-technologme"al factors. Milkfish and Tih apia Culture in :enas Xiilkfish and tilapia are cultured in single species sy stems or, to. some extent, in imultiple species polvecultuire sy steiis at technology lexels 1, 3, and 4 in L~aguna de Blax in net-fenc" enclosures or pens. The enclosures do not appreciably mtmdify the original ensvironment (lexvel 1) of this large lake. The eulturists are niot able to exert much control over the ensviromnt (level 1); they control wsater current onl la msh iz ,ii~lss(inerdeph oi~ la placement thes, hasve lit- tle control ox erwsater qual~itv; thex, stock selected spe'cies las number and size baut can oisl restrict "w ild" stock by mresh size; drainage is not possibale, so harsvest by net is sonieswhat dlifficult and possily in- coiilete. Fertilizers are not applied, but the natural and domestic wsastes xs ashed into the iake are ('(lis alent to intensiv e fertilization (le\el :3). Rice lbran is frequentx used ias a fe ed to "fatten' the fish Fish pens in lakes have become an important approach to aquaculture. before harsest (level 4). The technology applied is equivalent to onlx slightls more than lev eli1, but because of the heasvx nutrient loading, the net benefits returned are eqjuivalent to lesvel 3 technology. Ben- efits wxould, of course, be lowver in ens ironients wsith feweer nu- trients. Tilapia Culture in Cages Nile tilapia are cultured in cages in Lagumna de Bay and other nat- ural lakes. This practice, begun in the late 1970's in Laguna de Bay, is rapidly expanding to other lakes and regions. The cages are float- ing bamboo penis with bottomis and sides ofnmonofilamnent net. The technology applied and benefits returned froii cages are practically the same as for pen culture. As with pens, yields are directly pro- p~ortional to the nutrients, including rice bran or other added sup- plemients, in the seater in wvhich the cages are suspended. Efforts to expand pen or cage cultures to less fertile lakes have resulted in re- oluced fish production. Tilapia Culture in Freshwater Ponds Tilapia culture is beginning in relatis cl\ small, inland freshsvater pounds for subsistence and small-scale commercial purposes. Tech- nologies applied consist primarils, of combined lexvels 2 and 4 wxith organic wxastes serv ing as both loss quality fertilizer and feed. Tila- pia are also raised for subsistence at levels 1 and 2 in irrigated rice paddies modified by one or miore ditches sers ing as fish ronxx ay s or retreats. Raising fish in paddies is seriousls constrained by the use of rice insecticides. Tilapia are becoming more popular with producers and con- sumers; wxhat xxas once the "poor man's inilkfish" because of their low market value compared to milkfish, art' now equal to or greater in value than milfish in much of the country. Tilapia have excellent potential for culture in all but marine enviroments, and the great- est potential of any species for expansion. Culture in freshxvater ponds could proxvide the greatest incremental increase in aquacul- tural production per unit area over the next sexveral sears. Other Aquacultures The coltore of penaeid shrimp, long of interest to producers, has been an incidental or secondars cultuire xx ith inilkfish. Shrimp are nose being produced alone and in combination with milkfish in braekishxxater ponds, primarily at technology levels 3 and 4, and production is increasing wxith advancing technology. The major con- straints to shrimp culture development are inadequate feeds and poor sursisal of post-larsae. Oysters, green mussels, and Euc/meun seaweed are cultured in a fesw limited areas at lexel 1 technologies. \Iarketing appears to be the major constraint to the development of these species. Integrated Agriculture/Aquaculture Raising fish in integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems ap- pears to base tremendous potential in the Philippines, especially for small-scale, home-use and limited commercial farm operations. Ex- amiples of integrated culture sy stems no", practiced in the Philip- pines include fish (tilapia and others) grown with rice in paddies and chickens and/or pigs raised in cages or pens above or adjacent to a fishpond. In integrated sy stems the fish may be the primary eco- nomic crop, but are generally the seconidarx henefmciarx of nutrient inputs. For example, in rice-fish cultures the purpose of fertilization is to increase rice yields and has no or liiiited effect on fish yield. In pig-fish cultures, the pigs are fed wehile fish benefit from feed wxastes and manure falling or swept into the pond. in paddies the fish cul- ture is level 1. In ponds receiving chicken or pig weastes, fish culture may be either lev el 2, 3, or 4, depending on the species raised and the quantits of xxastes receisved. No information is asvailahie ahout the extent of integrated animal-fish production at this time- ENXVIRONMENT The pbhysical ensvironment of the Philippines is hiiglxl suitedl for aquacoltUre, although the exact area noss in use is dlisputable. The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) reported a -on- stant area of 176,0301 hectares from 1973 to 1975, xxith a slight ".o crease to 176,2Sf) heetares from 1976 to 1980 (9). Librero (2-5) found that for the entire countrx the axerage non-operational area in a fish farm seas 2.66 liectaires, oi 17 percent of total farm area; this sx otilt leave 146, 000) heetaires of pond area if the 176, 000 heetares total wxere correct. Samnson et al. (39) claim that aquaculture prodmuctiomi uses 120,000 Ietares of fresh and brackishswaters. Smith (41) eon- eluded that theme could he as mueh as 142,097 hectares of fishponds. Chong et al. (13) agree that 176,0(00 hectares may be an oseretimiate and Stiggest it results from inclusion of goxernmient lands for Whlich applications for fishpond dev elopment hasve been made. Thes' also sax that lbecatise of the fear of land reform similar to rice land reform the owners are not resealing the real size of their farms,." That is, the\ fear go\ eminnent policies that Nv ould limit the size of an indiv idual's hand holding. Most of the gos emninent lands axvailable for consversion to f'sfiponds-somie 140,000 hectares-are coastal man- grose forest. Further consversion of mangros.e, howaever, is limited bs government policies which define other long-term uses of mangrose V Fish can be grown in water used to flood rice and other crops. m'ras, sies as *oe~.agr:*,_tc ue, !uosin set innci indultrs, d i( ecologicai balance. '-Rgardless of the exact area, tc ao unt of freshI and brackishxscter pond area inl the Philippines ranks it ats one of the four top C n~n t rieS in tota' fis sIpond area. Desclopnment of ponds has also had some ngtsceffects onl the countryv. These re'sulted promn modification of the natural habitat 5 hen ponds wxcere eaed, .0 'rorjictlOH of exotic species, anti the quality and quantity of nut.rient and pesticide inputs used to en- hance, supplement or r-eplace natural fods or control pests. Mangrove Development into Fishponds Philippine mangrove .Sorcstls occur along swsampy tidal zones of sea coasts anti streams w"ce wsater is brackish and the flora is com- posedl primarilv (f Rhizophoro mangrosve and associated specics. Estimates of man grov e forests in the Phil 'p incs range from 220,24:3 hectares (7) to 249,18 hctares (30). The e xisting brackish- wvater fishponds wvere developed almost excluisivecly froin mangrov e ar eas, and any further exnanxion of brackishwsater fishpond area sxvould Ise at the expense of mangrosve forests. Recognition of the imsporp ance of miangrose lo rests xxas eimpha- sizedl at international symopo sia on the biologs and management of mangroves (East-West Center, Honolulu, October 8-11, 1974, and Papua, Nesw Guinea, July 20 August 2, 1980) and at the international xx orkshop on miangros e and estuarine area deveclopmnent \Manila, Nos ember 14-19, 197: . The benefits ofinangros e forests to nature and socicts include, prosvidirng means for soil de(position, presventing flood, swaxe, andwsind eroso v pros iinig sanexutars, shelter, antIfood for birds, mammals, and) other svildlife; prosviding spawsning, ours- ers, and forage areas for mnicrous species of molluscs, crustaceans, and fishes,' pros id mg firewood, tanbark, antd dx ebark prosiding s ar- 101ns products of associated nipa palm includling thatching materials, viegar, and alcohol; asd poxviding sarious sources of animal and vegetable foods fur hurmans. Mlangrose forests suppor a characteristic faima svhich includes mainy species that are valuaole as mn ian food. 1fir examuple, crtain species of shrimip are depen dent on mangrose f.or fuod and shelter during their juvenile stages. Gomez (20) cited numerous research findings shoswing a ositus c tsrre a 0 0iobean so splijg thc extent of mnangrisc andii intertidal v egetation. Turner (45) ana- ly ze d shrimip landings "or sexveral sears fur 27 locations aronund the wxorldl and found the data support thle hy pothesis inat Lik al ui (ance and tx pe of coinnmerciallx s aluable quantities o) per aed shrimlp are directl\ related to the absolute area and thle t% PC of as uiari se-inmr- tidlal vegetation. \lacNae .31) concluded that for some species and locations. It() ml angrove; no0 prass ox. 1Nut as dramatic hut perhaps as imp)ortaint to local inhabitants and coastal fishermen is thc fishers wxithin and adjiacent to the man grox e areas. These areas serve as mla- jor, and sometimses ecasb5 e spawsning, nurser, anti rearing~ habi- tats for edible species of iinlluscs, crustaceanos, and fishes. Browsn and Fischer (8) long ago recogized that,. ... the man- grov e swvamps coinstituite at \,cry svaluable asset to the Philippine. Is- lands and, if properlx iiainaged, xxill prose to he a perm sanent source of income both to the people asnd to the Gus emnent.' Cl'us~ thurs (14) emphasized the importance of the mangroxve zone for diret use bx pour rural peop~le: ". .. the bulk of the populaton thal uses the miangroxve ens\ iioniiien t and flor wvhom the imangroxves are to he imon- aged are the rural poom- iii all counnries tohasing ,.sangros e ens run mnents). An 7 chaiiges ,v ill affect them first." In their natum al state, mangrovs are primards used bx rural poor- for life essentials. Tis subsistence lev el use has bean done xxi ihout damage to the mianigrove ecosystein because the pupulations elx inga upon the resources hasve remiained lusw. iluss cxer1 as population in- creases, subsismnlce lex.el users can b)ars est past tK, le1e of xomstain- able x icld. But the imangriove ecosystem canl be en anageri as a renew- able, coinion Lprisptrtxy resource producing fo el food, shelter, and v arious prodiucts foi a. large number of local inhabi'Lants and coastal or, as thex are called iii the Philippines, municipal fshermen. Al- ternatix clx it Canl he exploited as at greatly altered -prixatc-prosptrts resource for nofuacoiliire, agriculture, or other pue11poses. Between these extremes lie a host o)1 alternatives. This range or possible hult often inicompatible alternati(s ore- sents planners and d(cixionismakers wyith a quandar. Thei'r task of choosing aiiong conflicting opt ions is complicated bx a lack of un- derstanding of'soefo econmomie and ensironimental issues involv ed. It is further complicated by traditional emphasis on ,economnc exalua- Brackishwater fishponds an lie sh~ores of Manfla Bay. tions of alternative uses of an ecosystem, especially when biological and sociological values have been quantified incompletely. Fishpond development in mangrove forest areas generally con- verts a common-property, multiple-use resource into a private- property, single-purpose resource. The basis for justification of the conversion is at best weak, especially if fishponds are improperly managed. It is conceivable that a hectare of mangrove area in its nat- ural state would contribute as much as 100 kilograms of fish catch to coastal fishermen. An even greater yield could be expected if the area were converted to pond production of shrimp-a yield whose value is twice as great as that of milkfish produced in a hectare of pond. However, no measures have been made in the Philippines on (1) the effect of pond development on the natural fishery in and ad- jacent to the mangrove area, or (2) on the shrimp fishery in and out- side those areas. Turner (45) calculated the loss of shrimp and fish in trawling operations in Indonesia from converting mangrove areas to fishponds to be 767 kilograms per year for each hectare converted. These losses should be similar in the Philippines. This does not in- clude loss from other uses of the same area of mangrove. Clearly there are trade-offs between developing or not developing fishponds from mangroves. However, the GRP decision-makers have decided to slow and perhaps to stop further fishpond expansion into mangrove zones. Table 2 illustrates the growth of fishpond devel- opment from mangroves since 1952. During the 28-year period from 1952 to 1980, fishpond area doubled-an increase of 4.6 percent per year in the first 10 years, but only 0.8 percent per year during the last 8 years. In 1978 the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) re- ported 2,795 applications for fishponds covering 52,393 hectares or 21 to 24 percent of the remaining mangrove area in the country, ta- ble 3. However, BFAR reports only 2,130 hectares have been devel- oped into fishponds since 1972. The National Mangrove Committee of MNR is responsible for preparing "a comprehensive and integrated program that would in- crementally rationalize and environmentalize the planning proce- dures for mangrove ecosystem development and management in the Philippines." The Land Classification Composite Team of the Bu- reau of Forest Development (BFD) classifies mangrove areas ac- cording to two basic land uses: permanent forests or alienable and disposable areas leaseable for fishponds. Alteration of mangroves into fishponds takes several months to several years. Prolonged construction time for new ponds probably accounts for some of the discrepancy in the records on existing fish- pond areas. The process begins with logging of large trees followed by cutting of smaller trees and stumps for firewood and charcoal. If not completely cleared, the area will regenerate into mangrove. However, if completely cleared and not used for fishponds, the area often becomes a desert because the soil rapidly deteriorates. Estimates on remaining mangrove areas vary depending on the source of data. Comparisons are made in table 3 of developed fish- pond areas (BFAR source) with areas that remain in mangrove (NRMC and BFD) and areas designated as available for fishpond de- velopment (BFD). One-third of the remaining mangroves, or 74,130 hectares (NRMC), are open canopy area. Bina et al. (7), cited by Gomez (20), consider open canopy to represent "the preliminary stage of fishpond/saltbed conversion." However, BFD classifies only 22,904 hectares, or less than 10 percent of the BFD estimated total, to be available to fishpond development. A summary of the major regulations concerning fishpond devel- opment and practices in mangrove areas follows: 1. PD 704 BFD permits clear cutting of mangroves in areas zoned or already disposed for fishpond development. 2. Areas declared available for fishpond development by BFD are released to the BFAR for administrative control; applications for de- velopment of these areas must be accompanied by feasibility stud- ies; BFAR approvals are submitted to MNR for final approval. 3. Upon approval, leases are granted for 25-year terms and are re- TABLE 2. INCREASE IN BRACKISHWATER FISHPOND AREA SINCE 1952 Year Developed Increased Percent increase area, ha area, ha Period Year 1952........... .88,681 - - - 1962............129,062 40,381 46 4.6 1972........... 174,101 45,039 35 3.5 1982........... . 176,231 2,130 1 .8 Total......... .87,550 99 3.5 TABLE 3. EXISTING MANGROVE AREA IN THE PHILIPPINES' Mangrove Hectares Mangrove Total Source status area, pct. area, pct. Closed canopy ........ 146,140 66.4 36.9 Open canopy 2 . . . . . . . . . 74,103 33.6 18.7 Subtotal ............ 220,243 100.0 55.5 NRMC Fishponds ............ 176,231 - 44.5 BFAR Total ............... 396,474 - 100.0 Permanent forest ...... 226,234 90.8 53.2 Disposable ........... . 22,904 9.2 5.4 Subtotal ............ 249,138 100.0 58.6 BFD Fishponds ............ . 176,231 - 41.4 BFAR Total ............... 425,369 - 100.0 'Estimates by Natural Resources Management Center (NRMC), Bureau of Forest Development (BFD), and Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Re- sources (BFAR). 2 Open canopy represents "the preliminary stage offishpond/salt bed con- version" (Bina et al. (7) by Gomez (20)). newable for an additional 25 years; leasees are required to submit under oath semi-annual reports of development, operations, and production. 4. Leasees are given 5 years to fully develop their holdings to com- mercial scale or forfeit the lease agreement. 5. PD 705 regulations on development of mangroves into fish- ponds exclude from development 40-meter strips along rivers, lakes, and other inland waters, and 100-meter strips facing bays and the sea. 6. PD 905 holders of leases are required to plant trees extending at least 20 meters from the edge of tidal streams; people are prohib- ited from cutting, injuring, or otherwise damaging planted and nat- ural trees in these areas without authority. 7. Proclamations have designated mangroves as "Wilderness Areas" (P-2151) and "Mangrove Swamp Forest Reserves" (P-2152), which strictly exclude fishpond development. The GRP has taken steps to protect the mangrove zones from de- struction-steps that are often unpopular with fishpond developers. However, developers and all users of mangrove areas need to be ed- ucated regarding the rational allocation and protection of mangrove resources. The management program depends on definite goals and clearly stated policies formulated within the social, ecological, po- litical, institutional, and economic framework. Lindblom, cited by Baines (4), declared that goals in mangrove resource use have tended to evolve from "a complex history of vaguely expressed public opinion, faulty interpretations, and political opportunism." The GRP might consider allowing some fishponds to revert to mangrove or replanting mangrove in fishpond areas with low yields. MacNae (31) concluded that, "Before modifying a mangrove area in any way, for salt production or for fish- or prawn-pond construc- tion, it is necessary to assess and balance: (1) the quantity and mar- ket value of timber products; (2) the value of the fishery of prawns, crabs, molluscs, and fish both within and just offshore from a man- grove area, and to balance those with (3) the cost of extirpation of mangrove trees (root, trunk and branch); (4) the cost of building cul- ture ponds taking into account the fertility of the soil and the use- fulness of the soil in making "bunds" (dikes); (5) the potential return from the ponds, and, (6) the loss of offshore fisheries due to the re- moval of the mangrove forests." MacNae's assessment and balance 10 considerations should include social and environmental factors as well as economics. Freshwater Aquaculture The Philippines also has a potential for freshwater fish produc- tion. A recent estimate is 500,000 hectares of freshwater areas avail- able for fisheries development (2). Some of this potential is begin- ning to be realized in Laguna de Bay where milkfish are being raised in pens. This culture system has emerged as a major industry only in the last decade; thus, the statistics reflecting its importance are just becoming available. The construction of ponds for freshwater aquaculture is done al- most exclusively in areas already modified for some type of agricul- ture. The environmental impact on such areas is generally positive. Water held in ponds is available to humans and wildlife. Ponding may raise the water level in nearby wells during dry seasons when water could be limited or unavailable from other sources. Pens and Cages in Lakes The impact of fishpens and cages in lakes is unknown. The state- ments which follow are speculations based on principles of aquatic ecology and aquaculture as they relate to present pen and cage aquacultural practices. The physical placement of pens and cages does little to alter the environment. The technology applied is pri- marily of levels 1 and 2, which contribute little to eutrophication. In fact, eutrophication is probably decreased by removal of nutrients in the tons of fish harvested from the culture facilities. The fishes used in this culture are primarily milkfish and tilapia, which are efficient at feeding on plankton, the primary food source in the lakes where pens and cages are feasible. This efficiency enables these fishes to compete effectively with and perhaps displace native species. Tila- pia freely reproduce inside and outside the facilities, but milkfish do not reproduce. Thus, where tilapia exist, the environment is per- manently altered; where milkfish exist without tilapia, alterations may be only temporary. Pens and cages may provide shelter for some species allowing them to grow to larger sizes and to reproduce be- fore being caught. This is thought to be happening with Arius cat- fish. Some socio-economic impacts of pens and cages on lake fishermen have been reported in the news media. Such reports include dis- placement of fishermen from their traditional fishing areas, poaching from pens resulting in attacks and shootings of people by security guards, and the accusation that wealthy pen and cage owners are utilizing the public resource at the expense of the poor traditional users. Obviously, pens and cages reduce the area where fishermen can fish, which may result in lower catch and reduced income. Introduction of Exotic Species Except for the negative environmental impact of mangrove de- struction, the greatest destruction to Philippine aquatic environ- ments could be from introduced species. At least 15 different species of fishes, crustaceans, and molluscs have been introduced into the Philippines for aquacultural purposes during this century, but no accurate information exists on the actual number of species intro- duced nor on their distribution within the country. Most known in- troduced species are well established. The positive or negative ef- fects from the introduced species are not known. Regulations to prevent indiscriminate introductions of exotic species are thought to be ineffective, and introductions of new species and reintroductions of previously introduced species are assumed to be continuing. Pesticides in Fishponds The usual pesticides used in brackishwater ponds are mollusci- cides and piscicides. All alter the environment if not contained until they have detoxified or dispersed. Persistent, residual chemicals are by far the most damaging to the environment. Endrin, a highly re- sidual chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide, is lethal to many aquatic animals, including most fish, at concentrations as low as 0.1 to 0.3 parts per billion, and remains toxic for several years. Endrin and some other persistent pesticides have been banned from use in fish- ponds, but they continue to be used illegally. In recent years both the private and public sectors have become more aware of negative effects of pesticides on the environment and the food chain. Other Environmental Considerations Finfish and crustacean aquacultures have not been implicated in incidences of communicable diseases for humans. Current nutrient additions are too low to be major influences on the environment. There are, however, possible negative impacts of aquaculture activ- ities on the environment; the impact of removing wild milkfish fry or fry of other species on the natural stocks of those species is not known, nor is the effect of diking tidal streams and natural drainage avenues of flood waters to make fishponds. