2001 Discussion Paper – Unpublished

Capture or Culture?

Comparing Fisheries Co-Management and Aquaculture in Southern Laos

Simon R. Bush

Australian Mekong Resource Centre (AMRC), Division of Geography, University of Sydney, NSW 2006

Australia email: srbush@mail.usyd.edu.au

Ian G. Baird

Pakse, Champasak, Lao PDR email: ianbaird@laonet.net

Running Head: Capture and Culture Fisheries in Southern Laos

Keywords: Aquaculture, Fisheries, Community Management, Co-Management, Laos

Abstract

This paper argues that there is a bias in fisheries management in Laos toward aquaculture

development by donors and the government alike, even though aquaculture has the potential

to cause serious social and environmental impacts. Examples are given of three communities

that have or wish to adopt aquaculture in Champasak, one of the most fish abundant

provinces in the country. These are followed by a case study of a community based fisheries

co-management system of Fish Conservation Zones and other regulations in the mainstream

Mekong River that could be used in a more balanced approach to aquatic resources

management in the future.

1
Introduction

Freshwater fish and other inland aquatic animals constitute a very important source of food

and income for rural people living adjacent to the Mekong River and her tributaries,

including those in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR or Laos). Within Laos

there is an abundance of aquaecosystems that include the mainstream Mekong River, main

tributaries, small streams, seasonal back swamps, and wet-rice fields (Claridge 1996). These

environments provide habitat for between 500 (Kottelat and Whitten 1996) and 1200

(Rainboth 1996) fish species in the Mekong River Basin, and also a diversity of fisheries

exploited by rural communities (Claridge et al. 1997).

The importance of aquatic resources to the majority of the rural population of Laos is evident

in the various estimates of fish consumption. These range from the national government

estimate of 7 kg/person/year (Phonvisay 1994) to recent locally specific mean estimates of

17.5 kg/person/year in Savannakhet (Garaway 1999) and 29.06 kg/person/year in Luang

Phrabang (Sjorslev and Coates 2000). In Khong District, Champasak province (see figure 1),

which supports some of the most productive and biodiverse fisheries in the country (Baird

2000), the mean estimate was calculated at 42 kg/person/year, and fish were consumed in 52-

95% of all meals (Baird et al. 1998). In Sanasomboun District, also in Champasak province,

where wildcapture fisheries are believed to be less productive, fish is estimated to be present

in 30-85% of all meals (Noraseng et al. 1999). The vast majority of the fish consumed in

Laos are wild, and aquaculture contributes little to fish production in most parts of the

country, especially in rural areas.

For a number of years estimates of total wildcapture production were set at 20,000 Mt/yr for

Laos (FAO 1996), and recent government estimates put the production only slightly higher at

26,000 Mt/yr. (DLF 1999). This underestimation is a direct result of the difficulties faced in

2
estimating catches in predominantly subsistence fisheries, and it has effectively meant that

wildcapture fisheries have been undervalued in national, regional and international

development and research forums (MRC 1995; Garaway 1999; MRC 1999). Recent

estimates of 205,788 Mt/yr by the Mekong River Commission (MRC) (Sjorslev and Coates

2000) are more realistic and in keeping with the production estimates for other countries in

the Mekong Basin, including Cambodia, which is believed to produce over 1 million Mt/yr.

(van Zalinge 1998). In comparison, estimates of the national production of small-scale

aquaculture in Laos range from 7,540 Mt/yr (DLF 1997, cited in Guttman 2000) to 8,240

Mt/yr (Guttman and Funge-Smith 2000). Despite tacit assumptions that the wild capture

fisheries are in decline due to increasing fishing pressure on stocks by rising populations,

there has been a disproportionate focus on aquaculture by the Lao government and the donor

community (see UNDP 1996).

Efforts toward the management and development of Lao fisheries (Phonvisay 1994, 1997), as

well as those of many other riparian countries’ fisheries (MRC 2000), have largely been

focused upon the provision of income and nutrition through the extension of Small-Scale

Rural Aquaculture (SRA). Resultantly, aquaculture has received the bulk of donor funding in

recent years even though it is less important to the rural population of Laos than wildcapture

fisheries. Only a few projects have been developed to support the improvement of

community-based management of wildcapture fisheries in Laos, such the Lao Community

Fisheries and Dolphin Conservation Project and its successor, the Environmental Protection

and Community Development in Siphandone Wetland Project (UNDP 1996; Baird 1999;

Baird and Flaherty 1999). There have, however, also been research projects focused on

enhancing community fisheries (Noraseng et al. 1999; Garaway et al. 1999), and a small

number have focused specifically on technical monitoring of wildcapture fisheries through

catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) studies (Warren et al. 1998; Noraseng and Warren 1999). As

3
Ruddle (1993) argues, such biases toward aquaculture can be more a function of satisfying

the policies of donor agencies rather than a response to a need for aquaculture.

This paper argues that there has been a strong and disproportional focus on aquaculture in the

management and development of Lao fisheries and that this focus is the result of biases

toward aquaculture within international development circles. Furthermore, it is argued that

aquaculture, as Kelly (1996) presented, has in some cases “been ‘naturalised’…as a common

sensical and irrefutable positive solution to underdevelopment” (p.43) and that this process of

naturalisation has permeated through to the expectations of fishing communities despite

obvious restrictions in meeting, or wanting to meet those expectations. Finally, it is proposed

that natural aquatic co-management regimes are sometimes a realistic, cost-effective way of

improving natural resource management, protecting biodiversity, increasing fish productivity,

increasing community solidarity, and reducing rural poverty.

A background to fishery and aquaculture development in Laos is provided, followed by a

review of generic concerns related to inland aquaculture. We then present some of the

expectations that two groups of fishers in Champasak hold for aquaculture and one example

of the impact of aquaculture in Khong District. Finally, a case study of a successful

community based co-management system based on Fish Conservation Zones (FCZ) and other

regulations in Khong District is given.

