An analysis of the aquaculture sector in Eastern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea.
Havini Vira
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy
SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL, EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES FACULTY OF SCIENCE
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
August 2015
a
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I pay homage and gratitude to my creator God with whom all things are possible.
My gratitude to all individuals and organizations that have helped, encouraged, accompanied and made this journey worthwhile. A/Prof Jes Sammut; mate, thanks for your invaluable comments and insights. Your belief in my abilities made me achieve more than I thought possible. Dr Jenny Beer; your comments and encouragement in the early stages of the work whilst developing the concept helped me focus. I am grateful. I am thankful to ACIAR for funding my studies through the JAF and particularly the PNG office for the unwavering support. I acknowledge the assistance provided by the Aquaculture Unit of NFA in funding my fieldwork; Mr Jacob Wani and team, thankyou. Special word of appreciation to Francis Gako, Joe Alois, Micah Aranka, Tensa Yasang, Silas Kiafuli, Francis Sien, Ulopo Fowa, Tripiso Apaise, Sharon Eric and Tony Umba for all the assistance in the field surveys. The team in Room 601; Laila, Bayu, Justin, Hatim, Jenny Saunders, Angela and Belden. Your company made those long days bearable.
My family, I am grateful for the support, encouragement and prayers of one and all. Special mention – my parents: for setting high expectations and the unwavering support and belief in me to achieve.
Finally, I dedicate this thesis to my wife, Florence, and our children: LaVonne, Kumoro, Bethel and Ianameto. Your patience and sacrifice to go without a dad and a husband for 18 months was not in vain.
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... II LIST OF FIGURES ...... VI GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... IX ABSTRACT ...... XI 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Problem statement ...... 1 1.2.1 Dietary protein in rural areas ...... 1 1.2.2 Food security ...... 2 1.2.3 Growth of aquaculture ...... 3 1.2.4 The issue ...... 5 1.3 Study site ...... 5 1.4 Aim and objectives ...... 6 1.4.1 Overall aim ...... 6 1.4.2 Research objectives ...... 6 Objective 1 ...... 7 Objective 2 ...... 7 Objective 3 ...... 7 1.5 Approach ...... 7 1.5.1 PEEST ...... 8 1.5.2 SWOT analysis ...... 8 1.5.3 TOWS Matrix ...... 10 1.6 Thesis structure ...... 11 1.6.1 Limitations ...... 11 1.6.2 Implications ...... 12 2.1 Introduction ...... 13 2.2 A brief historical overview ...... 14 2.3 Justification for the introduction of aquaculture ...... 17 2.3.1 Nutrition ...... 17 2.3.2 Food security & rural development ...... 21 2.3.3 Emerging issues – more justification ...... 22 Climate change ...... 22 Gender ...... 24
II 2.4 Review of status ...... 26 2.4.1 Species preference ...... 26 2.4.2 Methodology used in past review ...... 27 2.4.3 Constraints identification ...... 30 2.4.4 Stakeholder coordination ...... 32 2.5 Summary ...... 33 3.1 Introduction ...... 36 3.2 Methodology ...... 38 3.2.1 Political ...... 38 3.2.2 Economic ...... 38 3.2.3 Environmental (natural environment) ...... 39 3.2.4 Social ...... 39 3.2.5 Technological ...... 39 3.3 Results & Discussion ...... 40 3.3.1 Policy ...... 40 3.3.1.1 Legal and regulatory framework on aquaculture ...... 40 3.3.1.2 Government policy on aquaculture development ...... 46 3.3.1.3 Section summary ...... 49 3.3.2 Economic ...... 50 3.3.2.1 The PNG economy ...... 50 3.3.2.2 Contribution of aquaculture ...... 53 3.3.2.3 Section summary ...... 55 3.3.3 Natural environment ...... 56 3.3.3.1 Biological diversity ...... 56 3.3.3.2 Climate ...... 57 3.3.3.3 Impact of aquaculture ...... 58 3.3.3.4 Section summary ...... 60 3.3.4 Social ...... 61 3.3.4.1 Population growth ...... 62 3.3.4.2 Rural development ...... 63 3.3.4.3 Gender ...... 65 3.3.4.4 Section summary ...... 67 3.3.5 Technical ...... 68 3.3.5.1 Carp and Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) ...... 68 3.3.5.2 Other freshwater species ...... 72 3.3.5.3 Feed ...... 73 3.3.5.4 Technical capacity ...... 75 3.3.5.5 Culture methods ...... 78 3.3.5.6 Section summary ...... 80 3.4 Summary of PEEST analysis ...... 81
III 4.1 Introduction ...... 86 4.2 Methods ...... 87 4.2.1 Farmers’ survey ...... 87 4.2.2 Stakeholders focus group ...... 90 4.2.3 TOWS matrix ...... 91 4.2.4 NFA interviews ...... 92 4.2.5 Analysis ...... 92 4.3 Results and Discussion ...... 93 4.3.1 Farm survey ...... 94 4.3.1.1 Demographics ...... 94 4.3.1.2 Training & Extension ...... 96 4.3.1.3 Production ...... 97 4.3.1.4 Harvest & marketing ...... 103 4.3.1.5 Farmers major constraints ...... 105 4.3.1.6 Summary of farm survey ...... 107 4.3.2 SWOT analysis ...... 108 4.3.2.1 Farmers SWOT interviews ...... 108 4.3.2.2 Provincial stakeholders focus group workshop ...... 115 4.3.2.3 NFA SWOT interviews ...... 123 4.3.2.4 Summary of focus group and NFA SWOT analysis ...... 128 5.1 Introduction ...... 129 5.2 The influence of PEEST factors on fish farming in EHP ...... 129 5.2.1 Policy influence ...... 129 5.2.1.1 Support for aquaculture ...... 129 5.2.1.2 Extension and training concerns ...... 130 5.2.1.3 Unclear prioritisation of interventions ...... 130 5.2.2 Economic influence ...... 132 5.2.2.1 Unequal development impacts ...... 132 5.2.2.2 Emergence of aquaculture SME ...... 133 5.2.2.3 Government financial support ...... 134 5.2.3 Natural environment influence ...... 135 5.2.3.1 Extensive use of rivers ...... 135 5.2.3.2 Increased competition for resources ...... 135 5.2.3.3 Limited knowledge of environmental impact ...... 136 5.2.3.4 Climate change ...... 138 5.2.4 Social influence ...... 139 5.2.4.1 Aquaculture suits rural lifestyle ...... 139 5.2.4.2 Intervention for malnutrition ...... 140 5.2.4.3 Contribution to rural development ...... 141 5.2.5 Technical influence ...... 143
IV 5.2.5.1 Introduction of GIFT ...... 143 5.2.5.2 Development of formulated feed ...... 144 5.2.5.3 Capacity limitations ...... 145 5.3 Common SWOT factors of aquaculture in EHP ...... 147 5.3.1 Strengths ...... 147 5.3.2 Weaknesses ...... 150 5.3.3 Opportunities ...... 154 5.3.4 Threats ...... 156 5.4 Characterisation of aquaculture in EHP ...... 159 6.1 Introduction ...... 164 6.2 PEEST analysis ...... 164 6.3 SWOT analysis ...... 167 6.4 Synthesis - current status ...... 168 6.5 Recommendations ...... 171 6.5.1 Government management ...... 171 6.5.2 Farmer management ...... 171 6.5.3 Research ...... 172 Appendix A: Brief description of stakeholder focus group organisations ... 195 Appendix B: Questionnaires used in survey, consent form and information form ...... 197 Appendix C: Cross-tabulations and Chi-squared tests ...... 208
V LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Location of EHP in PNG (Sources: Adapted from Google maps 2014 & NRI 2010) ...... 6 Table 1.1: TOWS matrix for pairing of internal and external factors (Adapted from Dyson, 2004) ...... 11 Figure 2.1: Map of EHP indicating location of Aiyura (Source: PNG TPA) ...... 14 Table 2.1: Constraints identified by focus group (Smith et al, 2007) and subsequent interventions ...... 30 Figure 3.1: The Johnson and Scholes model (Source: Johnson & Scholes, 1993) 37 Figure 3.2: Schematic process for applying for water use permit in PNG (Adapted from: WRA 1982) ...... 43 Figure 3.3: Schematic process for EIA permit (Adapted from: Environment Act 2000; Coffey Natural Systems, 2008) ...... 44 Figure 3.4: NFA licensing process (Adapted from: FMR 2000 section 8 & 9) .... 45 Table 3.1: NAqDP aquaculture development strategies...... 48 Table 3.2: Political factors influencing aquaculture development in PNG ...... 50 Table 3.3: Sectoral contribution to PNG’s GDP in 2013 (Source: Adapted from Global Finance, 2015) ...... 51 Figure 3.5: Contribution of agriculture to rural household income (Adapted from: Bourke et al, 2009) ...... 52 Table 3.4: Economic factors influencing aquaculture development in PNG ...... 56 Figure 3.6: River and stream systems in PNG (Source: Berdach & Mandeakali, 2005) ...... 57 Figure 3.7: Annual rainfall for Port Moresby; light blue bars = El Nino years, dark blue bars = La Nina years and grey bars = neutral years (Source: Pacific Climate Change Science, 2011) ...... 58 Table 3.5: Natural environmental factors influencing aquaculture development in PNG ...... 61 Figure 3.8: PNG Gross intake rate and forecast – total new intakes in primary education (Source: Education Policy and Data Center, 2012) ...... 62 Table 3.6: Social factors influencing aquaculture development in PNG ...... 67 Figure 3.9: Contribution by species to total aquaculture production in PNG in 2011 (Source: Data adapted from NFA, 2011) ...... 69 Figure 3.10: Growth of numbers of fish farmers using data modified from: Buckwell, 1960; Haines & Kelleher 1979; HAQDEC, 1996; Ponia & Mobiha, 2002; Wani 2004; Smith et al, 2007; NFA, 2011; Infofish, 2012 .. 70 Figure 3.11: Number of fingerlings distributed from HAQDEC throughout PNG (Source: Smith et al, 2007; unpublished HAQDEC sales records, Yasang T, 2014) ...... 71
VI Figure 3.12: Volume of feed produced at Goroka mini-feed mill (Source: Adapted from Goroka feed production data, 2013) ...... 74 Figure 3.13: Main subjects covered in famers training by NFA officers ...... 76 Table 3.7: Aquaculture facilities in PNG ...... 78 Figure 3.14: Model adopted in fish cage culture set-up at Yonki (Source: Adapted from FAO, 1978) ...... 80 Table 3.8: Technical factors influencing aquaculture development in PNG ...... 80 Table 3.9: Factors supporting development and presenting opportunities for aquaculture in PNG ...... 83 Table 3.10: Factors constraining development and presenting a threat to aquaculture development in PNG ...... 84 Figure 4.1: Map of EHP showing district clusters for interviews circled (Source: Adapted from - NAC, 2005) ...... 88 Table 4.1: TOWS matrix to propose development objectives (Source: Adapted from Dyson 2004) ...... 91 Figure 4.2: Flowchart of study process ...... 93 Table 4.2: Demographics of PNG fish farmers in 2003 and EHP farmers in 2014 ...... 94 Figure 4.3: Main reason for EHP farmers involvement in aquaculture in 2003 (Smith et al, 2007) and 2014...... 96 Figure 4.4: Formal training and extension received by EHP farmers 2003-2014 (2003 source: Smith et al, 2007) ...... 97 Figure 4.5: EHP estimated fish production rates from pond and cage culture 2003- 2015 ...... 101 Table 4.3: PNG farming production data 2003 and EHP data 2014 ...... 101 Figure 4.6: Main feed sources used by EHP fish farmers in 2003 and 2014 ...... 103 Table 4.4: Farmed fish harvest and marketing for PNG in 2003 and EHP in 2014 ...... 104 Figure 4.7: Main outlets for EHP fish farm harvests ...... 104 Table 4.5: Major constrains by PNG farmers in 2003 and EHP farmers in 2014106 Table 4.6: Ranked EHP fish farmers strength factors ...... 109 Table 4.7: Ranked EHP fish farmers weakness factors ...... 111 Table 4.8: Ranked EHP fish farmers opportunities factors ...... 112 Table 4.9: Ranked EHP fish farmers threat factors ...... 114 Table 4.10: EHP fish farmer perceived SWOT factors ...... 115 Table 4.11: Ranked EHP aquaculture stakeholder focus group identified strengths ...... 116 Table 4.12: Ranked EHP aquaculture stakeholder focus group identified weaknesses ...... 117 Table 4.13: Ranked EHP aquaculture stakeholder focus group identified opportunities ...... 118
VII Table 4.14: Ranked EHP aquaculture stakeholder focus group identified threats ...... 120 Table 4.15: Ranked EHP aquaculture stakeholders TOWS outcomes as development objectives ...... 121 Table 4.16: NFA perceived strength typical of EHP/PNG aquaculture ...... 124 Table 4.17: NFA perceived weaknesses typical of EHP/PNG aquaculture ...... 125 Table 4.18: NFA perceived opportunities typical of EHP/PNG aquaculture ..... 126 Table 4.19: NFA perceived threats typical of EHP/PNG aquaculture ...... 127 Figure 5.2: Cage culture of GIFT fish in the Yonki reservoir is increasing with farmers consistently selling to organised markets (Picture: Vira H., 2015) 143 Figure 5.3: Pond Block A at HAQDEC used for research and training. Laboratory and office facilities are also available (Picture: Vira H., 2015) ...... 149 Table 1: Common SWOTs of aquaculture in EHP ...... 211
VIII GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACIAR – Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
ADB – Asian Development Bank
DASF – Department of Agriculture Stock and Fisheries
DNPM – Department of National Planning and Monitoring
DPI – Division of Primary Industry
DSG – District Services Grant
DSIP – District Services Improvement Program
EHFFC – Eastern Highlands Fish Farmers Cooperative
EHP – Eastern Highlands Province
EHPA – Eastern Highlands Provincial Administration
EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment
ESD – Ecologically Sustainable Development
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation
FMA – Fisheries Management Act
GIFT – Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia
HAQDEC – highlands Aquaculture Development Centre
JICA – Japan International Cooperation Agency
NADMAC – National Aquaculture Management and Development Committee
NADP – National Agriculture Development Plan
NAqDP – National Aquaculture Development Plan
NAQIA – National Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection Authority
NARI – National Agriculture Research Institute
IX NDAL – National Department of Agriculture and Livestock
NFA – National Fisheries Authority
NGO – Non-government Organisation
NMB – Nationwide Microbank
NSO – National Statistical Office
OTDF – Ok Tedi Development Foundation
PDF – Project Development Fund
PEEST – Political Economic Environmental Social Technical
PICT – Pacific Islands Countries and Territories
PNG – Papua New Guinea
PNGDSP – Papua New Guinea Development Strategic Plan
SME – Small to Medium Enterprise
SPC – Secretariat for the Pacific Community
SWOT – Strength Weakness Opportunities Threats
USD – United States Dollars
WHO – World Health Organisation
X ABSTRACT
Freshwater fish farming is rapidly growing in Papua New Guinea (PNG), particularly in rural inland areas. It is widely promoted as a food security and income-generating tool to address pervasive malnutrition and support rural development. A number of government, non-government and donor stakeholders are involved in various aspects of the activity. A lack of understanding of the characteristics and current status of the sector has limited the development of strategic directions by the lead government agency responsible, the National Fisheries Authority (NFA). The last sectoral analysis was undertaken in 2003; however, developments since then have changed fish farming and very little is know about the interventions required to sustainably manage it. This study presents a mixed-method approach to characterise the sector and establish a basis for further strategic planning using the Eastern Highlands Province (EHP) as a case study.
This study first established factors outside of the aquaculture sector that influenced its development by conducting a Political, Economic, Environmental, Social and Technical (PEEST) analysis. This involved an extensive review of published papers as well as other sources (government reports) due to very little publications on PNG. The next step was a Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis. A representative sample of farmers was interviewed throughout the province to gather basic farming data as well as ascertain views on the SWOT factors. A stakeholder focus group workshop was then convened to elicit the views of government, non-government and donor partners involved in aquaculture within EHP. Finally key NFA staff members were interviewed to determine high-level views on the SWOT factors. Descriptive analysis of farming data was undertaken and cross-tabulation of SWOT responses conducted to describe the current status of the sector. The PEEST and SWOT outcomes were then synthesised to characterise aquaculture in EHP, and determine the issues and required interventions.
The PEEST analysis showed that politically, aquaculture was captured in major government legislation and key development plans. NFA was identified as the key lead agency in the development of this sector. Widespread policy support fostered the involvement and development stakeholders. PNG’s recent economic growth has influenced the evolution of a subset of semi-commercial operators in the province. The availability of government credit and grants has also influenced interest in fish farming. The natural environment has been conducive to the establishment of aquaculture; however, increased competition for resources, climate change and eventual intensification are threats.
XI Socially, the ability of fish farming to complement rural lifestyle has enhanced its uptake. Its contribution to improving dietary protein levels, and rural development, has further strengthened its role. Increasing population and law and order issues are threats that need to be managed. The introduction of Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) and the development of local fish feed are important technical interventions that have changed aquaculture. However, the majority of farmers still lack critical skills, and the lack of technical capacity limits extension services by government. The study presented an analysis of farming data that reflected findings of the PEEST work. The farming data also highlighted the changes in the sector since the last major survey in 2003. This investigation revealed validated SWOT factors that characterised the sector. There were eight significant strengths: the availability of fingerlings; the local production of fish feed; the availability of local expertise; the recognition by government of aquaculture as a tool for rural development; the creation of provincial farmers cooperative; NFAs role as lead government organisation widely recognised; location of HAQDEC in the province; and farmers training courses are established and have been widely utilised. There were also eight weaknesses identified: firstly, farmers lack essential production and management skills; high fish feed cost and inconsistent supply; lack of organised market and associated infrastructure; lack of updated, relevant extension and awareness material along with standardisation of training; the lack of an updated strategic development plan was the most significant weakness; the widespread abuse and lack of monitoring and evaluation of NFA’s PDF grant; the lack of trained personnel to service increasing farmer levels; and finally, the lack of a local aquaculture equipment supplier. Five key opportunities were identified: farmers are receptive to interventions; farmers are willing to work with stakeholders and participate in rural development planning; the natural environment is conducive and predicted increased temperatures will improve fish growth; there is increased demand for aquaculture technology and products; and finally, there is increasing demand for fish feed. Seven significant threats to fish farming in EHP included: weak and deteriorating transport infrastructure and increased cost of living; increasing social (law and order) issues; administrative decisions, slow government process and political decisions negatively affecting programs; cross-border invasive species and farmers lack of awareness on environmental/disease risks; limited range of locally available feed ingredients; climate change and increased natural disasters; and the issue of land tenure which is of particular concern for commercial ventures. Finally, a synthesis of the PEEST and SWOT factors revealed the current status of the fish farming sector in EHP. Aquaculture was widely recognised and
XII supported with the potential to be a major rural development tool. NFA leadership was critical to direct provincial development partners in key areas of extension and research.
Findings from this work will enable decision makers in EHP to develop realistic development plans for the sector. This study will also assist NFA management to understand changes in the industry and presents a method that can be used in future sectoral analysis or planning processes. Recommendations presented will aid in the prioritisation of interventions from farmers through to provincial development stakeholders and NFA management levels.
XIII Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Aquaculture is increasing globally at 6.2% per annum (FAO, 2014) with much of the growth coming from low-income food deficient countries (Ahmed & Lorica, 2002). The ability of small-pond fish farming to address malnutrition, food insecurity and contribute to rural development has been the main factor driving its proliferation
(Halwart et al, 2003). In Papua New Guinea (PNG) the activity is expanding at an estimated 10% per year (Smith et al, 2007) mainly in the rural areas of the country. It is now widely recognised in government policy as a tool for addressing rural underdevelopment (NFA, 2004). The increasing importance of the sector and its potential to impact people and the environment demands a better understanding of its characteristics in order to strengthen its sustainability.
This chapter establishes the rationale for undertaking the research and also provides a roadmap for the thesis. The section starts with some background and the problem statement; then leads into the research objectives and research questions to address the issue; followed by an overview of the approach utilised to address the questions; and finally concludes with an outline of the thesis and a statement on the limitations.
1.2 Problem statement
1.2.1 Dietary protein in rural areas
PNG comprises more than 600 scattered islands ranging from sea level to 4500m with one mainland that constitutes 80% of the total land area. The dense jungles and mountainous interior have been a constraint to establishing reliable transport infrastructure (Wardlow 2007), leaving many communities isolated. Social indicators
1 reveal that 87.5% of the population is rural-based (ADB 2012) with most involved in subsistence agriculture for their livelihood. There is little livestock culture other than small-scale chicken farming and pigs, which are raised as status symbols for use during ceremonial occasions (Anderson, 2006). Consequently, access to dietary protein is an issue affecting most of the country’s rural based population (ADB 2012; Gibson et al
1991). High feed and transport costs influence poultry prices (Glatz et al., 2013) and limit the economic capability to farm chicken as 35.8% of the population live on less than USD1.25 per day (ADB 2012). Prices of tinned meat or fish reaching rural areas are significantly increased by 3.4% for each hour walked from main transport infrastructure (Gibson and Rozelle 2003). Studies show that up to 80% of the village diet is root crop based with very low protein content (Mueller et al, 2001). Other research on diet in a PNG rural setting indicate that 76% of children 6-10 years old have less than two-thirds of the FAO/WHO recommended protein levels with 29% of children exhibiting stunting. The lack of protein in the vegetable-concentrated diet is attributed as a major factor to this deficiency (Gibson et al 1991). Smith et al (2007) shows that fish farmers in PNG have significantly increased protein consumption either from their fishponds or the purchase of protein from fish sales. Similar trends are reported for other developing rural communities where fish farming households have a higher protein consumption than non-fish farming (Ahmed and Lorica 2002). Mueller et al (2001) further recommends that interventions to improve rural socioeconomic status and livestock farming must be encouraged to address dietary protein deficiency in rural
PNG communities.
1.2.2 Food security
Food security is a cause of concern in PNG because high population growth rates increase pressure on resources with impacts further exacerbated by climate change
2 (Nandlal, 2012). PNG’s current population growth of 2.1% is one of the highest in the region (United Nations Data, 2015). Population is estimated to double by 2039 (Allen,
2014) putting pressure on subsistence farming to provide food. Current annual growth in food production is 1%, which is below the population growth, hence the increasing pressure (Bourke, 2000). For instance, Bell et al (2009) predict that coastal fisheries will be incapable of supplying fish for food security based on an expected PNG national demand of 178,900 tonnes in 2030 from its 2010 level of 108,400 tonnes. The government has recognised this and has prioritised food security in major policy documents (NDAL, 2006; DNPM, 2010). The promotion of interventions to improve food security is important, particularly in rural areas where livestock is raised for ceremonies and rarely preserved. Small-scale chicken farming is common but the cost of the commodity is beyond many villagers who primarily rely on subsistence farming for food (Anderson 2006). While tinned meat and fish are available, prices are high due to transport costs and are therefore beyond the economic means of average village households (Gibson & Rozelle 2003). Fish farming is potentially the most viable option for ensuring villagers have adequate protein in their diets. The growing contribution of farmed fish to food security in PNG and the Pacific is supported by Bell et al (2009) as being important and should be encouraged.
1.2.3 Growth of aquaculture
Freshwater aquaculture in PNG is currently experiencing unprecedented growth, particularly in the rural areas (Bell et al, 2013). The availability of land, water and manual labour combined with the need for protein and the simple skill-set requirements have been characteristics of fish-farming that enable it to complement the rural lifestyle, hence a major reason for its rapid spread throughout the region (Edwards 2009). The
National Fisheries Authority (NFA) is mandated by the Fisheries Act 1998 to be the
3 lead agency in aquaculture development; the National Aquaculture Development Policy
2004 remains the guiding framework. Apart from NFA, fish farming is widely promoted by government, non-government (NGO) and learning institutions. For instance the, the National Agriculture Research Institute (NARI) under its Livestock
Research and Development programme is undertaking investigations into feed and integrated farming as priorities for inland aquaculture improvement (NARI, 2014). Care
International, a major development NGO in the highlands, promotes fish farming as a food security and alternate income programme for rural communities, particularly for women (Care International, 2008). Furthermore, aquaculture is now a taught undergraduate course at the PNG University of Technology (University of Technology,
2013) and a certificate course at the Kavieng Fisheries College (Kavieng Fisheries
College, 2013). Fish farming is therefore recognised as a mainstream primary industry activity with much expected in terms of its contribution to national development.
Subsequently, increased opportunities for farmer’s training by stakeholders; improved technology; and more farmer credit facilities by the government, have all contributed to industry growth. It is however becoming increasingly apparent that there is little coordination in the industry’s development with stakeholders not understanding their roles and responsibilities (Lakari & Tapat, 2011). These organisations operate independently often resulting in duplication of activities and a general lack of direction and coordination across the industry. Based on recent NFA estimates, there are now
60,000 farmers in PNG (Infofish, 2012) and with increased government and stakeholder support, these numbers are expected to grow. Rimmer et al (2013), in a review of aquaculture development in Indonesia, cautions that collaboration by government and private organizations is a critical but complex issue that needs to be addressed to ensure sustainability.
4 1.2.4 The issue
The importance of fish farming on food security and addressing dietary protein deficiency is critical for rural communities. Any improvement or deterioration of the industry has livelihood implications for a significant majority of PNG’s population.
The current aquaculture development plan covers the period up to 2010 (NFA 2004) and there have been no updates since. This situation may not be due to the lack of desire but more the absence of capacity to identify priorities and to develop appropriate strategies.
Therefore, a process to characterise, collect and analyse industry data, as a basis to foster robust policies and strategies is critical for sustainable aquaculture development.
To date, the stakeholders involved in industry development have not undertaken an industry-level evaluation of inland fish farming.
1.3 Study site
The Eastern Highlands Province (EHP) will be used as a case study to undertake the study. EHP is one of seven highlands provinces in PNG with a total population of
582,159 (NSO 2011), its capital being Goroka Town (See Figure 1.1). Most of the rural communities are involved in smallholder coffee farming with subsistence agriculture
(NAC 2005). Fish farming is also actively promoted in all the eight districts of the province. The main stakeholders involved in aquaculture development include: NFA,
EHP Division of Primary Industry (DPI), Highlands Aquaculture Development Centre
(HAQDEC), NARI, Care International, Nationwide Microbank (MiBank), Australian
Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), EH Fish Farmers Cooperative
(EHFFC) and National Department of Agriculture & Livestock (NDAL). Transport infrastructure allows access to all the districts on existing roads albeit not in the best
5 condition. The long history of fish farming also makes this province the ideal location to undertake the research.
Figure 1.1: Location of EHP in PNG (Sources: Adapted from Google maps 2014 & NRI 2010)
1.4 Aim and objectives
1.4.1 Overall aim
EHP is an important fish-farming area where much of the research, development and extension activities have emanated from (Smith et al. 2007). The province currently does not have a plan and cannot rely on NFA’s aquaculture development plan as it ended in 2010 (NFA 2004). Therefore, the overall aim of this study is to develop an understanding of the current status of inland aquaculture in EHP in order to underpin better management decisions from government to farmer level.
1.4.2 Research objectives
In order to address the overall aim, this study considers the following specific objectives:
6 Objective 1
A critical review of past, existing and emerging policies, strategies and legislation relating to aquaculture development is done through an analysis of political, economical, environmental, social and technical (PEEST) conditions (Fleisher &
Bensoussan, 2003).
Objective 2
Using the strength, weakness, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis approach, this study will identify the influence of these factors in the industry at the institutional and farmer level of participation in EHP.
Objective 3
To synthesize the outcomes of the PEEST and SWOT analysis to determine the current status of the industry and make recommendations on how to improve management at the government, community and farm level.
1.5 Approach
There is a dearth of socio-economic or political studies related to aquaculture in PNG.
The only major work was by Smith et al (2007). However significant development since then implies that some of the methods and outcomes require updating. A review of the work by Smith et al (2007) is further discussed in Chapter 2.
This investigation utilises a mixed-method approach of primarily qualitative fieldwork, through interviews and focus group discussions, followed by statistical analysis of the data. There is an absence of data available for aquaculture development planning in
PNG; this work provides a systematic, objective and repeatable process for
7 consideration. The approach taken is similar to work done by Rimmer et al (2013) on aquaculture in Aceh, Indonesia and Aslan et al (2012) on sustainable development.
