8.1. Highlights of Past Development Projects
8.2. Current and Planned Projects with Aquaculture Component
8.3. Women in Aquaculture
8.1.1 BFAR Programs
Through the years BFAR has had several aquaculture development programs or projects. The promotion of backyard fishponds using Java tilapia (O. mossambicus) during the early 1950s was not exactly one of such programs. Dr. Heminio R. Rabanal, retired FAO Regional Fisheries Officer, who was then a young fisheries biologist with the Bureau of Fisheries (as BFAR was then known), recalled that the rapid popularization of tilapia culture in backyard fishponds during that time can not be credited to a national program or fisheries technology extension. In fact the Bureau of Fisheries had not yet formulated a national program for its dissemination when one enterprising newsman featured on the front page of a national newspaper, the story of a “wonder fish” that the Bureau had which can breed and grow even in small earthen ponds.
The front-page news story was enough to fire the imagination of the public and the politicians. BFAR could hardly produce enough fingerlings to satisfy the politicians who found the tilapia fingerlings a convenient way to win the favor of their respective constituents (election at that time came every two years). That is apparently how the tilapia got distributed even to the remotest towns in Mindanao. Its prolificity of course backfired when this resulted in over-crowding and stunting and the backyard fishpond lost its appeal.
During the same year BFAR launched the Blue Revolution Program which was centered on seafarming. To kick off the program, 51 demonstration projects involving mainly oysters, mussels, seaweeds, among other commodities were established in different parts of the country. BFAR (1981) reported that as a result of the program 120 individuals went into mussel farming, 47 into oyster farming and seven into tilapia cage culture. On the fifth year of the project, BFAR (1983) reported that some 1,186 oyster and mussel farm operators have been organized into a cooperative and availed of government financing, presumably under the Biyayang Dagat program.
The late 1970s to early 1980s saw BFAR involved in different aquaculture projects. One of these was the UNDP-assisted, FAO-executed Brackishwater Aquaculture Development Project which saw the establishment of four Brackishwater Aquaculture Development and Training Centers in four different regions of the country representing the four major climatic zones. The project was centered on milkfish the culture technology of which was climate- sensitive and had to be adapted to each climatic zone. The Centers which were located in Paombong, Bulacan; Pagbilao, Quezon; Calape, Bohol and Lala, Lanao del Norte were designed to be equipped with a demonstration farm, lecture hall, laboratory and dormitory. During the reorganization in 1987 when BFAR was reduced to a staff bureau these Centers, except for the one in Pagbilao, Quezon, were all transferred to the DA Regional Offices and became part of the network of DA’s Research Outreach Stations under the Bureau of Agricultural Research. With BFAR regaining its line functions and regional offices these stations will come under the BFAR Regional Offices.
Another aquaculture project BFAR embarked into during the period was the USAID-assisted Fish Hatchery and Fishery Extension Center in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija. The Center is now called the National Freshwater Fisheries Technology Center and is the national center for tilapia breeding. As such it is very active in dispersing quality tilapia fingerlings and broodstock to the private accredited hatcheries and BFAR regional technology centers.
The year 1982 also saw BFAR enter into a joint-project with SEAFDEC AQD to replicate the success of SEAFDEC AQD’s milkfish breeding program done in Iloilo, in other regions of the country. With funding from the International Development and Research Center (IDRC) of Canada, the National Bangus Breeding Project was originally designed to cover all twelve regions of the country. The concept was simple. Establish floating cages in sheltered coves, stock these with milkfish and grow them to sexual maturity, a process which takes from five to six years. Once they reached maturity the milkfish were to be allowed to spawn spontaneously and the eggs collected for larval rearing in hatcheries. Even if not all eggs can be collected it was also thought that some of the fertilized eggs would naturally hatch and develop into milkfish fry and help replenish the natural stock. The milkfish did develop into mature breeding stock but somehow the hatchery component in each of the site was not developed. Either the hatchery was not built at all or the technicians operating the hatchery lacked the skill. In 1993, the remaining milkfish broodstock were sold to private hatcheries.