Aquaculture in Laos

Aquaculture in Laos has had a longer history than most realise. The use of trap ponds in

Laos and northeast Thailand date back hundreds of years (Setboonsarng 1993). In the

northern provinces of Laos aquaculture was thought to have been imported around 1,000

years ago when ethnic Han moved down the mainland Southeast Asian peninsula from China

bringing with them Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Giant Goldfish (Carassius

auratus), as well as the required technical knowledge for both rice-fish and small scale

4
aquaculture systems (Williams 1997; Edwards 2000). However, despite this, aquaculture has

only been increasingly evident for the last 40 years and is still only a relatively new

production technology in the southern provinces. As mentioned above, aquaculture fish

production remains very limited in the country.

Aquaculture was first introduced to Laos, as a development project, in the 1950s by the

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and became the focus of

fisheries development. In 1956 a plan for inland aquaculture was written and supported by

USAID in collaboration with the Government of Thailand (USAID 1973). The plan included

the development of seven aquaculture stations of which five were built, and later abandoned

due to political instability, in Pakse, Savannakhet, Thakek, Khong Sedone and Nong Teng in

Vientiane. Then as part of a larger development aid portfolio to Laos valued at US$74

million per year from 1968 to 1973 (Chanda 1982), and after a USAID feasibility study in

1965, the stations were restored and aquaculture was targeted as a means of diverting ethnic

minority communities from opium growing (USAID 1973).

Although USAID pulled out of Laos just prior to the 1975 change of government,

aquaculture has remained as the most dominant fisheries development paradigm. Initial

efforts in 1978 came from the Mekong Interim Committee with the Management of the Tha

Nong Pilot Fish Farm project (Gupta et al. 2000). However, the longest running initiative for

aquaculture development in Laos has been through the ongoing support of the Food and

Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) Aquaculture project by the United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (Singh 1994). The first two phases of the project

(LAO/78/014 and LAO/82/014) were focused on seed production and technical capacity of

hatcheries (Guttman 2000) and developed trials on cage culture in Ngam Ngum reservoir

north of the national capital Vientiane (Gupta et al. 2000). The third phase, Development of

Fish Culture Extension (LAO/89/003), began in 1989 and was followed up by the Provincial

5
Aquaculture Development (LAO/97/007) project which sought to strengthen extension

models and promote small-scale rural aquaculture technologies in the provinces of

Oudomxay, Sayabouri, Xieng Khouang, Savannakhet and Sekong (Funge-Smith 1999;

Funge-Smith 2000; Guttman 2000). More recently, since 1993, the Asian Institute of

Technology (AIT) Aqua-Outreach Program (AOP) has worked in close cooperation with the

Department of Livestock and Fisheries (DLF) in Savannakhet province developing nursing

and spawning networks (Gupta et al. 2000).

The historical focus on aquaculture is seen here as being due to a combination of factors.

These include the natural complexities associated with effectively implementing wildcapture

fisheries monitoring, the lack of national expertise in formal fish ecology (the first fish

ecology PhD undertaken by a Lao national is currently in progress), and the lack of funding

by international donor agencies. Alternatively, culture fisheries are seen as definable,

predictable, production oriented technologies that are oriented toward a product that is

already highly regarded, nutritionally and culturally, by the Lao population.

In terms of funding, output driven capture fisheries offer less opportunity for tangible budget

expenditure compared to any form of culture fisheries. Inputs to culture based fisheries

include infrastructure ranging from hatcheries, fish stations, extension offices, ponds or

cages, and even the development of social infrastructure such as fingerling and feed trade as

well as markets for the end product. In terms of extended tangible benefit from donor funds,

culture based fisheries appear to be more attractive than wildcapture fisheries. The other side

to this is that capture fisheries are highly complex or, as Wilson et al. (1994) argued, chaotic,

and not amenable to numerical, infrastructure based sampling and management.

Wildcapture fisheries have generally been marginalised to the point of being seen as an

almost irrelevant, ‘hunter-gatherer’ activity, not in keeping with the development goals of

governments or rural development agencies the world over. The increased use of trap ponds

6
in some parts of Laos and northeast Thailand is sometimes taken as a sign of a growing

adoption of aquaculture (Setboonsarng 1993). However, the increased prevalence of trap

ponds is very much a wildcapture phenomenon and should be considered as such (Shoemaker

et al. 2001).

Rural communities wishing to comply and adopt aquaculture and culture based fisheries must

overcome a range of economic, socio-technical, institutional or environmental constraints that

have become evident in recent studies and projects (Thomas 1994; FAO/UNDP 1996; Lee

1997; Funge-Smith 1999; Funge-Smith 2000). Under such circumstances it is the more well

off land owning farmers and, conversely, not poor and landless farmers in rural communities

who generally have the resources to participate.

Some concerns over aquaculture

Over the last two decades a range of generic concerns have been documented over the

application and development of aquaculture in developing countries. Although most of the

critiques of aquaculture have focused on brackish water shrimp culture (Bailey 1988; Hannig

1988; Phillips 1988; Muluk and Bailey 1996; Primavera 1997; Thanh-Be et al. 1999), there

also exists a range of social and environmental concerns relevant to inland rural aquaculture

and aquaculture in general.

Social-economic impacts have been derived from increased social stratification, changing

land tenure rights (Weeks 1990; Weeks 1992; Kelly 1996; Ruddle 1996), changing labour

patterns (Weeks 1992; Muluk and Bailey 1996; Ruddle 1996), loss of genetic diversity and

subsequent nutrition (Weeks 1990; Weeks 1992), and changing authority-power structures

and community cohesiveness (Ruddle 1993). Although some recent projects in Laos have

kept such potential impacts in mind, and have tried to develop a good understanding of

gender and access related issues (Murray and Sayasane 1998), the limitations of aquaculture

remain, including high entry costs for pond construction and risk from debt incursion (ibid.).