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS IN AQUACULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Milkfish Producers Little documentation on the social organization of milkfish pro- duction exists with the exception of Smith's (41) description of milk- fish fry gatherers, and interviews with fishpond operators by Librero (25,28), Chong et al. (13), and Yengoyan (47). Yengoyan described pond operators as members of one of three groups or types. The large producers, those with fishponds greater than 15 hectares, viewed fishponds as big business and they characteristically rein- vested their earnings from the ponds into increasing production either from additional ponds purchased or rented, or for pond im- provement-acquiring fertilizer, feeds, and/or knowledge. This group is approximately 10 percent of the producers but is responsi- ble for up to 75 percent of the production. He described them as ac- tively manipulating the environment. The second group of produc- ers, about 15 percent of the fishpond owners, were described as men with more limited knowledge of the ecosystem who farmed up to 15 hectares. Instead of reinvesting in fishpond development, most of these pond operators invested 50 percent or more of their earnings in sugar producing lands. They appear to have chosen diversified ag- riculture, and according to Yengoyan, "the amount of profit gener- ated through maintaining different agricultural activities acts as a cushion in which all options are exploited." However, the data given do not indicate whether they: (1) inherited their ponds and aqua- cultural plots, (2) started as farmers and were attracted to pond op- erations because of high probabilities for profit, (3) started with fish ponds and added agricultural land because the fishponds demanded more capital than they had access to for optimal development, or (4) because the ponds were production limited for other reasons. Yen- goyan described them as limited by money and information, but with the basic knowledge that bigger is better. Expansion was lim- ited by hesitation to make greater capital investment, hire laborers, acquire knowledge on the technology of increasing production, and obtain marketing information. Although he offered no explanation, he reported that the greatest impediment to market development by these mid-range pond operators was having to learn how to deal with Chinese fish buyers in Roxas and Manila. From that statement we could infer that ethnicity is an important factor in product distri- bution; however, we saw no other references to ethnic differences being important factors in aquaculture development or marketing. If major urban markets are run by Chinese or any other ethnic group, it would be important to know what the relationships were between suppliers and buyers, differences in loan or credit systems, and other interactions. 11 The third category of fishpond owners, which makes up 75 per- cent of the individuals, was briefly described as dependent on a mix- ture of aquaculture and agriculture, growing paddy rice on small plots and doing swidden cultivation for sugar in the less productive farmlands. Fishpond operators from the Capiz area may be similar to pond owners throughout the country, although Librero (25) reports greater non-pond economic activity for the pond operators with more than 15 hectares than Yengoyan did. For example, her data show that 66 percent of ponds of greater than 50 hectares were op- erated by caretakers. From the available information, it is not clear what role owners play in decision-making regarding pond manage- ment when there is a caretaker. However, it is assumed that high- yielding, large farms receive a great deal of attention from their owners even though day-to-day operations are done by caretakers. Labor Organization, Education, and Employment Most fishpond owners and caretakers are men, and information about them from all sources is presented in the context of households whose joint labor is included in estimated annual incomes. For the 6 percent of female pond owners and 1 percent of femiale caretakers reported by Librero et al. (26), it is not known if they inherited or purchased their ponds, if they are entrepreneurs, or if they are part of a trend toward greater involvement of women in fishpond busi- nesses, nor is there information about the size of farms they operate or the management inputs they use as compared to other farmers in their regions. The general assumption of reports surveed is that iwomen do not play an active role in fishpond operations, but rather that they maintain traditional activities. Hlowever women hold the purse in most families and are instrumental in plannming and bud- geting. Women were most often included in statistics as unpaid fami- ily labor, as they are in the fishing industry. MNR et al. (30) esti- mated that for capture fishing, 25 percent of unpaid labor came from women who do most of the post-capture activities, such as cleaning, sorting, and marketing fish. Hired personnel on a milkfish farm commonly include a caretaker, laborers, and security guards. On a few big farms, managers, sec- retaries, and housekeepers are also employed. An average fishpond operation emiploys 12 people including caretaker and laborers (33). Caretakers are usually paid a fixed monthly salary; in some cases a commission is added. As farm size increases, the caretaker is grad- ually removed from a profit sharing basis and is shifted to a fixed sal- ary (2). In 1974, the monthly caretaker salary was equivalent to P7 per daL; which was a little higher than minimum wage for agricul- ture labor for that year Moreover, the caretakers are more or less assured of year-round employment unlike laborers who are hired as the need arises. Sixty-five percent of pond owners had gone to college, and the more educated owned larger fishponds (25). This high percentage of college-educated fish farmers indicates they have access to pub- lished materials on technology and management techniques and are interested in fishpond development as a business venture. Their ed- ucation may be an indication of their willingness to invest capital in research for aquaculture development. This assumption is rein- forced bv the relatively higher education attained by caretakers compared to ordinary farmers or fishermen. A majority of the care- takers received formal education, with one-fourth reaching high school and about 8 percent reaching college. Among all pond owners interviewed by Librero ( 25 ), 62 percent were operated by the owner, although none of them considered the pond operations as full-time work. Owners reported they spent less than half their working time on fishpond business. A high level of education among pond owners implies that they have a range of busi- ness or farming opportunities. But the data show that a surprisingl high numnber (7 percent) of the owner-operators fished hduring their Harvest operations for pond-raised fish. working time away from the pond, as did 28 percent of the care- takers. The fact that owners and caretakers reported fishing as ani al- ternative occupation is surprising because in surveys of fishermen, none reported fishpond labor or operation as an alternative source of work (24). Fishpond owners averaged 50 ycars of age, with caretakers slightly younger at 46 years. The small-scale fishermien in Leyte were ion the average much younger than fishpond owners and care- takers (age 25-44 years) and less educated, with fewer than 40 per- cent of them having education beyond primary grades (24). Fur- thermiore, their children were also poorly educated. Hlowever, the fishermien said that if they had money to educate their children they would want them to become fishery experts or take up an occupation related to fishing. iEmployment trends over the past decade are difficult to document because the data are compiled under the general heading of agri- culture, fisheries, and forestry. Hough estimates, however indicate that the fishing industry employs approximately 900,(XX) workers, which is about 10 percent of all agricultural workers and about 5 per- cent of the total work force. Approximately 18 percent of fishery workers are wage/salary earners, 66 percent are self-employed, 2 percent are employers, and 14 percent are unpaid family workers. A majority of 67 percent are engaged in municipal fisheries, 5 percent in commercial fisheries, 22 percent in aquaculture and other inland fisheries, and 6 percent in fish processing. A government survey concluded that, among graduates of agri- culture, forestry, and fisheries programs, the largest proportion of delayed employment was in fisheries where almost two-thirds of graduates had to wait an average of2.5 years before becoming em- ployed. Among those who did not get immediate employmient, 44 percent were unemployed for 3 years or more. Statistics on invest- ment and employment estimates have been based on constant mul- tipliers (e.g. P10,000 per hectare investment and one person per hectare of fishpond). Any inaccuracies, therefore, in the area esti- mates are accumulated in investment and emiploymient figures. Moreover, our analysis in this paper shows differences in the level of investment as well as employment. The GRP data on employment aggregate workers in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, and no at- tempt has been made to separate fisheries, more particularly aqua- culture, from the marine and freshwater fishing industry. Family In the study of Capiz fish farmers, Yengoyan (47) found that av- erage family size was smaller than for agricultural workers. He as- sumed family size results from family planning strategies and pos- tulated that among fishpond owners, fewer sons are needed because labor can easily be hired. He also pointed out the disadvantages of dividing an inheritance into ponds of insufficient size. Yengoyan used smaller family size to explain discrepancies in standard of liv- ing he found among sugar and rice farmers and fishpond operators. Individual head-of-household incomes were higher among sugar and rice farmers, but because of large family size, their standard of liv- ing was lower than for fish farmers. Chong et al. (13) stated that the extended Filipino family may ex- plain why some fishponds are not operated according to profit-max- imizing principles. Many ponds are owned by families and run with the expectation that the family will benefit from the harvest and sale of the products, but that not all of the benefits will be in cash. They give the example that some farms are run on a rotational basis among family members, or that family members act as caretakers. Fishpond Operators' Associations There are more than 30 fishfarm producer associations federated at the national level. Membership is voluntary and draws largely from the more successful and educated fishpond operators (13). Among the 1,175 sample respondents in the Librero (25) aquaculture survey, only 134, or 11 percent,, were members of aquaculture or- ganizations. These associations lobby the government and serve as a source of information for their members. Benefits of membership vary depending on the degree of member participation and leader- ship. The most common services are fry allocation and bulk pur- chase of inputs such as fertilizers. Buying and selling on behalf of members are practiced in only a few associations. Value of Fishponds Brackishwater fishponds are valuable real estate, and although some of their value results from good management, Herre and Men- doza (21) point out that the ponds themselves have different values depending on the distance to market, distance to the open bay, the volume of water and its depth in the adjacent river or creek, the age of the pond, the quality of the soil in relation to growth of food, cleanliness of the pond, and the liability to flooding by freshwater. From the 1950's to 1970, values rose by 4.2 percent per year, and by more than 10 percent per year in the 1970's. General estimates of current fishpond values are approximately P50,000 to 80,000 per hectare. Some well developed ponds are valued at more than P100,000 per hectare. Such ponds lease for as much as P5,000 per hectare. Fishpond Operating Costs fishermen. Laopao and Latorre (24) report that the average operat- ing cost for non-motorized boats was P4,918 and for motorized boats, approximately P20,000. They also assumed that non-motorized boats depend on family labor; thus, this input would be unmeasured just as it is for fishpond operators. Ninety-two percent of capital out- lay for the small fishing boats went to operating rather than fixed costs. The major operating expenses were for labor (41 percent) and fuel (25 percent). Reported fixed costs were for permits, repairs, and interest on loans. However, since only about 30 percent of fishermen get permits, and 80 percent to 90 percent default -on government loans, these fixed costs are minor considerations when compared to operating costs. Milkfish Fry Fry gatherers are paid on a share system rather than a fixed wage. Chong et al. (13) report that earnings from daily catch are divided equally among the team members with an extra share for the owner of the gear. Since most fry gatherers had other jobs, many as fish- ermen, the fry gathering contributed less than 25 percent to their annual incomes. Smith (41) estimates that fry gatherers earn ap- proximately P700 per year, and fry dealers, with the largest three excluded, earn P9,254. Fry concessions managed by the municipal- ities provide an average of 12.7 percent to annual municipal income, and employment for fry gatherers, concessionaires, dealers, and nursery pond operators also has multiplier effects in the community, table 4. In 1976, net returns to fry and fingerling businesses were poorest for fry gatherers, who on the average earned only 70 percent of minimum wage (41). However, net returns to capital, labor, un- paid family labor, management, and risk of marketing was 3.6 per- cent for concessionaires, 14.9 percent for dealers, and 27.7 percent for nursery pond operators. Milkfish Fry Marketing Fry concessions also demand high capital investment. Chong et al. (13) estimated that the most productive fry grounds can demand fees of P40,000, which encouraged'concessionaires to integrate ver- tically Fry marketing was described by Smith (41) as a well-estab- lished, partially government-controlled enterprise with some verti- cal integration among concessionaires, dealers, nursery pond and. rearing pond operators. The primary handlers, in this case fry gath- erers, earn below average incomes, and have no marketing organi- zation and little access to price information. Furthermore, they are constrained to selling in a l 'imited market because of government regulations and risks of loss during transport over greater distance. About 82 percent of the interregional fry trade goes to the nursery ponds in the Metro Manila area. Except for the Southern Tagalog region, fry can be transported within the region of catch without shipping permits and auxiliary invoices. Consequently, no data are available on intraregional trade flows. From interviews of fry concessionaires in 1975, Librero estimated that 13 percent of the fry came from within the same village; 14 per- cent came from other villages within the same municipality; 38 per- 13 I sin iv 4. I'sDICAT1015 OF Si1A xI LITS N DI NTEG(,sION 01: 1111 '0 \ND FINsC IMlS 151 51IE Gatheirers Concessionaires eaes No Iseris pon11d Rearing' pond 1.3shpen operatib operators ope ra t ors Year in business A. Avux g ng . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . linge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C . Pci ccritwx ib 011 periods.................. Coinpetiiors A. Approimate no. of close comlpetitors.... B. ?ercei t belies in', industrx is inure comspeti- tive in 19716 than .5 years ago .............. Suppliers A. No. from xwhich to choose B. No. from swhich bought ......... C. Percent wxith wxide choice ................ D. Chaiige in supplier choice ........ E. No. of x ears xwith major supplier ........... outiets A. No. to wxhich one sells/season ....... B. No. to wahich one sells/nmonth ....... C . Percent wxith wxide choice ................. D. Change since 1975 ........... E. No. of xyears xwith major outlet....... integration A. Vertical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. 'Iori,'ontal .. ii011(t :31% oswn rearing ponids 2% gathoer froim oiore than I tr\ (,routnd 11.5 14 14 9:3 25 15 6 less :3-5 18 iMore .5 42% iixn urearilng pondlts; 617 owxn nuirsery ponds 44% hav e mnore than 1 conces- slion as. 2. 