From 1986 up to 1990, BFAR Annual Reports do not have any mention of an aquaculture development project. The ADB and OECF-assisted Fisheries Sector Project (FSP) started in 1990 but this project was oriented towards coastal fisheries resource management and aquaculture was not really given an important role.
It was not until 1991 that BFAR had an aquaculture project with the inception of the UNDP/FAO-assisted Seaweed Production Development Project (PHI/89/004). The 3-year seaweed project focused on the promotion of Gracilaria farming in eastern Sorsogon, at the southernmost area of Luzon. The project objectives were to develop Gracilaria farming techniques in Sorsogon, organize growers cooperative and encourage the management of the natural seaweed resources. In 1991 the project installed a Gracilaria processing plant in Cabid-an, Sorsogon. It started to buy raw seaweeds for processing. The idea was to encourage more people to go into seaweed farming through an assured market.
The seaweed project now operates as the National Seaweed Culture Center and has expanded its scope to include Eucheuma and its coverage area to all other seaweed producing areas in the Philippines.
In 1992, BFAR was a partner with ICLARM and CLSU in the development of the Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia or GIFT. The work was conducted at BFAR’s National Freshwater Fisheries Technology Center in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija. By 1994, BFAR reported that a total of 114,450 GIFT breeders have been distributed to accredited hatcheries. The GIFT Project is now an independent foundation and has continued the breeding and distribution of GIFT breeders.
8.1.2 Fishpond Estate Project
A wider participation in brackishwater fishpond operation by smallholders has always been a dream of Philippine fisheries planners. One way of achieving this, it was thought was for government to develop small fishponds for distribution to smallholders through some financing plan together with technical and marketing support. In 1973, when the Philippines was under one-man rule, then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 43-A to amend PD No. 43 “providing for the accelerated development of the fishery industry”. PD 43-A had two main features: the creation of a Fishery Industry Development Council and the construction and development of family-size fishponds. The decree identified potential areas where a fishpond estate can be established.
The said decree also encouraged fish canning companies to venture into such development by offering them the privilege of occupying 1,000 ha instead of the maximum of 500 ha, exempt from paying the annual lease rental. As far as can be ascertained no fish canning company took the offer.
Following the decree, two foreign companies (one Taiwan based and another US based) undertook a feasibility study on the conversion of a 1,200 ha mangrove area in Vitali, Zamboanga City into a smallholder fishpond project in 1975. Vitali was one of the four areas identified by the decree as potential fishpond estate sites. The Vitali area was to have been divided into 217 individual milkfish ponds each about 5 ha in size. The project study was submitted to the BFAR in March 1975 but nothing came out of it probably due to the lack of funding.
It was not until the early 1980s when the idea was revived. The Southern Philippine Development Authority (SPDA) obtained the right to use the Vitali area and commissioned a local consulting company to do a feasibility study. This was the time shrimp culture was taking off. The concept was changed into shrimp farming instead of milkfish farming. With a higher value crop, smaller ponds could be built for distribution to a greater number of families. The intended beneficiaries would have been “rebel-returnees” from the Moro National Liberation Front then fighting a war in Mindanao. The project would have included a P.monodon hatchery to supply the fry required and a feedmill to produce its own feed. Construction was initiated and more than 100 ha of the 1,200 ha were apparently completed when the project was halted apparently due to funding problems. SPDA never got to the distribution stage and merely operated the completed portion as a corporate farm and later leased it out to private operators.
8.1.3 National Rice-Fish Farming Program
In 1979, the Department of Agriculture launched the National Rice-Fish Culture Program under the catchy name of “Palay-isdaan”. It was a clever play of words in that the unhusked rice and the rice plant in Tagalog is “palay” and “palaisdaan” is the term for fishpond. The program was aimed at increasing the income of rice farmers and improving their nutritional status (Sevilleja, 1992).
