In any comprehensive examination of coastal aquaculture potential it is vital that as a first step determinations be made of the species to be cultured, farm layout, production targets, costs and revenues of each type of aquaculture development planned.
This report provides a first step toward the development of such a model by presenting a preliminary analysis for fishpond aquaculture. Further refinement and development of this model is essential.
Based on the data presented in this report, particularly with respect to the foreign exchange implications of trash fish import for feed, and the capital-intensive nature of the seabass pond construction, a review should be made by Government as to whether the culture of this species in ponds is potentially as economically efficient as other alternatives for coastal aquaculture.
| Checklist | Rating* | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site Location | Present State | Future Development | Suitability | |||||||||
| Category 1: Engineering | O | M | A | G | O | M | A | G | O | M | A | G |
| 1.1 Water supply | ||||||||||||
a) Availability of stream for intake channel | X | X | X | |||||||||
b) Stream morphology | X | X | X | |||||||||
| 1.2 Hydrology | ||||||||||||
a) River discharge | X | X | X | |||||||||
b) Flood stages | X | X | X | |||||||||
c) Turbidity (visual) | X | X | X | |||||||||
| 1.3 Topography | ||||||||||||
a) Land area for prototype of pond layout | X | X | X | |||||||||
b) Ground elevation | X | X | ||||||||||
| 1.4 Soil | ||||||||||||
a) Soil characteristics (visual) | X | N.A. | X | |||||||||
b) Soil sample — lab. analysis | ||||||||||||
(i) Composition | X | X | X | |||||||||
(ii) Acidity | X | X | X | |||||||||
(iii) Potential acidity | X | X | ||||||||||
(iv) Pesticides residue | Not applicable | |||||||||||
| Category 2: Water Quality | O | M | A | G | O | M | A | G | O | M | A | G |
| 2.1 On-site water analyses | ||||||||||||
a) Salinity | X | X | X | |||||||||
b) Salinity profile | Not applicable | |||||||||||
c) Temperature | X | X | X | |||||||||
d) Dissolved oxygen (DO) | X | X | X | |||||||||
e) pH | X | X | X | |||||||||
| 2.2 Water sample analyses | ||||||||||||
a) Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) | X | X | X | |||||||||
b) Sediment — settling rate | X | X | X | |||||||||
c) Sediment load | X | X | X | |||||||||
d) Bacteriological test (E. coli count) | -Not applicable- | |||||||||||
| 2.3 Water pollution risks | ||||||||||||
a) From agriculture | X | X | X | |||||||||
b) From industries | -Not applicable- | |||||||||||
c) From ship traffic | X | X | X | |||||||||
d) From settlements | X | X | X | |||||||||
| Category 3: Forestry | O | M | A | G | O | M | A | G | O | M | A | G |
| 3.1 Forest economy | ||||||||||||
a) Species composition (in regard to forest interest) | X | X | X | |||||||||
b) Growth condition (standing biomass) | X | X | X | |||||||||
c) Management scheme | X | X | ||||||||||
d) Value of site | ||||||||||||
(i) timber | X | X | X | |||||||||
(ii) other products | X | X | X | |||||||||
| 3.2 Ecology | ||||||||||||
a) Site in regard to marine habitat | 1 | (X) | 1 | (X) | 1 | (X) | ||||||
b) Width of protective belt (or possibility for sufficient belt) | X | X | X | |||||||||
| Category 4: Socio-Economics | O | M | A | G | O | M | A | G | O | M | A | G |
| 4.1 Infrastructure | ||||||||||||
a) Services provided by government | X | X | X | |||||||||
b) Private sector services | X | X | X | |||||||||
| 4.2 Verification of input-output | ||||||||||||
a) Ex-farm prices | X | X | X | |||||||||
b) Pond operation costs | X | X | X | |||||||||
c) Seed, feed availability | X | X | X | |||||||||
| 4.3 Welfare and general development aspects | ||||||||||||
a) Increase in number of fish farmers—shift from catch fishery | X | X | X | |||||||||
* Rating Categories:
O = not suitable
M = marginal, can be accepted if other parameters rate good
A = acceptable,i.e., average
G = good
N.A. = not applicable
| Site Location Category | Summary rating | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not suitable | Marginal | Acceptable | Good | |
| 1) Engineering | / | |||
| 2) Water quality | /(-) | |||
| 3) Forest | / | |||
| 4) Socio-economics | / | |||
(+) Better than average
(-) Not as good as average
Monoculture of P. monodon in fishponds offers excellent opportunities for the development of coastal aquaculture. However, an immediate and essential task is the development of hatchery facilities that can reduce the cost of seed to less than half of the present market cost. The operators of any pilot hatchery operation should be given this objective as a firm initial target, with further targetted reductions to follow.