1.5.1 PEEST
The PEEST analysis is a broad assessment of the external environment in which an organisation or industry operates. It essentially identifies issues and trends to understand implications and develop appropriate responses. For instance, Dyson (2003) in undertaking a strategic planning exercise uses a PEEST analysis to establish external factors impacting his organisation. The process of PEEST analysis is widely used in strategic management to establish the background for further planning practices
(Carpenter & Sanders, 2007; Lynch, 2006).
In this research, an analysis of current PEEST issues influencing the aquaculture industry in PNG is undertaken through a literature review that primarily uses published peer-reviewed information. However, considering that most work regarding PNG aquaculture is unpublished, other sources will have to be used, much like Rimmer et al
(2013) did in similar work in Indonesia. Outcomes should establish the background and identify key external trends for further substantiation in the SWOT analysis.
1.5.2 SWOT analysis
The Strength Weakness Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis process is widely recognised tool in strategic planning processes and particularly important to managing agencies and inclusive of stakeholders involved in commodity production. It identifies the external (OT) and internal factors (SW) characteristic to an organisation and provides a systematic approach to decision making (Kurttila et al, 2000). Terrados et al
(2007) cautions that although it is popular, the SWOT can only be useful if provided the right information. Although mainly used in business planning, a SWOT analysis is
8 useful in natural resource development planning (Kajanus et al, 2012; Stead, 2005) and more specifically in fisheries and aquaculture (Siaosi et al, 2012; Rimmer et al, 2013).
The overriding goal of this study is to provide knowledge that can underpin a more strategic approach to aquaculture development in EHP, PNG, mainly through an understanding of internal and external factors that may positively or negatively affect the industry. A SWOT analysis was selected as the primary approach, preceded by a
PEEST, as it has been demonstrated to be an effective means of initiating strategic planning of an industry (Helms and Nixon, 2010; Glass et al., 2015). A SWOT analysis has been shown to be an effective tool for situations where simplicity and flexibility is required (Helms and Nixon, 2010), as is the case in EHP where data are scant, and stakeholders are difficult to access because of the ruggedness of the landscape, tribal wars and safety, and a diverse number of languages. Provincial data on the industry are scarce; whereas stakeholder lay-knowledge is abundant. Helms and Nixon (2010) also highlight its usefulness for the planning purposes of government, industries, NGOs and other stakeholders as it captures information and expert opinion on crosscutting issues that affect all stakeholders. By contrast, conventional socio-economic methods, which were considered for this study, were found to be cumbersome when applied to multiple stakeholders, or weakened by a lack of quantitative data. A SWOT analysis is also considered to be a robust research method and has been used in peer- reviewed research
(Glass et al, 2015). The 2012 European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy, for example, is largely based on a SWOT analysis (Sigurardottir et al., 2015) and the approach is now increasingly being adopted in fisheries and aquaculture studies that require industry appraisal as a basis for policy development and management (Ahmed and Luong-Van,
2009; Bolton et al., 2009; Çelik et al., 2012; Cowx et al., 2010; Garza-Gil et al., 2009;
Panigrahi and Mohanty, 2012; Rimmer et al., 2013; Stead, 2005).
9
A useful tool to ascertain preferences in social science research and industry analysis is the Likert-type scale. It essentially comprises a series of statements with the respondents preference to each measured in a set scale; usually in a continuum of agree/disagree or like/dislike (Adelson & McCoach, 2010). The use of Likert-type scales in SWOT analysis is also a common approach (Dyson, 2004; Aslan et al, 2012).
This research focuses on three distinct groups in the PNG aquaculture industry: the farmers; the research, extension and development stakeholders identified in section 1.3; and the policy maker and regulator of the industry - NFA. Firstly, farmer’s response to
Likert-type statements on SWOT factors will be captured through interviews. Next, provincial stakeholder’s views will be determined in a focus group workshop, again using Likert-type statements and responses. Finally, interviews with key NFA aquaculture staff on similar SWOT factors will establish the regulator’s perceptions and practices. The process of starting with farmers and moving up to the national regulator reflects the 1995 Organic Law on Provincial Governments and Local-level
Governments that requires planning for projects impacting local communities to start at the village level (Hasnain, Keefer, & Menzies, 2011).
1.5.3 TOWS Matrix
The TOWS matrix (Weihrich, 1982) essentially reorganises the SWOT factors to create broad objectives in strategic planning processes. It is a widely recognised and used tool
(Weihrich, 1999; Dyson, 2004) and assists in narrowing choices to more realistic and achievable development objectives (Nelson et al, 2012). The process involves various combinations of ranked internal (SW) and external factors (OT) as shown in Table 1.1.
For instance, the combination of one strength factor with an opportunity produces a
10 possible objective that exploits the pairing. The objective can then be further used in the strategic planning process for policy or industry development plans.
Table 1.1: TOWS matrix for pairing of internal and external factors (Adapted from Dyson, 2004) Strength Weakness
Opportunities SO – maximising strengths to WO – addressing weaknesses to utilise opportunities utilise opportunities
Threats ST – maximising strengths to WT – addressing weaknesses to reduce or avoid threats reduce or avoid threats
In this work the TOWS matrix is used during the stakeholder focus group meeting to collaboratively establish development objects for the province. The process uses a
Likert-type scale to decide on objectives in a systematic manner.
1.6 Thesis structure
Chapter 2 reviews past aquaculture interventions in PNG and locates this work within similar research in South East Asia and the South Pacific region. Chapter 3 presents the method, results and discussion of the PEEST analysis. Similarly, the SWOT process and outcomes are discussed in Chapter 4. A general discussion of aquaculture in PNG in the light of this study comprises Chapter 5 with the research summarised and recommendations made in Chapter 6.
1.6.1 Limitations
The key limitation of this investigation is the use of only one province as a case study.
The contrasts in the biogeography and sociocultural issues throughout PNG denote that this study alone cannot be used to characterize fish farming in PNG. For instance, the issues faced by farmers in the cooler high altitude areas with relatively good transport
11 network would contrast with significantly warmer but more isolated coastal-inland communities. Situations found in the highlands cannot be wholly superimposed on lowland farmers.
Also, the profile of aquaculture in PNG has now developed to include mariculture, cage culture and culture of other species (NFA, 2013). This research limits its focus on fishpond farming of GIFT and carp.
1.6.2 Implications
Future work should be able to use lessons learnt from this exercise to include modifications for effective data collection. There are also implications for the application of the process developed in this research in other developing PICTs. A review of the status of aquaculture in PICTs reports that there is much potential for the activity, however the absence of specific policy is a constraint to development (Adams,
Bell & Labrosse, 2000). Indeed, Nandlal (2012) espouses that aquaculture development plans and policies in PICTs should be realistic and reflect each nation’s social, economic, environmental and political circumstance. These views suggest that methods developed in this research can be honed for similar investigations in other PICTs.
12 Chapter 2: A review of freshwater aquaculture development in PNG
2.1 Introduction
Aquaculture’s contribution has grown to 42% of global fisheries production with inland freshwater fish farming providing 62% (FAO, 2014). Annually, freshwater aquaculture is increasing at 11% with 90% of production emanating from Asia where Chinese output dominates (Edwards, 2000). Fish farming has also gained wide recognition as a significant contributor in improving nutrition, addressing food insecurity and supporting rural development (Ahmed & Lorica, 2002; Nandlal, 2012). For low-income food- deficient countries, aquaculture plays a critical role in improving and maintaining the livelihood of inland rural communities living more than 5km from the coast or major river systems (Adams et al, 2001).
In the Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICT), fish is a major part of the diet.
Recent estimates indicate that aquaculture accounts for up to 20% of total domestic and export fisheries (Ponia, 2010). Furthermore, with increasing populations and the onset of climate change impacting capture fisheries, aquaculture is considered a viable option for food security.
This chapter examines previous work in the development of small-scale freshwater fish farming in PNG. Fish farming is an introduced concept for the rural inland communities who constitute 87.5% of PNG’s population (ADB, 2012). Where possible, comparisons will be made to similar research in Asian developing countries and PICTs. Whilst relying as much as possible on published information, other sources such as internal government reports have also been used in this section.
13 2.2 A brief historical overview
The establishment of the Highland Agriculture Experimental Station or Aiyura fisheries
(Figure 2.1) by the Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries (DASF) in 1954 was pivotal in beginning aquaculture (Wani, 2004). An early report described sweet potato and rice bran being supplied to common carp (Cyprinius carpio) as supplemental feed at
Aiyura. The report also implied that there was some investigation into feeding ratio’s using pelletized feed but did not elaborate on outcomes. Rather, it promoted the fertilization of ponds and the use of species that could be farmed by this method (La'a &
Glucksman, 1972). Farmers were therefore advised to fertilise ponds to encourage natural productivity in the water (Reynolds, 1970; Toneba, 1980) as food for fish.
Figure 2.1: Map of EHP indicating location of Aiyura (Source: PNG TPA)
The commercial potential of fish farming came to light in the 1980s when the Goroka- based Kotuni and Nupaha rainbow trout (Oncorhychus mykiss) farms were producing up to 20 metric tonnes of farmed fish per annum for the domestic market (Masuda et al,
1994). Lake Pindiyaundo Trout Farm (LPYTF), in the Simbu Province, commenced operations in 1987 and produced farmed fish for the domestic market. The closure of
Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farms in the early 1990s, as a result of community issues and
14 mismanagement,(Masuda et al, 1994), heralded the demise of commercial trout farming. LPYTF continues to operate today albeit handicapped by high feed import costs and deteriorating transport infrastructure (Higgins B., LPYTF owner, pers comm,
June 2013).
Interest in aquaculture declined in the 1980s due to the lack of political support and no local technical expertise (Kan 1981). Government policy at the time abandoned aquaculture in favour of plant protein to address malnutrition (Wani, 2004). A contributing factor was the lack of traditional knowledge (Glucksman & West, 1963) in fish husbandry that stifled successful uptake of the new technology. By contrast, freshwater fish farming was booming in South East Asia and other parts of the world.
An FAO consultancy report, to develop feed for the Aiyura research station, recommended a low-cost semi-intensive feeding strategy, using a combination of organic fertilization and supplementary feeding. The supplementary feed was a mix of wheat and barley meal for larvae in well-fertilized ponds. The report further recommended that village fish farmers use organic fertilization with little or no supplementary feeding (Tacon, 1986). Most of the farmers during this period had little understanding of the concept that fertilization of ponds produced food for fish. Many resorted to supplying boiled sweet potato and kitchen scraps in much the same way as feeding their domesticated animals. There are very few records of particularly good growth rates achieved by village farmers or even government research stations. Fish farming remained largely extensive and was more a fringe activity that was not widely practiced even though there was significant interest at the time. This eventually resulted in Aiyura ceasing all fingerling production in 1985. FAO assisted the Department of
Fisheries and Marine Resources (DFMR) attempt to revitalise aquaculture by
15 technically strengthening Aiyura fisheries (Pitt, 1986). FAO experts found rural communities were still enthusiastic about fish farming; hence, carp culture was re- established with new pond and hatchery designs developed to support the resurgence of this activity (Kovari, 1986). Despite these interventions, growth of the industry continued to lag due to the lack of local technical capacity and political support (Wani,
2004).
It is widely acknowledged that the involvement of the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) at Aiyura was the catalyst in consolidating inland aquacultures role in food security and rural development. The JICA project was initiated in collaboration with DFMR, who subsequently devolved it to the Eastern Highlands Provincial government in 1998 when DFMR became the National Fisheries Authority (NFA)
(Smith, 2013). Aiyura fisheries was at this stage renamed, the Highlands Aquaculture
Development Centre (HAQDEC) to give it a broader scope. Smith et al (2007) supports this view and reports that JICA’s impact was to significantly improve fingerling production at HAQDEC; provide numerous extension officers and farmers training; and to build a nucleus of local technical expertise. The JICA project addressed trout and carp fingerling unavailability by establishing effective husbandry and production regimes in combination with specifically tailored farmers and officers training programs
(Wani, 1998; Kia, 2001). With reliable fingerling supply and effective extension and training, farmers were able to assimilate the simple skill-set requirement enabling the activity became widely prevalent. JICA’s 1999 importation of the late-maturing and faster-growing Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia or GIFT (Oreochromis niloticus) further bolstered aquaculture (Wani, 2004). Subsequently fish farming is now recognized as a mainstream activity supporting food security (Smith, 2013). There have
16 been numerous changes in policy by the government and NFA in response to the overwhelming growth of the industry (these policies are discussed in Chapter 4).
The JICA project ended in 2000. However, research and development continued through collaborative projects funded by the Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research (ACIAR) NFA (ACIAR, 2014). Since 2001 there have been a suite of freshwater aquaculture projects undertaken (Table 1 in section 2.3.3). These interventions have focussed on areas jointly identified with NFA to address gaps and strengthen the industry. Currently an estimated 60,000 farmers (Infofish, 2012) are involved, mainly operating small ponds and culturing GIFT.
2.3 Justification for the introduction of aquaculture
Interest in expanding fish farming has been strong in the past and continues to build.
Experiences from other parts of the developing world reinforce the significance and role of aquaculture in strengthening rural livelihoods (Ahmed & Lorica, 2002). In this section reasons behind the introduction of fish farming in PNG and emerging factors that justify its perpetuation are outlined.
2.3.1 Nutrition
The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) recommended protein intake is about 0.7g per kilogram bodyweight based on information from a variety of sources (FAO/WHO,
2002). Early reports recommending the introduction of aquaculture into PNG (Schuster
1952; Rapson 1957; Kearny, 1976) indicated the lack of protein in the diet of inland populations as being the main reason for supporting fish farming. Kan (1987) in his work on inland fisheries supported this view, with Coates (1987) further explaining that
50% of children below 5 years suffered from serious protein deficiency. More recent
17 studies in a rural community show 76% of children between ages 6-10 had less than two-thirds of recommended protein levels (Gibson et al, 1991). Similar reasons have spurred the introduction of aquaculture in other developing countries where an estimated 2 billion people currently suffer from essential vitamins and mineral deficiencies (Kawarazuka & Béné, 2011). Of particular concern is the impact of malnutrition on women and children where it impacts on growth, cognitive development, reproductive capacity and work output (Roos, 2015). A healthier population is able to learn better, work efficiently and contribute meaningfully to nation building. This then justifies the need for the developing nations to consider viable options to improve nutritional deficiencies in their populations. Bell et al (2009), in promoting the use of fish for food security, report that fresh fish consists of about 20% protein and estimates that an average 34-37 kg per capita annual intake would provide around 50% of recommended levels for PICTs. Considering that artisanal fisheries in
PNG struggles to economically supply coastal areas, let alone the demand from the large inland population (Coates, 1987), other options are imperative. Aquaculture in the past and presently offers an alternative, given the right enabling environment.
An early review of exotic fish introductions to PNG reports 21 species importations with five specifically for aquaculture from 1930 to 1974 (Glucksman et al, 1976).
Similar work by Coates (1987) asserts that the tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) was the exotic species introduced in 1954 to start aquaculture. This assertion is misplaced as
Glucksman et al (1976) clearly shows tilapia being introduced for stocking rivers to provide food for the inland PNG population. Pond farming of tilapia was not the original intention but occurred following the establishment of the species. The common carp (C. carpio), however, was introduced in 1959 specifically for aquaculture with
18 active government distribution of only this species out of all imported exotics
(Glucksman et al 1976). The argument that the introduction of carp and tilapia for aquaculture was a failure (Coates, 1987; Coates & Ulaiwi, 1995) is somewhat misplaced. Haines and Stevens (1983) whilst reporting the inability of aquaculture to gain traction expressed the potential for the activity to grow through generational change. Unlike much of Asia, aquaculture is not traditionally practiced in PNG
(Schuster, 1950). The importation of the various species served to introduce the concept, created interest and established the foundation for the growth of fish farming in later generations. A similar trend is evident in Fiji where tilapia, introduced in 1953 as a protein source for pig farming, was used to establish aquaculture (Adams, Bell &
Labrosse, 2001; McKinna et al, 2010). Fiji has since had varied success in other freshwater and marine species. Furthermore a review on the impact of alien species on
Asian aquaculture reports a net positive outcome as a result of exotic introductions
(Silva et al, 2006). Lessons on exotic introductions from Asia are relevant for most
PICTs where there are limited indigenous species options for small-scale aquaculture.
Therefore, in PNG’s case, although Kawarazuka and Béné (2011) argue that carp and tilapia do not produce sufficient essential human-required oils, these species currently provide the only reasonable option for the majority of the rural inland communities.
Hence the introduction of the late maturing, faster growing GIFT (O. niloticus) to PNG in 1999 (Gupta & Acosta, 2004; Wani 2004). It has taken over carp as the most widely farmed species in the country (Sammut & Wani, 2010). A lack of indigenous species for aquaculture in PNG underpinned the decision to introduce GIFT. Interestingly, recent work in the Solomon Islands made comparison between tilapia and milkfish (WorldFish
2011) to appraise farming benefits; milkfish, as the indigenous alternative, was not selected. Milkfish and any other brackish water species would not be suitable for inland
19 PNG and therefore cannot be considered. An investigation to identify indigenous PNG freshwater species did not identify suitable candidates (Graham et al, 2012; Vira, 2015).
Nonetheless, the need for continued investigation on indigenous species with aquaculture potential is important for nutritional as well as biodiversity and cultural reasons. Studies in developing countries show that some indigenous fish species are nutritionally richer than exotics (Kawarazuka & Béné, 2011) and can be possibly considered for aquaculture. Edwards (2000) supports this view; however, Silva et al
(2006) cautions that research into indigenous aquaculture should not be at the socioeconomic expense of the current exotic based rural industry. Recent success in freshwater prawn culture (Macrobrachium spinipes) (Pickering et al, 2014) strengthens the call for further research in this area. Edwards (2009) suggests that PNG would do well to learn from Asian developing nations in using indigenous as well as exotic species in aquaculture to address malnutrition.
The introduction of tilapia and carp aquaculture to address nutritional deficiencies in
PNG was and continues to be a key driving factor. There are, however, area’s requiring further research to strengthen this cause. Bell et al (2009), in considering the size and complexity of issues inherent to PNG relative to other PICTs, calls for a more in-depth analysis on the potential for aquaculture to address malnutrition. For instance, the total population of the 22 PICTs was 8 million in 2009 with PNG contributing 6 million; issues are therefore on a different scale (Russell, 2011). The diversity in environmental conditions and cultural differences often adds a different dimension to interventions
(Haberkorn, 2008). The lack of accurate production and socioeconomic impact data continues to mask the contribution of aquaculture to improving nutritional status.
20 2.3.2 Food security & rural development
An issue related to nutrition but more akin to the overall livelihood of a community is food security. This is clarified by the WHO definition of food security as, “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life” (WHO, 1996). A food secure community is able to consider other meaningful pursuits to further improve socioeconomic conditions. In developing countries, food insecure communities are mainly rural based and therefore interventions in this area, contribute to rural development. Halwart et al (2003), in their recent study on the role of aquaculture in rural development, emphasise that a vibrant smallholder agriculture economy invariably supports food security and rural development.
Aquaculture in the developing world is similar to PNG and other PICTS in that it is very much rural smallholder driven at the family and household level (Tanaka, 1987;
Bailey & Skladany, 1991; Brummett & Williams, 2000). Although the contribution of fish farming to food security is not clearly reported (Bell et al, 2009), it is reasonable to infer that the growth of aquaculture attests to its wide acceptance as an activity supporting rural development. Edwards (2000) supports this in iterating that aquaculture alleviates rural poverty and strengthens rural development by improving household food supply, income and creating employment.
Initial reports espousing the introduction of aquaculture in PNG all use the lack of readily available protein sources as justification (Schuster 1952; Rapson 1957; Kearny,
1976). This stance, in essence, conforms to the WHO definition of food security in that: aquaculture will ensure protein is accessible at all times for the inland communities.
Food security continues to be the major justification for current development interventions; however the conspicuous lack of socioeconomic and rural development
21 data from fish farming diminishes its impact. This weakness is prevalent in many other third world economies (Halwart et al, 2003; Bell et al, 2009; Brummett & Williams,
2000). Development of efficient processes to capture key data in quantifying aquacultures contribution will serve to strengthen its role in government policy. The sector needs to show that in addition to addressing poverty and malnutrition, freshwater aquaculture can be an intervention for underdevelopment in rural areas (Bailey &
Skladany, 1991).
2.3.3 Emerging issues – more justification
The significance of nutrition and food security continues to drive aquaculture growth in developing nations. This is evident in low-income food-deficient countries generating
85% of total world aquaculture production (Ahmed & Lorica, 2002). The two most significant recently emerging issues influencing aquaculture in PNG are climate change and the role of women.
Climate change
Malnutrition and food insecurity are issues of global importance but there is an added impetus in PICTs with the increasing effects of climate change aggravating the situation. The impact of climate change on food security in PICTs is expected to be profound given: increasing population; decreasing local food production; increasing food imports; increasing cost compared to value of production; and increasing rural to urban migration (Barnett, 2011). The scenario is illustrated in PNG’s population growth rate of 2.1% (UN Data, 2015) being double the prevailing food production growth of
1% per annum (Bourke, 2000); in essence, food production is steadily falling behind population growth.
22 Recent studies predict higher and more intense rainfall during the summer wet months and drier more drought-like winter months stemming from climate change (Barnett,
2011; Bell et al, 2013). These forecasts suggest a substantial threat for the largely subsistence agricultural inland communities. Moreover, the same studies forecast decreased coastal fisheries production as increasing sea temperatures and sea-levels impact on coral reefs, seagrass-beds and mangroves. Considering that fish consumption in PICTs is 2-4 times the global average (Nandlal, 2012), increased national demand to satisfy basic household needs can be expected. With rising sea levels, related effects of increased soil salinity and erosion impacting subsistence agriculture are already being experienced (Locke, 2009). The impact of climate change on food security is a major concern and measures to mitigate are necessary.
Recent PICTs regional heads of fisheries meetings resolved that aquaculture’s role in safeguarding food security and building resilience to climate change should be strengthened (SPC, 2009). Small-pond farming of tilapia is the most widespread aquaculture activity in the PICTs (Bell et al, 2010) and in PNG it is the fastest growing rural based industry. Bell et al (2013) predict increased rainfall as a result of climate change, assuring farmers of water for grow out during the wet season but steps will have to be considered to avoid flooding. Predictions also indicate prolonged dry seasons and measures to ensure continued production will have to be developed. On the other hand, forecasted increased water temperatures supports faster growth of tilapia and farming at higher altitudes throughout PNG’s interior. Aquaculture is therefore expected to assume a key role in strengthening food security in the face of climate change.
Consequently, there is need for research to corroborate predicted impacts on fish farming in PNG as a basis to develop practical mitigating strategies.
23
The fishing industry in the Pacific is reliant on the four main tuna species: skipjack tuna
(Katsuwonus pelamis), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), bigeye tuna (T. obesus) and albacore (T. alaunga). Studies posit a shift of the dominant skipjack tuna, westward out of PNG’s EEZ as a result of climate change. Modelling indicates that increased water temperatures, changes in currents, flux in water quality and less productive food webs will lead to a decrease of more than 10% by 2050 (Lehodey et al, 1997; Bell et al,
2013). The current fishing industry depends on these stocks and a decrease in landings will impact on their operations. There is need for further investigation to develop strategies for reinvestment of income from current capture into sustainable options.
Aquaculture is considered an alternative; however, current data and statistics are non- existent making it difficult to build a compelling case.
Gender
Women have always contributed to food security however it is only recently that its significance in developing nations is being recognised. This gender bias in the past has been largely due to sociocultural taboos that have caused ignorance and restrictions further devaluing women’s contribution (Olufayo, 2012). Even so, it is now widely acknowledged that women in rural areas are generally responsible for household food security and are more industrious. For instance, Shelly and D’Costa (2002) in studies on the role of women in aquaculture, report that whilst it is the males who hold the leadership role, women tend to work harder and are more productive in low-income food-deficient nations. Indeed, Kawarazuka & Béné (2010) in linking aquaculture to nutritional security, show that women operated small farms produce 12% more than male managed ones. Even so, cultural practices dictate that male roles more recognised, hence most studies tend to overlook women’s contribution.
24
In developing countries, household food security is often the woman’s focal area of responsibility. It is reasonable therefore to postulate that strengthening the role of women has direct implications for household food security. In fact, Kawarazuka and
Béné (2010) were able to show a direct relationship between women’s control of household income and increased food security as women reinvested 90% of aquaculture income in family unit food. A study on the contribution of women in PNG agriculture infers that men are more focussed on cash crops whilst the women ensure that vegetable gardens are adequately tended for their households need (Koczberski et al, 2012). FAO statistics indicate women comprised 56% of the PNG agricultural workforce (FAO,
2015); however, there is little published material on the role of women in aquaculture.
Improved food security enhances nutrition and health and promotes rural development
(Ahmed & Lorica, 2002). Women therefore are integral partners in the improvement of livelihoods of rural communities. The growth of aquaculture in Asia has directly lifted the role of women in rural development. For instance, China contributing 62% of global aquaculture production had 33% of women involved in rural farming, whilst 42-88% of
Indonesia’s and Vietnam’s produce was through female involvement (Harper et al,
2013). In PICTs, the role of women in fisheries is widely recognised but there needs to more in-depth analysis to ascertain their contribution to rural development.
Furthermore, work done by Harper et al (2013) did not consider women’s involvement in aquaculture; this needs to be addressed, particularly in PICTs context.
25 Experience from other developing countries indicates that the role of women is critical for rural aquaculture (Kawarazuka and Béné, 2010). In PNG, there is very little data on the contribution of women.
Current changes in population, socioeconomic issues and predicted climate variability will all have some bearing on national food security. Aquaculture presents an opportunity to better understand and strengthen the involvement of women as a means to safeguarding food security and progressing rural development. Indeed, Smith (2013) reported that empowering PNG women in aquaculture had the strongest multiplier effect in changing communities.
2.4 Review of status
Aquaculture was introduced more than 40 years ago in PNG. This section however, will only review developments from 1998 onwards as this has been the period of most significant growth. To undertake this exercise, work by Smith et al (2007), in establishing the status of freshwater farming in PNG, is reviewed. An update by Wani
(2004) in reporting on the status of aquaculture for NFA is also considered.
2.4.1 Species preference
The most significant examination of aquaculture development in PNG was work undertaken from 2001 to 2006, which estimated that there were 10-15,000 farmers and an industry growth rate of 10% per annum (Smith et al 2007). This estimate was based on the distribution of fingerlings from HAQDEC with data showing that 90% of species being distributed and farmed were common carp. Although the work is pivotal in that it established a baseline on various technical and socio-economic aspects of aquaculture, the obvious point of limitation is that the discourses of this study were based mainly on the fact that carp was the common species of culture at the time. It is now generally
26 known that the most widely farmed species in PNG is the GIFT (Sammut & Wani,
2010). GIFT (here on referred to as tilapia) was introduced in 1999 (Gupta, 2004; Wani,
2004). HAQDEC records indicate fingerling distribution commencing in 2003 but mainly throughout Morobe, Eastern and Western Highlands Provinces (Smith et al,
2007). Incidentally, the national farmer survey’s ended in 2003 and therefore did not fully capture data on the distribution or farming of tilapia in PNG. Wani (2004) also confirmed the dominance of carp at the time but noted a significant increase of interest in fish culture with the introduction of tilapia. Considering the ability of tilapia to prolifically reproduce, farmers have today become less reliant on hatcheries for fingerlings. Edwards (2000) attests that in developing countries, expensive hatcheries are irrelevant for rural small-scale pond farming of tilapia. Farmers using low-cost and appropriate technology can effectively produce fingerlings for sales creating flow-on benefits of: income generation, employment creation and rural development. It is therefore reasonable to argue that the data presented by Smith et al (2007) cannot be entirely relied on for developmental planning purposes as it is primarily based on carp and tilapia is now the dominant farmed species. Further work is required that takes into account the impact of tilapia on freshwater inland aquaculture. For instance, the value of aquaculture production increased from K5 to K20 million from 2003 to 2008 as a result of the introduction of tilapia (Smith, 2013). There have been no studies since; nevertheless, the work by Smith et al (2007) does serve as a benchmark in determining the growth of fish farming in PNG.