The technology was provided by the Freshwater Aquaculture Center. The rice field was modified by digging a half-meter deep trench longitudinally across the center of the field and the dikes were made slightly higher and wider than for conventional rice farming. A screened gate was provided to prevent the cultured fish from escaping and extraneous from entering. Nile tilapia or the common carp were stocked either singly or in combination at densities of 5,500 to 9,900 per hectare. The farmers used high yielding IRRI rice varieties but did not apply the required type or amount of fertilizers. Occasionally supplemental feeds, mainly rice bran were reportedly given. The participating farms harvested on the average 4,825 kg of rice and 232 kg of fish per hectare. The economics of the rice-fish culture has been discussed in an earlier section and is shown in Table 24.
Modestly aimed at 931 ha in 41 selected provinces in all the regions of the country, the program went off to a slow start with only 193 ha involved during the initial six months of implementation. Eventually by 1982 some 1,397 ha were covered but the next year the total area went down to 759 ha. As shown in Table 31, the total area slowly dwindled year by year eventually dropping down to 185 ha in 1986, the last year the program was monitored.
As cited by Bimbao et al (1990), an unpublished status report of the said program blamed the failure on the prevalent use of high-yielding rice varieties that needed heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides. Although demonstration after demonstration has shown the practice to be more profitable than rice monoculture, rice-fish culture has not really progressed beyond the field testing and verification stage. The low adoption rate has been blamed by Ahmed et al (1992) on several technical and social constraints:
8.1.4 Laguna de Bay Fishpen Development Project
The Laguna de Bay Fishpen Development Project was conceived by the Laguna de Bay Development Authority (LLDA) as a means to provide an opportunity for the small-scale fishermen in Laguna de Bay to participate in the lucrative fishpen industry as part of the Laguna de Bay Development Program that was formulated with UNDP assistance. The Philippine Government submitted the proposal to ADB for possible financing in 1976. The Bank approved a loan of $9.0 million in 1978 to finance the development of 2,500 ha of fishpen for distribution to deserving families. During the same year the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries Special Fund also agreed to provide $4.5 million.. The Development Bank of the Philippines was the conduit bank to administer the sub-loans (in the form of fishpens and fish cages) to some 1,550 beneficiaries.
The Project involved the construction of 550 modules of 5 and 10 ha fishpens for milkfish culture covering 2,500 ha. The ten-hectare modules were to be operated by groups of 4 to 5 beneficiaries, and the five-hectare modules by 2 to 3 beneficiaries. In addition each beneficiary was also to be provided with fish cages for tilapia culture for individual operation. The projects also involved the development of a hatchery-nursery complex to supply the required milkfish and tilapia fingelings and a feedmill to supply feeds.
During the implementation stage the project encountered innumerable delays so that in 1983 it had to be re-appraised by ADB to determine whether or not it should be continued or terminated. The re-appraisal mission recommended an extension of 18 months, (Medina, 1984). By that time the area occupied by private fishpens had mushroomed to more than 30,000 ha. This forced the Project to scale down by one third to 1,680 ha and for most of the fishpens to be located in less than ideal areas which were more exposed or were less productive. Due to many other factors, the lake’s plankton productivity had already declined by that time which resulted in longer grow-out periods. The project was not considered completed until 1988.
A project performance audit report on the project (ADB, 1989), noted that no project component achieved an output greater than two per cent of appraisal projections and almost all of the fishpens have failed. About 99 percent of the Project pens have been destroyed mainly during severe typhoons. As a result, the poor fishermen the project intended to benefit sustained heavy losses and ended up owing PHP1.2 milion per 10 ha fishpen. Only some three-tenths of one per cent of the capital and accumulated interests had been paid back. The hatchery-nursery complex was never in full operation and had produced only at two per cent capacity. Although even without the fishpens, it could have been operated independently to recover some of the investment, it is now idle.
In addition to the natural factors such as typhoons and the proliferation of water hyacinth part of the problem apparently were the bank’s and the government’s rules and procedures which hampered Project’s ability to respond in a timely manner. While private pens could be built in less than one month, the project required several months since international bidding procedures have to be followed. When a fishpen is destroyed by typhoons, procedures for obtaining government funding and procuring materials have to be followed again. The same was true in the procurement of fingerlings.
