Marine cage culture is the latest innovation in Indian

mariculture scenario. The first cage was demonstrated in

Visakhapatanam in 2007-08. The logic of the floating cage

culture technology is the conversion of marine space into

a controlled production system. This entails a number of

socio-political issues apart from the technological ones.

Prominent among them is the changing context of marine

tenure in the country. This paper analyses such issues

based on a preliminary study conducted in some of the

locations where the cage demonstration has been

implemented. The major sociological framework employed

in the analysis is that of the Actor –Network Theory (ANT)

proposed by Latour (2007). Thus the methodological

objective was to explore the actor- networks at different

locations using participatory protocols

Ramachandran, C

CMFRI Digital Repository

National Training on 'Cage Culture of Seabass' held at CMFRI, Kochi94Central Marine Fisheries Research InstituteOpen sea cage culture in India-A sociological perspectiveRamachandran, C.Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Post box No. 1603Ernakulam North P.O., Kochi- 682 018, Kerala, Indiaramchandrancnair@gmail.comIntroductionMarine cage culture is the latest innovation in Indianmariculture scenario. The first cage was demonstrated inVisakhapatanam in 2007-08. The logic of the floating cageculture technology is the conversion of marine space intoa controlled production system. This entails a number ofsocio-political issues apart from the technological ones.Prominent among them is the changing context of marinetenure in the country. This paper analyses such issuesbased on a preliminary study conducted in some of thelocations where the cage demonstration has beenimplemented. The major sociological framework employedin the analysis is that of the Actor –Network Theory (ANT)proposed by Latour (2007). Thus the methodologicalobjective was to explore the actor- networks at differentlocations using participatory protocols.The idea of cultivating fish in the open sea throughcages is of recent origin. Open sea cage culture is beingposed as an answer to increasing demand for food inthe context of the declining yield trend shown bycapture fisheries (especially when the Chinese catchexcluded) and the problems faced by the land based –aqua farming technology. The pioneers in thistechnology are countries like Norway, Japan and USA.After about three decades of intense research anddevelopment activities cage culture has become amature industry in these countries (Grottum andBeveridge 2007).  In the Asian region, China hasattained significant strides in off shore cage culture.Within the span of a decade (1990-2000) and with aninvestment of more than US$10 million, China hasdeployed about 4000 such cages yielding about 2 lakhtons ( Chen and Chen 2008).India’s entry into the arena of off shore cage culture isvery recent and this marks a significant milestone in themariculture pursuits of the country. The history ofmariculture research in India dates back to early seventieswhen pioneering attempts were made by CMFRI to farmmussels in the inshore waters using lines. Though thetechnology was successfully demonstrated, it did notcapture the imagination of the fisher folk for reasonsobvious. The major stumbling block was the absence of a“culture mindset” which was partly due to resourceabundance amenable to exploitation through capturefisheries. With the capture fisheries production levelingoff in the recent years the potential for the open sea cageculture is huge.  The success demonstrated atVisakhapatanam has come as a shot in the arm to ourmariculture aspirations.Objective and methodologyIt is in this context that the present study was undertakento assess the perception of the stakeholder constituency95From 14 - 23 December 2009National Fisheries Development Boardand to reflect on the challenges and prospects of opensea mariculture. The cage culture is a newly introducedinnovation and could be either adopted or rejected by thestakeholders.   