2.4.2 Methodology used in past review
Smith et al (2007) used interviews on farms, hatcheries and institutions as well as stakeholder workshops to conduct the review. Structured interviews and surveys using questionnaires are commonly used to evaluate current status and stakeholders views in
27 most natural resource sectoral reviews (Phan et al 2009; Wei et al 2011). Of the farm surveys conducted in 12 provinces, 57% were in four highland provinces, 33% in
Morobe Province and 10% divided between seven coastal provinces. Consequently, data were highly reflective of Morobe and the highlands farmers and did not adequately capture coastal freshwater farming areas. In quantitative analysis it is recommended that a representative sample of the total population is randomly selected to avoid bias.
Similarly, in qualitative analysis a representative sample is randomly selected to ensure that the issues that come out of the interview are captured (Onwuegbuzie & Leech
2007). It appears Smith et al (2007) undertook both qualitative and quantitative analysis of interview data that was skewed towards the highlands and particularly Morobe
Provinces. Whilst this work established a baseline, it is imperative that future research ensure that sample populations studied truly represent either provinces or bio- geographic regions to ensure strong scientific basis for development planning. However given the ruggedness of PNG, limited transport infrastructure and safety risks associated with remote travel, it would have been practically difficult for the author to undertake true random sampling. On that basis, Smith et al (2007) used stratified random sampling, however, the bias towards sampling a particular region is evident and should be avoided in future work.
Furthermore, the farm surveys showed 9% of the female were respondents but women contributed up to 38% of the work on most farms (Smith et al, 2007). The low number of female respondents is most likely due to cultural norms, typical in other developing countries (Olufayo, 2012), where men usually speak with male visitors and women are involved only if necessary. Such practice dilutes the contributions of females and ignores their role in strengthening food security. A study on the role of women in fish
28 farming in Asia recommends that research be more gender sensitive as women play an integral role in rural development (Shelly & D’Costa, 2002). Future work should be gender conscious and also involve female officers to elicit the active participation of women.
Smith et al (2007) reported an increased frequency of protein consumption in farming families than non-farming. Aquaculture contributed 4% of household income but that was from a minority of farmers who sold regularly. Up to 74% of the respondents farmed for household consumption. Using these outcomes as the baseline, future examinations should establish the growth in rural development from the direct involvement of aquaculture. There is a dearth of information on fish-farming’s contribution to nutrition, food security and addressing under-development.
Smith et al (2007) did not address the cross-cutting issue of HIV/AIDS. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS among adults in PNG is 0.9% and steadily growing due to poverty and low literacy levels typical of developing nations (Roberts, 2012). Studies in Malawi have shown significant improvements of vegetable intake and income generation for households affected by HIV/AIDS (Nagoli et al, 2009). A more specific investigation addressing the impact of fish farming on the health of people living with HIV/AIDS will enable more comprehensive interventions in improving the livelihoods of this often ostracised subsector of society.
Finally, there has been little evidence of follow-up surveys to ascertain the impact of tilapia farming on aquaculture. Smith (2013) in an attempt to establish the impact of tilapia does not specify locations of a survey of 350 farmers in 2006-2008, relying on
29 desktop analysis of reports and HAQDEC distribution records. The lack of impetus to undertake subsequent surveys may be due to the lack of capacity in terms of trained people and an efficient method that is repeatable.
2.4.3 Constraints identification
An achievement of Smith et al (2007) was to establish and document key constraints of the PNG aquaculture industry. This was achieved through a major workshop with farmers, government and industry stakeholders with outcomes refined through three smaller regional farmers meetings over three years. The impact of tilapia was considered in the three follow-up workshops, further validating the constraints being the lack of: adequate fingerling supply and availability for all aquaculture species; affordable formulated diets; information on appropriate species for different bio- geographic regions; information on farming strategies for new species (to improve broodstock management); market strategies (considering issues of postharvest, value adding and market standards); and effective communication throughout the industry
(extension, database and training strategies). ACIAR in partnership with NFA and other development partners have developed projects to address constraints identified. These interventions have had varying degrees of success but have all established the basis for future work in their respective areas. Table 2.1 summarises subsequent projects designed to address the constraints.
Table 2.1: Constraints identified by focus group (Smith et al, 2007) and subsequent interventions Constraint Abbreviated project Outcome Reference title Lack of formulated Developing farm Formula developed, Gonzalez & Allan diets made feeds in PNG feed produced and (2007) now available Feed for monogastric In progress – Glatz (2012) industries concentrate is being developed for farm trials in 2014/2015 Fly River herring use Established as a Kamang et al (2011)
30 as fishmeal potential source of fishmeal Lack of information Native species Breeding protocols Graham et al (2012); on appropriate species aquaculture project established and Vira (2015) identification of potential species undertaken. Potential for Giant Successful hatchery Pickering et al (2014) Freshwater Prawn breeding of GFP. farming (GFP) Currently doing grow-out trials. Limited broodstock Assessment of No significant McKinna et al (2010) management genetics of PNG introgression in PNG tilapia stock. Performance problems related to husbandry practices. Increasing production Re-established two ACIAR (2014) from inland known families for aquaculture further work at HAQDEC. Lack of marketing Feed for monogastric Value chain analysis Glatz (2012) strategies industries of aquaculture is being undertaken as a component of this project – work is progressing Limited extension, Training in scientific Workshop delivered, Sammut (2009) literature and writing paper developed communication All projects All projects are expected to develop extension material on respective work
The lack of fingerlings is not listed in Table 2.1 as it is no longer an issue for reasons previously discussed: tilapias breed prolifically and farmers are able to propagate and distribute easily. However, the supply or production of quality fingerlings is potentially an issue because of poor broodstock management practices that lead to genetic introgression and weakened family lines. Nevertheless, the main issue is now teaching proper husbandry practices to farmers to enable sufficient fish production from ponds as suggested by McKinna et al (2010). Related to this is the need for a national broodstock management program to ensure rural hatchery operators are able to access quality parent stock to maintain seed quality. Even so, the lack of fingerlings for trout and carp are still present and are areas that need to be considered (Smith, 2013).
31
Smith et al (2007) did consider environmental issues, mainly regarding the discharge and potential environmental impacts. Survey outcomes indicated there was minimal environmental impact, however focus group meetings strongly expressed it was an area that should not be ignored. More research on import risk assessments and ponds discharge were necessary. A significant environmental issue that was not touched on in the survey was the impact of climate change in aquaculture. More specific research in this area is necessary to ensure the industry in PNG remains climate change resilient.
2.4.4 Stakeholder coordination
Wani (2004) reported the absence of clarity in policy and direction of the government as a significant concern. Since the completion of the project by Smith et al (2007), however, the profile of the aquaculture industry has changed. It has now been identified in the PNG Development Strategic Plan and the Medium Term Development Strategy
(DNPM, 2010) as a key fisheries activity to facilitate rural development. Aquaculture is therefore firmly established as a mainstream fisheries activity with much expected in terms of its contribution to national development. This is due to its perceived contribution to supporting food and income security and the potential for this activity to be expanded even further. In response to industry developments, NFA established aquaculture and inland fisheries as a business unit of its own within the organization in
2010. The other significant response of NFA has been the publication of the National
Aquaculture Development Policy 2004-2010. This document establishes the national vision for the activity to: institute aquaculture as an industry; export internationally; support food security; and integrate with agriculture. It proposes to do this through ten key strategies that are described in Chapter 4. However, a constraint that Wani (2004) alludes to is that NFA, due to its corporate status, is required to conduct all research,
32 extension and development through relevant stakeholders and institutions. The establishment of the independent National Aquaculture Development and Management
Advisory Committee (NADMAC) in 2003 to support the NFA managing director was to facilitate collaboration (NFA, 2003). The committee has not convened since the last meeting in 2007 (Minimulu P., NFA mariculture manager, pers comm, February 2015).
There are now more government, educational institutions, donors, private businesses and non-government organisations actively involved in the industry. An observation by two PNG aquaculture researchers indicates an increasing lack of coordination in the industry’s development with stakeholders not understanding their roles and responsibilities (Lakari & Tapat, 2011). In contrast, Singas (2014), whilst evaluating technology uptake in rural farmers, observed an emergence of some collaboration between development stakeholders. Smith (2013), however, urges for more formalised arrangements with NFA coordinating all development to safeguard the industry. An investigation into the growth of aquaculture in developing countries urges for robust cooperation between government agencies and development partners to ensure interventions are appropriate and growth is coordinated (Bummett & Williams, 2000).
The absence of strong policy that facilitates effective stakeholder partnership is a risk to the sustainability of fish farming in PNG.
2.5 Summary
There have been many development partners involved at various stages in establishing aquaculture in PNG over the last 50 years. Government policy has influenced the impact of the activity but it has been largely the acceptance of rural communities to new technology that has also shaped government policy. Nevertheless, the rationale for promoting fish farming has been: to improve nutrition, address food insecurity and stimulate rural development.
33
Studies in other food-deficient low-income countries show that aquaculture is an option that has contributed significantly to the improvement of rural livelihoods. Recent studies also reveal emerging issues that further justify the promotion of fish farming.
Climate change impacts are being experienced and will continue to increase, affecting fisheries. This has ramifications on food security and aquaculture will be required to provide options for predicted decreases in capture fisheries. Another emerging issue is the role of women in fish farming in PNG. Women play a critical role in maintaining food security and contributing to rural development. Better understanding of female contribution is required to empower women and thereby strengthen the aquaculture industry.
Smith et al (2007) survey of aquaculture in PNG was pivotal in establishing the growth of fish farming and essentially set a benchmark for comparison. It was, however, undertaken at a time when the common carp was the dominant species farmed. This has changed significantly with tilapia now the most commonly farmed species. There has been little done to date in ascertaining the changes tilapia has brought over time.
The survey gathered data from different institutions and farmers involved in aquaculture from all over the country. At the time, fish farming was a relatively new concept and confined to Morobe and the highland provinces. Data was therefore highly reflective of the conditions in these provinces. The introduction of tilapia has supported the spread of aquaculture throughout many previously non-farming areas. A representative sample of different bio-geographic regions is required to establish a true status of the activity.
34 Subsequent surveys should also consider the role of women in fish farming. This is a sensitive area and approaches should be well thought out to ensure quality data is gathered. Similarly, climate change is an area that requires further investigation and may call for a dedicated study of its own. The urgency of investigations into this phenomenon is critical to ensure aquaculture remains climate change resilient.
The lack of stakeholder coordination is a significant risk to the growth of aquaculture and enabling mechanisms need to be developed to address it. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders needs to be clearly demarcated and strategic plans and directions collaboratively developed. The relatively dysfunctional growth to date needs to be corrected and a more streamlined, efficient and methodical approach taken to ensure sustainability.
The issues raised are critical and have not been specifically addressed over the last 7-10 years. For aquaculture to progress and truly achieve its potential in PNG, interventions are required. However to develop appropriate interventions, an understanding of the current characteristics of the sector is a prerequisite. PNG does not have an established process to understand the factors influencing aquaculture development at all levels: farmers, development organisations and the regulator (NFA). The prevalent absence of reliable aquaculture data has led to poor development planning and weakened advocacy for the industry. Lack of technical capacity and the absence of an effective data collection and analysis process have hindered attempts in the past. However, pressing concerns on impacts of unprecedented population growth, climate change, food insecurity and rural underdevelopment compel that appropriate investigations be undertaken.
35 Chapter 3: Political, Economic, Environmental, Social and Technical (PEEST) analysis of freshwater aquaculture in PNG
3.1 Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 2, there has been little update on the status of freshwater aquaculture in PNG over the last 7-10 years. Consequently, characteristics of the sector are not clearly established and understood. This situation has further constrained strategic development planning by relevant government authorities.
The key elements of strategic planning include: strategic analysis, strategic choice and strategy implementation (Johnson & Scholes, 1993). Strategic analysis establishes the status and characteristics of the industry; strategic choice involves selecting the best options to pursue based on capabilities; and, strategy implementation involves allocating and managing resources to create strategic change. The process involves interlinked activities (Figure 3.1) as strategic analysis can be affected during implementation in a process of continuous improvement. It is obvious that plans cannot be developed and implemented without strategic analysis. A political, economic, environmental, social and technical (PEEST or STEEP) analysis is a useful tool in strategic analysis (Tsiakkiros & Pashiardis, 2002).
Analysing the political, environmental, social and technological (PEEST) factors influencing an organisation or industry establishes the external environment (Abraham,
2006). The external environment relates to factors that are beyond the control of the industry but do influence its operations, outcomes and growth (Fleisher & Bensoussan,
2007), characterising its threats and opportunties. This process is widely used in strategic planning (Kyler, 2003) where: political factors are those pertaining to policy
36 and legal settings of the particular country; environmental influences relate to the physical and natural resources as well as their control; the ability to obtain products is described as the economic setting; factors describing the community as a whole
(lifestyle and livelihoods) establishes social influences; and, technological factors refer to advances in technology in areas that impact the industry. A PEEST analysis is necessary to identify trends that influence and will impact on future development. For instance, in tourism development studies, a PEEST analysis proved to be pivotal in understanding external factors in order to appreciate their interconnectivity and strengthen planning for sustainability (Formica & Kothari, 2008). Similarly, Rimmer et al (2013) used a PEEST analysis whilst reviewing the aquaculture industry in order to enable further strategic planning in Indonesia. A PEEST analysis is therefore also useful in academic research (Shahid, 2012; Gupta, 2013; Ho, 2014).
Figure 3.1: The Johnson and Scholes model (Source: Johnson & Scholes, 1993) In order to understand the external factors that influence aquaculture development in
PNG, a PEEST analysis is necessary. This chapter presents the methods and results and discusses the findings of the analysis. 37 3.2 Methodology
A PEEST analysis was undertaken to ascertain major external factors influencing aquaculture development in EHP. Peer reviewed material was preferred but a dearth of socio-economic studies relating to aquaculture in PNG necessitated the use of other sources. Consequently, this work has had to rely on government reports and other sources to present a more complete review. The unpublished material is critically reviewed with an emphasis on the quality of the data and the relevance of the methods used to collect them. This was similar to the process undertaken by Rimmer et al (2013) in reviewing aquaculture in Indonesia and Aslan et al (2012) on sustainable development in Turkey.
3.2.1 Political
Firstly, a review of government legislation and associated regulations relevant to aquaculture (Rimmer et al, 2013) particularly in: fisheries, land, water and environment was undertaken. Sections of legislation and regulations that had implications for aquaculture were noted and a summary with appropriate commentary compiled.
Following that, government development policies that refer to aquaculture were reviewed and a similar process of summarization and commentary was followed. This then formed the review of political factors.
3.2.2 Economic
To establish the economic influence, a review of recent trends in the national economy was necessary. Much of the information came from reports and data published online by credible organizations. These were entities that had PNG development experience and were widely recognised in their technical field. An important aspect to be determined was the ability of the general populace to purchase goods and services (Fleisher &
38 Bensoussan, 2007). Further focus on the contribution of the primary industry sector as well as aquaculture followed to denote the importance of the sector.
3.2.3 Environmental (natural environment)
To understand environmental factors influencing aquaculture, a general description of the country’s natural environment and implications for aquaculture was compiled. The next stage involved reviewing and summarising specific environmental permit requirements pertaining to aquaculture. Finally, past and recent impacts of aquaculture on the environment were examined. This entire process involved the use of published and secondary sources.
3.2.4 Social
The social environment includes the demographics, education, lifestyle and other social issues such as crime. These all influence aquaculture; for instance, an increasing population and growing pressure on limited farming land leads to stealing from fish ponds or food gardens by the landless (Ningal et al, 2008). To establish social factors, published and secondary sources as well as credible online organizations websites were interrogated. Similar to Rimmer et al (2013), social issues that directly affected rural farming were the main focus. These issues were teased out and tabulated.
3.2.5 Technological
Changes in technology or the science of aquaculture influence industry (Browdy et al,
2012). To capture this effect, a review on scientific advances in PNG, such as species introduction, was necessary. Published and secondary sources were interrogated and any technological introduction or improvement was noted as well as its consequent impact on aquaculture. All identified changes were summarised and tabulated.
39 Finally, to summarise, the identified influencing factors for each area of the PEEST were then categorized as opportunities or threats to the industry. The factors could only be considered as opportunities or threats as they were primarily external (Aslan et al,
2012). This process therefore established the major external factors influencing aquaculture in PNG.
3.3 Results & Discussion
This section presents and discusses the key factors that influence the socio-economic environment in which freshwater aquaculture has developed. The strategic position of the industry is also established through this process for contemplation and incorporation into future development planning.
3.3.1 Policy
The political aspect relates to the legal and policy features of the government with respect to aquaculture. This area is critical to the development of the industry as it establishes government support for aquaculture and the legal instruments and policies that either facilitate or constrain aquaculture development.
3.3.1.1 Legal and regulatory framework on aquaculture
The Fisheries Management Act 1998 (FMA 1998) and the Fisheries Management
Regulations 2000 (FMR 2000) are the main pieces of legislation regulating aquaculture in PNG. They establish the National Fisheries Authority (NFA) as the main organisation responsible for the development and regulation of all fisheries and aquaculture activities in the country. These legislations stipulate that the NFA is ultimately the policy maker, provider of technical advice and funder of applied research particularly for commercial aquaculture. Under the FMA 1998, NFA is directed to collaborate with other organisations and relevant government departments such as the National Department of
40 Agriculture and Livestock (NDAL) and National Agriculture Research Institute (NARI) in research, extension and training for food security. The National Agriculture Research
Institute Act 1996 reflects this directive by establishing NARI as the lead research agency responsible for the development of appropriate agriculture technologies to address food and income security. NFA is expected to collaborate with relevant organisations (including provincial agencies) to ensure aquaculture programs remain consistent with appropriate legislation and government policy.
The FMA 1998 and FMR 2000 require that certain aquaculture operations be licensed.
The National Aquaculture Development Policy (NFA 2007) further clarifies that any operation with an annual turnover of 10 tonnes or more, or utilizes more than one hectare of land or water, must be licensed. Small non-commercial or semi commercial fish-culture operations do not require a license, however, in contrast to inland aquaculture, mariculture or marine species culture must be licensed. Before approving licenses, the NFA reserves the right to request for additional information such as land, water and environmental permits.
The FMA 1998 and FMR 2000 empower the NFA Managing Director, appointed fisheries officers (including police and defence force) to enforce fisheries management laws. Disobedience to established aquaculture regulations may incur the loss of license, fines or imprisonment.
Environmental Permits
Most land in PNG is traditionally owned, with only about 3% being crown land where the land is surveyed and the land titled assigned (Cooter 1991). The Land Act 1996 (LA
1996) implies that a foreign person or business entity wishing to establish a commercial
41 aquaculture project (> 10 tonnes production per year) is required to obtain a special agricultural and business lease from the State (section 102, LA 1996). Permission from local landowners can only be reached between citizens (section 132, LA 1996) and therefore the State will be requested to facilitate. An application with supporting documentation of intent is submitted to the Department of Lands where the Minister for
Lands decides to approve or not. The Department of Lands then acquires the land from customary landowners and the foreign entity enters into a lease-lease back arrangement with the State (section 11, LA 1996). This process is not applied to citizens; they can immediately develop (if they own the land and have satisfied NFA requirements), purchase land or enter into lease agreement with the landowners.
Water and environmental permits will be required after a property lease or land title is obtained,. Note, however, that this is not required for small-pond farmers.
Water permits issued under the Water Resources Act 1982 (WRA 1982) and Water
Resources Regulation 1982 (WRR 1982) enable one to divert or dam a river or stream and allow for the discharge of waste into the water body. It seeks to: protect the water users (human and animals); ensure there is equal access to safe water; and that this is maintained over time. This piece of legislation defines water as all freshwater and seawater above and below the land. The process of obtaining a water use permit is described in sections 28-34 of the WRA 1982 (Figure 3.2). Water is essential for any aquaculture operation; this permit is a requirement by law with section 58 of the WRA
1982 stipulating that any person damming, diverting or discharging into a river or stream without a permit being guilty of an offence and liable for a fine not exceeding
K5000 for every day the breach continues. Section 4 of the WRR 1982 indicates that for small operations where water intake or discharge does not exceed 5,000m3/year, the
42 charge is K10 for the duration of the permit. For operations where water use is 5,000-
50,000m3/year, the charge is K100 and K500 for those exceeding 50,000m3/year.
Figure 3.2: Schematic process for applying for water use permit in PNG (Adapted from: WRA 1982)
The Environment Act 2000 and the Environment (Prescribed Activities) Regulations
2002 defines: all open sea (cage) farming; aquaculture facilities with production of greater than 100 tonnes wet product/year; and/or discharge greater than 10 million litres/day as levels 2 or 3 activities. Section 42 stipulates that all level 2 and 3 activities require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) culminating in the submission of an
Environment Impact Statement (EIS) before an environmental permit can be granted by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). The process as depicted in
Figure 3.3 is addressed in sections 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59 and 60 of the
Environment Act 2000. Under the EIA, all possible impacts of the activity, mitigating steps and monitoring as well as reporting protocols should be adequately described.
43
Figure 3.3: Schematic process for EIA permit (Adapted from: Environment Act 2000; Coffey Natural Systems, 2008)
The Environment Act 2000 empowers the DEC to demand records to determine compliance with permit conditions (section 108). A general penalty of a fine not exceeding K50,000 or imprisonment of up to 5 years is applicable for any failure to comply with the legislation (section 115).
Aquaculture operations
Under the FMA 1998, an aquaculture facility license is required for any operation that involves the farming of aquatic organisms (Figure 3.4). The FMR 2000 and the National
Aquaculture Development Policy (NFA 2004) clarify the species and level of production that trigger the requirement for a license. Furthermore, if an operator intends to process aquaculture products, the FMA 1998 requires a fish processing facility
44 license. Furthermore, NFA policy requires that an EIA be submitted if production is 25 tonnes or more per annum (fresh un-gutted weight) (NFA, 2004). Typically, these are requirements for more intensive operations where production is more than 10 tonnes per year or utilizes more than 1 hectare of land or water. Operations that are not at such levels are considered small-scale farming and do not require licensing.
Figure 3.4: NFA licensing process (Adapted from: FMR 2000 section 8 & 9)
Disease control
Aquaculture in PNG and most Pacific Islands Countries and Territories (PICTs) is currently recognised as being disease-free (SPC 2008). As such, the National
Aquaculture Development Policy (NFA 2007) directs that entities wishing to import or translocate aquatic species in PNG for the purposes of aquaculture are required to comply with the National Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection Authority Act 1997
(NAQIA 1997) and the Animal and Disease Control Act 1952 respectively. NFA will only authorise any importation or translocation of aquaculture organisms with NAQIA certification. NAQIA 1997 parts IV–VII relates to quarantine processes and requirements for importation of animals, including fish. Approval for an Aquatic
45 Species Import Permit will require a complete Import Risk Assessment to be submitted to NAQIA with the application. This should include the quarantine process.. Even so, section 69 empowers NAQIA to refuse landing upon physical check of the animal.
NFA, however, generally discourages the importation of exotic species if there is a similar native animal available (NFA, 2004). The translocation of species within country only requires an Animal Movement Permit (NAQIA Document code 046900) that will allow air, sea or road transportation between regions (NAQIA, 2009). The issuing NAQIA officer who will generally consult NFA if in any doubt makes this decision.
3.3.1.2 Government policy on aquaculture development
Globally, aquaculture has been described as the fastest growing primary production sector with a global annual growth of 11% per annum (De Silva et al 2006). Smith et al
(2007) estimates that inland aquaculture in PNG is growing at 10% per year which establishes it as the fastest growing rural-based primary production activity in the country. The growth in the activity and implications for food security, income generation and rural development have contributed to establish aquaculture in major government policy and planning documents.
The Papua New Guinea Vision 2050 document seeks to shift the mining and energy sector dominated economy to one dominated by agriculture, fisheries, forestry, eco- tourism and manufacturing sectors (National Strategic Plan Task Force, 2009). The fisheries sector, including aquaculture, is identified as a major contributor under the wealth creation, natural resources and growth nodes pillar of the PNG Vision 2050 document.
46 The Papua New Guinea Development Strategic Plan 2010-2030 (DNPM 2010)
(PNGDSP) intends to provide a more explicit guide for getting PNG to where the PNG
Vision 2050 wants the country to be. The PNGDSP identifies increased relevant research in all aspects of aquaculture as a way forward in developing the sector.
Aquaculture is a key fisheries activity where research, extension and marketing capacities are critical to manage risk and provide direction. As a strategy, the PNGDSP suggests that revenue derived from fisheries licensing and excise be reinvested into the coastal fisheries and aquaculture (including mariculture) programs.
Although compiled earlier than the PNG Vision 2050 and the PNGDSP, the National
Agriculture Development Plan 2007-2016 (NDAL 2006)(NADP) establishes the
National Department of Agriculture and Livestock (NDAL) as a key agency responsible for developing aquaculture as a food security activity. The NADPs vision aligns with the PNG Vision 2050 in that it intends to transform the agriculture and livestock sectors into more productive economic sectors. It confirms NFA as the lead government organization responsible for re-investing revenue from capture-based fisheries into culture-based developments through direct funding or collaborative interventions. The
NADP also establishes the role of Provincial Divisions of Primary Industry (DPI) as being to plan, coordinate and manage extension and support programs. NARI’s role is also strengthened as the lead government agency responsible for smallholder aquaculture research. The NADP considers the lack of technical capacity; the lack of quality feed; the lack of policy on the development of smallholder aquaculture; the lack of a consistent disease monitoring program; and no clear demarcation of organizational roles and responsibilities under appropriate agreements (MOU/MOA) as being the major constraints to aquaculture development.
47
The National Aquaculture Development Policy (NFA 2004) (NAqDP) is the key strategic planning document that guides NFA’s programs. This document clarifies the legal requirements of the FMA and FMR and clarifies licensing guidelines for aquaculture operators to follow. It strengthens NFA’s role as the lead government organisation in policy development and facilitation of all levels of aquaculture development whilst highlighting its primary focus on commercial enterprise. It also expresses NFA’s aspiration to collaborate with responsible stakeholders in the development of smallholder operations’ biosecurity and environmental compliance.
Development policies and strategies from 2004 to 2010 expound NFA’s vision of an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable commercial and subsistence aquaculture industry. Table 1 presents the ten key strategies promoted by the NAqDP to achieve this vision.
Table 3.1: NAqDP aquaculture development strategies. Strategic area Description Aquatic health management The current disease free status is to be maintained through the collaborative development of appropriate biosecurity policies, practices, enforcement procedures and capacity building with NAQIA. Aquaculture feed development Feed is a key constraint. Cost effective and environmentally friendly feed is to be produced through relevant research partnership with stakeholder organisations. Aquaculture training To build capacity and knowledge of technical officers and local farmers, various levels of training from informal to postgraduate levels will be pursued. This will be through collaboration with other government departments, institutions, regional organisations, donors and consultants where appropriate. Improving food security and To create awareness, disseminate information and poverty alleviation extension in collaboration with DAL to support food security and create alternate income-earning opportunities, mainly for the rural communities. Environmentally sustainable The pristine environmental conditions of PNG’s coastal aquaculture and inland waters should not be sacrificed for aquaculture development. Appropriate planning, monitoring and enforcement of guidelines must be implemented in collaboration with DEC to ensure sustainability. Investment in aquaculture Development of private sector enterprise is a key to
48 development supporting the sustainability of the activity. Technical support to financial institutions, creation of credit facilities and enabling donor investment will be pursued. Investment in aquaculture Promote and support applied research in key areas through research the creation of a research and development company under NFA. That company would collaborate with national and international organisations to deliver research targets. Linkage between research, extension and farmers must be strengthened to ensure beneficial scientific outputs are implemented. Effective communication Efficient dissemination of information is important in developing the sector. The use of technology, print and electronic media in enabling the flow of information throughout the sector is key to managing and maintaining its sustainable growth. Market development and trade The development of markets and marketing opportunities promotion of PNG aquaculture are an integral component of commercial aquaculture. products Support in this area through local and international promotion; establishing an enabling environment; and support of appropriate economic research are all essential. Aquaculture food quality and Food safety and compliance with relevant globally safety accepted standards are important to ensuring local and international customer confidence and acceptance of PNG products. Relevant research, policy and regulations will be established through collaboration with stakeholders to strengthen quality control from farm to plate.