1 frx groundCs 16.9 2.33 0.3 16 9:3 20 6 97 less 5.0 14 .3 less 2.6 21% owo contcis- sions; 31% owxi rearing ponids; 10% oiss fish- pens 2.3% base inirs ers ponds in mlore thano ooie location 27%7 base rear- ing poinds in inure than one location :3(0% ha% e fish- p~en s in inure thani one loc ation Succ: Smoith (42),p 78. porter (62.3 percent) wh ile Bulacan and Rizal prov inces wxith no fry, grounds are deficit areas with 18,095 hectares of fislhponds. Nurs- cry-pond operators in Bulacan and Rizal are the major financing socurce for concessionaires iii Southern Mindanao. The fingerling indcustry , operated by nursery p~ondi operators in Ru- zai, Bulacan, and to a lesser extent in Pampanga, desveloped to sup- ply fingerlings to fishponcd operators who did not wxant to assume the r~sks of hgh mortalities associated with frN stocking. Nursery pond operators claim to achiesve 65 p~ercenlt or greater surk is al rates from fry to :3-inch fingerlings, whereas an ordinary fishpond operator wxho stocks fry directly into rearing ponds could only achieve about 50 perc-e . snrvival over dhe samie rearing period (41). XVh n 'he fishpens, which miiist use fingerlings ratlici than fry for stocking, we rc established in Laguna de Ba, the fingerling business receivedc a substantial boost. Price of fingerlings iincreasced from P 160 per thousand in 197 2 to P240 in 197476. Assumiing an average stocking rate of 35,000 fingerlings per hectare per y ear, the finger- ling remlirements soared to about 245 million (41)in 1976 when fish- pen area reached 711X00 hectares. Processing and Marketing Fishpond operators have moure countrol over the tiing of harvest than do fry gatherers or capture fishermen. The decision to harvest milkfish is often dictated by economic and operational considera- tions suich as: (1) prev ailing market prices, (2) phase of the title, (3) weather conditions; (4) food supply in the pond; and (5) desired size (25). Yengoyan (47) stated that large-scale fish farmers may withhold fish from the market if prices are depressed because they havec ad- eqfuate cash resources to maintain their operations. Fur a large pro- doter tile amount of axvailable cash probably affects marketing be- hasvior less than does information about regional or national demand. A producer about to barsvest several tons of milkfish is interested in price details to the last centavo, a smaller operator may be influ- encedl bv the expense of gathering more informatioii antI thus be more interested in selling. Most milkfish prodtiction (98 plercent) is intended for the fresh fish market rather than for homne conlsumption or processing. The major market is the Manila area, swhere some of the fish is frozen for export and soiie is canned. There are three inilkfish canning plants onl Lu- zon amit one in the X isas as. Deboiied milkfish is beconming popular, especially in Iloilo, hut this typ Po(f processing is still inews Thm c is a wvide v ariation in prodcutctioin by region antI in regional problenis, such as distance from market, cost of transportation, availability of market information, vary ing costs of inputs, and lack of familiarity with other domestic or export markets, which affect Milkfish being transported to markets. net earnings. The distance from the farm to a milkfish market av- erages approximately 50 kilometers although Librero et al. (26) es- timated that 10 percent of milkfish is sold in the same neighborhood and 38 percent in the same municipality. The fish may be sold through a broker (who must be licensed), to a wholesaler (with or without trucking service), to a wholesaler/retailer, or to an exporter. Typically milkfish are sold to a wholesaler at prices which vary by several pesos per kilogram. Librero et al. (26) described first sale prices at P2.23 to P5.88 per kilogram. Under direct retailing, which was the most profitable but the most difficult to arrange for the fish- pond operator, prices ranged from P3.82 to P5.69 per kilogram. Consignment or broker selling prices ranged from P3.78 to P5.72 per kilogram before commission (28). Regional differences in mar- keting procedures vary by (1) volume of fish produced at a single harvest-a large producer profits by acting as his own broker, but a small producer does not; (2) volume of fish available-a broker may have better and broader contacts for moving fish in a sluggish mar- ket; and (3) the personalities of the brokers and wholesalers and their reputation in the community, regional, and national markets. In Quezon, 54 percent of fishpond operators sold through brokers (29). The major flow of milkfish from either Luzon, Visayas, or Min- danao was to Manila. On Luzon, minor flows were from the Pan- gasinan area to Northern Luzon, Bicol and Palawan to Manila, and Laguna Lake to Pangasinan then back to Manila. In the Visayas, mi- nor flows were largely to other islands in the area and to Mindanao, particularly Cagayan de Oro and Davao. Minor flows in Mindanao were largely to Cagayan de Oro. In another study, Sevilleja and McCoy (40) reported that because of the proximity of Central Luzon to Metro Manila, a considerable TABLE 5. SELECTED FISH EXPORTs: 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, IN THOUSANDS OF KILOGRAMS AND THOUSANDS OF PESOS Product 1965 1970 1975 1980 Total exports Amount................... 1,104 3,407 25,988 76,179 Value .................... 2,776 17,986 327,996 939,295 Shrimp/prawns Amount ................... 35 574 1,672 2,717 Pct. of total exports ......... . 3.2 16.9 6.4 3.6 Value ..................... 152 7,951 51,708 154,522 Pct. of total exports ......... . 5.5 44.2 15.8 16.4 Tuna Amount .................. - 820 8,120 47,290 Pct. of total exports ......... - 24.1 31.2 62.1 Value ..................... 2,519 36,616 489,951 Pct. of total exports ......... - 14.0 11.2 52.2 Milkfish Amount ................... - 97 191 551 Pct. of total exports ......... - 2.8 .7 .7 Value ..................... . - 388 2,652 8,143 Pct. of total exports ......... - 2.2 .8 .9 Source: BFAR, Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines (9). TABLE 6. FISH SUPPLY AND USE, 1970-1980, IN THOUSANDS OF METRIC TONS Year Production Imports Exports Per capita use, kg 1970 ........ 988.8 103.6 2.9 28.8 1971........ 1,023.1 112.9 6.7 29.1 1972 ......... 1,122.4 108.9 10.7 30.5 1973 ......... 1,204.8 61.4 15.8 31.2 1974 ........ 1,268.4 93.8 18.2 32.1 1975 ........ 1,336.8 164.4 14.8 33.3 1976 ........ 1,393.5 118.0 16.1 33.2 1977 ........ 1,574.0 73.0 26.1 34.1 1978........1,567.0 93.9 48.4 34.0 1979 ........ 1,578.0 104.1 64.9 33.1 1980 ........ 1,672.2 53.4 76.2 31.5 Source: 1970-79 data from Integrated Agricultural Production and Mar- keting Project, Ministry of Agriculture. 1980 data calculated based on BFAR statistics. amount of all fish produced in the Central Luzon area is moved to Metro Manila. Medina and Guerrero indicated that 71 percent of the tilapia and 67 percent of the carp sold in Manila came from Cen- tral Luzon provinces. On the other hand, fish were also transported into the region. A study by Nicolas et al. (35) of the Navotas fish mar- ket indicated that about 29 percent of the fish from Navotas were moved to the Northern provinces. A report by the Philippine Fish Marketing Authority also indicated that 20 percent of the port un- loadings went outside of Metro Manila. Approximately 64 percent of total unloadings went to Central Luzon provinces. Substantial quan- tities of smoked and dried fish were also transported into the region. Fish exports have become a major component of Philippine for- eign exchange earnings, increasing from 1,000 metric tons in 1965 to 76,000 in 1980, table 5. Tuna exports accounted for almost one-third of total quantity exported in 1980 and over one-half of the total value. Milkfish constitutes a small proportion of total exports, but volume has almost tripled for the 5-year period 1975-80. If this trend con- tinues, the price of milkfish is likely to remain high in the face of broader market choices for producers, particularly in the Manila area where fish for export would be a subset of the Manila area mar- ket redistribution, tables 5 and 6. Port facilities, ice plants, and cold storage facilities are inade- quate, and the inconvenient location of some facilities further exac- erbates the problem. Ice plants in Metro Manila account for 53 per- cent of the country's ice plant operating capacity while being used for only 12 percent of total production. Region IV (Southern Ta- galog), the largest contributor to total fish production, has only 159,432 metric tons of ice supply (23). Librero et al. (29) conclude that market facilities such as buildings or ice supply, as well as the mechanisms for selling through a variety of buyers or brokers, are not generally impediments to distribution of fresh fish from the pro- ducer to the consumer. In specific cases, limitations in marketing choices result in unacceptable earnings for a producer, especially in the period July to October (38). Retail Prices of Milkfish by Region Slight variations were observed in the retail prices for milkfish among the regions. On the average, Western Visayas had the lowest prices, followed by Central and Eastern Visayas. For the period 1970-81, highest prices were found in Cagayan Valley. As of 1981, however, Southern Tagalog registered the highest price at P16.33 per kilogram, as compared to the lowest price of P10.84 per kilo- gram in Central and Eastern Visayas. Retail prices for milkfish increased at the rate of 12 to 18 percent per annum. Increased demands have apparently outweighed the growth in supply of milkfish in Southern Tagalog, as retail prices soared by 18 percent per year despite the additional production from fishpens. Wholesale and retail prices of milkfish and other common fishes are collected daily by the Bureau of Agriculture Economics (BAE- con) in 48 major trading centers around the Philippines. However, these data are not published. While researchers and other users can copy such data, use is limited by an unawareness of its existence. These data are handwritten on loose sheets which increase the prob- ability of loss. The Philippine Fish Marketing Authority (PFMA) also collects price information from major fish landing areas. BAE- con and PFMA should coordinate with each other in this activity to avoid the possibility of conflicting data as well as for better use of data collecting resources. Tilapia, which has become important in the fish market, has been neglected, and BAEcon should add this group to its data collection process. Income from Fishponds, Fry, and Capture Fishing Librero (28) estimated that the average annual farm income was P30,953 or P2,294 per hectare. Most employment figures for aqua- 15 1~n 1)i, bsd~ onC the doutfu~ltl alssuription that onc mail is em-i plox d per hectare. If true, averiage annal income from fishponds Wxould he P21294 per mnan per year. I lossever that assUuption is dis- credited by the income n~gures provided in \arious reports by Li- hrro. Fromn this, a caretaker colild wxork 2 hectares andl :0 owsner 6 hectares at the P2,294 pei hectarec income rate. Compared to smrall- hoat fishermen, as esti mated hs Laopao and Latorre (2 1) for Ley te, the as ci age annual income fi om1 fishing for the hoat owner was P.5,100 and for crew P23,720. There are aiso differences among mnu niial fishermen. Net income of thosc using motorize(] fishing b)oats ax eraged P5,508, while those in non-motorizell boats earned P23,095. Fishing inconie xxas approximately 68 percent of the total. Hence, anuual income xwas actually higher for the fishing house- holds. Families of fishpond laborers, caretakers, and owsners also d~e- pen~ded upon additional sources of income. Lihrero (2.5) estimated the ax rage annual income for caretakers to lbe Pit0,:331 and for own- ers, fomr times that amount, or over P40, 000 per ycar. Consumption The most current (1980) population estimates for the Philippines are 24.0 million imales anti 223.9 million females ss ith more than 30 p~ercecnt of the population less than 10 ycars of age and 1.7 percent greater than 60 y ears. Population growth rate is 2.64 per'icent per an- nu.As a result of population increases throughout this centurN the demaud for animal protein is likely to double in 20 sears. Tahle shoss xthe contrihution ofineat, poriltry. eggs, dairy p~rodulcts, and fish, xx hich prov ide more than .50 percent of the protein consumed, to the diet of Filipinos surs cxed (luring 1977-80. The table also shc"'s the difference hehsween consomortior' Ix all hr'ii',efmld',l bined and hs those famnilies dependent on fishing as a nujor source of lix clihood. The comparison suggests that fishing families consume the product of their lahor rather than spending scarce cash onl alter- natisve protein sources. While average protein consumption is considered adequate (103 percent of minimum recomminended lev els) for the country as a wyhole, Smith (41) estimiated 710-80 percent of the population con- suinetl less than 50 giaams of p~rotein per da. Nutrient intake lesvels wxere alarmingly loss for households wxith annual per capita income less than P500 and for households of farm wsorkers and small-scale or hired fishermen (19). \lilkfish are considered allordahle by upper and middle class con- sumers hut are important to all classes on festive occasions. 'Most milkfish producers gear protduiction for harsvest at a sizc of 4 or 5 fish per kilogram. Thus. a single inilkfush max cost P2 to P3, a high price in light of the minimum wxage of P14-P18 per davx Howexer, smaller milkfish are asvailahle on the market for less than P1 and are more affordable by the lowser income consumers. Elasticities of demand for fish xwere estimated at 0. 22 for Mletro Manila, 0. 21 for other ir- han areas, and 0.23 for rural areas. The elasticities are by location, hut the location is also indicativec of income lev els as inhahitants of Metro Manila have higher iiicomes than other urbaii and rural dwellers. To sumimarize fish cons umiption information, fish protein is more TABLE 7. ANNUASL PER CAPDA C ONSUMiPTION OF Fiiu MiAIS, DxunR PROM CAS AN Dx EGGS ltei1Al hnoiseholds, Fishio if households, lieukg kg Pork...................... 35.9 4.2 Beef ......................... ,2.1 1.6 Poultrx .. . . . .. . . .3.6 2.6 E ggs .. . . . . . . . . .2.6 2.1 D~airs\ products . ..... 6.23 5A1 Fish .. . . . . . ... 2232 24.4 Total............... 4:3.7 401.3 Fromn 3x iguetero et 0. (3) usiiugdata from 1977-SO. A rural housewite preparing milkish. than half of all animal protein consumed, and the demnand for fish increases with populatin growth. Imported fish contrihute 3 per- cent to the total consumed, andt the eapture fisheries prosvide nearly 901 percent~ of doimestical produmed fish. Aquaeultu r. prosvides 10- 11 pecn of the fish consumed, and most of that is muilkfisL. Finall, mnilkfish productio~n generates ecoiomic hener'ts for xSxveral irneome groups anti to socicts. as a xx hole. ANALYSIS Aquaculture dapends on xscral inputs: the cost aut 1 axvadlahility of land, lahor, and money, fry or fingerlings, wvater, fi'rtilizer, feeds, and management techniques. Villaluz (46) stated a comnmonly held perceoption, "Although most f islpond owners are xvell estahlised fi- nancially, and moist of thei arc among the~ richest in their prosvinces, vers1 less if ans) at all, hasve attempted to improv e thc practice and technology in fishpond managemrent that thex hasve inherited from their forefathers." Chong et al. (13) stated, "It is observed that most omf the hrackishxater ponds in the countrx hasve been developed hap- hazardls without the henefit oif sound technica! planning or engi- neering adviee. Any person havi!ng access to a~ suitable piece of land caii develop it into a fishpond." Thus . .. . . . production costs are high and yields and net returiis are low'" The ohsersatons of Vilfaluz and Chong mnax haxe heen accurate thr the past, hut strong evidence suppoirts opposite trends for the present. Accelerated fishpond desvelopiment is a recent phenomenon; 42 percent of existing ponds wvere desveloped after 1966. Only 22 per- TABLE 8. AREA, INVESTMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTION OF BRACKISHWATER FISHPONDS, 1954-80 Area, Invest- Employ- Production Year thousand ments, 1 ment, 2 Thousand kg/ha ha million P thousands tons 1954 ...... 100.10 200.19 100.10 35.03 350 1959 ...... 119.58 239.16 119.58 58.09 486 1964 ....... 134.24 268.48 134.24 62.68 467 1969 ...... 164.41 328.83 154.41 94.57 575 1970 ...... 168.12 336.24 168.11 96.64 574 1971 ...... 171.45 342.89 171.45 97.92 571 1972 ...... 174.10 348.20 174.10 98.92 568 1973....... 176.03 1,056.19 176.03 99.60 566 1974 ....... 176.03 1,056.19 176.03 113.19 643 1975 ...... 176.03 1,056.19 176.03 106.46 605 1976 ...... 176.23 1,057.38 176.23 112.76 640 1977 ...... 176.23 1,057.38 176.23 115.76 657 1978 ...... 176.23 1,762.30 176.23 118.68 673 1979 ...... 176.23 1,762.30 176.23 133.60 758 1980 ...... 176.23 1,762.30 176.23 135.95 772 'Investment was based on the average development cost of P2,000/ha for 1954-72; P6,000/ha for 1973-77; and P10,000/ha for 1978-80. 2 Assuming one person/ha. cent of the ponds now in operation existed before 1955, and 27 per- cent of ponds now in use were developed from 1956 to 1966 (25). Al- though fishpond productivity is low, it has increased at the rate of about 5 percent per year for the past 25 years, table 8. Expansion to Increase Production Librero et al. (26) reported that in the early and mid-1970's the majority of fishpond operators wanted to expand their fish produc- tion area. Most of those who wanted to expand had small fish farms; only 45 percent of those with more than 50 hectares were interested in more farm area. The pond operators claimed expansion was con- strained by lack of inputs: land, capital, manpower, fry, and finger- lings. In contrast to the desire to expand fish farming area, there is no direct interview information indicating that farmers wished to in- tensify production in existing ponds. Increases in fertilizer and pes- ticide use and in fry stocking rates suggest attempts to increase pro- duction through intensification, but Librero's (28) data from 1965-73 show that increases in production were attributable to increases in total area rather than from intensification. A decade after the above information was collected, Chong et al. (13) interviewed 324 fishpond owners, 56 percent of whom wanted to expand their production area, but were constrained by lack of capital, technical assistance, availability of land, and time. Shortage of capital and land continued through the decade, but lack of man- power, fry, and fingerlings was no longer as important as the need for technical assistance and the time to manage increased operations. It is difficult to draw conclusions from this information, but it is be- lieved that fry/fingerling distribution systems have improved, labor is more readily available, and fishpond operators have diversified sources of income. Chong et al. (13), in a detailed study of milkfish production eco- nomics, hypothesized that variation in production could be ex- plained by the following variables: pond age, number and size of milkfish stocked, fish acclimatization time before stocking, man- hours of hired labor, miscellaneous operating costs, operator's ex- perience, pesticide use, organic and inorganic fertilizer use, and farm size. Their data were based on interviews with 324 producers in 7 provinces. It was biased toward the more progressive farmers since only producers who used inputs were interviewed. Their ob- jective was to compare users of inputs to see which inputs affected production. The general conclusion was that because absolute values of the estimated production coefficients were low, the response of milkfish yields to supplemental inputs was low. However, they admit that the values they used as representative for other inputs could be improved in future research. This information contrasts with con- clusions drawn by other researchers, particularly Librero et al. (26,29). Chong et al. (13) found that variables were significant on a per hec- tare and per farm basis. Age of pond was significant as a result of the gradual build-up of organic material on the bottom and reduction of acid sulphate conditions through seasoning by draining, drying, and leaching. Milkfish fry stocking rates were significant, as were fin- gerling stocking rates, although slightly less so. Another significant factor was miscellaneous operating expenses which represented 22 percent of operating costs and was a catch-all for repair and main- tenance costs, food for laborers, depreciation, rental, and interest. However, because the data were grouped, the possibility of one item being a useful indicator for production was masked. Organic and inorganic fertilizer rates were significant although not greatly different. Chong et al. (13) concluded that these fertil- izers were not used in large enough quantities to measurably affect yield. In contrast, earlier work by Librero et al. (26) showed that fer- tilized ponds averaged 832 kilograms per hectare per year versus 285 kilograms per hectare per year in unfertilized ponds. The con- clusion was that fertilizer use increases production markedly, but these data may be misleading since farm size or other variables were not taken into account. Farm size was significant according to Chong et al. (13), although there was a difference between privately owned and leased farms. Increased production was more affected by size on privately owned farms than on leased farms. In addition, economies of scale were positive, indicating that the average size farm (16.2 hectares) could increase profits by increasing level of inputs. Chong et al. (13) also reported on a number of variables that were not significantly correlated with production. Acclimatization time for fry and fingerlings did not affect production. A better measure of the effect of acclimatization might have included temperature, sal- inity, or pH. That information was probably not available since they stated the "purpose and process of acclimatization is not clearly understood by the farmers." Hired labor was not significant because it was not a good measure of total labor, which also includes family labor. Number of years experience in milkfish farming was also not significant, and they concluded that "recent information in im- proved methods of production is, apparently, either not reaching the majority of milkfish producers, or not being adopted by them." Other factors that affect management are pond construction and lay- out, ability to control water, fertilization programs, and sources of marketing information. Application of pesticides had no statistically significant effect although fish farmers claimed the use of pesticides was important. Since all producers used about the same amount of pesticide, a significant correlation would be difficult to detect. Per- haps the type of pesticide ranked by known effect would have been a better measure. Librero et al. (26) stated that farms that used pes- ticides averaged 338 kilograms per hectare higher yield than farms not using pesticides, table 9. Chong is completing research on "constraints to higher yields of milkfish farms in selected areas of the Philippines, 1981." That sur- vey includes more detail on variables which were significant in the report summarized above, data on government loan programs, value and frequency of extension work contacts, full- versus part- time owners, and occupational history The degree of vertical inte- gration should also be measured as a possible variable in predicting pond production, because many pond owners are also fry conces- sionaires, dealers, and nursery pond operators, table 4. Other correlations might also be examined. For example, Librero et al. (26) stated that fishpond operators with bigger fishponds tended to be more innovative in their operations. The question arises as to whether innovative people are attracted to big fishponds 17 TABLE 9. ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS PER HECTARE BY USE OF FERTILIZERS, BY REGION' Pesos/hectare, by region Country Item I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI average Did not use fertilizer Total receipts ......................... 3,471 2,275 1,186 1,243 1,199 2,390 622 1,205 778 1,258 1,550 1,270 Total expenses ........................ 1,258 533 846 896 510 1,164 468 459 354 480 1,166 646 Net return............................ 2,213 1,742 340 347 689 1,226 154 746 424 778 384 624 Did use fertilizer Total receipts ......................... 3,650 1,750 2,843 1,870 922 3,032 1,157 1,521 599 1,854 -- 2;510 2,668 Total expenses ........................ 1,860 920 1,998 1,091 474 2,046 722 738 323 873 1,704 1,755 Net return............................ 1,790 830 836 779 448 986 435 783 276 981 806 913 Used organic fertilizer Total receipts ......................... 2,814 1,760 3,148 2,356 903 1,731 752 1,155 841 1,398 3,934 2,358 Total expenses ........................ 1,880 1,344 2,490 1,557 438 976 559 448 429 912 1,608 1,760 Net return............................. 934 416 658 799 465 755 193 707 412 486 2,326 598 Used inorganic fertilizer Total receipts ......................... 3,742 2,856 2,550 1,263 1,019 3,118 1,318 1,556 476 1,698 2,331 2,628 Total expenses ......................... 1,803 1,865 1,522 545 598 1,706 869 767 308 606 1,604 1,473 Net returns............................ 1,939 991 1,028 718 421 1,412 449 789 168 1,092 727 1,155 Used organic/inorganic fertilizer Total receipts .......................... 3,241 1,682 2,944 2,998 917 3,032 2,710 - 304 4,046 3,366 2,914 Total expenses ........................ 2,159 758 2,212 2,059 545 2,258 1,081 - 147 1,218 2,479 2,123 Net return............................. 1,082 924 732 939 372 774 1,629 157 2,828 887 791 Average for all ponds Total receipts .......................... 3,625 1,816 2,517 1,683 1,031 3,008 1,026 1,293 701 1,364 2,394 2,294 Total expenses ......................... 1,782 873 1,776 1,032 486 2,015 659 536 339 549 1,637 1,458 Net return............................ 1,843 943 741 651 545 993 367 757 362 815 757 836 From Librero et al. (26). 'Region numbers with assigned provinces are given in Appendix A. or whether the larger ponds force innovations to remain economi- cally viable. This must be considered in light of another conclusion: highest net return per hectare was from farms in the 5- to 10-hectare range. Two of the nonsignificant variables, pesticides and management practices, probably have significant impact on production even though the benefits were not observed in this research. The method of measuring the variables needs greater consideration in further at- tempts to correlate production with inputs. An alternative to Chong's approach is to take a broader perspec- tive of the effects of aquaculture development in the Philippines. This was done by combining the data from Librero (27), the Devel- opment Bank of the Philippines (DBP), and BFAR and analyzing fer- tilizer use, production, earnings, labor, number of extension work- ers, and bank loans provided by the DBP, table 10. A Pearson Correlation was performed; only data significant at p > 0.05 are dis- cussed. Fertilizer use was significantly correlated with gross but not with net earnings. The implication is that the cost of fertilizer is at least as high as the additional income generated. It was also found that a combination of organic and inorganic fertilizer increased where DBP loans were largest. Unfortunately, this information did not in- dicate whether the DBP policy was to make loans to farmers who knew how to fertilize or whether the loans provided the farmers with enough money to buy fertilizer. A comparison of fish farm size to all other variables showed that size was directly related to gross and net earnings, and was nega- tively correlated with the time the owner spent working at the fish- pond business. That is, owners of large farms spent smaller propor- tions of time at the fishpond business compared to the time spent by their caretakers. This also showed that a larger proportion of owner- to-caretaker time did not affect production (kilograms per hectare) or earnings. This is contrary to the comments made by fishpond op- erators. TABLE 10. FERTILIZER USE, FARM SIZE, EARNINGS, LABOR, AND LOANS FOR 1975, BY REGION Result, by region Characteristic I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI Fertilizer used by more than 50% of farmers ............... yes yes yes no yes yes yes no no no yes Predominant fertilizer' ............. .inorg. comb. inorg. comb. org. comb. inorg. inorg. org. org. inorg. Av. size of farm, ha ................ 3.26 10.28 17.34 4.94 9.21 13.17 4.87 33.33 17.29 34.98 9.28 Av. kg/farm ....................... 2,307 3,402 10,608 2,323 2,391 11,888 1,407 10,613 2,921 13,988 4,769 Av. gross earnings/farm, pesos ....... .15,318 18,646 52,634 9,834 11,082 49,279 5,723 46,520 13,376 53,066 28,393 Av. gross earnings/ha .............. 3,625 1,816 2,517 1,618 1,031 3,009 1,025 1,292 701 1,363 2,394 Av. net earnings/farm .............. 7,885 9,688 15,525 3,802 5,840 16,279 2,045 27,214 6,882 31,762 8,956 Av. net earnings/ha ................ 1,843 994 742 651 544 994 367 755 361 816 756 Av. man days/ha/yr ................ 18.3 13.6 17.6 15.4 17.8 13.5 30.5 4.0 9.0 12.7 46.2 Pct. time spent by owner . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.49 0.45 0.12 0.16 0.30 0.14 0.31 0.03 0.19 0.02 0.07 No. of extension and technical workers 1978 ............ 31 12 24 25 26 25 11 6 22 33 55 Total tons fish produced by aquaculture ................... 6,525 134 21,486 14,736 3,745 39,692 2,884 3,175 6,912 3,962 3,209 Pesos (millions) loaned by DBP, 1976 .................... 1.369 1.488 1.784 17.941 1.080 26.890 1.389 0.420 1.149 1.535 2.773 No. ofDBPloans.................. 46 36 54 179 25 232 19 6 11 16 56 'Organic, inorganic, combination. 2 Data for 1974. 3 Percent of time spent by owner or owner + caretaker. 18 Production was positively correlated with the amount and num- ber of loans given by the DBP, although net earnings were not. This would mean that government loans helped produce more fish, but did not improve the income of the operators. This could be an arti- fact of the distribution of DBP loans, because most loans are given in Region VI where the problem of marketing may have caused lower net incomes. The number of extension workers was correlated only with the number of man-hours spent per hectare per year. From this, it could be hypothesized that extension workers have communicated infor- mation on the details of preparing fishponds, fertilizing, and similar activities. However, the number of extension workers may simply in dicate government's interest in expanding fishpond production. Serious questions have been raised regarding the accuracy of sta- tistics on fishpond area, production, and yield. Fishpond area has remained constant through the years, and total production is esti- mated based on a survey of production per hectare per province done by the Bureau of Fisheries and Statistics in the late 1950's. Any inaccuracies in the area and production data are reflected in the yield per hectare. Also, these data are reported only on a national basis, which limits analysis to this level. Regional differences are dif- ficult to analyze except from research done at different times in spe- cific locations. Thus, systematic time series analysis on a regional ba- sis cannot be done. GOVERNMENTAL FACTORS The Philippine National Development Plan estimates that fish production will expand at the rate of 5.6 percent per year from 1978 to 1982, thus increasing domestic fish supply from 1.6 million to al- most 2 million metric tons. By 1987, fish supply must increase to 2.4 million tons. While municipal fisheries will still account for the ma- jority of total fish production, the assumption is that coastal capture fisheries will increase at an annual rate of 4.6 percent per year, and aquaculture will expand at a rate of 9.8 percent per year. What is the probability of continued growth now that limitations on further de- velopment of mangrove areas exist? What is the potential for brack- ishwater production and freshwater production, and how is the gov- ernment planning to maintain aquacultural production growth rates? This section addresses the ability and commitment of the GRP to support aquacultural development as reflected in the quality and magnitude of support from service institutions and agencies, finan- cial institutions, and external assistance organizations (e.g. AID). Financial and Credit Institutions After technical and economic feasibility of a project has been demonstrated, funding is usually the main constraint on the aqua- culture industry in the Philippines. Current government loan pro- grams are a long-term constraint to economic development of fish- ponds. The banks are inherently conservative. Their loans are limited to P25,000 to P30,000 per hectare, which is less than re- quired in several regions where the cost of land, labor, and other in- puts is high, for example in Capiz where P40,000 per hectare is needed. Government policy makers realized this problem and ini- tiated steps to provide the needed financial support. The Develop- ment Bank of the Philippines (DBP) is the mainsource of credit for economic development of small-, medium-, and large-scale indus- tries, including fisheries and aquaculture. The DBP acquires exter- nal funding from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and other foreign loan sources. Government banks involved in fisheries and aquacultural development include the Central Bank and the Philippine National Bank. The former, through the widely scattered rural banks under its supervision, is to provide loans for small-scale fisheries and aquacultural ventures. The latter bank is also author- ized to support selected fisheries and aquacultural projects. The Ag- riculture Credit Administration can provide funding for aquacul- tural projects through cooperatives. All these government credit institutions are supplemented by funding from private banks in the country The World Bank loan through the DBP in support of brack- ishwater aquaculture expansion and intensification is considered successful. It has completed Phase I, implemented in 1972, which was a loan of $9.81 million. Phase II for $9.55 million, implemented in 1976, was completed in 1982. Plans are now underway for a Phase III (scheduled implementation in 1982) estimated at $18.4 million. The Philippine Fish Marketing Authority is charged with coor- dinating and installing facilities for handling various fisheries prod- ucts. It has a central national fish market with attached fishing port, and is in the process of establishing regional fish markets and fishing ports in strategic fish production areas of the country. The National Food and Agriculture Council attached to the Min- istry of Agriculture is charged with accelerating the production of food crops. Among its fisheries-related projects is the promotion of rice-fish culture using previously organized infrastructure under its Masagana 99 rice production sufficiency program. The Bureau of Cooperative Development, also under the Ministry of Agriculture, is charged with organization of cooperatives within the country. One of its targets is the development of producer cooperatives in fisheries and aquaculture, especially aimed at assisting the small producers. Although several initial projects have failed, there are a few suc- cessful examples which may become models for future development. The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) is a regional development agency specifically charged with multiple use devel- opment of Laguna de Bay Lake, the biggest freshwater body in the Philippines. Besides looking into the water quality, industrial uses, water supply possibility, and fishing potential, the LLDA has also been responsible for stimulating development of the multimillion peso fishpen aquaculture industry in the lake. At present it admin- isters and monitors this industry and is in the process of imple- menting financial assistance for the increase of small-scale fishpen projects. This is being done through an Asian Development Bank loan to the government. Recent Government Programs Two socially oriented government programs were recently initi- ated with heavy involvement in fisheries and aquaculture: (1) the Bi- yayang Dagat-79 credit program, and (2) Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran program, commonly called KKK. Biyayang Dagat proj- ects started in 1979 to provide credit to small producers with iden- tified projects in target areas. It is also concerned with expanding and improving the extension service function of the BFAR. For aqua- culture, there are loans for equipment, structures, and operating costs; freshwater species cultured in small ponds (from 1/2 to 1 hec- tare); and operating costs ofbrackishwater fishponds smaller than 10 hectares. Funds are distributed through the network of rural banks. For various reasons, this program has been only partially successful. The KKK program, begun in August 1981, is only in the implemen- tation phase. It aims to stimulate economic and social development of the entire country by transforming the 42,000 villages into self- reliant productive communities. The method is the establishment of livelihood projects that are owned and managed by the community residents. The projects are in such fields as agroforestry, agrolive- stock, waste utilization, cottage and light project industries, shelter materials, and aquaculture. Possible aquacultural projects include communal fishfarm estates (using ponds, pens, or cages), communal fish hatcheries, and seafarming of oysters, seaweed, and mussels. Priority beneficiaries include landless workers, subsistence fisher- men, urban slum dwellers, minorities, out-of-school youths, and disabled persons. Local officials assist in the program, and the na- tional extension services also take active part. KKK project recipi- ents receive technical and marketing training, infrastructure sup- 19 port, and assistance in project development and management. The program has strong government support as reflected in the fact that the national committee is of the highest level and includes a national secretariat. Support Services for Aquacultural Development Other government agencies provide full or partial support for aquacultural development. The number has increased over the years, but some date back to the 1930's. For example, prior to World War II the government established the National Foods Corporation as a subsidiary of the National Development Company. The aim was to develop a large brackishwater fishpond project to demonstrate the commercial operation of a vertically integrated venture. It included a few hundred hectares of fishponds, equipment and facilities to process the products, and the machinery to market, handle, and dis- tribute the processed goods. After a few years of operation, some of the facilities were destroyed during World War II and others dete- riorated. Although results were initially encouraging, the project was abandoned after the war and the ponds reverted to private use. PUBLIC SERVICE INSTITUTIONS In recent years many technological, social, and economic changes have encouraged Philippine fish farmers to intensify fish production efforts. This section describes the major changes that have occurred in public institutions during the evolution of the aquaculture indus- try. These institutions are grouped here in four categories: admin- istrative, educational, research, and extension. Administrative Institutions Administrative institutions in aquaculture plan and set policy, provide support or financing, and fix laws or regulations related to aquacultural production. Administrative programs may bear di- rectly on the production sector or may be indirectly involved, such as with development of public works, markets, credit, and overall aquaculture programs. Historical reports maintain certain forms of aquaculture existed in the Philippines during the early 16th century. Actual practices probably began in the early 15th century. However, there are no rec- ords of specialized government fisheries institutions charged with administering or managing this type of economic activity during the Spanish era (1521-1898). The only records available on fisheries dur- ing that period include scattered reports of specific resource surveys and taxonomic reports. Agencies were first charged with fisheries responsibilities during the United States regime (1900-1946). One policy was to develop the country's fishery resources. Consequently, in 1907 a Fisheries Sec- tion was organized in the then Bureau of Government Laboratories, staffed by only one person (an expatriate named Alvin Seale). The U.S. government dispatched the research vessel Albatross for an oceanographic and fishery resource survey during 1907-10. The Bureau of Government Laboratories was later expanded and reorganized into the Bureau of Science, which included a Division of Fisheries. On January 1, 1933, the Division was enlarged into a Fish and Game Administration. This was formed by fusion of the Di- vision of Forest Fauna and Grazing under the Bureau of Forestry with the Divisions of Fisheries and Zoology of the Bureau of Sci- ence. Administration was placed directly under the Department of Agriculture and Commerce. On September 27, 1934, the Fish and Game Administration was returned to the Bureau of Science. On July 1, 1939, a new Division of Fisheries in the Department of Ag- riculture and Commerce was organized by returning Forest Fauna and Grazing to the Bureau of Forestry and Zoology to the Bureau of Science. During World War II Japan occupied the Philippines from 1942 to 1945. During the early part of the Japanese Period, a Bureau of Forestry and Fishery was created (1942-43). In 1944 fisheries func- tions were assigned to a separate office called Bureau of Fisheries. After the war, under American Commonwealth rule, the old Divi- sion of Fisheries was restored to the Department of Agriculture and Commerce, reorganized as the Department of Agriculture and Nat- ural Resources (DANR). Philippine independent rule started in 1946 with most of the established administrative offices, including fisheries, being continued during the transition period. An enlarged Bureau of Fisheries (BOF) was organized by Repub- lic Act No. 177 on July 1, 1947. By this time the expanded Bureau included the Philippine Institute of Fisheries Technology and seven secondary fisheries schools. Later, on January 16, 1957, the educa- tional functions of the Bureau of Fisheries were transferred to other offices. The Institute of Fisheries Technology was transferred to the University of the Philippines (UP) and became the UP College of Fisheries (UPCF). The fisheries secondary schools, of which an ad- ditional seven were added, were transferred to the Bureau of Public Schools in the Department of