An individual’s decision to adopt or rejecta new practice passes through several stages, and doesnot happen at once. Innovation diffusion studies haverecognized the adoption/non-adoption of a newintroduced practice is influenced by whether or not itmatches with the adopters’ needs, situation, andperceptions of the innovation (Rogers, 2003).The rate ofadoption might differ among individuals depending on his/her level of innovativeness. The more innovative anindividual the shorter is the adoption time. Since theinnovation is in the nascent stage of adoption it is notpossible to draw of picture of its diffusion. The perceptionof people on the probability of its adoption, which ismainly determined by innovation characteristics (asdefined by Rogers, 2003) only can be assessed now.The location of the sites where the preliminary study wasconducted is depicted in Table1. It also shows the currentstatus of the culture in these sites. As it can be seensome of the sites one demonstration was over and in otherplaces the first series of demonstration was in differentstages of operation. There was continuous access to allthe operations at Munambam which was covered during(9/12/08 to 18/04/09).A notable feature of the innovation transfer model beingattempted across the sites is the way in which the variousagencies and institutions are integrated. The dominantmode is that of Public-Private Partnership. The table belowgives an over all view on this aspect.Table 1 Sites of open sea cage culture visitedSite State,district Distance from cmfri centre Status of cage remarks1. ChaumukhBaliapal Orissa, From Viskah, Cage installed in the sea, Very good cooperation fromBaleswar/ about 700km 4000 fingerlings of sea the fisheries department andBalasore bass stocked the fisher folk2.Visakhapatanam AP, Visakah About 5km Second cage P monodon The fishermen group hasstocked gained more confidence3.Iskapalli AP, Nellore About 200 km from Chennai -Two cages installed- Fisher folk evince keenModifications done to intereststock P. monodon andlobsters4.Pulikat Tamil Nadu, About 50 km from Chennai Ready for stocking NGO and fisher folk.lobsters Good support Fishers more interestedfrom the as this is the second time5.Munambam Kerala About 30 km from Kochi Harvest done Pre mature harvest due todrifting of cages; growthparameters promising6.Vizhinjam Kerala About 18 km from Thiruvananthapuram Harvest doneTable 2 Modes of institutional arrangementsSite Mode DetailsChaumukhBaliapal(orissa) PPP Society of the traditional fisherfolk+State Department of Fisheries+CMFRI+NFDBVisakhapatanam (AP) do Fishermen society +lead role by a fisherman leader+DF+CMFRI+NFDBIskapalli,Nellore(AP) do Fishermen society +lead role by a fisherman leader + DF+ CMFRI+ NFDBPulikat, Chennai ( TN) do Fishermen society +NGO +DF+CMFRI+NFDBMunambam Fishermen group +CMFRI+NFDBVizhinjam doNational Training on 'Cage Culture of Seabass' held at CMFRI, Kochi96Central Marine Fisheries Research InstitutePerception of stakeholdersPerceived attributes of an innovation such as relativeadvantage, complexity, compatibility, trialability, andperceived risks have been used extensively in previousinnovation studies to evaluate innovation adoption.(Rogers 1983) defines relative advantage as ‘the degreeto which an innovation is perceived as being better thanthe idea it supersedes’. Complexity is defined as ‘thedegree to which an innovation is perceived as relativelydifficult to understand and use’]. Trialability is defined as‘the degree to which an innovation may be experimentedwith, on a limited basis’  Compatibility is defined as ‘thedegree to which an innovation is perceived as consistentwith the existing values, past experiences, and needs ofpotential adopter’. Perceived risk is defined as the degreeto which an innovation is perceived to be economicallyrisky.The stakeholders in general showed enthusiasm towardsthe innovation in all the locations. Though this isencouraging it needs to be qualified with the facts thatthe demonstrations are being carried with financialsupport to the stakeholders. But the real litmus test istheir willingness to adopt the innovation entirely on theirown. When this question was asked on a Likert type scalethe responses obtained were revealing.  The * signindicates the perception before the demonstration and $indicates the same after the demonstration.Visakahpatanam was found to be more positive on thiscount.fund of the Government. In Balasore, the group was willingto put operational expenditure provided the cage wasgiven to them.It is to be noted that the demonstration is just in progressin Balasore. Nevertheless the stakeholders here have amuch more favorable perception towards the innovation.This could be because of certain socioeconomicpeculiarities of the village like backwardness, homogeneityof the group, and the presence of a culture mindset owingto the fact that almost all the fishermen families possessfarm lands for cultivation.   