3.3.1.3 Section summary
Table 3.2 summarises identified political factors that continue to influence aquaculture development. It is evident that aquaculture is addressed and generally supported in government legislation and policy documents. Consequently, government agencies roles and responsibilities are postulated and collaboration with development partners is highly regarded. There may be need in the future to update and improve certain areas of legislation and government policy as the industry grows. It is imperative, however, to renew the NAqDP that has development strategies and plans ending in 2010. Likewise, constraints highlighted by the NADP 2007-2016 have yet to be evaluated and further interventions established. To strengthen sustainability, policies need to be reviewed and updated based on current data to ensure government aspirations reflect the direction the industry should grow (Hahnlein, 2013). Outdated policies and strategies not reflecting current developments ultimately pose as a significant threat.
49
Table 3.2: Political factors influencing aquaculture development in PNG Political factors Legislation (FMA 1998, Lands Act 1996, WRA 1982, Environment Act 2000 and NAQIA 1997) recognises aquaculture and establishes compliance parameters.
The National Government recognises and supports aquaculture in key development plans and policy documents (PNG Vision 2050, PNGDSP 2010-2030 and NADP 2007-2016).
NFA as the lead government agency is required to collaborate with NDAL, Provincial Governments, NARI and other development stakeholders in advancing aquaculture.
The National Aquaculture Development Policy 2004-2010 further clarifies compliance requirements for aquaculture and presents NFAs aspirations and strategies for the industry.
No recent aquaculture policy or strategy reviews or updates
3.3.2 Economic
The economic component of the environment refers to the distribution and use of resources in a country (Fleisher & Bensoussan, 2007). This factor influences the development and subsequent contribution of an industry to society.
3.3.2.1 The PNG economy
PNG is richly endowed with renewable and non-renewable resources. The economy is very much dependent on resource extraction with the sector contributing 70% of exports
(Asian Development Bank, 2014). According to the World Bank (2015), the country’s
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2013 was USD15.29 billion and an annual GDP growth of 4.4% rising to 10% in 2014. This is one of the highest GDP growth rates in the region, however, as recommended by Dixon et al (2010), the growth of GDP is irrelevant and attention should be given to changes in Gross National Product (GNP) which relates to consumption. Per capita Gross National Income (GNI) in 2013 was
USD2010 (The World Bank, 2015) which is again highly skewed as a result of the large income flow from the non-renewable sector. In reality, 80% of the population is rural- based earning less than USD1 per day (Asian Development Bank, 2012). 50
The agriculture sector contributed 28% (Table 3.3) of the nations GDP in 2013 based on exports. The industry and services sector provided more even though they comprised
15% of the formal economy living and working in urban and mining areas (Berdach &
Mandeakali, 2005).
Table 3.3: Sectoral contribution to PNG’s GDP in 2013 (Source: Adapted from Global Finance, 2015) Sector Contribution to GDP
Industry 39%
Services 33%
Agriculture 28%
Agriculture (including forestry and fisheries) is a mainstay for the majority of rural communities (Ningal et al, 2007). Bourke et al (2009) estimated that agriculture provided PGK200 million annually to rural household income with vegetable sales and coffee production being important contributors (Figure 3.5). However, Omot (2012) postulates that there is uneven distribution of wealth and although agriculture generates significant income, very little is actually earned by rural people. Deteriorating transport infrastructure and corresponding increases in costs of doing business is a major contributor to lower returns for rural producers and increasing prices for consumers.
Hence the average income of less than US$1 per day. Consequently there are increasing disparaties between the cash-based and the subsistence based economies in PNG.
51
Figure 3.5: Contribution of agriculture to rural household income (Adapted from: Bourke et al, 2009)
The government has recognised the need to invest income from the non-renewable sector into more renewable activities where the bulk of the population is involved
(DNPM, 2010). The ultimate outcome is to have a broad-based economy with increased opportunities, particularly throughout the rural areas. In addition to the challenges of poor transport infrastructure and other socio-economic issues characteristic of developing countries, PNG is now faced with the “Dutch Disease” problem. Bature
(2013) describes this situation where a significant increase in an export sector drives unprecedented economic growth, consequently increasing the price on goods in other sectors. The impact of the rapid growth of non-renewable exports (due mostly to the
LNG Project) on other sectors is significant. In an earlier economic analysis of PNG,
Asafu-Adjaye (1996) recommends prudent reinvestment of non-renewable export income in the renewable sector to support sustainability. Ellis and Darko (2013) while reviewing PNGs SME sector, advocate for investment in infrastructure, transparent budgeting and structural reform to facilitate broader opportunities in order to reduce the risk of Dutch Disease. The current government’s policy to grow the small to medium enterprise (SME) sector is part of the strategy to broaden the economic base (Investment
52 Promotion Authority, 2015). Consequently, the government and development partners have increased the availability of credit for SMEs from banks and other financial institutions. For instance, the World Bank though the International Finance Corporation has created the SME Risk Share Facility which guarantees 50% of loans extended by participating banks to recipient businesses (IFC, 2014).
3.3.2.2 Contribution of aquaculture
The economic contribution of aquaculture to creating wealth for rural small-scale farmers is largely anecdotal as data are irregularly collected. FAO estimated aquaculture production in PNG at 92 tonnes and valued at USD 443,000 in 2009; however, it was also reported that limited information may have resulted in underestimation and a more realistic figure would be 2000 tonnes (USD9.6 million) (FAO, 2010). The lack of an organised market for farmed fish in PNG may indicate that the FAO figures estimate fish in ponds and not actual sales.
Smith et al (2007) indicated that aquaculture contributed 4% of the average small-scale farmer’s income. Rogers et al (2011) specifically report a contribution of 1% from aquaculture to farmer’s income for a remote district in the highlands. The low level of contribution to income reveals farmers reliance on other cash crops with more established markets such as coffee or vegetables. Moreover, Bourke et al (2009) reports a participation of 66.2% of the rural population in coffee and vegetable culture.
Aquaculture production is widely considered a food security activity. There are limited organised markets and very little is understood about the value-chain. Hence its economic contribution is currently unclear and is an area requiring further investigation.
The development of processes to collect, analyse and report data are therefore essential.
53 Commercial aquaculture is presently not well developed and therefore its impact on the national economy is unclear. However there has been a history of relative commercial success in some enterprises. A government report by Masuda et al (1994) estimates production at Kotuni Trout Farm in EHP of 10-15 tonnes per annum with an annual turnover of PGK100,000 from1977 until its closure in 1984. Kotuni Trout Farm employed 18 labourers during its operation and facilitated for other spin-off benefits from tourism. Another commercial farm, Nupaha Trout farm in EHP operated from
1990 to 1993. Masuda et al (1994) reported an annual turnover of PGK53,000 for
Nupaha. Both operations in the EHP provided employment and did not have any issues with the marketing of their product. The reason for their closure was more management related and not technical. A third commercial operation, Lake Pindiyaundo Trout Farm
(LPYTF) in Chimbu Province, is still currently operating. This farm employs 18 labourers and has an annual production of 10 tonnes per annum. LPYTF is also a local tourist attraction, which enables spin-off benefits for the local community. However, recent discussion with the owner, Mrs Betty Higgins, reveals that she is facing difficulty marketing her product as deteriorating transport infrastructure increases cost of production, reducing her ability to compete with cheaper imports (Higgins B. 2013, pers comm, 10 July). The final case is Bismarck Barramundi in Madang Province, which operated a cage culture farm with a production outlay of 250 tonnes per year commencing in 1998 (Ponia and Mobiha 2002). The farm sold fresh fish locally and exported frozen fillets to Australia. The entity ventured into a nucleus farming concept with local communities, cage farming fingerlings to table size (400g) which were sold back to Bismarck Barramundi to process. The farm was a tourist attraction and was a local aquaculture enterprise that exported. Reasons for ceasing operations in 2006 were
54 not technical; they were more the owner’s decision for personal reasons (Middleton I.
2006, pers comm).
The current economic growth and the national governments policy to reinvest in the non-mining sector as well as its focus on SME augur well for aquaculture. In response,
NFA has made available PGK 5 million through the National Development Bank (NFA,
2013) and PGK 2 million as a credit facility with the Nationwide Microbank Limited
(Mibank) to enable fishermen and aquaculture operators to get loans on a commercial basis (Mibank, 2015). Furthermore, since 2005, NFA has annually allocated funding for fishermen and fish-farmers through the Project Development Fund (PDF) grant scheme
(NFA, 2013). Funds are awarded on a competitive basis with individuals or groups submitting proposals using a template form. The submissions are assessed by a committee within NFA for relevance to fisheries, contribution of proponents, potential for success based on the current status of the project. All proposals are expected to have provincial fisheries department endorsement which certifies the existence of the project.
Funds are then disbursed to material suppliers for successful projects. In most cases, there is little monitoring on use of disbursed funds (Apaise T. 2014, pers comm, June).
3.3.2.3 Section summary
The lack of reliable production data from both commercial and small-scale aquaculture constrains accurate reporting. As a result, the aquaculture industry is unable to confidently quantify its contribution to the economy. This has further implications when competing for funds and resources with other primary production industries that have more efficient data collection practices. There is also little market research information to quantify domestic levels of farmed fish consumption and national demand.
Nonetheless, it can be deduced that aquaculture has contributed to the nation’s economy
55 and continues to have some impact on the livelihood of rural communities, which also needs to be substantiated. Nevertheless, the national economic conditions have also influenced freshwater aquaculture as summarised in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Economic factors influencing aquaculture development in PNG Economic Factors Limited purchasing ability of rural farmers when earning <1USD per day.
Deteriorating infrastructure constrains marketing and purchasing.
Significant government and development partner support for SME, particularly rural based SMEs to counter anticipated Dutch Disease syndrome.
Improved credit availability for fish farmers and PDF grant support.
Lack of consistent aquaculture production data weakens its perceived contribution to the economy.
3.3.3 Natural environment
3.3.3.1 Biological diversity
PNG comprises more than 600 scattered islands ranging from sea level to 4500m with one mainland that constitutes 80% of the total land area. It is the largest of all the
Pacific Island nations and topographically, its rugged terrain supports a wide range of ecosystems. Terrestrial forest ecologies range from lowland plains and swamps through to dry evergreen and lower montane forests cover some 33 million hectares or 75% of the land area (Berdach & Mandeakali, 2005). Similar diversity can be found in its coastal ecosystems including seagrass beds, mangrove swamp forests, coral reefs and pelagic seas. PNG also has abundant water resources characterised by extensive river systems (Figure 3.6) with an estimated cumulative flow rate of 5000m3 per second annually (Berdach & Mandeakali, 2005). The diversity of ecosystems has given rise to a unique situation where PNG occupying less than 1% of the world’s landmass contains
6-7% of the world’s biodiversity (DEC, 2007). 56
Figure 3.6: River and stream systems in PNG (Source: Berdach & Mandeakali, 2005) 3.3.3.2 Climate
PNG sits near the equator with a tropical climate of annual air temperatures 28oC on the coastal lowlands and 26oC in the highlands (Weather Online, 2015). The climate is characterised by a marked dry season from May to October and a wet period from
November to April (Weather & Climate Information, 2015), although areas on the northern side of the island are generally wet for most of the year. The Pacific Ocean influences the weather so that there is variation as a result of the El Nino-Southern
Oscillation (Pacific Climate Change Science, 2011). This phenomenon results in wetter than usual El Nino years and abnormally drier La Nina periods with other neutral years
(Figure 3.7).
57
Figure 3.7: Annual rainfall for Port Moresby; light blue bars = El Nino years, dark blue bars = La Nina years and grey bars = neutral years (Source: Pacific Climate Change Science, 2011)
Recent studies have predicted significant variations in the weather of Pacific Island countries as a result of climate change. These studies indicate rising sea levels, increased sea temperatures, warmer air temperatures, wetter rainy seasons, more cyclones and longer intense dry seasons (Barnett, 2001; Barnett 2011; Bell et al, 2013;
Pacific Climate Change Science, 2011). These climatic changes will affect biological systems presenting significant ramifications particularly for food security in PNG.
Much of the rural population depends on the natural environment for their livelihood and changes that cause major disruptions contribute to adverse impacts.
3.3.3.3 Impact of aquaculture
As previously discussed (section 4.2.1.2) the PNG Environment (Prescribed Activities)
Regulation (2002) identifies commercial aquaculture as a level 2 or 3 activity, therefore requiring an EIA before it can be permitted to operate. This is in accordance with
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) principles espoused in the agreements of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and ratified by PNG (Mowbray and Duguman 2009).
58 Hence, obeying the precautionary principle (UNESCO, 2005), although there is currently little scientific knowledge on the impact of aquaculture on the environment in
PNG, that should not be the reason to allow for the potential for irreversible environmental damage.
The current small-scale aquaculture being practiced has more localised impacts in terms of vegetation and land clearing which, similar to Asia, poses little threat to the environment (Beveridge et al, 1997). Diversion and/or damming of streams to supply ponds and direct discharge of effluent from ponds into them are currently not in significant volumes as to affect water quality; however this has yet to be scientifically ascertained.
Intensive aquaculture is presently not widely practiced and past operations (described in section 4.3.2), no environmental studies were undertaken. This was an oversight, as aquaculture was not fully understood in the past. Presently, these requirements are clearly stipulated in the NAqDP where all commercial operations will require an EIS, which should include monitoring and reporting parameters. This is also reflective of the
Environment Act 2000 requirements (Figure 2).
The main environmental impact of aquaculture to date has been the introduction of exotic species into the river systems through accidental escapes. The introduction of
Cyprinus carpio in 1959 was to improve food security through aquaculture with escapees establishing wild populations (Coates & Ulaiwi, 1995; Welcomme 1988).
Oreochromis mossambicus was primarily introduced in 1954 for river stocking
(Glucksman et al, 1976) with its farming, a follow-on activity. Coates (1995), in determining the impact of carp in the Sepik-Ramu River found that although fish culture
59 production was negligible, the improvement in fish capture was highly significant for a river system that had few endemic species to begin with. Similarly, the introduction of
O. niloticus (GIFT strain) by JICA in 1998 has been primarily to increase aquaculture production (Smith et al 2007) but has also experienced accidental escapes. A recent government report indicated its presence in the Fly-Strickland River system with wild capture fishery showed significant increases compared to lesser aquaculture production
(Masuda et al 2011). Whether tilapia has caused any environmental impacts in the river system has yet to be established. To date there has been little work to show the demise of native species as a direct consequence of tilapia’s presence. The continuing impact of mining activities on the Fly-Strickland River system is well documented (Milton et al
2005; Storey & Yarrao, 2008; Bolton 2009) and it may be that tilapia is present but has not directly contributed to loss of endemic fish species. Anecdotal reports also suggest the recent presence of tilapia in Lake Kutubu (Wani J., 2014, pers comm, April), a designated “Wetland of International Significance by the Ramsar Convention (WWF
2014). With increased small-scale farming throughout the country, introductions into waterways will continue and there is need to establish impact assessment and develop mitigating policies and associated interventions with stakeholder awareness and involvement. This is to ensure the pristine environmental conditions that have possibly contributed to the current disease-free aquaculture status (SPC, 2008) will continue, even with the onset of commercialization of the activity.
3.3.3.4 Section summary
PNG’s natural environment is unique in terms of biodiversity and topography. Rural development can be constrained or supported by this complexity and the influence the environment exerts is significant. Climate change is a confounding factor that
60 exacerbates the situation and should be included in all development interventions (Bell et al, 2013). Table 3.5 summarises factors identified raised in this section.
Table 3.5: Natural environmental factors influencing aquaculture development in PNG
Environmental factors Diverse environmental conditions across the whole country
Abundant water resources are prevalent.
Distinct dry and wet seasons that are particularly severe in the southern part of mainland
Onset of climate change will bring: more intense rain during wet season; prolonged dry season; warmer sea temperatures; and, sea level rise.
Warmer temperatures from low to high altitude areas are expected from climate change
Climate change will adversely impact food security.
Aquacultures impact has been through establishment of wild populations from cultured escapees. There have been no studies to show any negative impacts of fish farming on the environment in PNG. Pristine environmental conditions exist.
Aquaculture has disease free status.
3.3.4 Social
As revealed in section 4.3, PNG society is primarily rural based with only 15% involved in the formal sector and living in urban or mining areas. The rural populace is engaged in subsistence primary industry activities for household use and informal sale of surplus to purchase goods and services. There have been very little socioeconomic studies documenting the impact of aquaculture on PNG society. Studies on agricultural impacts have mainly been on traditional livestock and crops with fish farming included as livestock or disregarded completely. It is essential to establish the social component of the environment as its effects are profound and unavoidable (Fleisher & Bensoussan,
2007).
61 3.3.4.1 Population growth
PNG’s population was 7.1 million people in 2012 with an annual growth of 2.1%, one of the highest in the Pacific (United Nations Data, 2015). The same source reports that urban population growth rate is 2.7% compared to 2.1% rural growth. The higher urban growth is partially due to rural people searching better opportunities through education and related jobs.
Education opportunities have increased and with the free education policy of the current government (PNG Department of Education, 2014), intake has been exponential (Figure
3.8). The flow-on effect of an increasing workforce at the end of the education process is beneficial provided there is corresponding growth in the employment market.
Figure 3.8: PNG Gross intake rate and forecast – total new intakes in primary education (Source: Education Policy and Data Center, 2012)
Formal employment creation is not keeping pace with population growth. For instance,
Windybank and Manning (2003) report that only 22,000 jobs were created from 1978 to
2001 for the average 50,000 people entering the workforce each year. The slow growth of employment can be attributed to the high cost of creating and maintaining business in
PNG (Havice & Reed, 2012). The poor transport infrastructure, security issues, lack of
62 local expertise all contribute to the high overheads, however the most significant constraint are some of the highest bank interest and taxation rates for countries at a similar development level (Odhuno et al, 2014). The high unemployment has brought related social issues of increasing crime and HIV cases in urban areas. These trends are gradually spreading into the rural setting as well.
Land use in the rural areas has changed as a result of population increases. For example, between 1975 and 2000, agricultural land use increased by 58% as population increased by 99%. Consequently, primary forest area cleared for agriculture decreased in the same period from 9.8ha/person to 4.4ha/person in the same period (Ningal et al, 2008). In essence, there is less land available for agricultural use as a result of population pressure. Subsequently there is an increase in crime (stealing) and altercations related to land disputes in the rural areas. For instance, Mathew (1996), in a review of tribal fighting, reported that the most common reason was land disputes with trauma from fighting increasing by 34% from 1990 to 1994. Recent studies show that 65% of all assault related hospital admissions from 2000 to 2007 were tribal fighting related
(Winnington, 2008).
3.3.4.2 Rural development
Infrastructure and services in rural areas have deteriorated over the last 40 years with inconsistent funding, lack of capacity, lack of good governance and declining transparency (Baxter, 2001). Allen et al (2005) further qualifies that the rugged terrain and associated conditions have significantly constrained efforts over the last 60 years to improve rural areas. Consequently, there is much disparity in development with accessible areas more advantaged and isolated regions becoming increasingly underdeveloped. This has possibly contributed to the increased migration to more
63 advantaged areas as mentioned in the preceding section. Government services have also faltered in rural areas as public servants prefer access to better services (Allen &
Hasnain, 2010). Absconding from rural postings is widespread resulting in schools, health services, extensions services and other government functions declining and non- existent in some places. In essence, this situation creates national crises because the urban services currently struggling to support 15% of the population will possibly collapse if the 85% start migrating in search of better opportunities (Baxter, 2001).
Realising this threat, the government has established the District Services Improvement
Program (DSIP) and District Support Grants (DSG), which primarily increase funding available to districts to improve infrastructure, and government services (Hasnain et al,
2011). A recent government audit report on the DSIP reveals political interference and widespread mismanagement resulting in 25% of spending on unplanned, non-DSIP related and eventually abandoned projects (Auditor General, 2014). Considering the difficulty in quickly correcting this behaviour, a rural improvement study recommended that interventions by development agencies should focus on stimulating broad-based economic growth (Baxter 2001). This can be achieved through identifying suitable and appropriate interventions and empowering individuals and providing necessary support.
The ability of fish farming to fit into rural lifestyle is an important factor supporting its establishment as espoused by Edwards (2000) in a review of rural aquaculture in developing nations. The majority of farmers raise other livestock and farm other vegetables for food and income. With the farmer and immediate family providing the labour, this may mean fish going without feed for a day or two as they attend to other duties. This may slow growth but the fish do not die as they can survive on natural
64 production. The lack of refrigeration is not an issue as the farmer can partially harvest when required and leave the remainder for another occasion. Associated income earning opportunities in rural areas have also increased with opportunistic sales. For instance,
Smith et al (2007) reported fish prices at the farm-gate to be K7-K10 per kilogram with prices increasing to K15-K20 a kilogram in some areas (Tomati L. 2014, pers comm,
July). This has presented a significant opportunity, more so for those near main roads or with good transport infrastructure. The current growth of cage-culture is evidence of the increasing demand for a relatively cheaper but healthier protein option. There is, however, need for further investigation to determine the economic impact of aquaculture on rural society. Nevertheless, Ayalew and Kambuou (2008) in a review of genetic resources in PNG, corroborate that aquaculture is a viable option for rural communities. There have been reports on aquaculture’s intervention in reducing tribal fighting and drug abuse (Wani, Solato, & Sammut, 2012), which are the main criminal, acts committed in rural areas. This attests to aquacultures role in providing an opportunity for unemployed individuals to be engaged in as a worthwhile activity. It has also provided ex-criminals a skill they can use when re-entering society through the
“Fish-for-Prisons” program by NFA (ACIAR, 2010). Further investigation is required to ascertain the impact of aquaculture on crime reduction and overall community improvement in both rural and urban settings.
3.3.4.3 Gender
Women and children in PNG rural communities are generally considered vulnerable simply because of traditional status values. A study on gender in PNG it shows that: women have a higher risk of maternal mortality than in any other Pacific country; violence against women is pervasive and silently accepted; and representation of women in all levels of government at 4.3% is quite low and contributes to their
65 marginalisation (Lewis et al, 2008). Gwaiseuk (2001) reports that it was widely recognised that women do most of the farming chores despite a lower life expectancy and less opportunities to education. Moreover, Omot (2012) iterates that rural based
PNG women not only produce and process agricultural goods but also are also responsible for the trade of these outputs. However, in spite this fact, PNGs agriculture extension system continues to overlook the role of women as producers, traders and even potential trainers (Pamphilon et al, 2014). This is reflected in aquaculture where in a lot of cases, men attend meetings, workshops and start the project but the daily operations are left to the women, usually assisted by their children. For instance, Smith et al (2007) reported that women and children did 50% of fish farming activities on family operations.
It is important to note that in rural societies, empowering women generally has a positive overall impact on community livelihoods (Acharaya et al, 2007). For instance, a study on food security in developing countries posits that improving the status of women enhances rural household’ food and nutrition status (Kawarazuka & Bene,
2010). Furthermore, the same study emphasises the contribution of fish as an efficient, cost effective protein source for lactating women and children. There is need to consider strategies to increase involvement of women whilst maintaining cultural sensitivity.
Omot (2012) maintains that to realise sustainable rural development in PNG, the role of women and constrains to their active involvement in agriculture must be adequately addressed.
The PNG Government has realised the importance of gender balance in rural development and has endeavoured to address this. The Office for Development of
66 Women (ODW) within the Department of Community Development is required primarily to advocate for and strengthen the role of women in contributing to the country’s overall progress (Braun, 2012). The Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
(GESI) program has been instrumental in institutionalising the importance of gender equality in public service and government processes. Funded by the Australian
Government, GESI is part of a PNG public sector improvement initiative and has now been incorporated and made law as section 71 in the Public Services Management Act
1995 (Coffey, 2013). Progress has been made in that gender issues are now mainstream components of all government programs and associated projects. The majority of donor agencies, development partners and NGO’s have also moved to capture gender issues in their programs. To strengthen sustainability, rural development interventions must allow women in the districts to actively participate and access benefits generated (Braun,
2012; Omot, 2012).
3.3.4.4 Section summary
The main societal issues creating other challenges in PNG appear to be the rapidly increasing population and the inability of services to keep pace (Table 3.6). This is particularly prevalent in rural areas leading to increased underdevelopment and rural to urban migration. Crime ultimately increases along with growing stress on infrastructure.
The role of women in society is acknowledged but not widely utilised in rural development. Pervasive traditional attitudes have dictated this status. This outlook is changing as society realises that sustainability in rural development can only be achieved with women given fair treatment and consideration.
Table 3.6: Social factors influencing aquaculture development in PNG Social factors 85% of population rural based.
Subsistent farming and raising of cash crops is the typical lifestyle.
67 High population growth rate putting pressure on services.
Increased educational opportunities but limited employment market.
Increased HIV and crime in urban areas and spreading to rural regions.
Increased rural population has placed pressure on environmental resources (land).
Deteriorating government services in rural areas contributes to rural to urban migration.
Lack of transparency and good governance is a major cause of underdevelopment in rural regions despite sufficient government funding allocation. Government is actively supporting gender equality in development programs, projects and has now made it law in public service. Underutilisation of the important role of women in rural development has led to underachievement and unsustainability in interventions. Benefits need to be made accessible for both male and females in all rural development interventions. High interest and tax rates constrain the growth of business and related employment.
3.3.5 Technical
The technical factors essentially relate to influence brought by the improvement in technology, skills and scientific progress (Fleisher & Bensoussan, 2003). This section reviews introduction of new improvements that have stimulated the progress of freshwater aquaculture in PNG.
3.3.5.1 Carp and Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT)
A review of aquaculture by NFA (Figure 3.9) indicates that freshwater farming contributes up to 98% of total aquaculture production (NFA, 2011). Tiger prawns and
Gold lip pearl were the only mariculture species at the time with seaweed farming a recent addition following feasibility studies in 2003 (Kinch et al, 2003; Pickering,
2006).
68 1% 0%
Tilapia
37% Trout Carp
61% Tiger prawns
Gold Lip Pearl 1%
Figure 3.9: Contribution by species to total aquaculture production in PNG in 2011 (Source: Data adapted from NFA, 2011)
The domination of the freshwater sector is mainly due to the large inland rural-based population involved in small-scale fish farming. This trend is also typical globally with the pond farming of omnivorous or herbivorous species being the most dominant form of production (Bostock et al, 2010). The innate ability of pond aquaculture to complement the rural lifestyle and to supplement protein as well as create an alternate income-generating source has also contributed to its growth (Edwards, 2009).
Subsequently development agencies such as NARI, Care International and ACIAR have assisted in promoting aquaculture in strengthening food and income security (NARI,
2014; Care International, 2008; Sammut, 2010). Further support through farmers training, credit provision, grant schemes and relevant research have also contributed to the activity’s rapid growth.
69 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000
Number of farmers of farmers Number 10000 0 1960 1979 1996 2002 2004 2006 2011 2012
Figure 3.10: Growth of numbers of fish farmers using data modified from: Buckwell, 1960; Haines & Kelleher 1979; HAQDEC, 1996; Ponia & Mobiha, 2002; Wani 2004; Smith et al, 2007; NFA, 2011; Infofish, 2012
In Figure 3.10, the exponential trend from 2002 onwards coincides with increased availability of GIFT (O. niloticus); increased farmer training programs from various stakeholders; introduction of NFA grant, the Project Development Fund (PDF); availability of credit specifically for aquaculture; and, the availability of specialist technical officers.
Early reports indicate that the common carp (C. carpio) was the species of choice for introduction due to its hardiness and tolerance to a wide temperature range (Kolkolo,
2005; Ponia & Mobiha, 2002). Post 2002, the GIFT fish had taken over as the most widely farmed species in the country. This is well depicted in Figure 3.10 where carp distribution from HAQDEC stopped after 2007; however, this cessation may also have been influenced by management issues at the centre (Smith et al, 2007). Figure 8 indicates tilapia contributing 61% of total freshwater production. GIFT was imported and quarantined at the Highlands Aquaculture Centre (HAQDEC) in Eastern Highlands, purposely as an alternate fish species for inland freshwater fish farming due to faster growth and late maturity compared to similar species farmed at the time. From the initial 168 broodstock imported from Philippines in 1998 (Apaise, 2002; Gupta &
70 Acosta, 2004), fingerlings have been widely translocated by officers initially but increasingly by farmers selling amongst themselves. This trend is reflected in similar introductions of GIFT into Fiji that has resulted in a significant expansion in fish farming (Mather et al, 2012).