Education. In 1963, the Bureau of Fisheries was converted into the Philip- pine Fisheries Commission within the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and in 1972 they reverted to the old name, Bureau of Fisheries. In 1974, with a shift from a presidential to a quasi-parliamentary government, the various cabinet rank depart- ments were converted into ministries. Agriculture and Natural Re- sources was divided into two ministries: a Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) and a Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). The Bureau of Fisheries was again reorganized into the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under the MNR with the Office of the Minister responsible for fisheries policies. It remains known as BFAR to date. During the period the fisheries office was at the division level, a section, variously named Fish Culture/Inland Fisheries/Fisheries Biology and Conservation, was responsible for aquaculture. By 1980, BFAR consisted of 14 divisions plus 13 regional fisheries of- fices. The divisions are: Administration, Finance, Planning and Management, Legal, Fisheries Training, Fisheries Conservation and Enforcement, Fisheries Utilization, Fisheries Economics and Infor- mation, Technological Services, Fisheries Licenses, Fish Propaga- tion, Fisheries Research, Fisheries Extension, and Fisheries Engi- neering. Of these, the Fish Propagation Division has full involvement in aquaculture while Fisheries Training, Fisheries Eco- nomics and Information, Fisheries Research, and Fisheries Exten- sion have partial responsibility for aquaculture. The different Fish- eries Regional Offices are involved in aquaculture and may have specific units for aquaculture. Fisheries policies are formulated through the Fishery Industry Development Council, an agency under the MNR. The Develop- ment Council, in consultation with the Office of the Minister and BFAR, formulates the plans and programs of fisheries development for the country, while BFAR is the implementing agency. Fisheries programs are incorporated in the "National Economic Development Plan," which includes both a medium-term (5-year) and long-term plan. The National Economic Development Authority assembles the various programs of the different agencies of the gov- ernment into a national economic development program. It oversees and monitors the implementation of this program by the different government agencies. It also coordinates all external inputs. Educational Institutions Fish farming in the Philippines was three centuries old before formal education and training in fisheries were first begun. The first recorded training specifically on fisheries biology was started in the UP College of Agriculture in the late 1920's. 20 The following excerpt from Mane (32) describes early training de- velopment in fisheries: "College training in fisheries work was initiated in the Philippines at the College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines. In 1924 a member of the teaching staff of the College, Deogracias V Villa- dolid, B. Agr., B.S.A., was sent to the United States for 3 years as a fellow at the University of the Philippines for advanced training in zoology and fisheries at Stanford University Upon his return in 1927 he worked for the inclusion of fisheries subjects in the curriculum of the College of Agriculture. Finally, in 1930, the College established the Limnological Station on the shores of Laguna de Bay at Mayon- don, Los Banos, Laguna Province and included in its curriculum a course on 'Introductory Economic Ichthyology' under agricultural zoology. Students majoring in agricultural zoology with thesis prob- lems in freshwater fisheries biology were required to take this course. These students became the pioneers in research work in fisheries biology in this country. "Some outstanding achievements of the fisheries training in the College of Agriculture were the publication of important facts ob- tained from researchers on ecology, life history and biology of some of the most important aquatic fauna of Laguna de Bay, and the train- ing of a number of students later to become outstanding fisheries workers in the Philippines. "In 1936 the College of Liberal Arts of the University of the Phil- ippines offered a four-year course leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Fisheries. The course was intended to turn out grad- uates who would be competent to do research work in fisheries bi- ology and systematic ichthyology. Theoretical training was also given on the methods of fish capture, fish preservation and fish culture About 10 students started the first fisheries course, 6 of which graduated in 1940. The program was then interrupted by World War II. Mane was among Dr. Villadolid's first students in 1927, which also included E Alonte, E Arriola, D. Bunos, P Manacop, A. Nono, and others. The initial few agricultural graduates who majored in fish- eries later became the primary staff in planning and implementing national fishery programs. Other Filipinos received foreign training in fisheries during the 1920's, including H. Montalban, E Talavera, J. Montilla, G. Ablan, and G. Blanco. In 1936 when the UP College of Liberal Arts in the Manila cam- pus started courses toward a Bachelor of Science in fisheries, the curriculum included major options such as fishing methods, fish cul- ture, and fish preservation. The six original graduates were divided among the majors. After a short interruption at the outbreak of World War II, the UP resumed classes during the Japanese occu- pation, and after independence the baccalaureate course in fisheries allowed previously enrolled students to graduate but no new stu- dents were admitted because of inadequate funds and lack of facil- ities. A total of 18 persons graduated from the program. The Philippine School of Fisheries was established in 1944 within the old Bureau of Fisheries at Navotas, Rizal, near Manila. It oper- ated for only about 3 months before closing as a result of increased intensity of the war. The school was reopened in 1946 offering 2 1/2- year practical curricula in fish capture, fish culture, and fish pres- ervation. It also offered practical opportunity courses for an un- specified period based on the desire of the registrant. The school was later renamed Philippine Institute of Fisheries Technology so that it could be retained in the Bureau of Fisheries as a training in- stitute rather than a school in the Department of Education. It of- fered college-level instruction to graduates of recognized high schools, and had 40-50 students enrolled each year. Students in the Institute were generally of normal ability, choosing the tuition-free school because of low cost and employment opportunities upon graduation. The fish culture course was practically oriented, and used the Bureau of Fisheries experimental farm at nearby Dagat- dagatan lagoon for laboratory work. Course requirements in fish cul- ture included a 6-month practicum at a commercial fish farm or sim- ilar experience. About 15 students, mostly males, were in each class. Graduates were generally employed in the Bureau or in one of the regional or vocational fisheries schools, but a few went to family- owned or other private fish farms or left the fishery sector com- pletely. REGIONAL AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS. In 1949, seven fisheries vocational schools opened under the Bureau of Fisheries in Catbalogan (Samar Province), Tabaco (Albay Province), Daanban- tayan (Cebu Province), Tibiao (Antique Province), Zamboanga (Zamboanga Province), Estancia (Iloilo Province), and Nasugbu (Ba- tangas Province). In 1957, the Bureau was reorganized, and the sec- ondary fisheries schools, which by then had increased to 14, were transferred to the Bureau of Public Schools in the Department of Education. At this time the Institute of Fisheries Technology was also transferred to the UP to become, in 1959, the UP College of Fisheries (UPCF) in Diliman, Quezon City Additional secondary fisheries schools were established, and others were upgraded to be- come regional fisheries colleges (e.g. Zsmboanga and Tabaco). By 1977 there were five such programs offering degrees or diplomas (post secondary training) with a total enrollment of 1,500 students. Although facilities for fisheries education have expanded consis- tently since World War II, it is doubtful whether much training deals with aquaculture. In the early 1970's, education and training were consolidated and upgraded under the Educational Development Projects Implementing Task Force (EDPITAF). All levels of fisheries education and training have been included in this program. A sys- tem of fishery secondary schools developed across the country, and in 1975 all secondary schools adopted the same core curriculum rec- ommended by a national task force. By 1977 there were almost 70 fishery secondary schools with a total enrollment of 20,000 students. They used a common comprehensive national curriculum, with fish- ery subjects being covered during practical arts, which amounted to about 10 percent of the overall learning time. UP COLLEGE OF FISHERIES. The UPCF started 2/2-year di- ploma courses in 1957, and added a 4-year B. S. in fisheries, with ma- jors in marine fisheries, inland fisheries, and fish processing tech- nology. In 1980, the Diliman campus, with an Inland Fisheries faculty of 13, had 140 students enrolled in the fish culture diploma course and 100 students in the B.S. major in inland fisheries course. In 1974, with establishment of the UPCF Brackishwater Aquacul- ture Center (BAC) in Leganes, Iloilo, the UPCF-BAC and the UP Iloilo campus initiated a joint B.S. fisheries degree program. By the first semester 1980-81, 47 undergraduate students were enrolled in this program. A graduate study program for the M.S. in fisheries, major in aquaculture, also began in the second semester of the 1974- 75 school year, built particularly upon the resources available at the BAC (with linkages to the Freshwater Aquaculture Center at Central Luzon State University) and, since 1976, with formal collaboration with the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAF- DEC) Aquaculture Department. A nonthesis Master of Aquaculture program has also recently been added by the UPCE Currently, UP programs in the Iloilo area are being consolidated into a new unit called the UP Visayas (UPV). A new campus headquartered at Miag-ao, Iloilo, will include the BAC and the UP Iloilo College of Arts and Sciences, and will focus on fishery training. The UPCF is scheduled to move to Miag-ao by mid-1983, but there is some resis- tance to this move. Counter proposals are being suggested by staff in Diliman. The new campus development is financed as part of the World Bank loan through the EDPITAF program for fisheries edu- cation development. The current graduate faculty at the BAC (Brackishwater Aquaculture Center), including those from SEAF- DEC on full or affiliate appointment, numbers 20. Graduate student enrollment for 1981-82 is 52 students, 23 of which are female, 17 for- 21 eign-sponsored, and 32 receiving domestic support (principally from the Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Re- search and Development). Shuttle transportation is provided to the BAC or SEAFDEC training sites from Iloilo City. Tuition for the M.S. fisheries students is P468.50 per semester (approximately $57). From the first graduate in October 1977 to December 31, 1982, 44 thesis research projects have been completed in the M.S. pro- gram: 17 by females and 5 by foreign students (3 from Indonesia and 2 from Nigeria). CENTRAL LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY. With the establish- ment of the Freshwater Aquaculture Center (FAC) at Central Luzon State University (CLSU) in 1972, fish farming subjects were incor- porated into the general agricultural B.S. curriculum. This led to the creation of a department which now is the College of Inland Fisheries with a faculty of 11 that offers B.S. and M.S. degrees. En- rollment in the B.S. program has been growing: 162 were enrolled in 1978-79 and 233 in 1980-81. This contrasts with a decline in en- rollment in the common first year for all undergraduate programs from 1,418 to 845, a trend also seen in other state colleges and uni- versities in agriculture. Major contributing factors to this downward trend, also likely to affect future student representation in fisheries, are "(1) inflation and high cost of transportation; (2) the shift in the demand for nonagricultural graduates particularly in the Middle East; (3) the proliferation of state and private agricultural schools in nearby provinces; and (4) the regional and national manpower needs in agriculture have almost been attained" (11). OTHER SCHOOLS. In 1978-79, partly as preparation for a World Bank loan for fisheries education development, the overall public higher education program in fisheries was reorganized. Un- der the plan, the University of the Philippines Visayas (UPV) was created with a fisheries program intended to be "the apex national fishery training program" as well as to serve the higher educational needs in fisheries for the central Philippines. Central Luzon State University was to continue as the regional fishery school for Luzon, and Mindanao State University was to serve the southern region. The UPV was to phase out the 2-year diploma program and to shore up its capabilities in all aspects of fisheries and marine science. The national colleges of fisheries will offer undergraduate and graduate curricula in fisheries to provide core staff for research and faculty. As a second level of higher education, seven Regional Institutes of Fishery Technology have been identified to give technical post-sec- ondary diploma courses and phase out their B.S. fisheries programs if already established. The plan presumably also calls for phasing out fishery programs in other regional technical colleges. Regional In- stitutes for training extension workers and technicians for various in- dustries in fisheries and aquaculture are: Cagayan State University College of Fisheries Aparri, Cagayan (Region II) Palawan National Agricultural College Puerto Princesa, Palawan (Region IV) Bicol University College of Fisheries Tabaco, Albay (Region V) Quirino School of Fisheries Carmen, Cebu (Region VII) Samar Regional Fisheries Technical School Catabalogan, Samar (Region VIII) Mindanao Regional School of Fisheries Zamboanga, Zamboanga del Sur (Region IX) Davao del Norte School of Fisheries Panabo, Davao del Norte (Region XI) Enrollment for 1981-82 was 2,850, with 940 specializing in inland fisheries. In addition, seven Regional Fishermen's Training Centers will provide a third level of education by offering practical training for fishermen and fish farmers. Development of both Regional Insti- tutes and Training Centers is implemented under the EDPITAF with funds from the World Bank loan. DISCUSSION. Thei GOP commitment to fisheries education is appropriate given the importance of fish and fishing in the country. Filipino families are generally willing to make considerable sacrifice to educate their children. Education gives social status, higher in- come, and may result in increased family security A certificate or diploma, followed by an appropriate job, is the desired end of the process. Fisheries education has been relatively inexpensive, and, at least in the case of the UPCF until recent years, had low admission standards. This means that students of limited financial resources (such as girls in families where first priority in education goes to the boys) or of marginal academic ability have gravitated into fisheries courses. This would explain, in part, the high proportion of females enrolled in fisheries courses. Graduates in fish culture have not been particularly sought after by the private sector. Many private producers contend that "costly school-learned techniques" are inferior to their own current prac- tices, and they stigmatize recent graduates as being ill-trained. The same stigma carried over to graduates who found employment in ex- tension work. Those in education tended to teach what they had learned, so there was little infusion of new ideas or relationship of the subject matter to what was marketable in the private economy. The few graduates with exceptional ability or good fortune who re- ceived postgraduate or other advanced training have been in de- mand because of expansion of educational and other public sector programs. They generally have moved into administrative positions. The recent development of educational programs in fish culture at the UPCF and CLSU appears to be a by-product of the development of research programs at the Brackishwater Aquaculture Center, the Freshwater Aquaculture Center, and SEAFDEC. The new research programs required a faculty to staff academic programs. The high- level training and research activities of the staff provided a new in- fusion of information valuable to the private sector. Graduate stu- dents provide much of the manpower used in the daily operation of research projects. Thus we conclude that a vital research program is a key to a quality fish culture educational program. Nonacademic use of the more progressive fish culture educational programs seems to be good. The schools have participated in a num- ber of special training programs for vocational school teachers, farmer extension programs, KKK programs, and others. The appli- cations from foreign students also suggest an importance beyond na- tional boundaries. Research Institutions Early aquatic research in the Philippines was confined to taxo- nomic and observational reports. The most prolific publisher was A. Herre, an American working at the Bureau of Science in Manila, who published more than 100 scientific and popular papers on ichthyology and related topics in the period 1921 to 1948. His de- scription of the milkfish culture system (21) stands as a benchmark for the state of the industry at that time. Other descriptions followed in later years by Adams et al. (1), Carbine (12), and Bardach et al. (6). The Bureau of Fisheries had the early responsibility for ap- plied research. It opened an oyster demonstration farm in Bacoor Bay, Binakaya, Kawit, Cavite Province, in 1935 to test various meth- ods of setting and rearing oysters in Manila Bay. The farm is still in operation but is likely to close because of reclamation activity in the Bay. A freshwater hatchery was also established on the shores of La- guna de Bay at Tanay, Rizal, in 1939. Research on milkfish pond culture started with the opening of the 22 Dagatdagatan Salt-Water Fishers Experiment Station at Dagat-Da- gatan Lagoon, \Ialabon, Nasotas, Rizal Prosvince, in 1938. The sta- tion had anl area of 10 hectares plus about 5 hectares of adljacent leased pond area. Researchers insvestigated stocking rates, fertiliz- ation, feeding, and species coin binatmuns. Urban encroach ment re- sulted in siltation and pollution of the waters so the station wvas closed in the mid 1970's. The succession of directors of the station include 1). K. Vmilaluz, Pedro Acosta, 1I. Rabanal, R. Esguerra, and I. A. Ronqimillo, all of swhom hase been active in subsequent aqua- cultural desvelopment activ ities in the Philippines. In the 1950's, the Bureau of Fisheries began establishiiig a net- svork of fish culture demonstration arid training stations around the countr. There are currently about 40 brackishsvater, 31 freshwater, and seseral sea farming trial sites. Research was originally con- ducted at these units, but little has been published. Some basic biological research was conducted during the 1950's and 1960's at the universities and inl public agencies. UPCF estab- lished the Institute of Fisheries D~eselopment anid Research. Min- danao State Unisversity conducted some shrimp culture research in the late 1960's. The Laguna Lake Desvelopment Authority colleen- trated onl biological studies, gathering statistical information about lake fisheries and describing a svariety of fish product uses. In 1971, the Philippine Gosermnt initiated serious research in pond aquaculture. This led to the creation of the Inland Fisheries Project, a program to build both a brackishwater and freshwater pond and laboratory research stations. The National Science Djevel- opment Board provided most local financing, and USAID funded overseas staff training, equipment purchase, and technical assist- ance. Because of the emphasis onl research, the UPCF through its Institute of Fisheries Dev elopment and Research, wsas designated the oserall implementing agenc, wimth CLSI. as a partner inl the es- tablishment of the freshswater stationi. The research stations were of- ficially designated in the mid 1970's as the Brackishwater Aquacul- ture Center (BAC) under the UPCF and the Freshwater Aquaculture Center (FAC) under CLSU. BPRACKISHWVATER AQUACU[TURE CENTER. With the sup- port of anl enthusiastic group of local fishpond operators, the mnlic ipality of Leganies in Iloilo Prosvince provided 50 hectares Of uiunic- ipal-owned traditional brackishwater fishpond land to the Inland Research at the Bracklshwater Aquaculture Center has made prog- ress in combating acid soil conditions and in establishing vegetative cover for dikes. Fisheries Project for dev elopment of the brackishss ater research sta- tion. Initial construction inv olve modei~lst lahorators structures and excavation and diking of the land into series of small research pon0ds. In spite of dlifficulties, the station noss has a complex of support buildings and dozens of operational poinds for experimentation. The BAC has become an autonomnous operational unit within the new UPV and is fully integrated wsith the UPCF-SEAFDEC graduate program in aqjuacultuire. Staff generally hasejoint responsibilities in teaching and administration. The BAC receiv es a direct line-itemn appropriation in the national budget (PS55,000 in 1981). There are also research projects ssvith special funding in four main areas: cul- ture s\ stemns, frx and fingerling sur\ is al, use of agricultural by products, and] acid-sulfate soils. Thes alsu hiase special programs for pesticidles, energ, parasites, and diseases, and hope to include fish breeding aiid genetics. 