7
These factors have resulted in low levels of adoption amongst the least well off families

(Funge-Smith 2000).

Environmental impacts of aquaculture have received a great deal of attention and have

included invasion of natural systems by exotic species, risks associated with the introduction

of genetically and hormonally modified organisms, associations between aquaculture and

disease outbreaks such as Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome (EUS), high Feed Conversion

Rates of carnivorous species, nutrient pollution, habitat degradation, and water diversion

from small streams and other aquatic habitats (Fernando 1991; Welcomme and Vidthayanon

1999; Barg and Phillips 2000; New 1999; WRI 1999.; Baird 1999a; Folke 1998; de Moor

1996; Barnabe 1994; Stickney 1994; Phillips et al. 1993; Austin 1993; Pullin 1993; Costa-

Pierce et al. 1993; Csavas 1993; King 1993). Despite Tan et al. (1999, cited in Guttman and

Funge-Smith 2000) finding little in the way of current impacts of SRA in Laos, apart from

localised effects of fish escaping and nutrient discharge during flood periods, there is good

reason to believe that impacts will increase as aquaculture becomes more prevalent

throughout the country.

Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.), the main aquaculture

species promoted in Asia, and Laos, are recognised as established in parts of the Mekong

Basin (Welcomme and Vidthayanon 2000). In other parts of the world, both species have

shown to be persistent exotic species (Powell and Powell 1999) with direct impacts on native

species through habitat alternation and competition with native species (Oguta-Ohwayo 1990;

Fernando 1991; Costa-Pierce et al. 1993; de Moor 1996; Zambrano et al. 1999; Economidis

et al. 2000). There is already evidence for breeding populations of Common Carp in the

mainstream Mekong as mostly small (<50g), as well as some large specimens (between 1 and

2kg), are recorded in CPUE studies in Khong District (Terry Warren pers. comm.). In the

8
Ou River, in Luang Phrabang province, communities consider Common Carp as one of the

most important species caught (ibid.).

Although it is true that the environmental and social impacts of SRA are undocumented and,

at this stage, thought to be low, the focus on aquaculture by government and donor agencies

alike will only serve to raise the expectations that communities have of aquaculture and so

increase its prevalence. We recognise that there is a place for aquaculture in Laos but the

diversion of funds and effort away from the responsible management of wildcapture fisheries

is detrimental to the long-term sustainability of natural resources.

Cultured Fisheries in Capture Communities

Champasak province has one of, if not the most abundant wildcapture fishery in Laos, even

though there have been reports that the area of aquaculture in the province has increased by

1,000 ha in recent years as a result of irrigation development (Gupta et al. 2000). Khong

District alone has a reported annual wild catch of 4,000 Mt/yr. (Baird et al. 1998). With

reports of such increases of aquaculture, the province provides a starting place for

questioning the role and expectation of aquaculture by local communities and the government

alike.

The following highlights these expectations in three communities in Champasak. The first

two, Ban Don Kho and Ban Nok, are situated on the Mainstream Mekong. Interviews with

fishers in these villages highlight the expectation that they hold for the wildcapture fishery

and for aquaculture. The third community, Ban Oupaxa, in Khong District, presents an

example of a direct impact from the privatisation of a common property resource as a result

of the adoption of aquaculture. These examples are not designed to separately challenge the

application and use of aquaculture but rather provide some background to the adoption of

aquaculture technologies in communities that have access to wild capture resources.

9
This represents a divide between government and local communities in that policy can

directly influence people to adopt inappropriate technologies under the rubric of development

and food security, in accordance with international or national ‘targets’ (Maxwell 1999). In

light of this the following perceptions and expectations of villagers are now presented, taking

into account the social position of the informants and their own political, social and economic

expectations.

Ban Don Kho – Island fishing community

Ban Don Kho is an island village on the Mekong River 30 km north of the provincial capital

Pakse. The community is a farming and fishing community with the waters around the island

being renowned as fishing grounds for spawning Probarbus jullieni (Pa Eun in Lao). The

Indigenous Fisheries Development and Management Project (IFDMP) together with the

Provincial Department of Livestock and Fisheries (DLF) have sought to use P. jullieni caught

from these waters for induced breeding and for generating P. jullieni fry for enhancing small

water bodies in Champasak Province. The village has a small area of wet rice cultivation and

dry season vegetable gardens are situated on seasonally exposed sandbars and riverbanks.

Bush (1999) investigated the various modes of fisheries management in the village in light of

pressures from emerging local and international markets. A group of five male villagers from

the island were interviewed. One was the village headman while the others were small

holding landowners on the island as well as master fishers.

A series of questions were asked to ascertain whether more or less fish were being sold

compared to five years ago. The group agreed that more fish were being sold because there

were more fish caught. They were then asked, circumspectly, whether there would be more

or less fish in the future. The group agreed that there would be less. The questioning then

moved onto alternatives with a view to illicit ideas on management of the fishery. The group

10
agreed, after some discussion, that the village would like aquaculture ponds to make up for

the lack of fish being caught in the river.

This poses some important questions as well as interesting politics. It is also recognised that

the answers given could have been a function of there being a foreign researcher present and,

as experienced in other situations, foreign fishery researchers are sometimes seen as

aquaculture experts. It must also be realised that the group was made up of leaders within the

community who had access to government policy that focuses on aquaculture. In particular,

the group were directly involved in the activities of the IDFMP and DLF in spawning P.

jullieni that essentially exposed a community involved in the trade of wild caught Mekong

fish (Noraseng et al. 1999) to the possibility of culturing their most expensive riverine fish. It

must be noted, however, that attempts to culture P. jullieni by the DLF in any great number

have not yet been successful. This has therefore resulted in an interest in aquaculture by a

group of farmers and fishers with a relatively robust wildcapture fishery and limited

resources, in terms of land, to actually own ponds.

