ers who produce for the export market and make more money. The capacity of the poor people to convert their assets into positive outcomes is influenced by the wider social and institutional context in which they operate and thrive. These local socioeconomic and institutional dimensions are crucial in determining the livelihood outcomes. State departments tend to put less emphasis on the poor farmers because they think that the latter contribute less to the export market and production. The majority of all households investigated mentioned four major constraints: lack of funds, lack of technical knowledge, lack of proper institutional support and lack of proper animals for stocking as factors responsible for their poor performance in cage aquaculture production and also their persistent poverty. The informal strategies that they adapt help them to improve their assets for making a better livelihood. It is common among the poor households to approach informal lending institutions and raise cash through social networks. These networks are crucial for poor farmers who do not have formal titles to land or water areas, which could be shown as security for obtaining credit or loans from formal credit institutions. A second major constraint for poor farming households to becoming more widely involved in aquaculture is insufficient knowledge of how to culture fish. This results in less productivity and more pollution of the waters. Many poor farmers stocked fingerlings too small at too high a density in cages that were neither fertilized nor fed. This is similar to the findings of Edwards and Demaine (1997) that lack of proper knowledge led to high mortality and poor growth of fish in cages. Small farmers gain most of their knowledge from interactions with other farmers and social networks. Even in areas in which aquaculture has a long tradition, many small farming households culture fish far below the potential for their resources because of inadequate information. The MOF controls all activities and institutions in its sector to fulfill the goals for cage aquaculture in Vietnam. So far, its role in the HEPR, which is the framework for poverty eradication, is negligible. There are some institutional weaknesses both from the point of view of sustainability and poverty eradication. Unless farmers are able to have better incomes and rise out of poverty, the issue of sustainability does not appeal to them. At the provincial level, there is limited capacity to provide training facilities to farmers, especially for the poor who are less well educated. Lack of proper knowledge influences the methods of cultivation and materials that they use. One of the crucial factors in the development of aquaculture is the supply of fingerlings. The poor may attempt to culture fish in small household ponds, which are widespread in rural areas, especially in flood plains, in areas where aquaculture is non-traditional and wild fish stocks have declined from overfishing and environmental degradation. In the study area, small-scale farmers have problems in culturing fish because of inadequate cash on hand and lack of proper knowledge, which influences the type of fish they use. Edwards and Demaine (1997) claim that if ready cash were available or in hand, farmers would have the flexibility to buy better fish. If sufficient cash is not available, farmers settle for smaller cages, low stocking densities and smaller fingerlings available locally. This negatively impacts the return on labor but allows poor people to get started. In the case of lobster cultivation, higher start-up capital is required compared to grouper fish farming. This is related to poor food conversion and the longer production cycle, as well as relatively high costs for small lobsters for stocking. Using small rather than large lobsters requires a longer production cycle, higher use of labor, but lower procurment costs, which the poor can afford. When some cash is generated, stocking rates can be increased and cages improvised and expanded leading to higher productivity and corresponding returns to labor. Institutional support is usually required for new entrants and poor farmers in the form of extension advice and inputs, especially in relation to animals for stocking. Institutional constraints are the third major problem as perceived by farmers. A range of technological options has the potential to compromise part or all of their livelihoods (Edwards 2000). Currently, the local development and extension workers are not well equipped with the skills to deal with knowledge sharing, including how to access it, interpret it and use it for the benefit of the poor farmers. national programs, such as HEPR and SAPA, are not supported by necessary resources and infrastructure so as to improve the welfare of the poor involved in cage aquaculture. The extension services are mostly engaged in agriculture and cage aquaculture is comparatively new and not a priority. Instead of using the local service provider as technology providers, the DOF engages them mostly in administration. The former usually possess the interactive skills needed to assess the local needs, but lack necessary training skills. Some rural development programs in Vietnam have used the learning-based approach to assess farmer needs and developed training programs accordingly. Similarly, the poor farming households involved in cage aquaculture need to be targeted, taking into consideration their socioeconomic contexts. The DOF should give priority for training to the local administrative staff through experiential learning in close interaction with farmers. In addition, supportive government policy and public sector investment is essential to contribute to sustainable livelihoods of poor farmers. Exploring the problems with cage farmers is crucial to the identification of effective poverty alleviation strategies. According to Hambrey et al. (2001 ), there is an urgent need to develop extension materials, which effectively summarize the key resource and financial characteristics of the aquaculture options, their individual strengths and weaknesses, the levels of risk associated with them and alternative income generating activities. WORLD AQUACULTURE 5 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=