'F Research in integrated animal and fish production at Central Luzon State University. FRESHWATER AQUACI..LTURE CENTER. The location of the freshwater station under the Inland Fisheries Project at CLSU re- sulted principally from the willingness of President Fernando Cain pos to provide land for the station within the U.niversity farmn area and to join with the UPCF in developing the station. Earlier at- tempts to locate on Mindanao were frustrated by the distance from Manila and the questionable security there. The initial statiom, with 60 small research ponds (100- and .500-s quare -meter) and a labora- tory building, was inaugurated iii 1973. Since then, additional ponds, buildings, and a rice-fish experimental area swere deseloped. The FAC is now fully operated by CIL5U with staff generally sharing appointments with the academic College of Inland Fisheries. SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CEN- TER (SEAFDEC). In 1974, the regional SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department wvas established in the Philippines. The original thrust of SEAFDEC wvas to be in shrimp production research principally with assistance of the Japanese government swith Mindanao State University as lead counterpart. A~ 10-hectare site adjacent to the In- land Fisheries Project site in Leganes, Iloilo, was resersed, and land on the coast of Tigbauan, svest of Iloilo Cit, was secured for dievel- opment of' an expansive research anid training facility. Additional land was also leased at Leganes for construction of more ponds and support buildings. Besides work on the biology and cultivation of shrimp, thme Aquaculture Department has worked on the reproduc- tion of milkfmsh and a variety of other research projects with crus- taceans, miolluscs, and finfish. A number of substations, including a freshwater research center at Binangonan on Laguna de Bay, have been established. They are now independent of Mindanao State University but have an agreement for cooperative training with the UPCE MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY. This university operates the Institute of Fisheries Research and Development at Naawan, Misamis Oriental. The Institute attracted some attention in 1969 with the successful reproduction of the shrimp Penaeus monodon under laboratory conditions. The Aquaculture Department of the Institute has several modest projects dealing with development of hatchery technology, feeds, pond culture techniques, and parasite and disease identification with particular emphasis on marine crus- taceans and molluscs. The department is led by three research as- sociates with M. S. degrees. PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RE- SOURCES RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT. In November 1972, the Philippine Council for Agricultural Research was created by presidential decree as a central coordinating agency attached to the National Science Development Board for approval of all governmen- tally sponsored agricultural research. The scope of the council was subsequently expanded to include mining resources, and the name was amended twice to what is currently the Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research and Development (PCARRD). The Council not only approves, but also helps plan, fund, develop capacity, and publish research activities. Its secretariat at Los Banos operates under policies set by a governing council and an advisory technical program planning and review board. For each major sub- ject area under its jurisdiction, a commodity team of local research- ers serves part-time to plan, coordinate, review, and evaluate re- search programs in their respective areas. There are separate fisheries commodity teams for marine fisheries, aquaculture, and inland fisheries. Priorities for aquacultural research, including socio-economic and biological topics, have been developed and updated through na- tional workshops convened for this purpose. Where needed, the Council can commission research to address these priorities or pro- vide scholarships to generate research skills related to priorities. For the period 1973-81, the Council lists 283 completed projects in aquaculture in different disciplines by different agencies, and there are approximately 85 ongoing projects approved beyond 1981 (36). Budget requirements for all approved aquaculture projects from all sources in 1981 totaled approximately P4.5 million. About 40 percent of the total was from the Council's budget, 29 percent from the National Science Development Board, 16 percent directly from implementing school budgets, 6 percent from BFAR, 5 percent from the Natural Resource Management Center, and 4 percent from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAEcon). Of the combined NSDB-PCARRD budget for aquacultural research projects in 1981, 51 percent went to CLSU, 29 percent to the UP System, and 18 per- cent to other institutions to fund projects on the culture of seaweed and the controlled breeding of migratory fishes in Naujan lake. To develop research capabilities in the national research network, the Council provides scholarships for B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in aquaculture and related fields. DISCUSSION. The research facilities for aquaculture built over the past decade are certainly impressive. Physical facilities should not be a limiting factor for research in the foreseeable future. Li- brary facilities to support research in aquaculture are rather lim- ited, but in a field of rapidly evolving technology, extensive historical holdings are not as important as in some disciplines. The need for support to maintain and operate research facilities and research li- braries should be recognized before further physical expansion of research facilities is contemplated. Workshops, seminars, and other meetings sponsored by organi- zations such as PCARRD (Philippine Council for Agriculture Re- sources Research Development), SEAFDEC, the International Center for Living Aquatic Resource Management (ICLARM), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN provide avenues for disseminating research findings. Their respective newsletters and publications have facilitated a considerable information ex- change between researchers, program administrators, and the pri- vate sector. The Fisheries Research Society of the Philippines started in 1976 with 114 charter and active members. By 1979 it had grown to 334 members, about one-third of which considered aquaculture as their special interest. The Society has already published five volumes of a semi-annual journal, the Fisheries Research Journal of the Phil- ippines. A major problem in aquaculture research and development has been the lack of well-trained leaders, particularly at the Ph.D. level. This concern was expressed at each of the research centers visited (CLSU, UPV, and SEAFDEC). A major cause has been the rapid growth of the centers. The problem is worsened by low pay scales at the universities and in government compared to high-paying con- sultancies at home and abroad. Funding agencies have countered with honoraria for specific research projects, but this has not been adequate. The trend is toward research in absentia, with project leaders delegating most of the work to poorly directed or unqualified technicians or students. There also appears to be a proliferation of small projects with minimal reporting of results. Obviously, this pattern is not unique to aquaculture or to the Philippines, but it is of real concern when considering the quality of future aquaculture research. Extension Institutions Extension, the process of informal education by which technology is diffused beyond the classroom, is a primary function of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. A major division within the BFAR is the Extension Division within the central office and each regional office. The following excerpt from the FIDC Integrated Fisheries Development Plan for the 1980's (17) gives an indication of the BFAR extension scope and mission in aquaculture: "As of 1979, BFAR extension manpower for aquaculture is about 267. Of this total, 218 or 82 percent are assigned to brackishwater fishponds, 33 or 12 percent to freshwater fishponds and the remain- ing 16 or 6 percent to seafarming (mussel and oyster culture). At present, an extension worker for brackishwater fishponds services an average area of 800 hectares. Such a wide area coverage naturally will result in poor technology transfer. To accelerate effective dis- semination of technology, additional extension workers need to be recruited within the five-year period 1981-1985. On the assumption that an extension worker can effectively service a maximum area of 200 hectares, a total of 678 extension workers should be recruited for existing areas and 50 for the newly developed areas. The 39 exten- sion workers who are assumed to be excess in their respective prov- inces would be re-assigned in provinces which lack enough exten- sion workers . . . . Intensive training of all extension workers on culture of new species, especially tilapia and shellfish, is necessary to support the development plan. . "Extension services that will be provided will include the follow- ing: a) Technical assistance in the construction, operation and main- tenance of fishponds, fishpens and fishcages. b) Technical assistance in the preparation of fisheries project fea- sibility studies and in their implementation. c) Conduct lectures, seminars and workshops on aquaculture techniques. 24 d) Demonstration on proper handling, storage, transport of fish and on the various processing technologies such as drying, salting, smoking, deboning, etc." BFAR has many programs associated with aquaculture extension. The operation of the aforementioned 70 + demonstration fish farms/ hatcheries/seed banks is an example. BFAR also sponsors an annual Fish Conservation Week in October in which special posters, pub- lications, and other communication media are directed to fishery af- fairs. Extension agents are assigned to the Development Bank of the Philippines in 11 regions of the country to assist in the preparation of loan requests and to provide technical assistance to borrowers who have secured loans for fish pond development. Similar support services are available to borrowers under the Biyayang Dagat Pro- gram in which short-term loans for aquacultural production may be obtained from one of 125 participating rural banks, the Develop- ment Bank of the Philippines, or the Philippine National Bank. A variety of donor assistance projects has also helped the BFAR aqua- culture extension effort: the FAO-sponsored Brackishwater Aqua- culture Development and Training Project, the USAID-assisted Freshwater Fisheries Development and Aquaculture Production Projects, the World Bank/EDPITAF Fisheries Training Project, the U.S. Peace Corps Fishery Volunteer Program, and Japanese Over- seers Cooperative Volunteer Program are the most significant recent projects. Several other agencies have functions that overlap 13FAR aqua- culture extension. For example, the Laguna Lake Development Au- thority has jurisdiction over the fishery resources of Laguna de Bay, including the fish pens and cages. This includes a large project funded by the Asian Development Bank to finance small-holder en- try into the pen/cage business. PCARRD publishes extension liter- ature, such as the Philippines Recommends series on milkfish, oys- ter, mussel, and tilapia culture and the Technology series on rice-fish culture and the culture of seaweed. The Ministry of Agriculture has a National Food and Agricultural Council for rice-fish culture and lends extension support in programs using water, animal feeds, farm credit, fertilizers, and pesticides directly linked to aquaculture. All three major universities with aquaculture programs, UPV, CLSU, and MSU, have extension responsibilities, and MSU also offers a B. S. fisheries degree with a major in extension. There are several fish producer associations which provide infor- mation exchange. Probably most notable of these is the group in Iloilo that has operated successfully for more than 20 years and now holds training programs for caretakers and small-scale fishpond op- erators. The Iloilo and other such groups are now united in a re- gional and national federation of private producers with an annual conference on technical and political matters influencing the aqua- cultural industry Some of the extension workers of the BFAR have been uninter- ested or unable to move about in the field. Even those with technical training in production techniques and extension methodology do not have adequate educational materials or budgets. The progressive fish farmers generally considered themselves better informed than their seldom-seen and inadequately prepared fisheries extension workers. Nevertheless, there has been some positive impact of extension. For example, foreign advisors used in training by the BFAR have provided credibility to the use of fertilizers, proper pond layout and construction, care in the handling of fish, and other management techniques. Peace Corps Volunteers have given vitality to extension activity. The recent growth of seaweed culture, tilapia production, pen and cage culture, and rice-fish combinations has certainly been facilitated by extension programs. Research programs of FAC, BAC, and SEAFDEC have also provided worthwhile information to ex- tension workers for transfer to small and new aquaculture entrepre- neurs. EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE Although aquaculture has been practiced in the Philippines for centuries, it is only within recent years that significant improvement in culture techniques has been attained. One reason for such prog- ress is the assistance provided by outside agencies and donors, in- cluding the United Nations and its family of agencies, established in- ternational and regional institutions, and bilateral donors. All are concerned with technical assistance, which can be technical advi- sors, commodities, equipment, and/or training. The second type of assistance is funding or credit, generally from the World Bank or from regional banks such as the Asian Development Bank. Technical Assistance from United Nations Agencies The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN supports fisheries and aquacultural development with funds from the UN De- velopment Programme or other sources. For example, projects in- volving aquaculture may be sponsored directly from UN headquar- ters through the Laguna Lake Development Authority, an agency which has provided assistance to the Philippines for over two de- cades. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Or- ganization (UNESCO) supports research or training programs in fisheries, aquatic resources, or aquaculture. The United Nations Children's Emergency Fund, through its Applied Nutrition Pro- gram, has also assisted in the production of food fish. The World Food Program, using food commodities as means of assistance, sup- ported the development of freshwater fish culture in the Candaba swamp, Pampanga Province, from 1969 to 1971. The FAO has long assisted aquacultural development in the Phil- ippines. A limnology project (Freshwater Fisheries Investigations) was implemented from 1964 to 1966. This was followed by a fish cul- ture development project from 1967 to 1970 to stimulate the im- provement of culture techniques for brackishwater fishponds. Over- lapping this project was the Freshwater Fish Culture Project (1969 to 1971) which was supplemented by the World Food Program proj- ect mentioned above. The Brackishwater Aquaculture Development and Training Project was implemented in 1978 by FAO with UNDP finding. This project, which terminated in December 1982, pro- vided technical assistance, commodity and in-country training ser- vices, and established four demonstration stations in each climatic zone of the Philippines. Manuals for training and extension have been developed, and both new and existing extension workers were trained or upgraded. FAO is also involved in regional and interregional aquaculture projects. The South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coor- dinating Programme has an aquaculture component. The Interre- gional Aquaculture Development Coordination Program supports a project known as the Network of Aquaculture Centers of Asia which links the Brackishwater Aquaculture Station at SEAFDEC in Tig- bauan, Iloilo, with other centers in Thailand, India, and China. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department, established in 1974 in Iloilo, built extensive facilities for research and training in aquacul- ture. Facilities for specific research, such as the Fish Nutrition Lab- oratory, are still under construction. The Aquaculture Department has a core staff which provides training programs for participants from member countries or, by special arrangement, from countries outside the region. The Japanese government has contributed sub- stantially with facilities, equipment, and funding. The Philippines contributes P30 million to the Aquaculture Department (22 percent of the GRP aquaculture budget) for infrastructure, maintenance, operations, and salaries of personnel. The Department cooperates with the UPV/BAC unit in Iloilo by providing facilities and training for graduate students in the aquaculture program. They also coop- 25 crate wvith FAO/Netssork of Aquactilture Centers in Asia by sustain- ing the Center's Braekishwatcr Aquaculture Station. The Aquaculture Div isioni miaintains three stations, the Tigbanian hatc hery/re search complex and] Leganes fishpond station (both in Iloilo Prosvince) and the Binangonian freshwsater statioii in Rizal Prov - mne. It also maintains sexveral sub~stations, such as a shiip hatchery at Batan, Capiz Prov ine, and] a marine substation at Igang, Gui- mauls island, Iloilo Prosine. Since its establishment, thle SEAF- DE( has contributed substantially to the biologx and controlled spawsning of mnilldish, to hatchery and Mass production of 1 )enaeid shrimp post-lars ae, and to culture techniques forvxarious other spe- cies. It has financed a comrprehenisis c socioeconomic, stirs cx of the aquaculture industry in the Philippines, and has conducted inter- national and national training pmrograms on such topics as hatcher, culture management, and aqimaCUltural engineering Various re- search and training projects hasve b~een partially suipportedl by the Inteiriational Desvelopmnent and Research Centre of Canada, the Newv Zealand government, and others. The International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) ICL XR\, founded in 1973 and headquartered iii M.anila since 1977 is ant autonomous, nongov ernmental research institution with programs in aquaculture, fisheries, resource development and man- agenent, education, and training. Although international in scope, the C:eniter has focused on Southeast Asia and the Pacif ic Basin. The Center's professional staff is small but productive. The performance and presence in the Philippines is highls esteemned- Filipino profes- sionals use the Center staff and library both formnalls" and informnall. Thmes publish fiv e technical semries and a niewsslettei oni researchb find- mugs and information specific or relatisve to the Philippines. ICLARM has cooperated with Philippine institutons on a number of aquaculture projects: Cooperating institution Freshwxater Aquaculture Ceitter, Central Luzon State Uiversity Philippines Council for Agriculture Resources Research Desvelopment Fishers Industry Dcx elopment Council & Bureau of Agricultural Economics Project Title Applied research in itegrated animal fish farming Assessment of integirated rie-fish farmiitg teclnohogs for rural dev elopment it the Philippines G;enetic improv ement of tilapia broodstock in the Plimppines Cooperatix c prograin of research and traiiting itt aquaeolture and inland fisheries Graduate study Pi (gramn in aquatic resources \lilk-flsh productionm econiomics U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Since 1971, USAID has supported three sticcessixe aquacultural developmnent projects: the JItlamid Fisheries Project (IFIP), the Aqua- culture Production Project (APPl, and the Freshwsater Fisheries De- velopmnent Project (FFI)P). The goal of all three wxas to imptrovxe nu- Shrimp larval-rearing tanks at SHAFDEC. trition of the Filipino p~eop~le bs increasing fisn production through aquactilture. The projects focused on three institutional capabilities considlered essential to the aqjoacultural developiment in the Phil- ip) i i a-sre search, academic triing,, aind extension. 