This may well be an example of government policy being played out in the minds of villagers

in a situation where it is not practical to implement. However, it does highlight the

incongruous ideals of villagers responding in line with government policy in relation to their

actual abilities and circumstance.

Ban Nok – Commercial fish traders

Ban Nok is a village near Pathoumphone Town that is 45km south of Pakse. The group

interviewed was made up of one export fish trader and a number of professional fishers who

sold fish to the trader. The export trader sold fish up river to Thailand.

The group agreed that there were previously more fish and that there would be less fish in the

future. When asked what they would do when there were less fish, they remarked that this

was not a problem because they were already investing in aquaculture. Further questions

11
revealed that some of the group had fishponds as a result of the road construction near their

rice fields from which soil was taken, thus highlighting the circumstantial rather than planned

development of aquaculture.

The group then explained that they would continue catching wild fish, even though they

already (and increasingly) had access to fish to eat from aquaculture. The fish they targeted

from the Mekong were large migratory Pangasius spp. catfish and the carp Cirrhinus

microlepis (Pa Phone in Lao). These fish are purely export species for Thai markets, making

them essentially commercial species.

As in Ban Don Kho, this raises a series of issues. It appears that this group essentially sees

aquaculture as an alternative to wildcapture fisheries and as such a realistic means of

attaining income and nutrition. In doing so, the fishers are seemingly discounting

wildcapture management through their expectation of aquaculture.

It is irresponsible to argue that aquaculture will be able to replace wildcapture fisheries. It is

also incorrect to argue that aquaculture always causes fishers to devalue wildcapture

fisheries. Although the environmental concerns over aquaculture discussed in the above

section are very real for many communities around the world, they may seem distant to most

communities in Champasak, especially those that have such a strong tradition in wildcapture

fisheries. There are however more evident social impacts. Issues of social stratification,

although shown to be minimal in communities in other southern provinces in Laos (Garaway

1999), are very real in terms of access to protein, if wildcapture fisheries were to be depleted

on the basis described by the fishers. An aquaculture in Laos based on such premises,

whether intentional or not, may be detrimental rather than beneficial to communities and

wildcapture fisheries alike. Especially as it is increasingly shown that it is poorer households

that rely on wild fishery resources (Garaway 1999).

12
Ban Oupaxa – Privatisation of the commons

In Ban Oupaxa village, in Khong District, the introduction of aquaculture has led to the

privatisation of common property resources by the relatively powerful and influential. A

village swamp, a natural depression previously fished by everyone in the community, became

effectively privatised a few years ago after one of the more powerful members of the

community decided he wanted to try farming fish in the natural pond. Essentially, a resource

that used to benefit the whole community, including the poor, was taken and given over to a

single well-off family. This not only reduced fishing access but also redirected water away

from being used to feed livestock and water small gardens. The privatisation of common

property in the name of promoting aquaculture is one of the most serious problems that

aquaculture advocates must address, especially if they wish to convince critics that

aquaculture does not represent a threat to the poor.

Natural Aquatic Resource Co-Management in Khong District, Champasak Province

Nowhere in Laos are wild capture fisheries more important to local people than in the

southernmost part of the country, in Khong District, Champasak Province, where most of the

over 65,000 people who populate the district are semi-subsistence rice farmers and small-

scale fishers living on numerous islands in the middle of the Mekong River, or along the

banks of the river (Baird 1999b; Baird et al. 1998).

Based on a rapid survey carried out in 14 Khong villages chosen using a stratified random

selection process in 1997, 94% of the families in the district participate in at least subsistence

fisheries, and the average person in Khong caught 62 kg of fish over a twelve month period in

1996/1997 (Baird et al. 1998). Fish products are the most important source of animal protein

consumed during approximately 80% of the meals in Khong, and the total annual fish catch

for the district has been estimated to be around 4,000 metric tonnes [Baird, 1998 #289;

13
Phonvisay, 2001 #740. Estimates of the value of the traded fish in Khong range from

between US$450,000 (Phonvisay and Bush 2001) and over US$1 million (Baird et al. 1998).

In 1993, the Lao Community Fisheries and Dolphin Protection Project (LCFDPP) was

established as a small NGO and local Lao Government supported initiative designed to

promote the conservation and sustainable management of natural aquatic resources in the

mainstream Mekong River and adjacent seasonal streams, rice fields, and natural depressions

using participatory methods. The LCFDPP attempted to assist locals in bettering the quality

of their lives while at the same time improving environmental conditions, which are the basis

for aquatic productivity. The initiative led to the establishment of a natural aquatic resource

co-management programme in cooperation with local Government, in which communities

have been given the authority to establish and implement their own unique sets of co-

management regulations through a participatory and voluntary process (Baird 1999).

Between 1993 and 1999, 63 villages in Khong District established co-management

regulations for managing aquatic resources in the vicinities of their communities.

Communities in Khong and other parts of Laos are relatively homogenous and economically

unstratified, leading to a relatively small number of stakeholders compared with what is

common in many other parts of the world (Ireson 1995; Ireson 1996; Baird 1999).

Community based systems or resource management are often extremely varied as a function

of both the diversity of landscapes they preside over (Hviding 1994) and the diversity of

communities involved (Baird 1999a). This is in generally in contrast with the often narrow,

homogenous systems of centralised management (Hviding 1994). Within such government

systems, planners often overlook the value of existing rural activities and systems set up by

communities (Stanley 1991). Therefore the formulation of co-management regulations

should be done in a way that allows communities to take control of local planning processes

through conducting negotiations within and between communities and with other

14
stakeholders. Concurrently, the Lao government has never really had a strongly centralised

control over rural areas (Evans 1995). Therefore the implementation of community based

and co-management systems generally fit the model of management proposed by Wilson et

al. (1994: 292) as “…a hierarchical management structure that depends heavily upon its most

decentralised elements”. In this sense “the community” are recognised not merely as an

aggregate of individuals, people or fishing boats but rather as a discrete group with a moral

nature and therefore the ability to successfully manage their own resources (McCay, 1998).

