40 JUNE 2016 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WAS.ORG fish farm is taken individually or within the family, the chances of commercial success are greater than when the initiative is by outsiders or large-scale commercial producers because local production often serves local markets, competing directly with imports (Brummett and Williams 2000). The small-scale aquaculture initiatives in Hermel increase supply and, consequently, demand for fish protein for local consumption, especially readily available rainbow trout, is economically competitive with traditional terrestrial animal protein. Second, fish supply coming from farms managed by members of a family help meet protein consumption needs of the household that could not be easily achieved if the family had to purchase the fish at market prices (Brummett and Williams 2000, Ahmed and Lorica 2002). Major increases of on-farm protein consumption are particularly noticeable in rural areas of developing countries, where aquaculture production is dominated by smallholders (Ahmed and Lorica 2002). Third, farm owners who provide employment contribute to community development. Even if they are not members of the family that owns the fish farm, workers are members of a community. When workers are from outside the community, they are perceived as the link between local and external communities, thus increasing inter-communal linkages, ultimately leading to additional business opportunities (Barrett et al. 2002). Small family farms rarely have the income necessary to hire full-time employees with benefits. Consequently, workers at small aquaculture farms tend not to have job security, health insurance and social security. Nevertheless, aquaculture businesses do not always have to be large-scale commercial farms to alleviate poverty in rural areas. On the contrary, local communities become less marginalized when empowered through small to medium productive local industries, such as aquaculture. Many trout farmers along the Assi River are generally satisfied with their business and wish to expand. They often see aquaculture as an enterprise they can bequeath to their children, as opposed to providing employment, which assures present returns but no future security for the family. Land Ownership A key condition for equitable community development through aquaculture is access to land. Indeed, land ownership and benefits from aquaculture go hand in hand (Lewis 1997, Ahmed and Lorica 2002). Land ownership also varies among trout farmers from the majority that inherited property to those who purchased it. Fifty-eight percent of farmers own the land with raceways, 36 percent rent production facilities, and six percent own a farm but rent additional facilities to augment production. The 36 percent of rainbow trout farmers along the Assi River that rent raceways do so because they do not own riverside property. These landless community members are at a competitive disadvantage because they must deduct rent from gross returns. Although they might own other property not proximal to the river, these farmers prefer to rent riverside lands rather than exploit their property because aquaculture requires less surface area and often less initial investment than other forms of agriculture, mainly because seed and feed can be obtained on credit. However, most riverside landowners in Hermel have inherited property, which could create problems for farmers renting facilities from parents, in case the new owners had alternate plans for their inherited estate. Even if the landowner was the fish farmer, the heirs would want a portion of the farm returns, in which case the farm would have to support numerous households instead of one, potentially creating problems for the next generation of owners. One problem with small multi-owned farms is neglect of the facility because partners disagree over management strategy. Success also depends on good accounting practices and proper ownership records, listing share size and contributions of each partner. Often, inheritance issues and problems of estate division create grievances that stifle fish production. Nonetheless, there are benefits to multiowned farms. Multiple ownership reduces the number and value of loans taken and, thus, reduces the dependence of small farmers on abusive lenders. The river and riparian banks supposedly are common property. Currently in Hermel, landowners take advantage of the absence of government regulations to control access to land and water. They tend to claim perceived monopoly rights to water, although the water is, in principle, a common resource that can be accessed by everyone. The current lack of organization of distribution of common water resources is one of the main constraints to the positive and sustainable role of aquaculture in community development along the Assi River. A small group of community members do not have the right to exclusive profit from a common resource. This small group with riparian property does not have the right to spoil the water quality of the Assi River. A solution to most of these problems would be government regulation to control access to the river, improve cooperation among stakeholders and police inputs into the river. Raceway Management The culture cycle of rainbow trout in Hermel is similar among farms. The majority of fry stocked in raceways are females. Most farmers (79 percent) stock trout of less than 1 g/fish but some (21 percent) stock fish of 1-5 g. Nearly all farmers (96 percent) purchase fingerlings from local hatcheries that import eggs; very few farmers own hatcheries. Stocking density varies greatly among farms. Each farmer manages raceways on the basis of intuition, conviction and experience, not necessarily on scientific guidelines. In addition, farmers buy as much seed and feed as they can afford when funds are available, regardless of the carrying capacity of raceways. Thus, farmers often FIGURE 2. Typical raceway along the Assi River in Hermel.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=