The fishermen in the west coast( represented by two sites) was found to be a bit reservedas only medium response was obtained on this count. Thismust be read in tandem with their perception on innovationcharacteristics which was found to be low onAnother remarkable observation is the increase in levelof confidence shown by the fisherfolk after thedemonstration of the technology in one season.When the perceived innovation characteristics wereconsidered the pattern obtained has been deputed below.The response was not collected from the two places wherethe demonstration was not completed. The innovationcharacteristics registered a better perception inVisakhapatanam. This could be due to many facts likea) the positive impact due to the success of the firstdemonstrationb) the role played by Mr Polanna who happen to be theleader of a  state level  fishermen associationTable 3 Perceived adoptability across locations1(Blsr) 2(vsk) 3(nlr) 4(plkt) 5(mnmbm) 6(vzj)High $Medium * * $ $ $Low * * * *(High-above 75% of response, Medium-50-75% Low –below 50%)Though high initial cost is a perceived deterrent acrossthe locations, the Visakhapatanam group was optimisticto get financial assistance through the Tsunami assistancec) better accessibility to technical advise and supervisionfrom CMFRId) higher innovativeness of the group97From 14 - 23 December 2009National Fisheries Development BoardProspects and ChallengesThough it is too early to comment on the future of theinnovation in the Indian scenario some reflections madein this direction seems not to be out of place. The questionis will the technology get adopted and diffused? Theanswer depends on three major factors a) technologicalb) socio-economical and c) political/governance. Since thetechnological factors are being addressed by theconcerned persons I limit my discussion to the sociologicaland political aspects here.Sociological factorsThe major factor that influences the innovation decisionprocess is the extent to which the candidate innovationmeets the felt needs of the incumbent adopter. Therelative advantage of this innovation has been favouarblyperceived. The fisher folk in general feel that the capturefisheries sustainability is in peril and they are in the lookout for alternative livelihood sources. It can be assumedthat the cage culture in this aspect has   captured theirimagination if one goes by the enthusiasm shown by thepeople. The emergence of a culture mindset is a welcomesign because fishermen are believed to be still in thehunter- gather mindset.There are push and pull factors behind the adoption ofany innovation. One of the major deterrents is theperceived high initial cost. But if the cages are madeavailable to the fishermen group at a subsidized cost it iswell likely to be adopted. Attention needs to be given tocost cutting strategies in the cage fabrication. The costof HDPE cages in China is said to be only Rs600/cubicmeter. Another factor is the price they get for the cage-cultured fish. Though high value fishes are beingrecommended now, their price is dependent on the marketvulnerability. Another factor is the delay in the financialreward. Unlike capture they have to wait for about fiveto six months for the harvest. But compared to the former,cage culture is less risk prone. But   fishermen were ofthe opinion that if the season of the culture is planned insuch a way that the harvest synchronizes with the leanseason/high demand season like festivals they could earnbetter price. Since cage culture offers control over theproduction system possibilities of getting premium priceby way of organic certification or other certifications couldbe explored.Though threats like poaching or community-agreedvandalism are real they can be remedied if the communityis vested with the ownership of the cages. Innovativenessof the fisherfolk need to be tapped to the maximum extentpossible in all the aspects like selection of sites, species,feed, cost cutting strategies etc.Political/governance factorsThe cage culture being a point of departure against theconventional sense of marine tenure it poses manychallenges in this regard. To established ocean users cageculture is a new system of property that regulates accessand usage of marine resources. Until recently the oceanwas considered to be the last of the commons, whereownership is based on the labour that fishermen investedin the act of catching them. The marine tenure systemprevalent in the country, though its enforcement is feeble,Table 4 Perceived innovation characteristicsInnovation characteristic 1(Blsr) 2(Vsk) 3(Nlr) 4(Plkt) 5(Mbm) 6(Vzj)Relative