In Khong, the main stakeholders involved in this process were: 1. Villages (including all their

members i.e. both men and women); 2. Government (including line agencies responsible for

aquatic resources); and 3. Non-government Organisation (NGO) projects supporting co-

management in Khong district. As part of the regulations, which are recognized by the

Government, individual communities have established 68 separate Fish Conservation Zones

(FCZs), or fishery “no-take zones”, in the mainstream Mekong River. The establishment of

FCZs has been one of the most important elements of the co-management system, although a

wide range of regulations related to various aquatic resource management have been adopted

in different communities. They include:

1) Banning the use of fish traps in streams at the beginning of the rainy season when

some fish species migrate up to rain fed rice fields, natural depressions and other

wetlands to spawn.

2) Prohibiting the capture of snakehead fish (Channa striata) (Pa Kho in Lao) fry with

scoop nets.

3) Restricting the harvesting of frogs (Rana spp.) (Kop in Lao), especially during the

spawning season.

4) Restricting a number of fishing gear restrictions, including fish spearing at night and

water banging fishing.

15
 5) Protecting wetland habitat.

The aquatic resource co-management programme in Khong has been successful, and local

people largely believe that fish stocks and fish catches have increased due to the

implementation of co-management regulations, including the establishment of FCZs (Hogan

1997; Meusch 1997; Cunningham 1998; Chomchanta et al. 2000). Improved village

solidarity has also been widely reported (Baird 1999b), and this has all been done at a very

low cost to donors and the Government, since villagers do most of the work themselves.

While there remain a number of unanswered technical and biological questions regarding the

reasons why the establishment of various management strategies, including the establishment

of FCZs, has led to increased fish stocks (Baird and Flaherty 1999; Chomchanta et al. 2000),

villagers are insistent that the systems are working and have widely reported that they intend

to continue implementing the systems indefinitely. A number of reviewers have also

concluded that the programme has been successful and appropriate (see Baird and Flaherty

1999; Meusch 1997; Hogan 1997; Cunningham 1998; Chomchanta et al. 2000).

Aquatic Resource Management

Many development projects have been initiated based on the assumption that aquaculture is

the best or only way to increase the amount of fish products available to the local population.

This is a dangerous assumption. While aquaculture may well be a suitable intervention for

improving fisheries productivity in certain areas, especially dry areas with few natural

fisheries, we should not assume that aquaculture will always be a suitable intervention

(Gregory and Guttman 1996), or that aquaculture generally does not contribute to the

degradation of natural resources that are the basis for productive wild capture fisheries.

This is not a new thesis. Past critiques of aquaculture have stressed the need for balance

between culture and capture fisheries, recognising the need for appropriate interventions

(Ruddle 1993; Gregory and Guttman 1996). However, there is a need to place greater

16
emphasis on alternatives to aquaculture such as community-based management and co-

management. Furthermore, the burden of proof should be on the proponents of aquaculture to

provide sufficient evidence to justify introducing new species for aquaculture, or altering

habitats to accommodate aquaculture. It must be recognised that aquaculture and wild fish

stocks are often in competition for the same limited resources, such as land, water and

nutrients (Folke 1998; New 1999; Barg and Phillips 2000). Internationally, aquaculturists

have largely managed to take advantage of the system, and have avoided internalising the

external costs associated with aquaculture development (Folke 1998).

In Laos, government policy on aquaculture is seemingly raising the expectations of

aquaculture among communities already with access to wildcapture fisheries as indicated in

Ban Don Kho and Ban Nok. In this sense there is a difference between the government’s

policy, the relevance of aquaculture, and the lack of practical adoption of it in the villages.

As such more research could determine whether there is a real priority for aquaculture for

rural communities, what the uses, both direct and indirect, of wildcapture and aquaculture

resources are and, who within these communities are specifically adopting aquaculture, and

why.

As has been shown in Khong District, the initiation of community-based aquatic resource co-

management can be a sustainable alternative to the promotion of aquaculture, and can

increase the amount of fish available to local populations as well as protect biodiversity.

While it may not always be possible to establish workable co-management systems in

particular areas (Baird 1999), we argue that it should generally be one of the first avenues

considered, with aquaculture only being introduced after the overall situation related to

natural aquatic resources has been considered in detail. The government and development

agencies need to reconsider the ways in which they approach natural aquatic resource

management issues in Laos and other countries around the world. While it is admirable that

17
efforts have been made to integrate small-scale aquaculture with other agricultural activities

(Edwards 1994; Edwards 1998; Edwards et al. 1999), we now need to advance further to

considering aquaculture in the broader context of overall natural aquatic resource

management.

Recent turns in aquatic resources management may reflect a move toward a more balanced

view. Leading on from a shift in the focus of donors such as the United Kingdom’s

Department for International Development (DFID), which is advocating the Sustainable

Livelihood Approach to development (DFID 1999), as first developed by Chambers and

Conway (1992). The approach is based on a holistic model of development that takes into

account human, natural, financial, social and physical capital that influence structures and

processes within households or communities framed within a context of vulnerability (DFID

1999). Such a model has the potential for including the multi-faceted aspects of rural natural

resource use as well as production technologies such as SRA. However, before this occurs

greater attention needs to be given to community based and co-management structures

governing wildcapture fisheries in order to raise its profile within government and donor

circles.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper is not to deny the potential importance of aquaculture as a means of

producing increased amounts of affordable aquatic protein, especially when herbivorous and

omnivorous finfish species are being cultured on a small-scale and as a part of integrated

farming systems. While there has not been space here to review the benefits of aquaculture,

it is acknowledged that aquaculture has the potential to benefit society and the environment.