'i) accomplish these objectives, the IFP (FY" 19711-74) concentrated onl establishing txvo resecarch/ train ing centers, the Freshwxater Aqiaculture Center at Central Luzon State UnDix ersits and the Brackishxsater A(quacul- ture Center in Iloilo Pros ie. Key staff members from each center xwere sent to unixversities abroad for graduate training. Limited re- search activ ities wxere begun in facilities borroxwed from GRP agen- cies and priv ate individuals. The APP (19 75-79) focused on continued physical development of the centers, intensification and expansion of research effort, and cs tablishmnent of academic and] applied traininca programs. It also sought to institute an effectis c extension procgramo xxvithin BFAR and to link extension xwith the research/training centers. The FFI)P (1979-present) addresses intensification and expansion of extension effort, desvelopinent of a large-scale fish hatchery 01) to 20 million seedlings per sear), produetion and distribution facifities. and a market dev elopment and Consumer education program. Tehnltical assistance for the p~rojects swas conttractedl Ix AID to Au- burn Unoiversity 's International Center for Aqtmacimture in its De- patrtitnt of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures (IFP and APP) and to 'Texas A&\l Unixversitys sDlepartment of Fisheries and WXildlife Sciences (FFD)P). Sexveral specific accomplishmtents resulted fronm the projects. Complete research/training facilities were established, thus aiiow~- iimg the creation of the BAC and FAC. Efl'ectixe research programs were desveloped. Through the I FP and APP 6 stall earned Ph.D. de- grees, 10 earned MIS. degrees, and 11 others received graduate training abroad ranging fronm 4 to 24 months. Additional personnel hasve been or are being trained abroad Linder the FFDlP Both cen- ters iinstituted academic programs leading to B.S. degrees in aqua- cuilture. The I.PCF established a graduate program (-\1l S. level) at the BAC, aind an Extension Divisioni xxas established in the BFkR. A comprehensixve technology diffulsion program wxas organized xwith extension staff of BEAR and research staff of the centers. The ongo- ing FFDP is attempting tot streiigthen and broaden these programs. The projects xwere instrumental in assistmng the GBlP establish the institutional components fuindaitental to sustainedl dev elopment of aquaculture. These projects made possible othter desvelopment as- sistaitee that might otherwxise not hasve been asvailable, but aquacul- tural delprntis in an iitature stg, aitd contintued progress is not guaranteed. Other Bilateral Programs The Philippine government has received assistance in fisheries and aquacultural projects directly or indirectly from other sources: the Japanese International Cooperation Agency, the Canadian Inter- national Development Agency, the Federal Republic of Germany, Is- rael, India, and China. Impact of Donor Assistance on Training The impact of out-of-country training is difficult to assess because information about earlier efforts is limited and we lack standards against which to compare the various training programs. From 1947 to 1949 a total of 124 persons was sent to the United States for a year of special training in fisheries under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice Philippines Fisheries Rehabilitation Program. When 67 of these individuals were traced, it was found that 24 spent the major- ity of their working life with the Bureau of Fisheries, 13 worked in fisheries education, 9 went into private business, 6 worked in bank- ing, 4 worked in non-fisheries government agencies, 5 found work with international agencies, 4 died early in their careers, and 2 em- igrated to the United States. Assuming that the individuals who were not identified did not enter fisheries-related work, about a third of those trained in fisheries spent most of their working lives in fish- eries-related public employment in the Philippines, and another 10 percent worked in fisheries outside the government or the country At least seven have worked for FAO. Several have risen to high po- sitions, particularly in the Bureau of Fisheries. Under the Inland Fisheries Project and Aquaculture Production Projects (1971-79) with USAID assistance, 18 Filipinos were trained in long-term (18-24 months) and 10 others in short-term (1-6 months) programs related to aquaculture. Of these trainees, all but three have returned and are employed in their respective agencies; one has emigrated to the United States, and one entered private con- sulting and business. Several of those still employed remain under obligation as they serve 3 years for each year of study leave. Those with advanced degrees are in great demand for consulting, which is usually permitted in recognition that their main employment pro- vides low pay and slow advancement in academic rank or civil ser- vice grade. This same pattern is true for Filipinos trained under other projects, both in fisheries and other technical subjects. Productivity of people trained outside the country is difficult to assess. Most of the better academic and administrative positions in fisheries have gone to individuals with advanced degrees from abroad. Except for the group that was trained abroad in the 1940's, this has been a relatively small number of individuals. For those re- ceiving advanced academic training in aquaculture during the past decade, it is still too early to know the full impact of training on their careers and on the country. We can say that the substantial expan- sion of the academic and research programs in recent years has been due to the energies and abilities of those trained with project assist- ance. Now that domestic M.S. programs in aquaculture have be- come operational, there should be less need to seek foreign assist- ance for training to that level, but support for Ph.D. level training remains an important problem. Although no reports are available on studies comparing different types of aquacultural training programs, analysis from this study shows that completion of an advanced academic degree has signifi- cantly affected professional careers. Generally, those completing higher degrees have expressed positive feelings about their educa- tional experience and have felt that the personal sacrifice in achiev- ing the training was worthwhile. Moreover, those foreign-trained individuals have retained an interest in the programs and faculty of their alma maters and in their contemporaries in graduate school. Impact of Donor Assistance on Commodities A substantial quantity of equipment and educational materials has been provided to the Philippines by donor assistance for aquacul- tural development. The high foreign exchange costs for many of these materials makes them unlikely to have been purchased with- out donor assistance. Although no extensive follow-up study has been done, it appears that basic tools and textbooks have been par- ticularly valuable. Unfortunately, it has taken as much as a year for materials to reach the Philippines. Another drawback has been that many of the items were excess U.S. government property, with lim- ited service life and high costs of repairs and replacement parts. Nevertheless, most commodities have been well maintained and used for the purpose for which they were obtained. Not surprisingly, vehicle deployment may be an exception since there have been sev- eral examples of jeeps or other service vehicles being comman- deered by administrative officials or travel being restricted by budg- etary constraints. Without continued donor assistance, it will be a burden on government agencies to replace wornout equipment. Impact of Donor Assistance on Capital Development Capital development expenses for most aquacultural projects have been a domestic counterpart contribution. With the exception of the facilities at SEAFDEC, most of the building costs have been modest, in keeping with the surrounding public structures. Project construction has often been more than a year behind, and not always of good design. Existing research facilities are more than adequate. In fact, the recent pledge by the Japanese government to build more facilities at CLSU may be overkill, particularly when basic needs such as the road and bridge to the Leganes aquacultural site and the UPV new facilities remain uncompleted. CONSTRAINTS ON AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONTINUED AQUACULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Aquaculture is a major factor in the Philippines, contributing 0.5 percent of the GNP, 5 percent of foods of animal origin, and ap- proximately 200,000 jobs. Since the early 1970's the Philippines has been a pace setter for aquacultural development. Although levels of aquacultural technology are not high, they are successful under the prevailing conditions. In terms of the model used to describe aqua- cultural development, the Philippines has advanced from Stage 3 to Stage 5 in the past decade. Furthermore, the potential for continued growth is concluded to be among the highest of any country. Con- straints on and opportunities for continued aquacultural develop- ment are summarized in the following description of technical, so- cial, economic, institutional, environmental, political, and other factors. Technical Factors The Philippines has many environments where the climate, land, soil, and water are not constraints to aquacultural development. Ty- phoons, acid sulfate soils, and similar physical factors are constraints in some locations. Research on these and other problems reduces their effects on aquaculture development potential. Expansion of brackishwater ponds is constrained by the limited number of choice sites and by regulations on mangrove swamp al- teration. Expansion of pen and cage culture systems is restricted by the small number of lakes with nutrient-rich waters, overdevelop- ment in areas presently used, and lack of good quality feed. Expan- sion of freshwater ponds does not appear to be constrained at the moment, but increased land-use regulations could become a prob- lem. Diseases and water quality related problems will become much more relevant as aquaculture is intensified. Milkfish and tilapia are the primary cultured fishes and are well 27 suited to conditions in the Philippines. Other native and introduced species offinfishes, molluscs, crustaceans, and seaweeds have vary- ing potentials for culture. Some carps, particularly the grass carp, appear most promising. Prospects for culturing bullfrogs, channel catfish, eels, freshwater prawns, and other species are low given the competition from other species of known value and successful cul- ture. Limited availability and the cost of importation of organic and in- organic fertilizers and feedstuffs are also constraints to future aqua- cultural development. Intensive feeding levels (level 5 and above) are presently not feasible because of these restrictions. Philippine producers have the knowledge and experience to prac- tice intensive fertilization (level 3) and extensive feeding (level 4) in brackishwater and freshwater ponds. Intensification rather than ex- tensification is recommended for brackishwater pond aquaculture, and both intensification and extensification for freshwater ponds. More information is needed on the technology, economics, and so- cial factors involved in cage and pen cultures before we can recom- mend further development of these aquacultures. Integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems, including rice and fish in paddies, pigs and/or chickens in pens adjacent to fish ponds, and various horticulture, animal husbandry, and aquacultural com- binations, appear to have high potential throughout the Philippines. Social Factors Producer attitudes, knowledge, and skills about aquaculture are positive. They not only perceive the need for change, but are also actively pursuing new technology from internal and external sources, doing trial-and-error research, and sharing production in- formation. In aquaculture, as in all industries, some entrepreneurs may have taken risks not easily justified by known production levels. Others have joined in highly speculative ventures for quick returns. In spite of some failures, opportunities appear positive to provide increased employment, income, and improved nutrition to the Phil- ippine population through intensified and expanded aquacultural systems. Opportunities are most attractive for inland property hold- ers such as rice farmers. The proposal by KKK for aquacultural de- velopment by community-based groups rather than by individual owners has interesting but as yet unpredictable possibilities. Milkfish fry gathering is particularly valuable for employment of coastal residents in some areas of the Philippines. In 1977, 25,000 families depended on the collection of milkfish fry from the wild for all or part of their livelihood. The fry collecting industry was then valued at P57 million. Pen and cage culture in lakes and mollusc and seaweed culture in estuarine and marine environments face a potential constraint from competition for the water resource and from conversion of public re- sources to private resources. Land reform for fishpond and other aquacultural operations requires serious consideration. Economic Factors The elasticity of demand for presently produced aquacultural foods appears to be high-0.22 and higher. This will likely improve as capture fishery production stabilizes or declines. Domestic mar- kets are expected to absorb all non-luxury aquacultural production of finfish (milkfish and tilapia) for the foreseeable future with or without competition from capture fisheries and agriculture. Do- mestic markets for crustaceans, molluscs, and seaweeds may be lim- ited. The major economic constraints for producers are the high cap- italization requirements and the inaccessibility and high cost of credit. Low availability and poor access to nutrient inputs are a fur- ther constraint. Participation by poor landless people in commercial aquaculture as owners or primary beneficiaries seems unlikely because they lack the capital, credit, and land area required for economic viability. They also have questionable managerial ability and low risk toler- ance. Rice farmers appear to have opportunities in aquaculture by converting rice paddies to rice-fish paddies or fishponds. Such facil- ities could be used for subsistence or limited commercial production with potential for expansion into commercial operations. Infrastructure, especially the availability of ice and transporta- tion, is a constraint to producers outside the Manila-Central Luzon area. The costs of inputs and marketing rise with increasing distance from Manila. The attitudes of borrowers toward bank loans must also be considered since some disregard repayment obligations and others may use loans for other purposes. This behavior has com- pounded credit problems. Hidden costs to a thriving "pay-off" sys- tem are alleged to be significant. Institutional Factors The lack of adequate numbers of well-trained scientists for re- search, teaching, and extension is the most serious institutional con- straint for development of the aquaculture industry An internal Ph.D.-level graduate program is desperately needed to produce quality manpower at all levels and to assure survival of scientific re- search and graduate level academic programs. The Ph.D. program, accompanied by more effective means of keeping highly trained manpower productively employed in the university system, is es- sential. Research facilities are more than adequate for the next decade, but budgets and qualified research personnel are presently inade- quate to maintain and operate them. Already strained budgets are not likely to increase commensurately with the new facilities pres- ently under construction. Research programs appear fragmented, without clear direction. Research addresses easy solutions, avoiding the tough problems. Evidence is strong that time and energies of senior research person- nel are spent in the following order: (1) extraneous consultancies, (2) administrative responsibilities, (3) teaching, and finally, (4) re- search. Social and economic research must be coordinated with the technological research. Academic facilities and programs are marginally adequate for M.S.-level training. However, accreditation of B.S. and especially M. S. programs is in jeopardy because of the high probability of los- ing the already limited numbers of qualified professors. Extension capability appears to be below the levels of research and academia. It suffers from low morale, incomplete programs, and inadequate support. Possible remedial alternatives include: 1. Totally decentralizing extension responsibilities to the regional offices. 2. Reorganizing and reprogramming extension functions and up- grading job qualifications. 