advantage ( high) $$$ $ $ $Complexity ( low) $$ $ $ $Trialability ( high) $$$ $$ $ $Compatibility ( high) $$$ $$ $ $Perceived risk( low) $$ $ $ $($$$-above 75% Agree, $$-50-75% Agree,$-less than 50% agree)National Training on 'Cage Culture of Seabass' held at CMFRI, Kochi98Central Marine Fisheries Research Institutegrant rights to fishing territories they do not guaranteethat fish would not migrate out of these territories. Untila fish is caught nobody is considered to be a legitimateowner of that fish. The concept of cage culture thus marksa significant departure from this notion. So the need ofthe hour is to chalk out a suitable  marine property rightspolicy giving due weightage to the rights of the communitybut not forestalling socially committed corporate bodiesin  entering  the scenario  on a Public Private Partnershipmode. A system of Public hearing as has been practicedin Hawai ( Suryanata and Umento 2002) could be followedin legitimizing commercialization of marine space.Cage as a new metaphorThere is nothing more puzzling than a proposition thatviews Open Sea Cages as bridges! But this is theconcluding remark I would like to pose. Yes, the cageshave started acting as socio-psychological bridgesbetween the marine fisheries R&D and the fisherfolk alongthe coast of this country. The Indian coastal villages neverhad such a “bridge’ built through their collective psyche,except perhaps the few mariculture interventions donein the late seventies.  There always has been an intangiblebarrier between the fishermen and the kind of scientificknowledge, (especially the stock assessment knowledgewhich is the main mandate of CMFRI) that has beengenerated by the researchers. Being relevant only at awider policy level, there is no wonder that, this knowledgebase could hardy capture the imagination of the fisherfolk.They often found the research system as an anathema,informing governments to make policies that went againsttheir immediate interests (like mesh size regulations/reduction in fishing effort/even the seasonal fishing bans).The scientific advice was deemed to be with a touch ofinherent negativity. This has led to the development ofan annoying sense of mistrust among the fisherfolk andthis has been the biggest communication barrier anextension scientist working in the marine sector has tosurmount. No social scientist who has ever experiencedthe frustrating pangs of establishing a “connection “ withthe fisherfolk can fail to see the transformation of cages,with its positive image of being a tangible productionsystem innovation, as  becoming emotional bridges.Concluding remarksIt is too early to predict the future of the cage culture inIndia. The innovation has many challenges as well asopportunities. To tackle the challenges a great deal ofdiscussion, planning and coordination is required to createdynamic networks on a value chain basis. However itsfate lies in the collective will, social capital andinstitutional capacity of a number of agencies andinstitutions involved.  The lessons from the countries whoare ahead of us could be of much use in terms of not onlythe technology but also the marine farming governance.The demonstrations being undertaken in different partsof the country needs to be viewed in the perspective ofMulti Locational Trials and there is an urgent need toconvert such collective knowledge into location specificpolicies, norms, networks and practices.ReferencesChen J , Xu,  H. and Chen Y., 2008. Marine fish cage culture inChina. In A. Lovatelli, M.J. Phillips, J.R. Arthur and K.Yamamoto. (eds). FAO/NACA Regional Workshopftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0202e/i0202e14.Grottum J. A. and Beveridge,M., 2007. A review of cageaquaculture .Northern Europe. In M Halwart,D ,Soto and JRArthur (eds).Cage Aquaculture-regional reviews and globaloverview. FAO Fisheries Technical paper no 498:126-154.Latour, Bruno, 2007. Reassembling the social-An introductionto Actor- network theory. Oxford University Press.pp301.Rogers, E. M., 1983.Diffusion of innovations. Free Press , NewYpork.pp550Suryanata, K. and Umemeotot,K., 2002. Capturing fugitiveresources in a globalised economy: the case of marineaquaculture in Hawai.dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive.

Open sea cage culture in India- A sociological perspective

http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/6089/1/16._Ram.pdf

Open sea cage culture in India- A sociological perspective

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CMFRI Digital Repository