Nor is the objective of this paper to claim that natural aquatic co-management will always

represent the most appropriate form of intervention in particular areas. Many social and

environmental factors need to be considered, and individual circumstances are generally

18
complex. Aquaculture can benefit local people in rural areas, but we need to be cautious and

careful when it comes to promoting it. While aquaculture activities are sometimes essentially

environmentally and socially benign, they can cause or increase various kinds of

environmental and social problems, especially when enough precautions are not taken. We

need to be especially alert for problems, and address them at an early stage, preferably before

they happen.

Aquaculture will undoubtedly continue to be developed in countries like Laos. Therefore, it

is necessary to push for the adoption of more sustainable forms, rather than denying it role in

rural development. Essentially, aquaculture needs to be developed carefully, and in

accordance with the precautionary principle, although following the adoption of such an

approach will certainly slow the growth of aquaculture over the short term (New 1999).

However, careful promotion of aquaculture should benefit aquaculture in the long term, by

silencing its critics through improving practices.

Aquaculture in Laos and other countries in the region should not be regarded as the only

means for increasing fish production. Instead, the first avenue of intervention should

generally be to promote the conservation and sustainable management of naturally occurring

aquatic resources, since most rural people still rely primarily on these for their subsistence

and welfare. Well-managed wild fish stocks can help to take up the slack when famines,

flooding and drought cause land-based crops to fail. They are especially important for the

poorest of the poor, and subsistence-oriented people living in rural areas. After the

wildcapture issues have been considered, possibilities for promoting sustainable and

equitable aquaculture can be considered within the overall context of wild capture fisheries

and natural aquatic resource management. Some types of aquaculture have a useful role to

play in improving the livelihoods of local people, but we need to remain critical and sceptical

regarding the benefits that are often assumed to come from aquaculture. Aquaculture is not a

19
panacea for solving the wild capture fisheries problems that we are facing worldwide, and

aquaculture cannot and should not be seen a substitute for sound fisheries management that

allows for the full participation of all stakeholders. It is but a part of the equation, and how it

is extended and promoted will indicate whether it is helpful to the rural poor and the

environment or not.

Future research needs to focus on balancing models of aquatic resources management at

donor, government and local levels focusing on the needs of communities, rather than

unrealistically fuelling their expectations. Such research will provide for a better resistance

to livelihood vulnerability, as well as address issues of resource sustainability and

biodiversity rather than focusing solely on production. This in turn will move aquatic

resources management away from aquaculture and toward a more balanced approach.

20
References

Austin, B. 1993. Environmental issues in the control of bacterial diseases of farmed fish.
Paper read at Environment and Aquaculture in Developing Countries.

Bailey, Conner. 1988. The Social Consequences of Tropical Shrimp Mariculture

Development. Ocean and Coastal Management 11:31-44.

Baird, I.G. 1999a. Fishing for sustainability in the Mekong basin. Watershed 4 (3):54-56.

———. 1999b. Towards Sustainable Co-Management of Mekong River Inland Aquatic

Resources, including Fisheries, in Southern Lao PDR. Pakse, Lao PDR: Unpublished
Technical Report prepared for the Environmental Protection and Community
Development in Siphandone Wetland Project, CESVI.

———. 2000. Aquatic Biodiversity in the Siphandone Wetlands. Vientiane, Lao PDR:
CESVI.

Baird, I.G., V. Inthaphaysi, B. Phylaivanh, and P. Kisouvannalath. 1998. A rapid Fisheries

Survey in Khong District, Champasak Province, Southern Lao PDR. Paske, Lao PDR:
Environmental Protection and Community Development in Siphandone Wetland
Project, CESVI.

Baird, Ian G., and M. Flaherty. 1999. Fish Conservation Zones and Indigenous Ecological
Knowledge in Southern Laos: A First Step in Monitoring and Assessing
Effectiveness. Pakse: CESVI.

Barg, U., and M.J. Phillips. 2000. Environment and Sustainability. Rome: FAO Fisheries
Department, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Barnabe, G. 1994. Aquaculture. New York: Ellis Horwood.

Chanda, Nayan. 1982. Economic Changes in Laos, 1975-1980. In Contemporary Laos :

studies in the politics and society of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, edited by
M. Stuart-Fox. St. Lucia, Qld: University of Queensland Press.

Chomchanta, P., P. Vongphasouk, S. Chanrya, C. Soulignavong, B. Saadsy, and T.J. Warren.

2000. A preliminary assessment of Mekong Fishery Conservation Zones in the
Siphandone area of Southern Lao PDR, and recommendations for further evaluation
and monitoring. Final Report. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Prepared for The Living Aquatic
Resources and Research Centre (LARReC).

Claridge, G.F. 1996. An Inventory of Wetlands of the Lao PDR. Vientiane, Lao PDR: IUCN.

Claridge, G.F., T. Sorangkhoum, and I.G. Baird. 1997. Community Fisheries in Lao PDR: A
survey of Techniques and Issues. Vientiane, Lao PDR: IUCN - The World
Conservation Union.

Costa-Pierce, B.A., J. Moreau, and R.S.V. Pullin. 1993. New Introductions of Common Carp
(Cyprinus Carpio) and Their Impacts on Indigenous Species in Sub-Sahara Africa.
Discovery and Innovation 5 (3):211-221.

21
Csavas, I. 1993. Aquaculture development and environmental issues in the developing
countries of Asia. Paper read at Environment and Aquaculture in Developing
Countries.

Cunningham, P. 1998. Extending a Co-Management Network to Save the Mekong's Giants.