8.2.1 Fisheries Resource Management Project
There is no project as such that is solely devoted to rural aquaculture or even aquaculture in general. However the ADB and the OECF-funded Fisheries Resource Management Project (FRMP) of BFAR has a mariculture support component. The FRMP is a successor project to the Fisheries Sector Program (FSP) that was also funded by ADB which was completed in 1996. Originally scheduled to run from 1998 to 2003, the FRMP was still in the consultant-selection stage when this paper was being prepared (Nov 1998- Jan.1999). Its long-term goals are “to achieve sustainable development of the fisheries sector, and reduce poverty among municipal fisherfolk.” The project’s primary objective is “to reverse the trend of fisheries resource depletion in municipal waters.” (FRMP, undated).
The FRMP shall cover 18 bays, 11 of which were previously covered under FSP. All in all the 18 bays will cover 100 municipalities.One of its strategies to reduce fishing pressure on the nearshore waters is to provide support for mariculture development as a means of providing fisherfolks other sources of income outside of fishing. Possible aquaculture projects that have been tentatively identified during the project formulation stage include cage culture of milkfish; cage culture of groupers; Eucheuma culture; Gracilaria culture; mudcrab farming; mussel culture and oyster culture.
8.2.2 Integrated Livelihood Program for Fisherfolk (ILPF)
The ILPF is basically a financing program and was discussed earlier in the section on credit. It provides alternative livelihood to municipal fisherfolk as a means of reducing the fishing pressure on nearshore fisheries. Among the alternative livelihood identified for financing are several aquaculture projects which has previously been enumerated.
8.2.3 Quality Fingerling Production and Dispersal
The production of quality fingerlings is a continuing program of the national aquaculture centers and demonstration stations of BFAR. The species are mainly carp and tilapia. Fingerlings produced are either sold to growers at nominal cost or used “ to regularly replenish inland waters, bays and gulfs”
8.2.4 Promotion of Sea Cage Farming
Sea cages shall be promoted as an alternative livelihood to fishing and to increase fish production. Two types shall be promoted, floating net cages for the culture of milkfish, grouper, siganid and seabass; and net pens for the culture of finfish and crustaceans.
8.2.5 Seaweed Development Program
This program is aimed at further developing the seaweed industry through enhanced research and development. The projects to be undertaken under this program include inventory and assessment of seaweed resources, seaweed farming, product technology development, marketing and manpower development.
Aquaculture in the Philippines is gender-neutral in some aspects and male-dominated in other aspects. There are many women who are themselves involved as owner-operator and are active in the management of fishponds and fishcages. A cursory glance at the names of fishpond lease agreement holders reveal many female names. But one can never find a woman building dikes and installing pens and cages. In the fishcages in Taal Lake one can see as many women feeding the fish as there are men but one can never find women lifting sacks of feed and boxes of fish. Seaweed farming involves many women in the tying of the seaweed propagules to the growing lines. In Tawi-tawi one can find many women caretakers in the seaweed farms.
Siar et al (1995) in a study of oyster and mussel farming in Western Visayas found that 18.5% of oyster farmers were female but only 2.4% of mussel farmers were, as shown in Table 30. This disparity was explained as being due to the fact that oysters are usually grown in shallow parts of a river while mussels are grown in deep portions of the bay. It was also noted that more males than females are involved in the strenuous tasks of staking, raft and rack construction. Boring and stringing of oyster shells for use as cultch was observed to be a household actvity involving women and children. The same was true in the shucking of harvested oysters. Engaging the children in these tasks was thought to be a woman’s way of integrating child care with household tasks and income-generating activities.
Women play a major role in the marketing of fishery products in the Philippines. Siar et al (1995) notes that this strengthens the role of women as financial managers within households and recommended that women be included as target group in extension activities, especially those relating to the improvement of postharvest handling and the development of entrepreneurial skills.