80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 Carp 30000 GIFT 20000
# of fingerlings distributed # of fingerlings 10000 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 3.11: Number of fingerlings distributed from HAQDEC throughout PNG (Source: Smith et al, 2007; unpublished HAQDEC sales records, Yasang T, 2014)
The ability of tilapia to prolifically breed has removed the need for specialised skills to produce fingerlings. It has enabled farmers to become self-sufficient in producing their own seed and to supply others. However, the quality of fingerlings is low due to lack of broodstock management and subsequent inbreeding. Nevertheless, the trend of farmers becoming self sufficient in terms of fingerlings has contributed to a steady decline of tilapia distribution from HAQDEC (Figure 3.11). Although the unintentional privatisation of fingerling production has contributed to the quick spread of the activity, it has also brought associated problems of inbreeding due to small-scale farmer’s lack of adequate farm management skills (Edwards , 2009).
71 3.3.5.2 Other freshwater species
Trout
In 2006, 7% of farmers were culturing rainbow trout (Smith et al, 2007), however by
2011, there had been a drop in overall production to 0.06% (Figure 8). The decline in trout farming has been the result of: a lack of quality and affordable feed; lack of quality seed; and increasing land ownership conflicts on existing projects. Trout farming is also restricted to higher altitude areas with water temperatures below 15oC (Masuda et al,
1998). Climate change may have implications for this species as water temperature increases.
There is renewed interest in trout farming, particularly from the oil-rich provinces of
Hela and Southern Highlands (Vira & Manieva, 2015). This has been driven by demand from the LNG project in its development of local livelihood projects that create spin- off, employment, and opportunities for locals and provides food for the workforce.
Technical capacity in fish husbandry, management and post-harvest is required to provide support for this growth. Associated with this is the need for reliable high protein feed.
Barramundi
Bismarck Barramundi initiated farming of barramundi in Madang in 1999 with production reaching 100,000 fish per annum (Rimmer and Ponia, 2007). Operations ceased in 2006 due to personal reasons of the operator. Ok Tedi Development
Foundation (OTDF) is currently managing a dedicated fish hatchery on Daru Island in the Western Province that is being used to produce barramundi fingerlings. The hatchery has the capacity to produce 500,000 fingerlings per annum. This is mainly for restocking the Fly River as well as cage culture operations in lakes within the region
(Ponia, 2009; Ok Tedi Mining Limited, 2013). There is widespread interest from
72 barramundi farming and building on the success of the Daru hatchery, farming of this species is expected to grow.
Freshwater prawn and other endemic species
Recent research has reported the first successful hatchery breeding and rearing of the
PNG river prawn (Macrobrachium spinipes) (Pickering et al, 2014). On-farm trials are currently being tested to gather data on grow-out requirements. Implications for this work are significant as it provides an alternative higher value aquaculture species for lowland coastal areas. This recent finding also adds to previous native species identified as possessing aquaculture potential, including: redclaw (Cherax spp.) and eel-tailed catfish (Neosilurus ater) (Graham et al, 2012; Vira, 2015). Endemic species, in addition to their food and income security value, also possess biodiversity and cultural significance. This is an area of potential requiring more investigation, a view also shared by Edwards (2009) in a report on aquaculture in PNG.
3.3.5.3 Feed
In 2005 NFA embarked on producing feed using locally sourced ingredients and the
Goroka mini-mill was supported along with other facilities to implement the program
(National Fisheries Authority, 2011). Currently only the Goroka mini-mill consistently operates, producing 10-30 tons per annum for distribution nationwide. The selling price to farmers is K3/kg for tilapia and K5/kg for higher protein diets for carnivorous species. The facility supplies 90% of aquaculture feed requirements with the average demand being 20 tonnes. Only 5-10 tonnes can be produced with the backlog remaining for up to 6 months as a consequence of ingredients supply and production capacity constraints (Vira & Manieva, 2015). Figure 3.12, adapted from production records, shows the decline in feed output post-2011 as a result of this constraint, particularly the lack of fishmeal and mill run. Competing demand for feed ingredient from the livestock
73 industry has been the main cause. There are 360,000 pig farmers and 220,000 poultry farmers requiring feed to meet the protein demand. A 30% increase in demand for chicken and eggs in one city alone was reported in 2011 with significant increases from catering companies serving the mining sector (Glatz , 2012). The construction phase of the LNG project commencing in 2010 exacerbated the demand for protein. The mining sectors requirements along with increasing population and rural to urban migration directly influenced protein demand thus increasing livestock feed requirements (Jones
2012).
40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 Tilapia 15000 Trout 10000
Production volume(Kg) 5000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure 3.12: Volume of feed produced at Goroka mini-feed mill (Source: Adapted from Goroka feed production data, 2013)
Although fish feed is produced locally, the selling price of K3-K5/kg is higher compared to chicken feed at an average K2/kg. Goroka mini-mill cannot realistically sell at lesser prices as the most expensive feed component is fishmeal with its average price currently K2/kg (Vira & Manieva, 2015). Since 2009, much of the feed purchases have come from PDF grants. NFA pays directly to Goroka mini-mill for the recipient who then collects the feed. The significant decrease in 2013 resulted after all PDF grants were deposited with material suppliers (Alois, J. pers comm, July 2014). This resulted in only farmers genuinely desiring feed coming to purchase. It appears the PDF grant has possibly created an illusion of demand not only for feed but a perception of
74 the activity’s growth. There could be people digging ponds just to access PDF grants and use it for other purposes as there is virtually no follow on where funding goes. This possibly presents a threat and a review of its effectiveness is necessary.
Even so, the production of local feed has enabled the development of small-scale trout farming and tilapia cage-culture, activities that are dependent on formulated feed. To support the industry, alternatives need to be considered such as: a domestic fishmeal retention policy; fish feed importation; cost-benefit analysis studies; or alternate plant derived protein.
3.3.5.4 Technical capacity
Farmers’ capacity
The usefulness of any introduced technology is usually limited by the technical capacity of the recipient country (Kolkolo, 2005). This is the reason aquaculture was not really accepted by farmers until the JICA aquaculture project of the late 1990s based out of
HAQDEC. With Japanese expert assistance, HAQDEC was able to increase fingerling production and trained over 800 farmers and extension officers in fish farming (Smith et al, 2007). The training of farmers and extension officers in basic fish farming skills enabled the assimilation of aquaculture into rural society. The simple skill set requirement and low capital input were significant contributing factors.
In most of the farmer training sessions, basic introductory subjects are covered usually over a four-day period with 80% practical and 20% theory (Figure 3.13). The format is based on the HAQDEC Carp farming manual (Wani et al, 1995). This structure is also currently used for Fish for Prisons and Fish for Schools programs. There is also increasing need for business management training for more progressive farmers who are
75 becoming semi-commercial. The demand for cage culture training modules has now become more apparent.
Figure 3.13: Main subjects covered in famers training by NFA officers
A significant area not covered in farmers training is in financial management. The pervasive low levels of financial literacy constrain economic development at the household level and contribute to stifling the potential for small business development
(Sibley, 2013). This subject area needs to be included and expertise engaged to deliver, particularly for advanced farmers training programs.
Officers’ capacity
There is a lack of research and management capacity in the aquaculture sector.
Currently, five officers at masters level, ten with bachelors degrees and about twenty diploma holders provide technical and managerial services across the whole industry in
2014 (Minimulu, P., pers comm, January 2015). Of these officers 10% have more than
76 10 years of experience, 40% have 5-10 years and the rest are new in the field.
Consequently, there is a lack of published research output as most experienced officers are tied up in more administrative roles and have very little time to publish. This also leads to a lack of mentoring given to the new officers in the sector, further exacerbating the situation.
There are interventions through international assistance programs that are building technical capacity and providing mentoring. The main agencies to date have been JICA and ACIAR, although the Peoples Republic of Korea and the British Government have also provided postgraduate training. The Chinese Government as well as regional agencies also offer short-term training from the Secretariat of the Pacific Community
(SPC). The continued partnership with these entities is critical for capacity building.
There have been attempts to collaborate with local universities in research as an entry point for further course development (ACIAR, 2010; ACIAR, 2013). These are still at the early stages and although much interest has been generated, the capacity to teach at university level is still lacking in-country.
Facilities
Both the government and private sector have developed and established a range of aquaculture facilities throughout the country (Table 3.7). Some of these operations have not been adequately supported and are generally deteriorating; however with some interventions, much can be achieved. Facilities catering to different species, purposes and environmental conditions can allow for a range of research and development programs to support the industry. An assessment of these facilities and their incorporation into a strategic plan suggests significant opportunities for aquaculture.
77 Table 3.7: Aquaculture facilities in PNG Name of institution and Lead managing/owning Main role location organisation HAQDEC, Aiyura, EHP Eastern Highlands Provincial Principal freshwater Administration, EHPA (with aquaculture research, assistance from NFA) development and training facility Institute of Sustainable NFA Principal mariculture Marine Resources, Nago research, development and Island, New Ireland Province training facility Lowlands Aquaculture Western Provincial Coastal plains aquaculture Research Development and Administration (with development and training. Extension Centre (LARDEC), assistance from Ok Tedi Also has undertaken native Kiunga, Western Province Development Foundation, species research and OTDF) production. Erap Aquaculture Facility, National Department of Coastal plains aquaculture Erap, Morobe Province Agriculture & Livestock research development and (NDAL) training. Goroka Aquaculture Section, NFA in partnership with Feed production and Goroka, EHP NDAL fingerling distribution Labu Aquaculture Facility, NARI Aquaculture research Lae, Morobe Province Daru hatchery, Daru Island, OTDF Barramundi fingerling Western Province production and mariculture research Lake Pindiyaundo Trout Mrs Betty Higgins Trout fingerling and table- Farm, Gembogl, Simbu sized fish production and Province training Yonki Fisheries, Yonki, EHP EHPA Fish cage culture research, training and production
3.3.5.5 Culture methods
Pond-based farming
The main method of farming is earthen pond culture; typically a farmer would have two or three 24m2 ponds each stocked with about 50 fish usually from fingerling size, approximately 10cm (Smith et al, 2007). Expected grow-out period is an average four to five months if properly fed and managed. Most farmers practice extensive culture where fish grow on the ponds natural production, which is driven by decomposition of kitchen waste, vegetable matter and organic fertilizer (Edwards, 2009). Supplementary feeding using pelleted diets is a new concept that is slowly gaining some following but is not widely practiced. This is most likely due to the perceived low cost-benefit ratio of the
78 investment compared to chicken farming. Consequently, most pond-based farmers raise fish for home consumption. Nevertheless, more entrepreneurial individuals are realizing the potential and are moving into semi-commercial operations (Pickering, 2011).
Fish cage-farming
Fish cage culture in the highlands was introduced in 1998 through a JICA funded trial at
Yonki, EHP (Smith et al, 2007). It has since gained momentum and is practiced in the
Sirinumu Impoundment, Central Province as well as in Upper Mendi, Southern
Highlands Province Fish are grown in suspended cages in the water column and fed regularly. Cages are made of net material sewn together in cubes of average 38m3
(Figure 3.14). They are kept stretched with weights tied to the bottom corners and the tops tied to bamboo or PVC frames similar to cage structures recommended in the
South China Sea Fisheries Program (FAO, 1978). Cages at Yonki can hold up to 200 fish/m3 usually stocking at 20-25 kg/m3 (Hair et al, 2006). This method requires more input in terms of feed, nets and time spent on the project. In some cases, it is a fulltime occupation with the whole family involved in the activity (Gako, F., pers comm, July
2014). Cage culture of fish is more commercial in nature as most operations in PNG currently produce for sale and not for home consumption typical of small pond farming.
This activity is highly dependent on formulated feed, similar to trout farming. Most farmers involved in cage farming report that marketing is not a significant issue as demand currently outstrips supply. The average price of fish from Yonki is K15/kg with farmers harvesting 1-2 tonnes per production cycle with up to two cycles per year
(Gako, F., pers comm, July 2014). The potential for expansion and commercialization of the aquaculture sector rests in this activity.
79
Figure 3.14: Model adopted in fish cage culture set-up at Yonki (Source: Adapted from FAO, 1978) 3.3.5.6 Section summary
The technical aspects have a significant influence on the development of aquaculture.
Improvements or deterioration in species, technical capacity, farming technology and other factors all affect the activity’s development. Much of the issues described in this section could also be identified as internal strengths or weaknesses, however, they are listed here (Table 8) as they also present opportunities and threats.
Table 3.8: Technical factors influencing aquaculture development in PNG
80 Technical factors Freshwater fish farming dominates national aquaculture production
Rural fish-pond culture has the largest number of farmers and is the greatest contributor to production. GIFT is the most dominant species followed by the common carp
Trout farming has a long history but constrained by seed and feed.
Climate change increasing high altitude temperatures is a threat to trout farming
Barramundi farming is a possibility following consistent fingerling production out of Daru.
Freshwater prawns, redclaw and other native species have potential for aquaculture.
Fishmeal prices, ingredients availability and capacity constrain fish feed production and availability PDF grant is distorting the feed demand and growth of the activity
Small scale farmers rely on natural production and do not purchase feed, however, growth of the semi-commercial sector will increase demand. Training of farmer and fisheries officers has contributed to the growth of the activity.
There is currently a lack of technical capacity in-country. Upskilling technical officers for research, training and management are essential to address the needs of the growing activity. A wide range of public and private aquaculture research, production and training facilities are established. A review of their status and their incorporation into a strategic plan will help address specific concerns, issues or knowledge gaps. Pond farming is the most widely practiced activity. Production is mainly for subsistence, however there are entrepreneurial farmers venturing into semi-commercial production. Fish cage farming is a relatively new concept that is gaining momentum. This practice is essentially commercial in nature and has the greatest potential to commercialize the activity. Lack of farmers financial management skills constrains commercialization
3.4 Summary of PEEST analysis
This PEEST review of freshwater aquaculture in PNG reveals key factors that influence the current and future development of the activity. Overall, aquaculture in PNG is supported, in principle, and recognised as a contributor to nation building, particularly rural development. Identified threats (Table 3.10) need to be minimised and opportunities (Table 3.9) exploited to further strengthen the activity.
The government policies and legislation relating to aquaculture are generally supportive and create a solid basis for the promotion of the activity for food security and wealth
81 creation. There are areas that require attention such as strategic development plans and updating policies.
Although the economic environment of the country is healthy, the impact of this growth on the livelihood of rural communities is lacking. Aquaculture addresses food security and is able to create income earning opportunities in rural areas. Government policy to reinvest income from the non-renewable to the renewable sector provides an opportunity to grow the industry.
Little work has been done on the environmental impact of aquaculture in PNG. There are environmental regulations in place to govern the activity but the small scale of most of the farms negates their requirement for a permit to operate. The combined effect of many small farms on a river system or the impacts of cage culture on a reservoir are areas requiring investigation.
The high population growth in PNG is not being matched by employment opportunities and services resulting in increased social problems. These problems are primarily urban but are now spreading into rural areas. Aquacultures ability to fit the rural lifestyle is a main reason for its acceptance; however it is not immune to social problems of stealing and vandalism.
The introduction of farmers and officers training was a key enabling factor for the acceptance of aquaculture. Other technological advances such as the introduction of
GIFT and cage culture have further strengthened the growth of fish farming. There is
82 still need to improve capacity and numbers of trained personnel as well as the functionality of key institutions.
Building effective partnerships with international research and aid organisations as well as local higher learning intuitions is a logical intervention that must be continued.
In general, freshwater aquaculture in PNG is supported and acknowledged as a contributor to rural development. Its rapid growth attests to its acceptance, the challenge now is to ensure it remains relevant at all levels by addressing gaps identified in the
PEEST.
Table 3.9: Factors supporting development and presenting opportunities for aquaculture in PNG Supporting factors presenting opportunities Political Legislation (FMA 1998, Lands Act 1996, WRA 1982, Environment Act 2000 and NAQIA 1997) recognises aquaculture and establishes compliance parameters. The National Government recognises and supports aquaculture in key development plans and policy documents (PNG Vision 2050, PNGDSP 2010- 2030 and NADP 2007-2016). NFA as the lead government agency is required to collaborate with NDAL, Provincial Governments, NARI and other development stakeholders in advancing aquaculture. The National Aquaculture Development Policy 2004-2010 further clarifies compliance requirements for aquaculture and presents NFAs aspirations and strategies for the industry. Economic Significant government and development partner support for SME, particularly rural based SMEs to counter anticipated Dutch Disease syndrome. Improved credit availability for fish farmers and PDF grant support. Environmental Abundant water resources are prevalent. Warmer temperatures from low to high altitude areas are expected from climate change. Climate change will adversely impact food security. Pristine environmental conditions exist. Aquaculture has disease free status. Social 85% of population rural based. Subsistent farming and raising of cash crops is the typical lifestyle. Increased educational opportunities but limited employment market. Government is actively supporting gender equality in development programs, projects and has now made it law in public service. Underutilisation of the important role of women in rural development has led to underachievement and unsustainability in interventions. Benefits need to be made accessible for both male and females in all rural development interventions. 83 Technical Freshwater fish farming dominates national aquaculture production. Rural fish-pond culture has the largest number of farmers and is the greatest contributor to production. GIFT is the most dominant species followed by the common carp. Barramundi farming is a possibility following consistent fingerling production out of Daru. Freshwater prawns, redclaw crayfish and other native species have potential for aquaculture. Small scale farmers rely on natural production and do not purchase feed, however, growth of the semi-commercial sector will increase demand. Training of farmer and fisheries officers has contributed to the growth of the activity. A wide range of public and private aquaculture research, production and training facilities are established. A review of their status and their incorporation into a strategic plan will help address specific concerns, issues or knowledge gaps. Pond farming is the most widely practiced activity. Production is mainly for subsistence, however there are entrepreneurial farmers venturing into semi- commercial production. Fish cage farming is a relatively new concept that is gaining momentum. This practice is essentially commercial in nature and has the greatest potential to commercialize the activity.
Table 3.10: Factors constraining development and presenting a threat to aquaculture development in PNG Constraining factors, possible threats Political No recent aquaculture policy or strategy reviews or updates. Economic Limited purchasing ability of rural farmers when earning <1USD per day. Deteriorating infrastructure constrains marketing and purchasing. Lack of consistent aquaculture production data weakens its perceived contribution to the economy. Environmental Diverse environmental conditions across the whole country present a challenge. Distinct dry and wet seasons that are particularly severe in the southern part of mainland. Onset of climate change will bring: more intense rain during wet season; prolonged dry season; warmer sea temperatures; and sea level rise. Aquacultures impact has been through establishment of wild populations from cultured escapees. There is, however, little published on the impact of fish farming on the environment in PNG. Social High population growth rate putting pressure on services Increased HIV and crime in urban areas and spreading to rural regions Increased rural population has placed pressure on environmental resources (land). Deteriorating government services in rural areas contributes to rural to urban migration. High interest and tax rates constrain the growth of business and related employment. Technical Trout farming has a long history but constrained by seed and feed. Climate change increasing high altitude temperatures is a threat to trout farming. Fishmeal prices, ingredients availability and capacity constrain fish feed
84 production and availability. PDF grant is distorting the feed demand and growth of the activity. Lack of farmers financial management skills constrains commercialization.
85 Chapter 4: SWOT analysis of freshwater aquaculture in the Eastern Highlands Province (EHP), PNG
4.1 Introduction
Chapter 2 postulated that freshwater aquaculture in PNG relied on data that have now significantly changed. High quality and updated information and data are critical for strategic planning in most industries (Poister & Streib, 2005). Data quality determines the success or failure in realising the full potential of an enterprise. The processes of collecting and analysing quality data are intrinsically linked to each other (Schobel et al,
2014). The processes have to be objective, widely accepted, flexible to accommodate changes, and repeatable to ensure subsequent updating is possible. Chapter 2 suggested that a lack of capacity has constrained attempts to update records with the broad, ambiguous process used by Smith et al (2007) - a possible confounding factor. Chapter
3 showed that this lack of strategic analysis has constrained strategy development and implementation. It also highlighted key external factors influencing fish farming in
PNG. This chapter establishes key internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) characterising freshwater aquaculture in EHP. It also validates external factors
(opportunities and threats) identified in the PEEST analysis through the SWOT process.
Evaluating the strength, weakness, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of an organisation or an industry ultimately identifies factors that influence its operations. An internal appraisal is an essential step in developing realistic strategic plans going forward
(Howe, 1986). For instance, SWOT was used to formulate development strategies for the Chinese shale gas industry by using strengths to address weaknesses, maximising opportunities and diminishing threats (Xingang, Jiaoli & Bei, 2013). The SWOT process is also a recognised tool widely used in primary industry development such as
86 agriculture (Qiaoqiao, 2005), forestry (Shrestha, Alavalapati & Kalmbacher, 2004) and fisheries (Bolton et al, 2009; Çelik, Metin & Çelik, 2012). In aquaculture Akca et al
(2006) were able to posit strategic development plans for the industry in Turkey using the SWOT process. A similar process was used to establish possible development approaches in guiding the Indonesian government’s aquaculture industry aspirations
(Rimmer et al, 2013). Clearly, its use by industry and researchers, demonstrates its usefulness in addressing the research questions presented in this thesis, particularly for
PNG where historical published data is limited.
This chapter describes the method used in this SWOT analysis (Section 4.2) and presents the results and discusses outcomes (Section 4.3) with comparisons to previous studies. Whilst the discussion focuses on farming in EHP, processes used and lessons learnt have implications for PNG.
4.2 Methods
The study involved a multi-method approach where data were gathered through structured surveys, focus group discussions and interrogation of secondary sources such as government reports. Given the time limits and geographic spread of farmers, a structured survey appeared the most efficient method of gathering data from a wide range of participants. The focus group discussion enabled validation and further expansion of survey data from key stakeholders in the industry. Data from the survey and discussions enabled further analysis to characterise and describe the status of aquaculture in EHP.
4.2.1 Farmers’ survey
The PNG Organic Law on Provincial Governments and Local-level Governments 1995 requires that planning for projects impacting local communities should start from the
87 village level (Hasnain, Keefer, & Menzies, 2011). To reflect this in the research, the
SWOT process commenced with farmer interviews. Kelly et al (2003) in a review of sampling methods, shows that randomised sampling, other than allowing for statistical analysis, enables generalisations of the larger population. Hence, a completely randomised sampling approach was used: the EHP Division of Primary Industry (DPI) farmers’ database was interrogated to select 20 farmers per district-cluster for interviews. The province was divided into district clusters to rationalise resources given the limited time to undertake fieldwork. The districts were grouped along bio- geographical similarities as well as distance to the main service centre, Goroka town
(Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1: Map of EHP showing district clusters for interviews circled (Source: Adapted from - NAC, 2005)
The selection of 20 farmers as a representative sample was based on the premise that: if
71 farmers were interviewed as representative of EHP in 2003 by Smith et al (2007) and if the industry grew at the rate of 10% per year, then the total required in 2014 would be
149 farmers. Dividing by four district-clusters would give a requirement of 37 interviews; however, considering time limitations and the qualitative nature of the work, interviews were curtailed after 20 participants as the responses to SWOT queries were
88 consistently similar, indicating that “data saturation” had been reached, as described by
Francis et al (2010).
Interviews were structured to collect farming data as well as Likert-scaled questions to elicit views on SWOT factors (Duc 2008; Floyd et al 1991). Farming data related to ownership, household information, farming history, farmed species, pond sizes, stocking rates, water supply, fingerling source, marketing and main constraints.
Statements relating to perceived and observed SWOTs of aquaculture in EHP were prepared and circulated for confirmation by NFA before finalisation. Rasmussen (1989) in his work on the analysis of Likert-scale data concluded that scales with five or more points produced statistically strong data. Hence responses to prepared statements were recorded on a five point scale ranging from strongly agreeing to strongly disagreeing.
There were two interview teams comprising a researcher, a DPI officer and a district fish farmer’s representative in each. The research member from the ACIAR project provided overall guidance; the DPI officer responded to queries regarding government plans; whilst the district farmers’ representative led the team to each site and translated in local dialect when required. Effort was made when possible to ensure there was female representation in the teams to enable women respondents to freely interact.
Teams travelled through the districts and consistently strove to interview selected farmers at their respective farms. This was to: validate the farmers’ status, observe operations and record the communicated constraints. The teams interviewed an average of two farmers per day, completing the survey in four weeks. All data were recorded on forms in the field and entered by the researcher in an Excel spread sheet on station. All data were collected under UNSW Human Ethics Approval (Approval No. 08/2014/40).
89 4.2.2 Stakeholders focus group
Following the farmer survey a stakeholder focus group workshop was convened.
Participants from government agencies, NGOs and farmer organizations active in aquaculture development were invited. These included the National Agriculture
Research Institute (NARI), Highlands Aquaculture Development Centre (HAQDEC),
EHP DPI, National Department of Agriculture and Livestock (NDAL), Care
International, Nationwide Microbank Limited (NMB), Inland Aquaculture Research
Project and the Eastern Highlands Fish Farmers Cooperative (EHFFC). More information on these organisations is attached (Appendix A).
Identified organisations were invited to participate with a maximum of two key officers each. This was to ensure that no more than12 participated to promote robust discussion as recommended by Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007). The process was similar to that described by Dyson (2004). Participants were initially provided background and characteristics of the aquaculture industry as well as the SWOT process by the facilitator. The organizations were then asked to present their objectives, key activities, major achievements and main constraints. An idea-generating mode followed with informal discussions in four groups where a good mix of organizations was maintained.
Groups were then asked to contribute five factors each depending on the particular area of the SWOT that was being discussed. Each group then presented factors identified and justified inclusion with robust discussion encouraged from participants. Scoring then followed where individual participants scored each factor on a Likert scale of personal agreement from1 to 5 with 1 being strong disagreement. Outcomes of the SWOT included identified and scored factors; the information was entered in an excel spread sheet for analysis.
90 4.2.3 TOWS matrix
Whilst the SWOT analysis identifies internal and external factors, the threats, opportunities, weaknesses and strength (TOWS) matrix takes the next step in generating development alternatives. These alternatives are essentially broad objectives for use in further strategic planning processes (Weihrich, 1999). It is anticipated that this process will enable various combinations of ranked internal and external factors as shown in
Table 4.1 (Proctor 2000; Dyson 2004). For instance, the combination of one strength factor with an opportunity produces a possible objective that exploits the pairing.
Table 4.1: TOWS matrix to propose development objectives (Source: Adapted from Dyson 2004) Strength Weakness
Opportunities SO – maximising strengths to WO – addressing weaknesses to utilise opportunities utilise opportunities Threats ST – maximising strengths to WT – addressing weaknesses to reduce or avoid threats reduce or avoid threats
For instance, the use of the TOWS matrix following a SWOT analysis enabled the development of strategic response to medical emergencies in the USA (Uscher-Pines et al, 2008). Similarly, the TOWS matrix in combination with the SWOT analysis has been widely used in development planning for agriculture (ChengYong, 2010), environmental management (Chavan, 2005) and fisheries (Zheng, 2012). Furthermore,
Celik et al (2012) in the development of the Turkish aquaculture sector used the TOWS matrix as a tool in the strategic planning process. The use of the TOWS matrix to further analyse identified SWOT factors is a widely recognised and a valuable process.
In this research, a summary of the previous SWOT analysis exercise was presented to the focus group along with preliminary results of the farmer survey. This was basically a list of identified SWOT factors by ranked importance. The TOWS matrix was then introduced by the facilitator. Participants were divided into four groups and discussed
91 possible combinations of identified factors. Due to limited time, groups only presented one objective per SWOT combination. Robust discussion followed each group presentation to justify inclusion as an objective. Finally, scoring followed where individuals using a Likert-scale of 1-5 prioritised the importance of each broad objective with 1 being the least important. Outcomes were recorded on butcher paper and entered in a excel spread sheet.
The entire stakeholder focus group workshop took two full days to complete. The
SWOT analysis was done on the first day followed by the TOWS matrix the next day.
4.2.4 NFA interviews
The functions of NFA are governed by the Fisheries Management Act 1998 and the
Fisheries Management Regulation 2000. There are nine business units in the organisation that facilitate government control of the fisheries sector. The Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Unit under the leadership of the unit executive manager, is entrusted to oversee the development of the aquaculture sector in PNG (NFA, 2007).
Following the farmer surveys and the stakeholder focus group workshop, NFA officers involved in aquaculture development were interviewed. The statements used in the interviews were derived from SWOT factors identified in the preceding exercises.
Additional factors of more national focus for this level of government were included.