Catch and Culture 3 (3):6-7.

de Moor, I. J. 1996. Case Studies of the Invasion by Four Alien Fish Species (Cyprinus
carpio, Micropterus salmoides, Oreochromis macrochirus and O. massambicus) of
Freshwater Ecosystems in Southern Africa. Trans. Roy. S. Afr. 51:233-255.

DFID. 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: Department for International
Development.

DLF. 1999. Fisheries resources and fisheries development policy framework in the Lao PDR.
Vientiane, Lao PDR: Department of Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry.

Economidis, P.S., E. Dimitriou, R. Pagoni, E. Michaloudi, and L. Natsis. 2000. Introduced

and translocated fish species in the inland waters of Greece. Fisheries Management
and Ecology 7 (3):239-250.

Edwards, Peter. 1994. A Systems Approach for the Promotion of Integrated Aquaculture.
Paper read at Integrated Fish Farming International Workshop, 11-15 October 1994,
at Wuxi, PR China.

———. 1998. A systems approach for the promotion of intergrated aquaculture. Aquaculture
Economics and Management 2 (1):7-12.

———. 2000. Aquaculture, Poverty Impacts and Livelihoods. Bangkok: Asian Institute of
Technology.

Edwards, Peter, Harvey Demaine, Nick Innes-Taylor, and Danai Turongmang. 1999.
Sustainable Aquaculture for Smallscale Farmers: Need for a Balanced Model.
Outlook on Agriculture 25 (1):19-26.

FAO. 1996. Fishery Statistics: Capture production. Rome: FAO.

FAO/UNDP. 1996. Development of Fish Culture Extension. Rome: Food an Agriculture

Organisation of the United Nations.

Fernando, C.H. 1991. Impacts of Fish Introductions in Tropical Asia and America. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48 (Suppl. 1):24-32.

Folke, C., N. Kautsky, H. Berg, A. Jansson and M. Troell,. 1998. The Ecological Footprint
Concept For Sustainable Seafood Production: A Review. Ecological Applications 8 (1
(Supplement)):563-571.

Funge-Smith, S. 1999. Small Scale rural aquaculture in Lao PDR. Vientiane: FAO.

———. 2000. Provincial Aquaculture Development Project: End of Assignment Report.

Vientiane: Provincial Aquaculture Development Project LAO/97/007.

22
Garaway, C.J. 1999. Small Waterbody Fisheries and the Potential for Community-Led
Enhancement: Case Studies in Lao PDR. PhD, T.H. Huxley School for the
Environment, Earth Sciences and Engineering, Imperial college of Science
Technology and Medicine, University of London, London.

Garaway, Caroline, Kai Lorenzen, and Bounthanom Chamsingh. 1999. Reservoir Fisheries
Management in Savannakhet Province, Lao PDR. Savannakhet, Lao PDR: Fisheries
Management Science Programme, Overseas Development Administration.

Gregory, R., and H. Guttman. 1996. Management of Ricefield Fisheries in South East Asia:
Capture or Culture? ILEIA Newsletter (July):20-21.

Gupta, Modadugu V., Bounthong Saphakdy, and Lieng Khamsivilay. 2000. Review of
Aquaculture Support to Lao PDR During 1975-2000. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Living
Aquatic Resources Research Centre.

Guttman, Hans. 2000. Provincial Aquaculture Development Project. Bangkok: The Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Guttman, Hans, and S. Funge-Smith. 2000. The Role of Aquaculture in Rural Subsistence
Livlihoods in Lao PDR. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations.

Hannig, W. 1988. Towards a Blue Revolution: socioeconomic aspects of brackishwater pond

cultivation in Java. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Hogan, Zeb. 1997. Aquatic conservation zones: Community management of rivers and
fisheries. Watershed 3 (2):29-33.

Ireson, R. 1995. Village Irrigation in Laos: Traditional Patterns of Common Property

Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 8:541-558.

———. 1996. Invisible Walls: Village Identity and the Maintenance of Cooperation in Laos.
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 27 (2):219-244.

Kelly, P. 1996. Blue Revolution or Red Herring? Fish Farming and Development Discourse
in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 37 (1):39-57.

King, H.R. 1993. Aquaculture development and environmental issues in Africa. Paper read at
Environment and Aquaculture in Developing Countries.

Kottelat, M., and T. Whitten. 1996. Freshwater biodiversity in Asia with special reference to
fish. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Lee, Chaur Shyan. 1997. Constraints on aquaculture in developing countries. Aquaculture

Economics and Management 1 (1):65-71.

Maxwell, Simon. 1999. International targets for poverty reduction and food security. A
mildly sceptical but resolutely pragmatic view with a call for greater subsidiarity. IDS
Bulletin 30 (2):92-105.

23
Meusch, Eric. 1997. Participatory evaluation workshop of the LCFDPP. Bangkok: AIT Aqua
Outreach Report.

MRC. 1995. Strengthening of Inland Fisheries Information Systems in the Mekong Basin.
Bangkok: Mekong River Commission Secretariat.

———. 1999. The MRC Programme for Fisheries Management and Development
Cooperation. Phnom Penh: Mekong RIver Commission Secretariat.

———. 2000. MRC Programme for Fisheries Management and Development Cooperation.
Phnom Penh: Mekong River Commission Secretariat.

Muluk, Chairul, and Conner Bailey. 1996. Social and Environmental Impacts of Coastal
Aquaculture in Indonesia. In Aquaculture Development: social dimensions of an
emerging industry, edited by C. Bailey, S. Jentoft and P. Sinclair. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Murray, Una, and Kesone Sayasane. 1998. Socio-economics and Gender in Aquaculture.
Vientiane: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

New, M.B. 1999. Global Aquaculture: Current trends and challenges for the 21st century.
World Aquaculture 30 (1):8-79.

Noraseng, Prachit, Philip Hirsch, Serd Manotham, and Kaneungnit Tubtim. 1999. A Report
on Household Level Fisheries in Four Villages of Sanasomboun District, Champassak
Province, Lao PDR. Pakse: Department of Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry.