A three-stage process of coastal aquaculture site selection has been developed for Malaysia which can greatly reduce time and costs for locating promising coastal aquaculture sites on a nationwide basis. The firststage, mainly an office study, accomplishes two objectives. It provides a means to pinpoint the area of the country which are physically and economically suitable for coastal aquaculture development. It also provides a means for ranking so that the most favourable sites can be located. The result is that the number of sites which have to be field investigated in the second-stage of site selection is much reduced. A checklist of field site rating parameters has been developed for this purpose based on engineering, water, soil, and economic evaluations at a site. The third-stage of the site selection process is the interfacing of site rating results from various disciplines and various sites to make a final selection.
The thrust of this report has been on developing a methodology for coastal aquaculture, site selection. However, it is evident that the first-stage screening process, if applied alone, could provide and inventory of Malaysia's coastal aquaculture potential. Application of the first-stage methodology therefore would be a useful tool not only for planning of national aquaculture development, but also for making decisions on overall fishery policy, particularly with regard to determining future investment needs and technical requirements for coastal aquaculture.
It is much to the advantage of the Fishery Division and the MAJUIKAN to promote the conservation of mangroves as a means of furthering the objectives of culture and capture fishery development in Malaysia. This is because mangrove forests are valuable as sites for brackishwater pond culture and because mangroves make a valuable contribution to maintaining the biological productivity of coastal capture fishery resources. Mangrove forest areas are, however, fast declining in the country, and their continued loss will negatively affect pond culture development opportunities and capture fishery potential yields if steps are not taken to conserve mangrove resources. It is therefore recommended that the Fishery Division and the MAJUIKAN (perhaps acting in concert with the Forestry Division) bring pressure to bear on appropriate organizations of the government to halt the reclamation of mangroves where it can be shown that the most valuable use of mangroves is for fishery and forestry purposes.
A first attempt to apply the site selection and rating procedure has been made for the site at Kampung Sungei Pinang.
This site had already been designed as pond aquaculture development area by the Malaysian Government. Therefore, the site selection process itself could not fully come to bear, only the rating part of it. The aim was to determine the suitability of the designated site. The rating had to be done with a limited amount of information on environmental and socio-economic data. In summary, the site was rated “acceptable”. It was noted that the suitability depends much on the species cultured, whether L. calcarifer or P. monodon is the choice. The site rates much better for Penaeus culture than for Lates culture.
In a quick reconnaissance of Balik Pulau District, two other sites have been found that rate higher in suitability than the K. Sg. Pinang site, but these could not be investigated in depth.
The methodology presented in this report represents a comprehensive attempt to improve the state-of-the-art for coastal aquaculture site selection. The methodology stresses execution of site selection activities from a national perspective in a timely and economically efficient manner.
Although the methodology has been tailored to the Malaysian situation, the Team believes that the aquaculture site selection methodology developed here could be profitably utilized by other countries of the region, either if taken only as far as the first-stage screening process as an inventory of nationwide coastal aquaculture potential for policy planning and/or investment purposes, or as carried through the second and third-stages to specifically identify the most promising coastal aquaculture sites in the country.
The Team therefore recommends that the SCSP seek opportunities for a regionally expanded use of the aquaculture site selection methodology, and for making improvements in its procedures and applicability by subsequent field testing.