Responses were recorded on a Likert-scale of 1-5 with 1 indicating strong disagreement with the statement. Data were noted on printed interview forms and later entered in an
Excel spread sheet.
4.2.5 Analysis
Interviews were conducted in Pidgin but used English interview forms to record data removing the need for translation. There was also no requirement to transcribe as data were only captured in writing. All survey data from the interviews and the focus group
92 workshop were entered on Microsoft Excel spread sheets. Statistical analysis of the qualitative data was undertaken using cross-tabulation in the SPSS program (Version
20). Cross-tabulation (Chi-squared analysis) was used to identify differences between responses and make appropriate inferences.
In essence, the PEEST review (Chapter 3) established the background, the famers surveys ranked factors specific to the farmer, the EHP SWOT workshop focused on factors relevant to the province, and the NFA SWOT established the national perspective. There was validation of factors from district (farmers) to the provincial
(stakeholders) and up to the national level as illustrated in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2: Flowchart of study process
A copy of the questionnaire along with records of cross-tabulations and chi-squared tests on the data can be found in Appendix B and C respectively of this thesis.
4.3 Results and Discussion
The results are presented and discussed in two parts. The first being the farmer survey
(Section 4.3.1) that examines farming data to update the profile of aquaculture in EHP.
Understanding the current status of farming is important in framing the context of the
93 SWOT outcomes. The second part (Section 4.3.2) discusses outcomes of three SWOT analyses involving the farmers, followed by the provincial focus group and finally NFA.
4.3.1 Farm survey
The survey covered all eight districts of the province in four weeks with a total of eighty randomly selected fish farmers interviewed at their farms. Farming data was collected to ascertain changes since the last survey by Smith et al (2007) and also up-date DPI records.
4.3.1.1 Demographics
Results (Table 4.2) showed that farmers were older in 2014 with the majority of farms male owned and run by the individual farmer and his immediate family. Smith et al
(2007) also reported a similar level of male farm ownership as well as individual or immediate family run operations. Omot (2012) attests this prevalent practice to culture where ownership of land is passed from father to son throughout much of PNG. Also, with most of the farmers being married and with increased dependents compared to
2003, there is more reason to keep the operation family owned. This trend of family ownership is typical of small-scale fish farming in many developing nations
(Kawarazuka & Bene, 2010). However, women play the key role in addressing rural household nutrition (Olufayo, 2012) therefore extension and training programs should also be tailored to empower females (Ahmed & Lorica, 2002). This ultimately strengthens the family unit so that whilst the male owns the farm, the role and contribution of female members are recognised.
Table 4.2: Demographics of PNG fish farmers in 2003 and EHP farmers in 2014 Characteristic PNG fish farm surveys in EHP fish farm survey in 2003 (Smith et al, 2007) 2014 Gender of ownership Male (%) 91.4 96.3 Female (%) 8.6 3.8 Average age of farmer (years) 34.9 ± 11.1 41.5 ± 11.5
94 Marital status of farmer Married (%) 83 93.8 Unmarried (%) 27 6.2 Dependents (family members living 6.0 ± 2.9 6.39 ± 3.74 with farmer) Nature of ownership Individual/family owned (%) 95.2 90 Community project (%) 4 10 Primary occupation of farmer Smallholder agriculture 81.8 93.8 Other employment 18.2 6.2
The primary occupation of most of the farmers was smallholder agriculture with a minority involved in paid employment, which was similarly reflected in 2003 (Table
4.2). Studies in tropical Asia show that rural small-scale farmers contribute the bulk of production as this sector benefits the most from the activity (Baily & Skladany, 1991).
Similar trends are prevalent in other Pacific countries where aquaculture has become established in the subsistence sector (Adams et al, 2001). Aquaculture programs should therefore be focussed on improving practices in the small-scale sector. Brummett and
Williams (2000) suggests that priority be given to integrating technology with current small-scale farming practices to strengthen food security and replace imports.
The majority of farmers in both 2003 and 2014 surveys indicate food and income generation as being primary reasons for commencing aquaculture (Figure 4.3). The significant change over time is the emergence of famers who are involved specifically for income generation and self-employment (24%). This is reflective of general trends that have been experienced in other developing countries where commercialisation naturally progresses as entrepreneurs evolve (Brummett et al, 2008). This trend also implies that the current positive economic environment described in Chapter 3 (Section
3.3.2) has possibly influenced decisions in taking up fish farming. Brummett et al
(2008) iterates that this independent progression is preferred over government controlled commercialization. The role of government should be facilitative; focussing on coordination, planning, infrastructure support, research and extension.
95
Figure 4.3: Main reason for EHP farmers involvement in aquaculture in 2003 (Smith et al, 2007) and 2014. 4.3.1.2 Training & Extension
The 2003 farm surveys revealed that 72% of farmers did not receive any form of extension and training services from government or NGO sources (Smith et al, 2007).
Results from the current survey indicate some improvement with 49.4% receiving formal training whilst the majority received some form of advice from other farmers.
Singas and Manus (2014) identified lack of skills and knowledge as the prominent constraint affecting uptake of aquaculture technology in rural PNG. Edwards (2000) and
Halwart et al (2003) assert that weak extension services limits knowledge and stifles small-scale production, therefore government driven training programs are critical. In contrast, Brummett and Williams (2000) posit that farmer-to-farmer advice is a more effective tool for skills transfer in developing countries considering the simple skill-set requirements of tilapia pond culture. This view is supported by Nandlal (2012) in that aquaculture extension in PICTS should be farmer-driven to ensure sustainability.
However, the risk of relying on farmer driven extension is the danger of the proliferation and entrenchment of incorrect practices (Edwards 2009). Turongruang and
Demaine (2008) espouse that the use of correct and effective extension material significantly reduces the probability for transfer of detrimental practices from one
96 farmer to another. Nevertheless, the lack of skills remains a major constraint for many
PNG fish farmers (Singas & Manus, 2014) and whilst current survey results indicate progress in extension and training since 2003 (Figure 4.4), there is still room for improvement.
Figure 4.4: Formal training and extension received by EHP farmers 2003-2014 (2003 source: Smith et al, 2007)
Further examination of the data reveals that there is no significant difference in in the views of farmers across the whole province regarding extension and training (P=0.401 >
0.05, Pearson Chi-Square). Therefore, the assumption that farmers nearer to urban areas of Goroka and Kainantu (Cluster 1 and 4, Figure 4.1) are more advantaged is not necessarily true. The lack of extension in the past has been the result of limited government support and numbers of trained officers (Smith et al, 2007). Training of existing provincial officers and entry of new graduates in the workforce, coupled with increased government, donor and NGO interventions has led to more outreach (Singas
& Manus, 2014; Smith 2013). Effective strategies that coordinate the effort of various stakeholders are currently absent.
4.3.1.3 Production
Farming data in Table 4.3 indicates that GIFT is now the most widely farmed species in
EHP replacing carp, which was the dominant species in 2003. Farmers also indicated
97 operating with GIFT for a median of eight years as opposed to one year for carp, indicating that farmers had switched species since 2003 and preferred GIFT. A contributing factor to this trend was HAQDEC’s inability to meet the demand of one million carp fingerlings per annum (Smith, 2013) as a consequence of technical capacity and management issues. Furthermore, inherent qualities of prolific breeding, hardiness and the ability to feed on natural pond production quickly established GIFT as the species of choice (Nandlal, 2012; Smith 2013). The farmers’ inadvertent ability to produce their own fingerlings and willingly distribute to others has driven the growth of aquaculture. This is illustrated in Table 4.3 with a decrease in farmers purchasing from
HAQDEC/DPI and corresponding increase in farmers sourcing from other operators.
Edwards (2009) however, calls for caution and the introduction of correct tilapia hatchery technology for dedicated breeding farms to avoid inbreeding and reduced performance over time. Consequently, there have been recent complaints from EHP farmers of slow growth and smaller sized fish (Gako F. 2014, pers comm, 2 July), which could also be related to inefficient husbandry practices.
Average pond production in EHP of 3424 kg/ha (Table 4.3) is significantly higher than
2003 levels, alluding to improvement in pond production since then. Although 2003 figures were based on common carp the implications of current production to nutrition, food security and income generation is significant. The increased pond production corroborates NFA predictions regarding the impact of GIFT based on its rapid growth and late maturing characteristics (Wani, 2004). When compared to tilapia pond production in other Asian countries such as China (5860 kg/ha) and Thailand (6290 kg/ha) (Dey et al, 2000) production in EHP still lags behind. Data suggests there are factors impeding farmers from realising the full potential of freshwater pond farming of
98 tilapia. These factors need to be identified and appropriate strategies developed to address them.
The average number of ponds per farmer has more than doubled whilst the average total area farmed has decreased by 23% since 2003. It appears that whilst the number of farmers is growing (Chapter 3 Section 3.3.5.1), there is less pond area being farmed by individuals. This can be tied to increasing population pressure putting demand on land use (Ningal et al, 2008). Similar trends are reported in Asia where land ownership and competition for resources limits farming area (Dey et al, 2000). Nevertheless, a study on GIFT farming in the Philippines does reveal that a smaller total farming area (<4.43 ha) requires higher input costs, gives lower yield and results in less average net income than larger operations (Dey et al, 2000). The absence of such data on farming in EHP prevents farmers being appropriately advised on options.
Furthermore, the increase in number of smaller ponds may well be to enable better management and reduce cost of inputs. Since most farms are family owned, labour and capital is limited to the farmer and his family and therefore smaller ponds are preferred.
For instance, using traditional string-bags (bilum) a family can quickly harvest a smaller pond when required (Apaise T. 2013, per comm., 2 May). However, Alam et al (2012) in a study on pond efficiency in Bangladesh suggests that smaller ponds (< 51m2) may not necessarily be efficient in terms of production outputs for the inputs provided.
Whilst input into smaller ponds is less, it can often be greater in proportion to the ponds requirements. The same can be said for very large ponds where the costs of input can outweigh outputs. Although Alam et al (2012) does point out that the work was inconclusive, the need for similar studies to be undertaken in EHP is evident. There is little information available for farmers on pond sizes, required inputs and expected outputs.
99 Most farmers operated a flow-through system with a minority (13.8%) practicing some form of water control: basically topping up water loss from seepage or evaporation. The incorrect notion of clear pond water being healthy for tilapia farming is widely prevalent and has been practiced since 2003 (Table 4.3). The current survey indicates an increase in farmers practicing flow-through possibly due to incorrect practices being passed from farmer to farmer in the absence of extension and training. The extent that this notion has been rooted is reflected by Edwards (2009) reporting difficulty in convincing farmers of the disadvantages of this practice. Again, the need for extension and training programs involving various mediums is required.
Freshwater cage-farming of fish was introduced in 1998 through a JICA funded project at Yonki, EHP with GIFT successfully trialled in 2001 with production of 500kg/month
(Hair et al, 2006). Following farmer training in 2004, the technology is now established in the reservoir as a semi-commercial activity. This activity influenced the growth of a sector of farmers involved in aquaculture for self-employment in 2014 (Figure 4.3).
This trend is reflected in developing Asian countries where fish cage culture in freshwater reservoirs is increasing because it frees non-flooded land for other activities and compensates for the inundated terrain (Dugan et al, 2006). Average production from cage culture in EHP was 95.1kg/100m2 (Table 4.3), which was far less than levels in the Philippines (540kg/100m2) and China (5613 kg/100m2) (Dey et al, 2000). In a review of global tilapia culture, Gupta and Acosta (2004) establish cage farming as a significant area of growth due to low capital input, low operating cost, ease of management and the ability to raise mixed sexes without any breeding occurring.
100
Figure 4.5: EHP estimated fish production rates from pond and cage culture 2003-2015
The production rate for EHP fish cage farmers was significantly greater than pond farmers (Figure 4.5), confirming findings by Hair et al (2006) on the potential of cage culture. To further improve production and fully realise its potential, research is required to establish: optimum cage stocking density, benefit-cost analysis, feeding regimes, environmental impact, post-harvest treatment, market chain analysis and social impact studies.
Table 4.3: PNG farming production data 2003 and EHP data 2014 Characteristic PNG fish farm surveys in EHP fish farm survey in 2003 (Smith et al, 2007) 2014 Species cultured Carp and tilapia – not GIFT 4.5 0 (%) Common carp (%) 90.4 3.8 GIFT (%) 0 95.3 Number of years fish farming Common carp (Median) 3 1 Tilapia – not GIFT 1.5 - (Median) GIFT - 8 Culture method Pond (%) 100 90 Cage (%) 0 10 Number of ponds per farmer 3.25±3.43 8.12 ± 5.50 [max=42, min=2, median=7] Average total pond area per 141.7±199.0 33.11 ± 24.99 farmer (m2) [max=150, min=7.69, median=28.29] Average total pond 985 3,424 production (kg/ha) Number cages per farmer 0 6.88 ± 3.76 [max=12, min=1, median=7] Average total cage area per 0 23.14 ± 7.52
101 farmer (m2) [max=72, min=10, median=26] Average total cage 0 95.1 production (kg/100m2) Water source River, creek and stream (%) 69.3 96.25 Other sources (%) 17.6 3.75 Pond water exchange Flow though (%) 43.8 86.3 No flow through – only 56.2 13.7 topped up (%) Feeding times Daily (%) 63.6 80.1 Weekly (%) 26.2 8.8 Fortnightly (%) 7 - Monthly (%) 2.2 - Rarely/never (%) 1 11.1 Fingerling source HAQDEC/DPI (%) 90.4 55 Other farmers (%) 4.8 37.5 Wild (%) 1.3 7.5
The majority of respondents indicated supplying some form of feed regularly to their fish. However, there was a 10% increase from 2003 to 2014 of farmers that rarely supplied feed, relying rather on natural production. Smith (2013) showed that some advanced farmers in PNG were able to achieve profit whilst depending on organic fertilization with minimal input in a highly extensive system. Similarly, in Africa, extensive small-scale tilapia farmers were able to produce 0.5mt/ha/yr with minimal input (Gupta & Acosta, 2004). More work is required to establish standards for extensive culture in PNG conditions. Edwards (2009) alluded to the danger of untrained operators easily over fertilising a pond and killing their stock. The fact that the main feed supplied was garden vegetables (Figure 4.6) highlights this concern as uneaten matter inadvertently increases pond production. The data does indicate an increase since
2003 of farmers only supplying formulated fish diet; this has mainly been the cage culture operators. The increase of fish farmers supplying pellets signifies the growth of
102 a commercial or semi-commercial sector as regular feed use is a significant investment with a return expected.
Figure 4.6: Main feed sources used by EHP fish farmers in 2003 and 2014
4.3.1.4 Harvest & marketing
Survey data indicates an increase in farmers harvesting from their ponds, with more operators preferring to sell (Table 4.4). There has also been a decrease in farmers harvesting for home consumption. Case in point; Mr Kepi Anako a farmer from the remote Okapa District (Cluster 3, Figure 4.1) iterated that the demand for farmed fish was high with local customers turning up at his farm to buy fresh. He was now focussed on growing fingerlings and table size fish for sale and was able to send his children to high school as a result. A former criminal and local warlord, the income stream helped his reform and he was now local councillor, winning his election on a policy to assist fish farmers (Anako K. 2014, pers comm, 5 July). The trend of farmer moving into harvesting for sales was widely reported.
103 Table 4.4: Farmed fish harvest and marketing for PNG in 2003 and EHP in 2014 Characteristic PNG fish farm surveys in EHP fish farm survey in 2003 (Smith et al, 2007) 2014 Reason for harvest Selling (%) 20.8 48.8 Self/home consumption 43.7 21.3 No harvests yet 80.2 30 Market Local community (%) 15 36.3 Town/companies (%) 2.3 17.6 Average size of table-size fish sold Common carp (kg) 0.81 ± 0.64 ( n=58) - GIFT (kg) - 0.14 ± 0.07 (n=47) Average price of table-size fish sold Common carp (K) 7.88 ± 3.76 - GIFT (K) - 5.14 ± 3.82 Average price of fingerlings (K) Carp (K) 0.39 ± 0.91 GIFT (K) - 1.01 ± 1.54
There has been a growth of sales in the formal market, but the major demand has been in the local community as reflected by it being the major market (Figure 4.7).
Customers were willing to pay up to K12.00 per fish but on average, a 140g fish was sold for K5 with fingerlings going for K1-K2 per 2-5cm fish.
Figure 4.7: Main outlets for EHP fish farm harvests
Singas and Manus (2014) suggest that demand for farmed fish is greater than the supply, especially in rural inland areas of PNG. Farm survey results suggest that this may well be the situation; however, more focussed socio-economic studies are required determine current demand for farmed fish. Halwart et al (2003) state that it is difficult
104 to economically quantify the contribution of small-scale fish farming because the commodity is sold locally or consumed by the household and, therefore, the benefits are nutritional or reflected in increased rural employment. However, the impact in terms of generating and circulating income in the local economy and strengthening rural development is significant but poorly understood. Furthermore, Brummett and Williams
(2000) in a review of pond aquaculture suggest that small-scale farming be allowed to naturally evolve into commercial systems as demand for fish increases. Government should not dictate change but rather provide support that fits with the lifestyle and practices through appropriate interventions that address constraints.
4.3.1.5 Farmers major constraints
There has been a reordering of the top five issues that PNG farmers contend limited their activities (Table 4.5). The top two issues in 2003 have disappeared outside of the top five issues for EHP farmers in 2015 possibly a reflection of increased extension services (Figure 4.4) and farmers supplying their own fingerling (Table 4.3). Lack of equipment and materials has moved from fifth in 2003 to being the current major limiting factor. There are no aquaculture equipment suppliers in PNG for basic items such as nets. Also, lack of funding also limits the procurement of materials needed for expansion.
Lack of knowledge on how to access credit provided by government in financial institutions in the province was widely identified. This was closely related to the previous point. A point of concern was that government officers were also handicapped in not knowing how to access credit (Kiafuli S. 2014, per comm, 15 June). With officers unable to provide required guidance, farmers were left to fend for themselves. Improved collaboration between responsible state agencies and financial institutions is imperative to establish strategies going forward.
105 Limited access to good water supply was considered a constraint. In some areas, the increase in population has strained resource use with many competing interests limiting water supply. Fish farmers in Potsy, Morobe Province also reported similar issues on water supply limiting their operations (Singas & Manus, 2014).
Mainly the cage culture operators and progressive pond-based farmers raised access to affordable quality feed. Fish raised in cages are highly dependent on feed, which ultimately impacts on the farmers production and marketing (Mbahinzireki et al, 2003).
The inception of fish feed production in 2008 by Goroka NDAL has provided a solution and ongoing investigations by NARI (Amben et al, 2013) and other agencies will increase options. Interventions to reduce the cost of fish meal from factories are being considered by NFA and will further reduce costs (Vira & Manieva, 2015).
Table 4.5: Major constrains by PNG farmers in 2003 and EHP farmers in 2014 PNG fish farm surveys in 2003 (Smith et al, EHP fish farm survey in 2014 2007) 1. Lack of training and extension 1. Lack of equipment and materials (30%) 2. Inadequate fingerling supply 2. Limited access to finance/credit (28.8%) 3. Lack of financial support 3. Limited access to good water supply 4. Low quality feed (12.5%) 5. Lack of equipment and materials 4. Access to affordable quality feed (10%) 5. Increased security threat from stealing (5%)
The final issue of increased fish theft is also related to increased population and the competition for resources. Ningal et al (2008) shows that population pressure has reduced the amount of land available for farming, hence the rise of a landless minority in rural PNG society. Combined with the lack of government services and limited opportunities, the inadvertent rise in petty crime has become entrenched. Farmers are resorting to building their dwellings closer to farms or establishing ponds nearer to home to address this.
106 4.3.1.6 Summary of farm survey
The farm survey was able to reveal the current status of fish farming in EHP.
Comparison with the last national survey in 2003 indicates there have been changes in aquaculture over the last thirteen years. The impact of GIFT has been significant with increased fingerling availability allowing more people to farm fish. The main change in
2014 is that 24% started fish farming to create their own employment and make money.
There has also been an steady increase in extension and training with more development partners involved in the sector.
Average pond fish production in EHP is higher in 2014 than 2003, however the total area farmed has decreased even though more ponds are being used. GIFT’s prolific breeding enables more ponds stocked, hence increased production but farmers prefer smaller ponds for easier management.
Fish cage culture is a new technology that was not adopted by farmers in 2003.
Production from cages is three times pond output and is almost entirely for market sales.
This subsector of farmers purchase feed and fingerlings and invests a lot to make profit.
Their mentality is different from the backyard pond-based farmer.
Fish feed offered by farmers is very much similar to 2003 with the only difference being in increase in farmers supplying pelleted diet. This growth has mostly been driven by the fish cage farmers.
More farmers in 2014 were harvesting to sell with the main market being the local community. There was also a significant increase of farmers selling in town to companies with the average price of K5.14 per 140g fish. Fingerling price was K0.39 for carp in 2003 and had changed to K1.00 per GIFT.
There was also a change in the five major farming constraints, with lack of equipment and materials being the top issue in 2014 as opposed to it being fifth in 2003. Limited
107 access to finance, feed and water supply were other current issues. Stealing was also a new issue that was not faced in 2003.
4.3.2 SWOT analysis
The SWOT analysis was undertaken in three parts: farmers interviews (Section 4.3.2.1), followed by a stakeholders focus group workshop (Section 4.3.2.2) and finally NFA officers interviews (Section 4.3.2.3). This section reports and discusses the outcomes of this process.
4.3.2.1 Farmers SWOT interviews
Strengths
Table 4.6 presents a ranked list of strength factors and average farmers response score.
Fingerlings availability was widely agreed a key strength. Farmers acknowledged that extension was available but many had not accessed or benefitted from it. Most disagreed that NGO/donor presence and the EH Fish Farmers Cooperative were strengths because they were not aware of the existence and had not experienced the service.
Cross tabulations showed that location did influence farmers response for strengths 1, 3 and 4 with P < 0.05 using Fishers exact test. Fingerling availability (strength 1) was particularly good for cluster 3 locations due to there being three times more fingerling producing operations in Okapa and Lufa Districts compared to other areas. On other hand, farmers in clusters 2 and 3 strongly disagreed the NGO/donor support in EHP was a strength. This was due to there being more NGO/donor projects in clusters 1 and 4 through organizations such as NARI, Care International and ACIAR. Similarly, more farmers in clusters 2 and 3 disagreed that the establishment of the fish farmers cooperative was a strength as they were not aware of the existence of the organisation.
108 The cooperative currently lacks management capacity and has only undertaken minimal awareness mainly in clusters 1 and 4 where transport infrastructure is good (Gendua R.
2014, pers comm, 12 September). Responses for strength 2 were not influenced by location with P > 0.05 using Fishers exact test.
Cross tabulation indicated that number of years farming only influenced strength 1 (P <
0.05, Fishers exact test). Farmers operating for four to six years strongly agreed that fingerling availability was a strength. Those farming for less than four years old were unsure of where to source fingerlings or lacked skills to consistently produce (Kave A.
2014, per comm, 14 August). Whilst farmers operating more than 7 years had previously farmed carp and therefore expressed difficulty in purchasing carp fingerlings
(Nehaya, M. 2014, pers comm, 28 August). HAQDEC curtailed carp fingerling production after 2007 as consequence of funding and management issues at the time
(Smith et al, 2007).
Training did not influence farmer response (P > 0.05, Fishers exact test). Those that had been trained expressed similar views as the untrained farmers.
In quantitative work on SWOT analysis, Marino et al (2014) uses an arbitrary cut-off point for acceptance of a factor at 66.7% of total score, which in this case would be 3.3.
Using this as a guide, the results therefore indicate that farmers only considered the availability of fingerlings as a strength of aquaculture in EHP.
Table 4.6: Ranked EHP fish farmers strength factors Likert Strengths Conclusion of cross Accept as response tabulation (Fishers exact factor average test)
score Location Time in Av score ≥
Rank did farming 3.3 influence did response influence response 1 3.8 Fingerlings are widely available ü ü ü 2 2.6 Extension services readily available û û û 3 1.9 NGO or donor support is accessible ü û û 4 1.6 EH farmer’s cooperative is supporting ü û û
109 farmers
Weaknesses
Farmers agreed that all factors in Table 4.7 were weaknesses and lack of skills was the main impediment. Further cross tabulation revealed that location did influence farmers response for factors 3 to 7 with P-values < 0.05 using Fishers exact test. Farmers in areas further from the DPI office (clusters 2, 3 and 4) more strongly agreed that the factors were weaknesses than those nearer (cluster 1). Farmers nearer to the main service center had more exposure and access and therefore did not consider the factors as significant weaknesses.
The number of years in fish farming did not influence farmers views for factors 2 to 7
(P > 0.05, Fishers exact test); responses were similar. In contrast, farmers with one to five years of experience strongly viewed the lack of adequate skills (weakness 1) and lack of updates (weakness 8) as weaknesses (P < 0.05, Fishers exact test). Farmers operating for more than 5 years felt comfortable with the skills possessed and did not agree quite as strongly.
Cross tabulation indicates that training only influenced farmers response for weakness 2
(lack record keeping and management skills). Record keeping and management is not properly covered in current training programs (Figure 3.13, Chapter 3) therefore farmers do not understand the application and importance of the skill. Most of the current farms are small-scale food security focussed and therefore the significance of management is lost. The growth in commercial operations highlights the need for this skill, hence the array of responses to this factor
110 Table 4.7: Ranked EHP fish farmers weakness factors Likert Weaknesses Conclusion of cross Accept as response tabulation (Fishers exact factor average test)
score Location Time in Av score ≥ did farming 3.3 Rank influence did response influence response 1 4.4 Farmers lack fish farming skills û ü ü 2 4.2 Farmers lack basic record keeping and û û ü management skills 3 4.2 Lack of organised market for farmers ü û ü 4 4.2 Lack of extension material and ü û ü training for farmers 5 4.2 Fish feed is expensive and/or not ü û ü always available 6 4.2 Farmers lack skills in ü û ü preservation/postharvest handling 7 4.1 Lack of access to aquaculture ü û ü equipment such as scoop-nets, seine- nets, etc. discourages/hinders farming 8 3.7 Lack of regular updates and û ü ü information on fish-farming development and opportunities through radio/newspaper
Opportunities
All factors except for the accessibility of credit (opportunity 11) were considered opportunities (Table 4.8). Farmers were not aware of the existence and process to access credit available through financial institutions in the province. Consequently many responded as being unsure or disagreed that it was an opportunity.
Location did not influence farmers views on all factors except for land (opportunity 2), fish feed (opportunity 8) and working with stakeholders (opportunity 9) (P < 0.05,
Fishers exact test). Land use and demand was different for various areas and therefore responses varied on its availability. Similarly, not all farmers had access to fish feed and could not evaluate performance before and after using the diet, hence the variability in responses. Finally, stakeholders did not operate uniformly throughout the province and
111 so farmers had not all experienced services from other organisations. Consequently, responses varied with location.
Years of experience influenced land availability (opportunity 2), demand for fish
(opportunity 4), conducive natural environment (opportunity 6) and water access
(opportunity 7) (P < 0.05, Fishers exact test). Farmers operating for less than six years strongly agreed that land, market demand, the environment and water access were opportunities while more experienced farmers gave varying responses. Older operations generally did not envisage expanding any further and therefore did not consider land, the environment and water access as strong opportunities. Furthermore, some experienced operators were sceptical about the demand for fish, based on past experiences when demand was limited (Asineha, E. 2014, pers comm, 19 August).
Cross tabulation indicates training did not influence respondents. Views of the trained and untrained operators were unanimous.
Table 1: Ranked EHP fish farmers opportunities factors Likert Opportunities Conclusion of cross Accept as response tabulation (Fishers exact factor average test)
score Location Time in Av score ≥ did farming 3.3 Rank influence did response influence response 1 4.9 Farmers are receptive to training and û û ü extension programs 2 4.8 Land for fish farming is widely ü ü ü available 3 4.7 Demand for farmed fish is growing û û ü 4 4.7 Good demand for farmed fish û û ü 5 4.7 Educational institutions are receptive û û ü to the introduction of aquaculture as a lesson 6 4.6 Good climate and environment for fish û ü ü farming 7 4.6 Water is freely available and û ü ü accessible 8 4.5 Farmers recognise that quality fish ü û ü feed is essential to improve production 9 4.2 Farmers are happy to work with all ü û ü stakeholders
112 10 3.6 Farmers are willing to use social û û ü media to learn about aquaculture 11 2.9 Funding and credit is accessible û û û
Threats
There was a wide range of responses given for the factors surveyed with most either strongly agreeing or disagreeing. Farmers appeared to respond based on having experienced the threat or not; and not as a perceived event in the future. This was also reflected by many responding as unsure when they could not identify factor as a possible threat to them. Table 4.9 reflects this no factor reaching average scores 4
(agree) or 5 (strongly agree). Using 3.3 as the threshold for acceptance (Marino et al,
2014), only the lack of an organised market (threat 1); slow growth of fish being a constraint (threat 2); and stealing of fish (threat 3) are considered threats.