Noraseng, Prachit, Serd Manotham, Philip Hirsch, and Kaneungnit Tubtim. 1999. Seasonal
Backswamps and Small Water Body Management: Natural and Enhanced Indigenous
Fisheries. Pakse, Lao PDR: Department of Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry.

Noraseng, Prachit, and T.J. Warren. 1999. A Report on the Rapid Assessment of Lower
Sedone Fisheries Using C.P.U.E. Pakse, Lao PDR: Department of Livestock and
Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Oguta-Ohwayo, R. 1990. The decline of the native fishes of lakes Victoria and Kyoga (East
Africa) and the impact of introduced species, especially the Nile perch, Lates
niloticus, and the Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus,. Environmental Biology of
Fishes 27 (2):81-96.

Phillips, M.J., C.L. Lin, and M.C.M. Beveridge. 1993. Shrimp culture and the environment:
lessons from the world's most rapidly expanding warmwater aquaculture sector. Paper
read at Environment and Aquaculture in Developing Countries.

Phillips, Peter C. 1988. Implications of shrimp fishing and coastal land use for the artisanal
fishery of Costa Rica. Culture and Agriculture 34:8-11.

Phonvisay, A., and S.R. Bush. 2001. Baseline Study of Fish Trade from the Siphandone
Fishery, Champassak Province. Vientiane: LARREC.

24
Phonvisay, Singkham. 1994. Inland Fisheries Development Policies and Strategies in Lao
PDR with Special Emphasis on the Mekong Basin. Vientiane: Department of
Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Phonvisay, Singkham. 1997. Policy Framework for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Sub-
sector in Lao PDR. In Workshop on Aquatic Resources Research and Establishment
of the National Aquatic Resources Institute (NARI) in Lao PDR, edited by M. o. A. a.
F. Department of Livestock and Fisheries. Vientianne: Department of Livestock and
Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Powell, J.H., and R.E Powell. 1999. The freshwater ichthyofauna of Bougainville Island,
Papua New Guinea. Pacific Science 53 (4):346-356.

Primavera, J.H. 1997. Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture. Aquaculture Research

28:815-827.

Pullin, R.S.V. 1993. Discussion and recommendations on aquaculture and the environment in
developing countries. Paper read at Environment and Aquaculture in Developing
Countries.

Rainboth, W.J. 1996. Fishes of The Cambodian Mekong. Rome: FAO.

Ruddle, K. 1993. The Impacts of Aquaculture Development on Socioeconomic Environments

in Developing Countries: Toward a Paradigm for Assessment. Paper read at
Environment and Aquaculture in Developing Countries. ICLARM Conference Proc.
31.

———. 1996. Household and Community Factors Affecting Development of Small-scale

Fish Farming in Africa. In Aquaculture Development: social dimensions of an
emerging industry, edited by C. Bailey, S. Jentoft and P. Sinclair. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Setboonsarng, Sununtar. 1993. Evolution of Freshwater Aquaculture in Northeast Thailand:

growth of a new technology. Paper read at International Symposium of Socio-
Economics of Aquaculture, December 14-17, at Kee Lung, Taiwan ROC.

Shoemaker, B., I.G. Baird, and M. Baird. 2001. The people and their river: A Study of River-
Based Livelihoods in the Xe Bang Fai River Basin in Central Lao PDR. Vientaine,
Lao PDR: The Lao PDR/Canada Fund.

Singh, S.B. 1994. Fish Culture in Land-Locked Lao PDR. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter 7:16-
18.

Sjorslev, J.G., and D. Coates. 2000. Luangprabang Fisheries Survey. Vientiane: AMFC/MRC
and LARReC/NAFRI.

Stickney, R. 1994. Principles of Aquaculture. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Thanh-Be, Trahn., Dung L.C., and Brennan D. 1999. Environmental costs of shrimp culture
in the rice-growing regions of the Mekong Delta, Aquaculture. Economics and
Management, 3 (1):31-42.

25
Thomas, D.H.L. 1994. Socio-economic and cultural factors in aquaculture development: a
case study from Nigeria. Aquaculture 119:329-343.

UNDP. 1996. Development Co-operation: Lao People's Democratic Republic. Vientiane,

Lao PDR: United Nations Development Programme.

USAID. 1973. Facts of Foreign Aid to Laos: 2nd edition. Vientiane: Embassy of the United
States of America, USAID Mission to Laos.

Warren, T.J., G.C. Chapman, and Duankham Singhanouvong. 1998. The Upstream Dry-
Season Migrations of Some Important Fish Species in the Lower Mekong River of
Laos. Asian Fisheries Science 11:239-251.

Weeks, P. 1990. Aquaculture Development: An Anthropological Perspective. World

Aquaculture 21 (3):69-74.

———. 1992. Fish and People: Aquaculture and the Social Sciences. Society and Natural
Resources 5:345-357.

Welcomme, R., and C. Vidthayaonon. 1999. Report on the impacts of introduction and
stocking in the Mekong basin and policies for their control. Vientiane, Lao PDR:
Mekong River Commission.

Williams, M.J. 1997. Aquaculture and Sustainable Food Security in the Developing World.
In Sustainable Aquaculture, edited by B. E. Bardach. New York: Wiley.

WRI. 1999. Global Trends. Resources at Risk: The Decline of Freshwater Ecosystems.
Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Zalinge, N.v. 1998. Where there is water, there is fish? Cambodian fisheries in a Mekong
regional perspective. Catch and Culture 2 (1).

Zambrano, L., M.R. Perrow, C. Macias-Garcia, and V. Aguirre-Hidalgo. 1999. Impact of

introduced carp (Cyprinus carpio) in subtropical shallow ponds in Central Mexico.
Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 6 (4):281-288.

26
Figure 1. Khong District

27