3. Transferring all extension responsibilities for aquaculture from BFAR to the Bureau of Agricultural Extension or NFAC. 4. Encouraging the private sector to provide its own extension needs on a GRP-reimbursable basis, perhaps through the Philip- pine Federation of Fishpond Producers. There is no speculation on the long-range impact of the high pro- portion of women in current programs. Women comprise 60 to 70 percent of the trained manpower and the majority of current M.S. students. Administratively, the GRP has generally done an admirable job in supporting aquacultural development. All needed organizations are in place with broad and reasonably thorough programs. However, goals, policies, and programs are organized horizontally rather than vertically. This tends to promote a strong bureaucracy rather than strong development services. There is a tendency for budgets to 28 barely meet salary requirements with little left for operations sup- port. Budget allocations must reflect the needs associated with re- cent construction, and perhaps should be balanced to give extension services more than they are currently allocated. Proliferation of agencies and institutions has grossly diluted resources, created du- plication and confusion, and hampered effectiveness of services. Regulations and bureaucratic procedures relative to aquaculture appear reasonable, but enforcement is generally weak and paper work for permits and loans is extremely slow. Accountability by in- stitutions and personnel at all levels within institutions, especially BFAR, is needed. Typical of most governments, authorities are often unable to deal with weak performance by agencies, divisions, of- fices, and individuals. The operation of some BFAR stations and hatcheries is suspect. Part of the P8 million research budget of BFAR could probably be used more productively and efficiently by universities and other in- stitutions better equipped and staffed for the work. BFAR hatcher- ies are not productive and some fry distribution/stocking programs are of questionable value. The Philippine Federation of Fishpond Producers, with 12 re- gional and 37 provincial chapters and 30,000 members, recognizes the need for technology development and transfer, and is willing to participate in that effort. Funding and pledging professional chairs at UPV and seminars for members, including small-scale farmers and operators, are examples of their involvement. It seems obvious that the opportunity for all Philippine aquaculturists to help them- selves and for GRP to help all aquaculturists help themselves is greater through collaborative efforts rather than through indepen- dent action. Funding of research and development of aquaculture in both pri- vate and public sectors should be both internal and external. Inputs such as manpower, technology, and statistics should be drawn from internal, rather than external sources. Environmental Factors Actions of the GRP to regulate fishponds and limit their expansion into mangrove areas are positive steps in protecting an ecologically and economically important resource. Preservation of mangrove areas could be the most beneficial service the GRP can provide to municipal fishermen at this time. Allowing poorly developed or un- productive fishponds to revert to mangrove forest may be the best use of those areas. Development of freshwater inland ponds would probably not im- pact negatively on the environment, but the impact of pens and cages on lake environments is not well understood. The potential ad- verse effects of cultured species and eutrophication from feed may be negative aspects of pen and cage culture. In spite of strong encouragement for the GRP to establish com- mercial hatcheries for milkfish fry, that action is not recommended since the technology is not yet available and fry are not scarce enough to be a constraint to the continued growth of milkfish aqua- culture. A major consideration is that 25,000 coastal families depend on fry collection for part or all of their livelihoods-an industry val- ued at P57 million in 1977. All species introduced for aquacultural purposes have had at least some negative impact on the environment. While some tilapia have been economically beneficial and, therefore, may be judged worth the environmental cost, others, such as Zilli's tilapia and Thai catfish (Thai hito), are likely to be judged not worth the cost. It is suggested that the GRP tighten its control on imports and distribution of exotic species. The GRP should also control potentially toxic substances such as endrin and some other pesticides still in use in fishponds. Domestic pollution in mollusc production areas enhances produc- tion but limits markets because of the high risk of disease. Political Factors GRP stability, commitment to aquacultural development, and successful solicitation of donor assistance grants and loans for aqua- cultural projects have all been positive. Peace and order problems in some parts of the Philippines remain a constraint to aquacultural development. Aquaculture as an Employment Alternative for Small-Scale Fishermen Small-scale fishermen and their families, estimated at almost 2 million people or 5 percent of the population, are among the poorest in the Philippine economy The resources upon which these artis- anal fishermen depend are fished at or above their maximum sus- tainable yield. Faced with these prospects, some people have sug- gested that aquaculture be developed as an alternative source of livelihood and employment for some of these small-scale fishermen. They reason that the transition from gathering fish to culturing the same types of organisms would appear to be a natural progression and a logical response to economic pressures. The problems and solutions for small-scale fishermen have been the topic of several international meetings: the 1975 gathering in Costa Rica (15), the 1980 Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission Sympos- ium in Japan (22), and the November 1981 workshop-seminar in Ma- nila sponsored by the FAO/UNDP South China Sea Fisheries De- velopment and Coordinating Programme (18). Several papers discuss potentials and socio-economic considerations for aquacul- ture in dealing with these small-scale fishermen. (See bibliography, page 31.) The characteristics of small-scale fisheries in the Philip- pines have already been reviewed by Smith et al. (43). The following sections will not redescribe existing information, but rather inter- pret their findings relative to opportunities for small-scale fishermen in aquaculture. Potential Small-Scale Aquacultures Brackishwater fish culture in coastal ponds is by far the best es- tablished aquaculture in the Philippines and is practiced in areas near artisanal fishing grounds. The yields from existing ponds are generally below their potential. Intensification makes sense and would increase labor demands. Some, if not most, of this labor would be people otherwise employed in subsistence fishing. It is dif- ficult to estimate how much employment might result from inten- sification, but assuming an additional man for every 10 hectares and a total of 50,000 hectares, intensified management would mean new work for 5,000 people. It is also concluded that expansion of brackishwater pond devel- opment into new areas is not desirable because of the need to pre- serve the apparently limited coastal mangrove forests. These areas are already heavily exploited by coastal residents and have impor- tant ecological functions that should not be lost. On the contrary, consideration should be given to allowing low-yielding brackishwa- ter ponds to revert to mangrove. One approach to bringing fishermen into aquaculture was the cre- ation of "fishery estates" where a large new area is developed into ponds and subdivided into small family-sized units with individual unit production supported and coordinated by a central association. Such schemes have been attempted in Indonesia and Taiwan with little success in achieving the social objectives. Similar proposals were made for the Philippines, and such developments were intro- duced in Zamboanga and Mindoro. Opinions are mixed as to the chance of economic or social success. Some of the authors of this re- port believe the potential is sufficiently promising to be tested. Oth- ers are less optimistic, in part because of conclusions at a large work- shop convened in Los Banos about 1975 on the feasibility of fishery estates. The general conclusion from this workshop was that the de- 29 velopment costs were too high and the rate of return too low. There also was a high cost per beneficiary (a multimillion peso case ex- ample of 500 hectares would directly benefit only about 100 families at a cost in excess of $20,000 per family). If the fishery estate mode is tested for social reasons, it should be limited initially to a pilot scale (e.g. 50 hectares). The idea of seafarming for marine algae or molluscs has also been proposed for coastal fishermen. The technology for such activities is available but the markets appear to be limited and sensitive to ov- ersupply. Favorable sites for either of these activities are scattered and moderately high capital and risk are involved. Smith and Pes- tano-Smith (42) reviewed the recent history of seaweed farming in the Philippines, and SEAFDEC (44) and FAO (18) have recently evaluated mollusc culture. Oyster and mussel culture have reason- able potential but need facilities for sanitary control if market ex- pansion is considered. The booming pen and cage fish culture activities in Laguna de Bay have led to an ADB-financed Laguna Lake Development Au- thority project to assist lake fishermen into milkfish or tilapia cage or pen culture in a reserved area of the lake. Reports on the success of fish culture in Laguna de Bay enclosures are mixed. Such pen/cage cultures would only be practical in extremely fertile waters, such as some parts of Laguna de Bay. Clear rivers or lakes and open sea areas would not sustain good fish growth in densely stocked enclo- sures. The use of artificial feeds, even if available, appears to be pro- hibitively expensive for use in fish culture at this time. Those ven- turing into pen/cage cultures should recognize that such cultures are high-risk and capital intensive if practiced on a large-scale or in- tensively. The best sites in Laguna de Bay may already be taken. Social Issues Bakar and Arshad (5) and Pollnac (37) suggest that many artisanal fishermen would resist shifting to aquaculture because it was not suited to their temperament or traditions. This would be true of some Filipino fishermen, but results of Smith et al. (43) indicate that many would gladly take up farming if they could get access to land or a paying job. Some fishpond caretakers and laborers apparently turn to the capture fishery to augment their income from aquacul- ture. Many Filipinos fish simply because they have little other em- ployment opportunity. The socioeconomic pressures have forced them to the water's edge. This also means they have little opportu- nity to move inland to take up freshwater aquaculture. Demand for space even at the water's edge is great. Where significant numbers of subsistence fishermen are given other employment, they are quickly replaced by new people. This means the prospects for taking pressure off the capture fishery resources are not good. Low income people are also handicapped in new business under- takings. By background they have little education, poor communi- cation skills, and little managerial or financial experience. There- fore, subsistence fishermen brought into aquaculture would be vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by outside forces and at a competitive disadvantage with other operators. New issues arise when open access public resources become sub- ject to private monopolization, as would be the case with the devel- opment of many types of aquaculture. The encroachment of private fishpens into public fishing areas of Laguna de Bay is a good exam- ple. Adding ponds in communal coastal mangrove forests, locating cages in public lakes and rivers, setting mollusc attachment struc- tures in bays and rich estuaries, and fixing nets for seaweed farming are more examples of potential conflicts. Who gets the best loca- tions, how much, at what cost, for how long, how to regulate com- petition, and similar questions must be resolved in advance. To achieve broad social benefits, regulations must be made and en- forced to divide public resources into small (not necessarily the most efficient) units. Team members expressed mixed opinions regarding the con- straints and opportunities for aquaculture as an employment alter- native for small-scale fishermen, obviously presenting more con- straints than opportunities. All agree on the need to help the large number of low-income fishermen, but do not foresee that develop- ment of aquaculture will provide them an alternative livelihood or relieve pressure on the municipal fishery resource. Growth of aqua- culture in the coastal areas will apparently be limited by the num- ber of sites for new ponds. Intensified production in existing ponds would be expected to slightly increase labor demnand. The need to preserve mangrove swamps, economic factors, market demand, and social ownership issues will likely limit development of coastal aqua- culture for small-scale operators. Inland aquaculture opportunities will likely be taken by those already on the land rather than by new arrivals. Although results of the trial fishpond estates in Zamboanga and Mindoro are not available, it is noted that costs and benefits for developing coastal aquaculture estates are not likely to compare fa- vorably with other development investment alternatives. Last of all, the fishery will not be saved even by providing other employment. The number of potential fishermen is just too great. Research is rec- ommended rather than development projects in pursuance of op- portunities in aquaculture for municipal fishermen. If development projects must be implemented, a multi-disciplinary approach that would address the social, economic, and technical elements is strongly recommended. BIBLIOGRAPHY (1) ADAMS, W., H.R. MONTALBAN, AND C. MARTIN. 1932. Cultivation of Bangos in the Philippines. Philip. J. Sci. 47:1-38. (2) ASIAN INSTITUTE OF AQUACULTURE. 1978. National Workshop on Aquaculture Development Strategies, SEAFDEC Aquaculture De- partment. (3) AVIGUETERO, E.F., F.V. SAN ANTONIO, I.S. VALIENTE, H.A. DEL CASTILLO, E.L. SAN JOSE, L.M. GARLITOS, E.R. LOPEZ, A.C. CA- BAL, AND H.T. TOTOH. 1981. Food Consumption Patterns. Quezon City: Special Studies Division Ministry of Agriculture. (4) BAINES, G.B.K. 1974. Patterns of Exploitation of Mangrove Ecosys- tems. Proc. Int. Symp. Biol. and Mgt. Mangroves. Eds. G. Walsh, S. Snedaker, and H. Tees. Vol. 11. pp. 742-752. (5) BAKAR, M.S. AND N. ARSHAD. Aquaculture Fishery as an Alterna- tive to Capture Fishery. FAO Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission Proceedings 19(3):264-281. (6) BARDACH, J.E., J.H. RYTHER, AND W.O. MCLARNEY. 1972. Aqua- culture. Wiley-Interscience, New York. (7) BINA, R.T., R.S. JARA, B.R. DEJESUS, JR., AND E.N. LORENZO. 1979. Mangrove Inventory of the Philippines Using Landstat Data. Philippine Natural Resource Management Center. Unpublished manuscript. (8) BROWN, U.H. AND A.F. FISCHER. 1918. Philippine Mangrove Swamps. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Bur. Forest. Bull. No. 17. 132 pp. (9) BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES (BFAR). 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980. Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines. Quezon City: Ministry of Natural Resources. (10) BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES. 1979. Workshop on Seafarming and Special Aquaculture Projects. BFAR, Manila (5 pp. and 11 annexes). (11) CAMPOS, A.C. 1981. The President's Annual Report. Central Luzon State University, Munoz, Nueva, Ecija. (12) CARBINE, W.F. 1948. Bangos Culture in the Philippines. Prog. Fish-Cult. 10:187-197. (13) CHONG, K., I.R. SMITH, AND M.S. LIZARONDO. 1982. Economics of the Philippine Milkfish Resource System. Resource Systems The- ory and Methodology Series, No. 4. Tokyo: The United Nations University. (14) CHOWDHURY, H. 1979. Mangrove Ecosystems: Human Use and Management Implications. UNESCO Reports in Marine Sciences. No. 8. 19 pp. 30 (15) ESTES, T.S., ED. 1976. Proceedings of the Seminar-Workshop on Artisanal Fisheries Development and Aquaculture in Central America and Panama. University of Rhode Island, Kingston. (16) FISHERY INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL. 1981a. Integrated Fisheries Development Plan, Vol. III, Aquaculture Development and Management Plan, September. (17) FISHERY INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL. 1981b. Integrated Fisheries Development Plan for the 1980s. Ministry of Natural Re- sources, Quezon City. (18) FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO). 1981. Preinvestment Feasibility Study for a Pilot Project on Seafarming for Small Fishermen. TCP/PHI/8906(1). South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Programme, Manila. (19) FOOD AND NUTRITION RESEARCH INSTITUTE. 1979. First Nationwide Nutrition Survey, Philippines, 1978. (Summary Report), October. (20) GOMEZ, E. F. 1980. The Present State of Mangrove Ecosystems in SEA and the Impact of Pollution-Regional (SCS/80/WP/94 (Rev.)) Manila, South China Sea Fisheries Programme, 88 pp. (21) HERRE, A.W. AND J. MENDOZA. 1929. Bangos Culture in the Phil- ippines. Philippines J. Sci. 38:451-509. (22) INDO-PACIFIC FISHERY COUNCIL (IPFC). 1980. Symposium on the Development and Management of Small-Scale Fisheries. IPFC Proceedings 19(3), FAO, Bangkok. (23) KAMPITAN, M.R. 1979. Ice and Cold Storage Industry. Fisheries To- day 11(4), November. (24) LAOPAO, M.L. AND E.M. LATORRE. 1979. Small-Scale Fishing in Leyte Province: A Socio-Economy Survey. Quezon City: Bureau of Agricultural Economics. (25) LIBRERO, A.R. 1976. Cultural and Management Practices in Bangus (Milkfish) Ponds in the Philippines, in Small-Scale Fisheries De- velopment. Eds. B. Lockwood and K. Ruddle. Honolulu: East- West Center, pp. 89-130. (26) LIBRERO, A.R., E.S. NICHOLS, AND OTHERS. 1977. Socio-Economic Survey of the Aquaculture Industry in the Philippines. Research Pa- per Series No. 8. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: SEAFDEC and PCARR. Milkfish farming in the Philippines: A socio-economic study. (27) LIBRERO, A.R. 1979a. Fisheries Financing and Credit in the Phil- ippines, paper presented at the training program in aquaculture at SEAFDEC, Iloilo, June 2. (28) LIBRERO, A.R. 1979b. Resource Productivity in Milkfish Culture in the Philippines, in Economics of Aquaculture, Sea-Fishing and Coastal Resource Use in Asia. Eds. Librero and Collier. Los Banos: PCARR and ADC, pp. 11-29. (29) LIBRERO, A.R., N.D. PEREZ, R. CATALLA, D.G. RAMOS, AND R.M. FABRO. 1981. Socio-Economic Studies of Small-Scale Fisheries in the Philippines. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: PCARR. (30) MNR, BFAR, FIDC, NEDA, NSCO. 1977. Inventory of Fishery Units. Quezon City: Ministry of Natural Resources. (31) MACNAE, W. 1974. Mangrove Forests and Fisheries. FAO/Rome, IPFS/DEV/74/34. (32) MANE, A.M. 1952. Administration and Training in Fisheries, in Philippine Fisheries. Bureau of Fisheries, Manila, pp. 20-21. (33) NICOLAS, E.S. AND A.R. LIBRERO. 1978. Some Insights into the So- cioeconomic Conditions of Fish Farm Caretakers in the Philippines. Research Paper Series No. 12. Los Banos, Philippines SEAFDEC- PCARR. (34) NICOLAS, E.S. AND A.R. LIBRERO. 1979. A Socio-Economic Study of Fish Pen Aquaculture, in Economics of Aquaculture, Sea Fishing and Coastal Resource Use in Asia: Laguna Lake, Philippines. Eds. A.R. Librero and W. L. Collier. ADC and PCARR, October. (35) NICOLAS, E.S., A.R. LIBRERO, R. CALLO, AND E.R. PAMULAKLAKIN. 1976. Socio-Economic Survey of the Aquaculture Industry in the Philippines. Research Paper Series No. 5. A Socio-Economic Study of Fish Pen Aquaculture in the Philippines. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: SEAFDEC and PCARR. (36) PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCES RESEARCH (PCARR). 1981. Director of Researches in Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Mines in the Philippines, Vol. I and 2. PCARR, Los Banos, Laguna. (37) POLLNAC, R.B. 1982. Socioculture Aspects of Implementing Aqua- cultural Systems in Marine Fishing Communities, in Aquaculture Development in Less Developed Countries: Social, Economic and Political Problems. Ed. S. Peterson. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. (38) RONDON, M.V. 1979. Seasonal Price Variation of Selected Fish Spe- cies in the Philippines 1970-1977. Research Report Series of 1978. No. 12. Agricultural Information Bank for Asia. (39) SAMSON, E., F.A. TAN, AND A. LIBRERO. 1976. The Socioeconomic Research Studies to Complement Fisheries Development Plan in the Philippines, in Small-Scale Fisheries Development. Eds. Lock- wood and Ruddle. Honolulu: East-West Center. pp. 185-202. (40) SEVILLEJA, R.C. AND E.W. McCoY. 1979. Fish Marketing in Cen- tral Luzon, Philippines. International Center for Aquaculture, Re- search and Development Series No. 21, Auburn University, March. (41) SMITH, I.R. 1981. The Economics ofthe Milkfish Fry and Fingerling Industry of the Philippines. Manila: ICLARM AND SEAFDEC (aquaculture department). (42) SMITH, I.R. AND R. PESTANO-SMITH. 1980. A Fishing Community's Response to Seaweed Farming. ICLARM Newsletter 3(3):6-8. (43) SMITH, I.R., M.Y. PUZON, AND C.N. VIDAL-LIBUNAO. 1980. Phil- ippine Municipal Fisheries: A Review of Resources, Technology and Socioeconomics. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 4. Interna- tional Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management and the Fishery Industry Development Council, Manila. (44) TORTELL, P. AND W. YAP. 1976. Mussel Culture Gathers Momen- tum in the Philippines. Fish Farming International 3:26-28. (45) TURNER, R.E. 1977. Intertidal Vegetation and Commercial Yields of Penaeid Shrimp. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106:411-416. (46) VILLALUZ, D.K. 1953. Fish Farming in the Philippines. Manila: Bookman Inc. (47) YENGOYAN, A.A. 1976. Household Structure, Capital Intensity, and Economic Viability: Social Profiles of Aquaculture Production in Capiz Province, in Small-Scale Fisheries Development. Eds. Lock- wood and Ruddle. Honolulu: East-West Center, pp. 131-142. APPENDIX A Fishery Regions of the Philippines The regions in the Philippines were numbered from I-XI until 1979; after that time, X-XII. In this report, especially tables 9 and 10, the following assignment of provinces to regions is used. Region I: Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union, Pangasinan Region II: Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva Viscaya Region III: Bataan, Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales, Aurora Sub. Prov., Nueva Ecija Region IV: Batangas, Cavite, Laguna, Marinduque, Rizal, Min- doro Occ., Mindoro Or., Palawan, Quezon, Romblon, Metro Manila Region V: Albay, Camarines N., Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Masbate, Sorsogon Region VI: Aklan, Antique, Capiz, 'Iloilo, Negros Occ. Region VII: Bohol, Cebu, Negros Or. Region VIII: E. Samar, Leyte, No. Samar, S. Leyte, W. Samar Region IX: Sulu, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur Region X: Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Bukidnon, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Misamis Occ., Misamis Or., Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur Region XI: Maguindano, S. Cotabato, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Or. 31