Cross tabulation indicates that location did influence farmers responses for all factors (P
< 0.05, Fishers exact test and Pearson Chi-square) except transport and infrastructure
(threat 9). Farmers in clusters 2 and 3 being far from the main service centers in clusters
1 and 4, strongly agreed that factor 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were threats. The lack of access to a formal market, technical advice and limited rural government services influenced their response. In contrast, farmers in cluster 4 disagreed strongly that factors 1, 2 and 3 were threats. Farmers access to services was determined by their location, which ultimately influenced responses.
Time involved in farming had no influence on farmers response for all factors except stealing of fish being a constraint (threat 3) and growing land use constraint (threat 10) with P value < 0.05 (Fishers exact test). Farmers were polarised on this issue with similar numbers agreeing and disagreeing that stealing was an issue. It appears farmers response was based on having experienced stealing or not which was evenly split. Most
113 farmers disagreed that land use was a constraint with the strongest views coming from operations six years or less. Some older operations did not feel too strongly about this as they did not see the need to expand any further.
Cross tabulation shows that training did not influence farmers views (P > 0.05, Fishers exact test). Response from the farmers was consistent.
Table 4.9: Ranked EHP fish farmers threat factors Likert Threats Conclusion of cross Accept as response tabulation (Fishers exact factor average test)
score Location Time in Av score ≥ did farming 3.3 Rank influence did response influence response 1 3.4 Lack of organised market is ü û ü discouraging fish farming 2 3.3 Slow growth of fish even though feed ü û ü is regularly given, discourages fish farming 3 3.3 Stealing of fish from ponds is ü ü ü increasing 4 3.2 It is getting more expensive to farm ü û û fish 5 3.1 Stealing is discouraging fish-farming ü û û 6 3.0 Disease introduction will discourage ü û û fish farming 7 2.6 Pollution of water supply affects my ü û û farm 8 1.7 Conflict on water use for fish farming ü û û and other use is growing 9 2.9 Bad transport infrastructure û û û discourages/hinders farming 10 1.7 Conflict on land use for fish farming ü ü û and other use is growing
Summary of EHP farmers SWOT
From the farmer interviews identified: one strength, eight weaknesses, ten opportunities and three threats as characteristic of fish farming in EHP (Table 4.10). Cross tabulation indicates that farmers responses were influenced by their location and length of years experienced in aquaculture but were not all influenced by training received.
114 Table 4.10: EHP fish farmer perceived SWOT factors Strength • Fingerlings are widely available Weaknesses • Farmers lack fish farming skills • Farmers lack basic record keeping and management skills • Lack of organised market for farmers • Lack of extension material and training for farmers • Fish feed is expensive and/or not always available • Farmers lack skills in preservation/postharvest handling • Lack of access to aquaculture equipment such as scoop-nets, seine- nets, etc. discourages/hinders farming • Lack of regular updates and information on fish-farming development and opportunities through radio/newspaper Opportunities • Farmers are receptive to training and extension programs • Land for fish farming is widely available • Demand for farmed fish is growing • Good demand for farmed fish • Educational institutions are receptive to the introduction of aquaculture as a lesson • Good climate and environment for fish farming • Water is freely available and accessible • Farmers recognise that quality fish feed is essential to improve production • Farmers are happy to work with all stakeholders • Farmers are willing to use social media to learn about aquaculture Threats • Lack of organised market is discouraging fish farming • Slow growth of fish even though feed is regularly given, discourages fish farming • Stealing of fish from ponds is increasing
4.3.2.2 Provincial stakeholders focus group workshop
There were two parts to the workshop: the first was the SWOT analysis followed by the
TOWS matrix. In the second session, participants combined SWOT factors to produce broad development objectives for further strategic planning. Thirteen officers representing eight organisations discussed, justified and voted on SWOT factors characteristic of aquaculture in EHP.
SWOT analysis
Strengths
The focus group agreed on ten strengths (Table 4.11). The availability of locally manufactured feed and the presence of the feed mill in EHP was considered a major
115 strength. This factor has enabled trout farming in high altitude areas and cage culture of fish at Yonki.
The availability of technical officers in the province was considered significant. There are currently eight technical officers actively involved in the sector, employed by
EHDAL and ACIAR/NFA (Kiafuli, S. 2014, pers comm, 12 September). Similarly, the availability of training manuals, other extension material and an established training package were all considered strong points. The HAQDEC facility at Aiyura with its research and training capability was also a strength for the province.
The support of government agencies, farmer groups and NGO’s for aquaculture as well as ongoing interventions was a strength. All organizations represented at the workshop presented specific aquaculture projects and programmes throughout districts they operated in.
Table 4.11: Ranked EHP aquaculture stakeholder focus group identified strengths Rank Av Strength Accept as score factor Av score ≥ 3.3) 1 4.5 Formulated feed produced locally, farmers don't need to import ü 2 4.5 Mini mill operational and accessible, enables feed production ü 3 4.3 Aquaculture officers skills & knowledge locally accessible ü 4 4.2 Technical and extension information available ü 5 4.2 Human resource/labour available in rural areas for construction and ü operation 6 4.2 Technical support from government and NGO's is available in EHP ü 7 4.2 Cooperative society established in EHP to assist and provide farmers ü representation 8 4.1 External technical support provides an option (eg: ACIAR) ü 9 4.0 Fisheries research/training facility established in EHP (HAQDEC) ü 10 3.5 Farmers training programs established and ongoing ü
Weaknesses
Fifteen weaknesses were identified; however the lack of programs to collaborate with politicians (weakness 15) scored less than 3.3 and therefore cannot be accepted as a
116 factor (Marino et al, 2014). Fourteen weaknesses were accepted (Table 4.12) with the lack of a provincial development plan being the main factor. The lack of planning has also limited stakeholder collaboration and development of interventions targeting financial, management and technical skills; these have also been identified as weaknesses. Such interventions would address the slow growth of fish and develop marketing options. The absence of a good database of farmers and farming has also contributed to the lack of planning.
NFA established the Project Development Fund (PDF) to support small-scale fisherman and aquaculture operations through small grants. The lack of NFA follow-up monitoring on impacts of disbursed funds has led to widespread abuse of grants
(Kiafuli, S. 2014, pers comm, 13 September). Anecdotal evidence suggests many
“farmers” digging ponds to justify applications for grants and then using funds for other purposes (Vira & Manieva, 2015).
Table 4.12: Ranked EHP aquaculture stakeholder focus group identified weaknesses Rank Av Weaknesses Accept as score factor Av score ≥ 3.3 1 4.5 Lack of aquaculture development plan in province constrains ü progress 2 4.4 Abuse of PDF funds creates false growth and expectations ü 3 4.3 Aging working force (expertise and labour) with no succession ü planning 4 4.3 Limited number of skilled officers to facilitate programs ü 5 4.2 Farmers lack financial management skills which limits ü commercialization 6 4.2 Farmers still lack correct technical knowledge ü 7 4.2 Farmers and officers lack of knowledge on how to access available ü credit facilities 8 4.2 Limited transport and storage facilities constrains marketing of fresh ü harvest 9 4.1 Poor database up keeping and reporting limits strategic planning ü 10 3.9 Lack of stakeholders cooperation in province results in limited ü impact 11 3.8 Lack of information on stakeholders and agencies in province limits ü planning and creates confusion 12 3.8 Extension services not reaching rural areas limits production ü
117 13 3.7 Slow growth rate of fish discourages farmers ü 14 3.6 Stealing of fish at HAQDEC demotivates workers and limits ü programs 15 3.1 Lack of realistic programs to collaborate with MPs û
Opportunities
Twelve opportunities were identified and accepted by the focus group (Table 4.13). The presence of financial institutions with fisheries credit in the province was the highest ranked opportunity; credit was readily available for aquaculture. In addition, widespread government support through policy and funding also presented opportunities.
Furthermore, in line with government policies, external donor organisations were also willing to assist address gaps and constraints. A key opportunity for possible donor collaboration is the development of aquaculture curriculum at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels. The environment and climate are conducive for aquaculture presenting an opportunity. Farmers taking advantage of these factors have reported a high demand for farmed fish with retail opportunities growing (Pupune, S. 2014, pers comm, 20 September). These opportunities augur well for the future of aquaculture in
EHP if realistic strategies are established with complimentary stakeholder support.
Table 4.13: Ranked EHP aquaculture stakeholder focus group identified opportunities Rank Av Opportunities Accept as score factor Av score ≥ 3.3 1 4.7 Financial institutions with fisheries credit available in EHP (eg: ü NDB, MiBank) 2 4.6 Government line agencies in the province are supportive ü 3 4.5 Feed ingredients suppliers are available and willing to facilitate ü procurement 4 4.5 Government funding available (eg: PIP, DSIP,PDF) ü 5 4.4 Education institutions are receptive to aquaculture (curriculum ü development opportunities) 6 4.4 Technical assistance through external organisations can be sourced ü (eg: JICA, FAO, ACIAR, SPC, Worldfish) 7 4.3 Water and land resources readily available ü
118 8 4.2 Political support is growing ü 9 4.2 Marketing access is improving with demand ü 10 4.0 Retail market opportunities are growing ü 11 3.9 Suitable environment and climate conducive for aquaculture ü 12 3.6 Communities are willing to participate in development planning ü
Threats
Focus group discussions identified fourteen threats of aquaculture in EHP (Table 4.14).
The major concerns were government decisions and bureaucratic processes constraining and influencing programmes. Of equal importance was the threat of increasing environmental pollution from other users as a consequence of population growth and associated resource competition.
Increased natural disasters from changing weather patterns as a result of climate change are threats that will have to be mitigated (Bell et al, 2011). Changes in the environment include invasive species, increased pests and diseases. As farming becomes more intensive, issues of disease and environmental management will become increasingly important as has happened in other developing countries (Valderrama et al, 2014).
The impact of corruption on service delivery is significant and is considered a threat. It delays projects, affects maintenance of transport infrastructure and often misdirects government policy to areas of self-interest (Baxter, 2001). It also demotivates staff which impacts program implementation and can lead to staff departing for better conditions, further threatening the industry. The lack of government presence in rural areas gives rise to lawlessness, including tribal fighting. These occurrences result in farmers abandoning their farms for months or years, thereby presenting a threat to the industry.
119 Table 4.14: Ranked EHP aquaculture stakeholder focus group identified threats Rank Av Threats Accept as score factor Av score ≥ 3.3 1 4.2 Administrative decisions by superiors can negatively impact ü programs 2 4.2 Increasing water pollution from agriculture and increased population ü use may decrease quality 3 4.2 Slow government processes constrain development plans, programs ü or projects 4 4.1 Pests and diseases from imports, cross-border invasion, ü intensification practices are all possibilities that will impact fish farming 5 4.1 Current and growing competition with other livestock for feed ü Ingredients will limit feed production 6 4.1 Natural disasters - mainly flooding and landslides. Risks need to be ü reduced through proper site selection 7 4.1 Departure of local expertise to other more lucrative jobs will impact ü plans and programs 8 4.0 Misappropriation of allocated government funds (corruption) ü constrains programs 9 3.9 Climate change may adversely impact aquaculture with increased ü temperatures, rainfall and drought conditions. 10 3.9 Continued stealing of fish from government facilities and rural farms ü may demoralise operators 11 3.8 Land tenure may constrain commercial aquaculture investments ü 12 3.8 Deteriorating transport infrastructure discourages field ü work/extension and will prevents farmers from accessing better markets 13 3.8 Politics-change of government and priorities may shift focus away ü from aquaculture 14 3.6 Tribal warfare limits extension, training, research and farmers ü operations
TOWS matrix
Using SWOT factors identified, the focus group combined issues in a TOWS matrix
(Table 4.1) to develop fifteen preliminary objectives that were ranked by perceived importance (Table 4.15). These objectives are very broad but can be used in planning processes to develop strategies and activities to enhance aquaculture in the EHP.
120 Table 4.15: Ranked EHP aquaculture stakeholders TOWS outcomes as development objectives Matrix factor pair Rank Objective outcome Strength x 1 Empower and enable farmers through training programs to tap Opportunities emerging market opportunities 2 Utilise availability of expertise and technical support in enabling farmers to maximise access and opportunities to widely available funding and credit opportunities 3 Maximise use of technical expertise to improve awareness on aquaculture and strengthen political support for activity 4 Consolidate feed production to present as investment opportunity for interested ingredient suppliers as SME option
Strength x Threats 1 Improve welfare and conditions to reduce exodus of key technical staff 2 Improve capacity of current staff to address emerging threats to the industry such as pests, disease, climate change and environmental impact. 3 Build local capacity in development of alternate feed options to counter increased competition for ingredients.
Weakness x 1 Improve farmers and officers basic financial management skills, Opportunities including available credit options and how to access 2 Review NFA PDF grant process to reduce loopholes for abuse and consider redirection to support feed ingredient supply, strengthening market access and schools educational programs 3 Improve stakeholder involvement, aquaculture planning processes and realistic strategic plans to facilitate external technical support and strengthen government support including funding 4 Improve availability of information, awareness and extension to strengthen institutional aquaculture programs (schools/prisons) and collaboration with political and community organisations.
Weakness x Threats 1 Strengthen NFA PDF grant processes in province to align with development planning to reduce misuse of project funds and corruption. 2 Improve extension services and farmers technical skills as a proactive intervention to reduce social problems and improve recovery from natural disasters. 3 Build capacity for specialist officers to address environmental impacts, disease introduction, climate change and other key areas 4 Improve aquaculture planning processes, stakeholder participation and interaction with government agencies/politicians to reduce influence of adverse administrative decisions, corruption/misappropriation and political interference.
121 Strength-opportunities combinations produced four objectives. The most critical was to improve training programs to empower farmers to tap into opportunities that were emerging. Farmers lacked basic business and record keeping skills, which placed them at a disadvantage when attempting to access credit. There was also a lack of understanding on the process and requirements of applying for credit. Related to this was the need for further understanding of the market structure, the demand, the value- chains and the constraints limiting farmers entry. The onus was on stakeholders to ascertain the information to effectively direct the activity.
Of the three strength-threat points developed, the focus group identified staff retention as the key development objective. The presence of technical officers in the province has supported fish farming and their departure for other employment was a major threat.
Conditions of employment, political and administrative support for aquaculture as well as addressing constraints to programme implementation were all issues for consideration. There was also a need to have succession planning and consistent recruitment of new officers to ensure continuity when officers eventually leave.
Four objectives were developed when weaknesses were matched with opportunities.
Focus group members agreed that farmers and officers financial management skills had to be improved to exploit credit and financial prospects currently available. The representative from MiBank reported that no farmer had drawn down any funds from the credit NFA had made available there since 2005 (Lausi, M., 2014, pers comm, 12
September). Officers present also expressed limited knowledge of requirements and processes, let alone the farmers who were represented by the chairman of the fish farmers cooperative.
The final pairing of weakness and threats produced four objectives. Strengthening the process within the province of managing NFA’s PDF grant was identified as the
122 primary objective. The lack of a consistent monitoring and evaluation programme of the grant by NFA has resulted in widespread abuse, particularly application of funds to non- aquaculture projects. Unrealistic expectation from farmers has increased pressure on province-based officers who have no influence on the allocation of grants, which is done in Port Moresby. Officers are therefore reluctant to conduct extension visits in some areas where farmers resentment is present (Fungkepe H. 2014, pers comm, 13
September). The false impression of growth is also a negative outcome of the PDF as individuals dig ponds to register as farmers and allow them to bid for the grant, which is usually misused (Kiafuli S, 2014, pers comm, 12 September). Checkpoints should be introduced from application through to grant disbursement and monitoring and evaluation. Appropriate penalties should also be developed and administered.
4.3.2.3 NFA SWOT interviews
The final stage of the research was to determine the views of NFA relating to SWOT factors typical of freshwater aquaculture in EHP. Respondents were officers involved in aquaculture policy, administration, research, extension and training.
Strengths
Results from interviews indicate twelve strength factors were accepted as typical of freshwater aquaculture in EHP and PNG (Table 4.16). NFA’s prioritisation of fish farming was considered the key strength (S1). The availability of fish feed (S11) and
GIFT fingerling (S7) supported. Government support (S3), local expertise (S9) and a dedicated research facility (S10) were all internal strengths of the activity. Furthermore, continued involvement by development partners (S5) as well as a stakeholder coordinating committee within NFA (S12) contributes to strengthen the activity.
123 Table 4.16: NFA perceived strength typical of EHP/PNG aquaculture Rank Av Strength Accept score as factor Av score ≥ 3.3 1 4.5 NFA recognises and supports aquaculture as an important fisheries sector ü 2 4.2 Farmer training programs are established and implemented by ü stakeholders 3 3.9 Government departments and agencies recognise aquaculture in key ü national development documents 4 3.9 Provincial farmers cooperatives have been established to facilitate ü marketing 5 3.7 Local and international development partners recognise aquaculture as a ü rural improvement intervention 6 3.7 Regional support for aquaculture in the Pacific by relevant organisations ü (eg: SPC) 7 3.6 Fingerlings are widely available (especially GIFT) ü 8 3.5 NFA has established credit with various financial entities for farmers to ü access 9 3.5 Technical expertise is available in-country ü 10 3.4 Dedicated research facilities and infrastructure established in-country ü 11 3.4 Fish feed is produced locally and accessible for farmers ü 12 3.3 Organisation has been established to capture development stakeholders ü concerns to assist NFA coordination (i.e.: NADMAC)
Weaknesses
There were sixteen issues considered weaknesses by NFA (Table 4.17). High feed prices and its inconsistent supply (W1) was perceived to have limited the activity.
Along with this was the lack of engagement with politicians (W2) giving rise to a limited understanding of the activity, further minimising support for it. The lack of updated development plans (W14) and policies (W7) has led to a lack of marketing strategies (W3), breeding stock management strategies (W5) and limited stakeholder coordination (W16) through the NADMAC (W11). Farmers lack of capacity in various areas (W12 and W6) has been a result of limited extension capacity (W15) and also a lack of research capacity (W13) to develop local solutions to problems. A major weakness that can also be considered a threat is the false expectations raised by
124 mismanagement of the PDF grant scheme (W8). Farmers perceive that if they dig a few ponds they have the right to access the funds with many false famers receive grants whilst some genuine operators miss out (Aranka M. 2014, pers comm, 15 August).
Table 4.17: NFA perceived weaknesses typical of EHP/PNG aquaculture Rank Av Weaknesses Accept score as factor Av score ≥ 3.3 1 4.5 High feed cost and inconsistent feed supply ü 2 4.5 Lack of programs that engage politicians ü 3 4.4 Limited marketing/processing strategies ü 4 4.2 Limited capacity with cooperatives to plan and manage as independent ü entities 5 4.2 Lack of in-country breeding stock management strategy ü 6 4.1 Farmers do not know how to access to credit ü 7 4.1 Lack strategic aquaculture policies and/or implementation of existing ü 8 4.1 NFA PDF grant mismanagement creates false perceptions and ü expectations 9 4.0 Farmers lack management capacity ü 10 4.0 Lack of regular industry update ü 11 3.9 Limited NADMAC meetings result in NFA unable to coordinate efforts ü 12 3.9 Limited farmers postharvest capacity ü 13 3.8 Limited R&D capacity in-country ü 14 3.8 No current aquaculture development plans ü 15 3.6 Limited NFA extension capacity ü 16 3.5 Limited stakeholder coordination ü
Opportunities
There were nineteen opportunities agreed to by NFA (Table 4.18) with the availability of development partners and livelihood programs to empower farmers being the top
(O1). The increasing demand for feed (O2), aquaculture technology (O4) and farmed fish (O8) were significant growth drivers. Further support from the conducive environmental conditions (O3 and O6), aquacultures current disease free status (O9) and widely available farming sites (O14) strengthened opportunities. Government and partner organisation support (O13 and O7) enabled specific interventions in areas such
125 as prisons (O11) and educational institutions (O15 and O16). It also implied better extension opportunities (O10 and O18) and strengthened rural communities (O19).
Table 4.18: NFA perceived opportunities typical of EHP/PNG aquaculture Rank Av Opportunities Accept score as factor Av score ≥ 3.3 1 4.8 Stakeholders are willing to collaborate in extension and training ü programs 2 4.7 Demand for fish feed is growing as operations become more ü commercial 3 4.7 Climate and environment is conducive for aquaculture ü 4 4.6 Growing demand for aquaculture technology ü 5 4.6 Fishmeal locally produced by domestic canneries ü 6 4.5 Pristine waters conducive for aquaculture ü 7 4.5 Organisations willing to partner NFA in research and development (eg: ü ACIAR, SPC) 8 4.5 Increasing demand for activity and product ü 9 4.4 Disease free status of aquaculture in PNG ü 10 4.4 Farmers are receptive to training and extension programs ü 11 4.4 Prisons are willing to partner in fish-for-prisons program ü 12 4.4 Increasing support in public and private sectors for fish farming ü 13 4.4 Increased political support for aquaculture in government policy (eg: ü SME, PPP) 14 4.3 Farming sites are widely available ü 15 4.3 Education department is receptive to introduction of aquaculture in ü curriculum 16 4.3 Universities are interested in incorporating aquaculture in courses or ü student projects 17 4.3 Climate change creates opportunity to introduce aquaculture as food ü security intervention 18 3.8 Growth of social media presents opportunity to increase awareness ü 19 3.5 Communities willing to participate in development or project planning ü
Threats
NFA staff agreed on fourteen factors that presented threats for fish farming in EHP
(Table 4.19). Increasing cost of doing business in PNG as a result of economic conditions (T1) along with prolonged delays from bureaucratic processes (T2) were the most significant factors. Poor transport infrastructure (T3) limits extension and prevents farmers from accessing services. Similarly, the unreliable and expensive internet infrastructure significantly constrains research and information flow (T10). Except for
126 fishmeal, all other feed ingredients are imported and therefore unavailability limits feed production (T4). The lack of understanding about specific impacts of climate change on
PNG aquaculture presents a significant gap (T5). Coupled with this is the lack of knowledge of the environmental impact of other activities on fish farming (T12). As population grows and competition for resources increases (T15), environmental issues will threaten aquaculture development if not properly understood. The lack of aquatic bio-security expertise (T13) was also perceived as a threat considering that human activities and environmental changes could bring new diseases or pests. The lack of the market knowledge of farmed fish, and no systems in place to efficiently deliver a good product to customers, was considered a threat (T6). Consequently, aquaculture products are unable to compete with other livestock (T9) that have more established marketing systems. This situation constrains the activity and prevents its development into an industry further discouraging entrepreneurial operators. NFA staff also identified deteriorating law and order, particularly increased theft as a threat (T8).
Table 4.19: NFA perceived threats typical of EHP/PNG aquaculture Rank Av Threats Accept score as factor Av score ≥ 3.3 1 4.6 Increasing cost of aquaculture production as cost of goods/services ü increases 2 4.6 Slow government process delays implementation in provinces ü 3 4.3 Poor transport infrastructure limits development ü 4 4.3 Limited local feed ingredients constrains production ü 5 4.1 Climate change - lack of knowledge of impact limits planning ü 6 4.0 Lack of formal aquaculture marketing systems limits commercialisation ü 7 4.0 No local aquaculture equipment supplier ü 8 3.8 Stealing and law & order issues affect intervention strategies ü 9 3.8 Prices and competition from other livestock limits entry into market ü 10 3.8 Unreliable and expensive internet limits communication with provincial ü fisheries officers 11 3.7 Environmental impact of other activities affects water supply for fish ü farming 12 3.7 The lack of monitoring and in-country bio-security expertise increases ü potential of disease entry into aquaculture 13 3.3 Land tenure and ownership will constrain commercialisation of ü
127 aquaculture 14 3.2 Increase in land/water use conflicts due to population growth will û impact aquaculture.
4.3.2.4 Summary of focus group and NFA SWOT analysis
The provincial aquaculture stakeholder focus group identified ten strengths, fourteen weaknesses, twelve opportunities and fourteen threats. All the SWOT factors perceived importance were determined by scoring and ranked accordingly. There were issues that reflected farmers’ views and some factors that were administrative in nature.
A TOWS matrix was then used to develop broad objectives using the SWOT outcomes.
This was to be used by EHP DPI in further strategic planning for the activity in the province. Fifteen broad objectives were established that were also scored and ranked by the focus group to prioritise issues.
The NFA SWOT revealed twelve strengths, sixteen weaknesses, nineteen opportunities and fourteen threats. Cross tabulation revealed no influence by the NFA business unit the officer was working in, years of experience of staff or the nature of work; be it administrative, policy, research, extension or training (P > 0.05, Fishers exact test).
Some SWOT factors were similar to the farmers and the focus group; however there were also issues of a higher level.
The next chapter will discuss the PEEST, the farmers SWOT, the focus group and NFA
SWOT outcomes. Findings of the farm survey will also be woven into the discussion.
128 Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 3 and 4 reported the outcomes of PEEST and SWOT analyses of fish farming in EHP. This chapter discusses findings to tease out commonalities and draw attention to implications. Lessons learnt from similar developing countries will also be used to strengthen this characterisation process. Section 5.2 discusses the influence of PEEST factors on fish farming in EHP mainly drawing on the outcomes of the farm survey.
This is followed by a review of the SWOT analysis in Section 5.3 that establishes the common factors through all stakeholder levels i.e. farmers, provincial organisations and
NFA. Finally, Section 5.4 is a synthesis of PEEST influencing factors and the validated
SWOT factors that characterises and presents implications for aquaculture in EHP.
5.2 The influence of PEEST factors on fish farming in EHP
5.2.1 Policy influence
5.2.1.1 Support for aquaculture
The PEEST analysis reveals that policy support for aquaculture is present (Table 3.9) in relevant government legislation (FMA 1998, Lands Act 1996, Environment Act 2000 and NAQIA 1997) and key national development plans (PNG Vision 2050, PNGDSP
2010-2030, NADP 2007-2016 and NFA National Aquaculture Development Policy
2004-2010). This support has underpinned government backing of the activity through various agencies with NFA mandated to manage all fisheries in PNG, including aquaculture. This has been a contributing factor to the rapid growth of fish farming in the country (Figure 3.10). Time limitations did not allow a complete census on total numbers of EHP farmers in this study. Nevertheless, the responsibility of providing overall leadership and coordination of stakeholder’s development efforts remains with 129 NFA. Current policies indicate that extension and training are primarily provincial government responsibilities. NARI is responsible for small-scale farming research that focuses on food and nutritional security (Benson, 2012; NADP 2007-2016). EHP has responded with the creation of five permanent fisheries officer positions in the provincial structure for HAQDEC and DPI (Muhuju B., 2014, pers comm, July). Table
3.10 of the PEEST analysis however shows that the lack of updated development plans, strategies and policies limits cohesion amongst stakeholders and limits the impact of interventions.
5.2.1.2 Extension and training concerns
Farm survey results indicated an overall increase in extension provided to farmers
(Figure 4.4) but incorrect farming practices (such as the pond water flow-through system) are still widely prevalent and generally passed from farmer to farmer (Edwards
2009). There is no standardised training program and associated material, which results in development stakeholders presenting variations of the same information. With different versions presented, farmers become confused and extension uptake is limited
(Oruda T. 2014, pers comm, August). Felsing and Haylor (1999) in a review of aquaculture extension in India, recommend strong collaboration amongst stakeholders and the use of appropriate extension methodology to increase the efficiency of extension and adoption. A review of all extension material led by NFA is necessary with stakeholders agreeing on acceptable standards. Following that monitoring and reviewing mechanisms can be gradually incorporated to ensure consistent updates.
5.2.1.3 Unclear prioritisation of interventions
Lack of clear prioritisation of areas of intervention to guide appropriate research has stifled progress. Emerging areas (discussed in Chapter 2 and 4) of gender, marketing, socio-economics, climate change, fish cage culture and environmental impact will
130 require better collaboration to utilise the expertise of stakeholder organizations (Figure
5.1). Halwart et al (2003) iterates the need for stronger collaboration by in-country stakeholders to develop realistic strategies and aquaculture development policies. It is essential that farmers’ views be captured in the planning process, which Care
International has shown to be valuable in their EHP projects (Sikas, H. 2014, pers comm, 12 September) to facilitate rural development. Moreover, the involvement of
Figure 5.1: Representatives from organizations participating in stakeholder focus group discussions during this study. Collaboration with effective leadership is critical. rural farmers, including women, in aquaculture planning significantly increases success and strengthens sustainability (Harper et al. 2013). Stronger partnership with local research organisations such as NARI must be fostered to bolster efficient use of resources, technical capacity and maximise outputs. Presently, there is no collaboration between NFA and NARI on aquaculture development activities despite the formal processes, plans and policies that require or should enable collaboration. NFA can provide overall coordination and direction with international development agencies playing a supporting role. Partnering an organisation with a history of local research allows for an approach that considers technologies that integrate with existing farming systems and conditions as opposed to transferring and imposing changes (Brummet &
Williams, 2000). To ensure sustainability, an evolutionary approach should be taken
131 with clear leadership and direction from the government, particularly NFA, with strong stakeholder collaboration at all levels.
5.2.2 Economic influence
5.2.2.1 Unequal development impacts
The PEEST analysis indicates that the current economic growth in PNG has been largely driven by the mineral extractive sector with annual GDP rising to 10% in 2014
(The World Bank, 2015). This growth has raised concern about “Dutch Disease” inflating the cost of living and negatively impacting the majority of the rural population who earn less than US$1 per day (Asian Development Bank, 2012). The growing inequality in distribution of wealth in PNG is an added concern with so much disparity nationwide (Banks et al, 2013). Fish farming offers an alternate income earning opportunity; however, the PEEST analysis identified weak transport infrastructure as a factor limiting marketing of rural farmed fish and purchase of required materials (Table
3.10). This unequal distribution of wealth is also reflected in development where much of the infrastructure is built in urban areas whilst those in regional settings are neglected
(Basu, 2000). Results from the farm survey reflect this with the majority of farmers selling in their communities being unable to transport product to better markets (Figure
4.7). Ahmed and Lorica (2002), in reviewing aquaculture in rural Asia, report that selling in local communities increased fish supply and reduced fish prices often discouraging farmers. On the other hand, facilitating access to urban markets where demand and purchasing power was higher enabled economic growth and rural development. Furthermore, Barclay and Kinch (2013) show that in PNG, the current cost of getting fresh fish to market and transporting input back onsite far outweigh benefits. The farm survey results reflect this with the inability to mobilise basic equipment or materials and limited access to credit as being the two major constraints
132 (Table 4.5). Lack of appropriate skills, limited transport infrastructure and buying power effectively stifles development. Essentially, whilst the national economy is growing, benefits are not evenly distributed (Ellis & Darko, 2013) thus limiting the majority of rural farmers in realising their true potential.
5.2.2.2 Emergence of aquaculture SME
The PEEST review identified that the governments key policy response is to reinvest income from the non-renewable sector into renewable activities particularly in primary industry (National Strategic Plan Task Force, 2009). An outcome of this direction is the current government drive to encourage the growth of rural SME’s as a means of broadening to economic base to cushion the impact of “Dutch Disease” (Investment
Promotion Authority, 2015). The farm survey shows that farmers have recognised the opportunities presented by the growing economy. For instance, currently 24% of farmers are entirely dependent on aquaculture for their income compared to none that considered their main employment in 2003 (Figure 4.3). Furthermore, despite transport infrastructure and marketing constraints, there are 16% more farmers in EHP selling in the formal urban markets in 2014 than the PNG average in 2003 (Table 4.4). This indicates a natural evolution in fish farming from primarily food security to an emerging subset of farmers that are commercially driven. Similar trends are reported in Asia where aquaculture has significantly improved rural household earnings with an increasing subset totally dependent on fish farming for income (Ahmed & Lorica,
2002). Brummet and Williams (2000) in a review of rural African aquaculture support this natural trend of SME development as opposed to international donor and government driven commercialisation programs that have widely proven unsustainable.
In EHP, development stakeholder interventions should rather be focussed on research, training, extension, infrastructure and credit support as shown in other developing
133 nations (Edwards 2000). The emerging subset of semi-commercial operators should not be ignored rather; plans and strategies must be developed to support this group.
5.2.2.3 Government financial support
Results of the PEEST indicate that the government of PNG has made available a total of
K7 million credit for aquaculture initiatives through selected financial institutions
(MiBank, 2013; NFA, 2013). The farm survey showed that whilst farmers were aware of the credit facility, they did not know how to access the funding and felt this inability was a significant constraint (Table 4.5). The need for further awareness and possible training to enable utilisation of this credit funding is imperative. Associated skills in basic book keeping and management will also add value to entrepreneurial farmers and strengthen their ability to repay loans. The other major aquaculture funding opportunity revealed in Chapter 3 is the PDF grant provided by NFA. Calls for application are made annually with farmers submitting proposals. A selection committee within NFA assesses proposals and identifies recipients for grant funding. Since 2005 more than K1 million has been disbursed annually through the scheme (Pama G., 2014, pers comm,
October). Farmers were very much aware of the existence of the scheme, in fact, the rapid growth of fish farming has partly been because of non-genuine farmers digging ponds to access the grant and then spending the money on activities that weren’t aquaculture related (Vira & Maineva, 2015). Frustration was also expressed about non- genuine farmers who received grants and spend funds on non-aquaculture related purposes (Anako K., 2014, pers comm, June). The absence of robust PDF grant monitoring and evaluation mechanisms within NFA is a factor that allows this practice.
Only through consistent monitoring and evaluation can issues be identified and processes strengthened to ensure success (Douvere & Ehler, 2010). There is need for an
134 overall review on the PDF grant to measure its impact on aquaculture and key improvements made to limit abuse and maximise benefits.
5.2.3 Natural environment influence
5.2.3.1 Extensive use of rivers
The PEEST review showed that PNG has some of Earth’s greatest biodiversity, containing 6 to 7% within 1% of the world’s landmass (DEC, 2007). The diverse topography creates different ecosystems from coastal reefs, islands, lowland plains, swamps, through to lower montane forests that support the biodiversity. Extensive river systems braid the topography with a cumulative flow rate of 5000m3 per second annually (Berdach & Mandeakali, 2005). The abundant water flow and pristine environmental condition supports freshwater aquaculture. The farm survey indicates that 96% of operations used rivers or streams for intake and discharge with a significant majority operating a flow-through system (Table 4.3). There has been little studied about the impact of aquaculture on the environment in PNG. Boyd (2003) in research on aquaculture effluents, suggests key environmental concerns in developing countries to be: conversion of agricultural land to aquaculture; excessive use of water for pond filling; pollution of water bodies from aquaculture effluents; spread of disease from culture to wild stock; and the negative impact on native biodiversity from aquaculture escapees.
5.2.3.2 Increased competition for resources
Research in Asia suggests that whilst small-scale pond aquaculture currently has little impact on the environment, competition with other users will increase as population grows and agriculture (and aquaculture) intensifies (Beveridge et al, 1997). More recent studies suggest integrated agriculture-aquaculture to promote synergies that increase
135 efficiency and can reduce environmental impact (Prein, 2002). The survey shows the majority of farmers in EHP are smallholder agriculturalists with fish farming a component of their operations (Table 4.2). Integrating aquaculture with agriculture can help insure farmers against major losses or threats to food and income security
(Edwards, 2000). Investigations into this area will become more critical as rural population increases and competition for resources intensifies (Godfray et al, 2010). An indication of this is a decrease in total area farmed by 23% since 2003 even though the number of farmers has significantly grown (Table 4.3). Further support is provided in the 2014 survey results (Table 4.5) where farmers considered limited access to water as being one of the top five constraints in contrast to it not being mentioned in 2003.
Similar trends are being experienced in Asia (Dey et al, 2000). Berg et al (1996) call for increased integration of aquaculture with agriculture through irrigation, which significantly reduces environmental impact and improves net production. Moreover,
Godfray et al (2010) shows that with irrigation, agriculture production substantially increases. Results from the PEEST review and farm survey pointedly suggest that with the growing population, increased conflicts for natural resources can be expected and therefore integrated farming systems for smallholders should be investigated in EHP.
5.2.3.3 Limited knowledge of environmental impact
Associated studies on aquaculture’s environmental impacts are equally important to establish a baseline for future monitoring. Current levels of fish farming in EHP are mainly extensive small-scale operations, similar to rural Asian areas, which pose little threat to the environment (Beveridge et al, 1997). However, considering the intrinsic relationship where the expansion of aquaculture is limited by its impact on the environment (Berg et al, 1996), the concerns raised by Boyd (2003) are relevant in
EHP. For instance, the incorrect practice of flow-through discussed in previous sections,
136 contributes to excessive water use and needs to be addressed through effective extension programs. There is also an absence of baseline data on the impact of aquaculture effluent on receiving water bodies. Aquaculture effluents are recognised as significant environmental pollutants (Godfray et al, 2010; Boyd, 2003) and therefore, as farming intensifies, effective monitoring will be essential to manage impacts. The PEEST review indicates that relevant environmental protections laws are in place to regulate effluent discharge. These rules apply to operations producing more than 10 tonnes per year or use more than 1 hectare of land for ponds or 1 hectare of water for cages
(Section 3.3.1.1 Aquaculture operations). Typically, most farmers do not operate at this level and do not require a permit; however, no study has been made to establish the cumulative impact of smallholder ponds operating in a given area. With the current widespread increase in numbers of farmers (Figure 3.10), the total environmental impact of smallholders may be ignored on the assumption that individual operations produce insignificant effluent levels. There is a need to understand these issues in EHP and to establish a baseline to aid future monitoring as fish farming increases. The
PEEST review indicates that aquaculture in PNG is currently disease free (Table 3.5).
This status does not preclude the need for the development of appropriate farm management guidelines, including strengthening NAQIA import processes (Section
3.3.1.1 Disease control). Intensification of aquaculture increases probability for disease with cage culture being a typical method of intensifying fish farming (Beveridge et al,
1997). The EHP farm survey indicates 10% of respondents are cage culture operators where there were none in 2003 (Table 4.3). Cage farmers are producing three times the amount of fish per hectare than pond culture (Figure 4.5), supply formulated feed twice a day and are selling regularly to established markets. Numbers of farmers are growing with the more serious operations investing significantly, including importing specialised
137 material from China (Yongomugl, G. 2013, pers comm, September). The economic influence previously discussed and the demand for farmed fish is spurring this growth.
Furthermore, Gupta and Acosta (2004) posit that cage culture is easier for rural farmers to manage as reproduction and inbreeding are minimised with breeding disrupted.
Considering that the area of a reservoir is finite and therefore its carrying capacity is limited, developments of appropriate management measures including environmental impact assessments are indispensable. Waste from the cages enters the water body and contributes to: general pollution; water quality issues that impact production; and increased conflict with other users (Beveridge et al, 1997). The need to establish the carrying capacity of the Yonki reservoir as well as the current and projected environmental impacts of cage culture is therefore critical. Recommended stocking densities at Yonki conditions also need to be confirmed along the lines of previous work by Hair et al (2006) to ensure optimum growth and to reduce disease outbreaks. Work done in EHP can then be tailored to set environmental guidelines for larger pond and mariculture development in PNG.
5.2.3.4 Climate change
As raised in the literature review the issue of climate change has implications for food security in the Pacific and justifies aquaculture as mitigation (Section 2.2.3.1). Predicted warmer sea temperatures and rising water levels will affect coastal ecosystems and threaten coastal agriculture and fisheries (Bell et al, 2013; Lehoday et al, 1997); aquaculture therefore offers an alternative. The PEEST review suggests higher air temperatures, shorter more intense rainy seasons and long dry seasons in EHP (Section
3.3.3.2). Predicted warmer temperatures will support improved fish growth (Baras et al,
2001) at higher and previously cooler inland altitudes. Although better fish production can be anticipated, Cochrane et al (2009) suggest that the possibility of new pests and
138 disease outbreaks not be ignored. Farmers in the survey alluded to flash flooding during unusually heavy rainy seasons with associated landslides affecting water supply. Site selection is a proactive measure to avoid loss from flooding and to ensure consistent water supply. Farmers need to be properly educated though effective extension programs. Additionally, appropriate mapping of recommended aquaculture areas based on current and predicted environmental parameters such as water, soil, topography and temperature is critical. This will assist extension officers, researchers, fisheries managers and farmers in decision-making. It is therefore imperative that NFA and EHP partner with local research institutions such as NARI with extensive mapping capacity to undertake this baseline work.
5.2.4 Social influence
5.2.4.1 Aquaculture suits rural lifestyle
The PEEST review describes 85% of PNG’s population as rural-based and dependent on subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods. This is reflected in the farm survey where 100% of the interviews were in villages with 93% of respondents being smallholder agriculturalists (Table 4.2). Similar scenarios are common in much of the developing world with global aquaculture production dominated by rural smallholder subsistence operations (Silva et al, 2006). The simple skillset requirement and ability of fish farming to fit into the lifestyle of rural families has facilitated its widespread adoption (Edwards, 2000). Smallholders in PNG typically farm diverse crops (Coelli &
Fleming, 2004) with time and labour divvied accordingly. The farm survey reflected this with most operations family owned by households of six or more individuals with all contributing to the tasks (Table 4.2). Fish in an extensive system can be left for two to three days without feeding whilst other chores, cultural or community obligations are attended too. In contrast, other common rural livestock such as pigs or chickens have to
139 be fed daily. Furthermore, with only 14.5% of the population with access to electricity in PNG (The World Bank, 2015) rural areas lack refrigeration therefore animals killed have to be eaten within a day or two. Fishponds on the other hand, allow partial harvest for meals without the need for storage, thus providing household protein over a longer period. More investigation is required to ascertain the compatibility of fish farming to rural society to further justify its promotion in EHP.
5.2.4.2 Intervention for malnutrition
The survey results indicate that 75% of farmers were involved primarily for household nutrition and occasional sales of surplus (Figure 4.3). For rural families, having a regular source of protein or an alternate income option is significant. Fish farming was first introduced to address the poor nutrition of inland populations (Schuster, 1951) and continues to be a reason for its promotion (NFA, 2004). Malnutrition remains a problem in rural PNG; in fact, recent studies establish it as a direct or contributing cause of
45.5% of hospitalised child mortalities (Aipit et al, 2014). The impact on rural health has yet to be ascertained; however Smith et al (2007) reports that fish farming households have a higher frequency of protein in diets than non-fish farming. The
PEEST review, however, indicates that the contribution of women to household nutrition is largely ignored. This is despite the fact that women play a critical in rural households, with more than 90% involved in primary industry production (Omot, 2012) and 50% of fish farming chores are done by women (Smith et al, 2007). Females continue to be marginalised through social and cultural barriers. For instance, 96% of the farms in the survey were male-owned (Table 4.2) reflecting customary land ownership norms in EHP. Omot (2012) therefore suggests that for household nutrition to be strengthened, social constraints and barriers to information, credit and trade facing women must be comprehensively addressed. Chapter 3 (Section 3.3.4.3) indicates that
140 the government has recognised and is intervening through policy and laws. However, considering how prevalent malnutrition is and the potential alleviation fish farming presents, more urgency is required to address gender issues in aquaculture. Kawarazuka and Béné (2010) in a review of aquacultures contribution to household nutrition in Asia, emphasise the need to capture women’s views and to strengthen female participation in all interventions. Moreover, removing barriers to women’s involvement in primary industry ultimately strengthens household nutrition in rural PNG (Omot, 2012). In EHP, barriers preventing women from fully participating in fish farming need to be identified and interventions designed to mitigate. Also, the contribution of fish farming to addressing malnutrition must be scientifically ascertained to further strengthen the role of aquaculture. The involvement of women in fish farming and rural household nutrition are therefore critical matters requiring attention to strengthen sustainability.
5.2.4.3 Contribution to rural development
The influence of PNG’s high population growth on rural communities is disclosed in the
PEEST review (Sections 3.3.4.1 and 3.3.4.2). The increasing numbers of people has resulted in more competition for rural resources (Ningal et al, 2008) giving rise to tribal fighting (Mathew, 1996) and other social problems such as stealing by landless individuals. The farm survey reflects this situation where farmers consistently identified limited access to water and stealing (law and order) within their top five constraints
(Table 4.5). Further indication of resource competition is a decrease by 23% of the average total pond area per farmer from 2003 to 2014 (Table 4.3). The PEEST review suggests that this situation along with a lack of rural government services and limited opportunities has driven many to find employment in urban areas. This has further exacerbated unemployment leading to increased social problems including an adult prevalence rate of 0.7% for HIV in PNG (UNAids, 2013). To drive rural development
141 to counter these issues, the government has incepted district improvement programs
(Section 3.3.4.2) focussed on infrastructure and service improvement (Hasnain et al,
2011) to stimulate growth. Halwart et al (2003) in a review of aquacultures emerging role, attests that a vibrant smallholder primary industry is a cornerstone of rural development and fish farming is a significant emerging contributor. The farm survey indicates an emerging subsector (24%) that operates as the household’s primary means of income generation (Figure 4.3). These individuals have established regular markets in urban centres (Figure 4.7) and are consistently supplying farmed fish thus creating regular income for their households (Figure 5.2). The main constraints of these farmers were the lack of basic business management skills, post-harvest handling and knowledge of how to access credit. Edwards (2000), in promoting aquaculture as a useful development tool, emphasises the role of government to provide extension services, facilitate credit access, develop policy and intervene through research.
Furthermore, aquaculture research in a developing country suggests that farmer driven commercialization through natural progression is more sustainable. The government’s role should rather be supportive and create an enabling environment (Brummett &
Williams, 2000). The survey also revealed the potential of fish farming to change former misfits to become productive members of rural communities (Section 4.3.1.4). In fact, Singas and Manus (2014) in a study of aquaculture skills uptake in rural PNG, found that aquaculture decreased urban-drift and reduced rural crime. Similar cases have been reported in the past (Wani et al, 2012) further strengthening the role of aquaculture as a rural and community development tool. For EHP, further in-depth economic analysis of fish farming is required to identify characteristics, the constraints and interventions required. Addressing the barriers will allow aquaculture farmers to maximise the benefits of current district development initiatives, improve their
142 livelihoods and contribute to rural growth. This also reinforces the role of fish farming in nation building.
Figure 5.2: Cage culture of GIFT fish in the Yonki reservoir is increasing with farmers consistently selling to organised markets (Picture: Vira H., 2015) 5.2.5 Technical influence
5.2.5.1 Introduction of GIFT
The PEEST review reveals that freshwater fish farming is the largest sector of aquaculture in PNG, contributing 98% of total production (Figure 3.9). One reason for this dominance is the amount of research that has been invested in this sector. For instance the PEEST review shows that the introduction of GIFT fish has improved fingerling availability, increased production and enabled widespread uptake of fish farming (Section 3.3.5.1). GIFT’s prolific breeding in ponds and fast growth rates have impressed former carp farmers (Smith 2013). Farming in EHP reflects this as currently
95% of operations culture GIFT, in contrast to 90% using carp in 2003 (Table 4.3).
Also, estimated production has increased from 985kg/ha to 3,400kg/ha, although more thorough research is required to confirm this. More significantly the proportion of farmers as fingerlings source has increased eight times with government hatchery decreasing from 90% to 55% since the introduction of GIFT in 2002. The availability and affordability (Table 4.4) of fingerlings has been a major determining factor in the uptake of fish farming in EHP (Smith, 2013). Dey (2000) in evaluating the impact of
GIFT on Asian aquaculture concludes that GIFT introduction: increases fish production;
143 improves farming profitability; lowers the price of fish; increases fish consumption; and improves rural economies. Whilst the survey indicates that fish production has improved in EHP, further work is required to determine socio-economic impacts. For instance, the cost of a kilogram of fish in 2003 would be K18.29 in 2014 using an average inflation rate of 7.17% (Trading Economics, 2015). In contrast to Dey (2000),
2014 farm survey results imply that the cost of fish has doubled. This could indicate a higher value on farmed fish by consumers or there is there not enough supply on the market to reduce prices. Nevertheless, GIFT has matched EHP conditions with its suitability to extensive or intensive farming, hardiness, wide temperature tolerance and consumer acceptance (Gupta & Acosta, 2004). Moreover, Dey (2000) claims that the main beneficiaries of GIFT introduction are small to medium scale semi-intensive operations. The introduction of the GIFT fish strain has therefore changed inland aquaculture in EHP with more research needed to quantify impacts and strengthen the contribution of fish farming to rural economies.
5.2.5.2 Development of formulated feed
The PEEST analysis reports that production of locally formulated fish feed in PNG commenced in 2005 but began to consistenly supplying nationwide from 2008 (Section
3.3.5.3). This development was a significant step built on preceeding research
(Minimulu, 2004; Gonzalez & Allan, 2007) as it enabled the smallholder culture of carnivorous species and semi-intensive tilapia farming. For instance, cage culture of fish which is dependent on formulated diets for production, now comprises 10% of farmers in EHP (Table 4.3). This subsector is a major purchaser of fish feed (Vira & Manieva,
2014) with much of the fish production destined for established markets, making cage- culture an emerging fisheries SME in EHP. Hasan (2000), in a review of global aquaculture nutrition, professes that aquaculture growth is driven by semi-intensive
144 smallholder farmers in developing countries with a growing requirement for better diets for fish. This subsequently compels continued research to ensure the development of cost-effective diets that are also socially and environmentally acceptable. For example, alternative ingredient sources need to be identified to mitigate competion for feed constituents with other livestock feed producers as revelaed in the PEEST results
(Section 3.3.5.3). On the other hand, the survey also reveals the significant majority of farmers feeding vegetables hence relying on natural production to grow their animals
(Figure 4.6). This practice is also typical in other developing countries therefore understanding the natural food availability; fertilization sources and rates; and pond ecology are factors that are vital to improving production (Hasan, 2000). As 87% of farmers in EHP rely on natural production for fish growth, investigations into this area are of significance. Of equal importance is the need for improved extension to facilitate the uptake of correct farming practices based on local conditions. Smith (2012) calls for improved extension whilst reporting that incorrect fertilization is still widespread with untrained farmer’s often killing fish (consequence of low dissolved oxygen levels from over fertilisation). Results from the PEEST analysis and farm survey suggest that EHP aquaculture has developed a semi-intensive smallholder subsector as a outcome of fish feed development. There is need for continued improvement of current diets and also for increased understanding of feeds and fertilization regimes for extensive pond systems.
5.2.5.3 Capacity limitations
The PEEST analysis reveals a dearth of technical capacity to drive research, extension and management of aquaculture in PNG (Section 3.3.5.4). At present less than 40 officers of varying educational levels and years of experience that are spread throughout different levels and arms of government and NGOs. There are differing degrees of
145 interaction and connectivity amongst individuals but this group ultimately forms the nucleus that is responsible for all aquaculture development and extension for the 60,000 plus farmers. The lack of skilled officers is a reason for 70% of PNG farmers not receiving any extension in 2003 with some improvement in 2014 with 50% of EHP farmers trained (Figure 4.4). The survey reveals the prevalence of incorrect practices
(Section 4.3.1.2) that have been passed from farmer to farmer. Suggestions have been made to prioritise farmer to farmer extension (Smith, 2012; Brummett & Williams,
2000) however Edwards (2009) highlights the danger of incorrect practices becoming embedded in largely illiterate communities who learn by observation. Donor interventions in the past have focussed on farmer training (Smith, 2012) with a handful of officers undergoing short-term and post graduate training. Furthermore, with limited capacity to address all aquaculture issues, NFA has furnished extension responsibility to provinces (Wani, 2004). The combined result has been a growth in numbers of farmers with the ratio of skilled technical officers not keeping up. Sanni et al (2009) in a review of aquaculture extension in Nigeria, identifies limited numbers of adequately trained officers as an underlying cause for farmers not achieving their potential. This further led to aquaculture being given less priority than agriculture and livestock. This can be changed in EHP where the HAQDEC facility can be used to train district agriculture extension officers. Refresher, beginner and advanced programs can be regularly offered to facilitate correct farming practices and to extend research findings (Adams et al,
2001). Production growth and associated rural socio-economic improvements as a result of upskilled officers will add further impetus to fish farming and its subsequent prioritisation. Additionally, development partners should be encouraged to consider capacity building as a collaborative area. Post-graduate training of specialised officers is of acute limitation, particularly to lead research (Muhuju B. 2014, pers comm, 13
146 September). Associated with this; the lack of university level courses (Wani, 2004) and even curriculum material at the high school and primary school levels preclude early awareness. The training of the next generation of aquaculture researchers and extension officers is paramount to ensuring sustainability. Brummett and Williams (2000) in reviewing fish farming in Africa, espouse that aquaculture development should be smallholder focussed and integrate relevant research with effective extension programs.
Therefore, EHP must clearly expound its vision for aquaculture in order to allow donor agencies and NGO’s to align their interventions with government priorities.
5.3 Common SWOT factors of aquaculture in EHP
Results in Chapter 4 present factors that each level of participation considers are
SWOTs of fish farming in EHP. This starts with farmers, then provincial development partners and finally NFA. The outcomes therefore reflect the views of each group; this section presents and discusses SWOT factors common throughout the three levels. In essence, it validates and assists to characterise aquaculture in EHP.
5.3.1 Strengths
Eight common strengths factors are evident from the results in Chapter 4 (Appendix D,
Table 1). All three groups agree that fingerling availability, also discussed in Section
5.2.5, has been a major catalyst to strengthening aquaculture in EHP. Smith (2012) iterates that the ability of GIFT to meet the demand of more than one million fingerlings per annum has facilitated the growth of fish farming in PNG. Quality of fingerlings can be maintained through training of fingerling producers and the implementation of a national broodstock management program. Ponzoni et al (2007) in an economic analysis of GIFT culture found that ensuring genetic quality through a broodstock management program was significantly beneficial. The same study recommended a
147 model where the government maintained the nucleus genetic pool and periodically supplied quality broodstock to certified hatcheries who in turn produced fingerlings for grow-out farmers. Considering the limited management skills of the bulk of EHP farmers, this model should be deliberated further to ensure fingerling availability and quality is strengthened.
The second strength is the local production of feed in EHP. As discussed previously, this factor has facilitated semi-intensive farming (Section 5.2.5). The limiting factor to feed production is the high cost of imported raw ingredients and the competition with other livestock feed producers for those materials (Vira & Manieva, 2015). Research is required to develop quality diets using alternate locally available sources. Work is currently being done by ACIAR and NARI to develop cheaper aquaculture diets (Glatz,
2012). Furthermore, recent work by Narimbi (2015) on feed uptake by pond cultured
GIFT presents options to reduce costs and dependency on formulated feeds. With the facility and skills currently available, the work on feed should be strengthened to support fish farming
The three groups perceived the presence of local expertise as a strength of aquaculture in the province. EHP is a special case due to the presence of HAQDEC, which ensures that aquaculture officers are available. There remains however, critical need to recruit new talent and to upskill existing officers. On the national scale however, there is a significant shortage of technical officers, hence the need for strategies that enable recruitment and specialised training.
The fourth strength that all agreed was the recognition by the government and development partners that aquaculture was a legitimate rural development tool. This ensures wider support for the activity; however more needs to be done in terms of reporting on impacts in environment, gender, malnutrition and other particularly socio-
148 economic areas. The lack of reporting has relegated fish-farming below chicken and pork even though it is the fastest growing primary industry activity (Wani, 2004) and complements rural lifestyle.
The three groups felt the EHP Fish Farmers Cooperative was a positive initiative by
NFA as it created an avenue for farmers to interact. There are capacity issues in terms of management that limit its effectivity as shown by some farmers not being aware of the cooperatives existence. Nevertheless, if constraints can be addressed, the cooperative can become a valuable contributor as shown in other parts of South East Asia (Joshi et al, 2004).
The sixth strength was similar to the fourth but differed in that the significance of NFAs role to coordinate existing NGOs in EHP was recognised. This role is alluded to in the
FMA 1998 and needs to be strengthened through better partnership with the provincial
DPI to improve NFA representation. Improved coordination by NFA will ensure cohesive development with all parties aware of roles and responsibilities.
All groups agreed that HAQDEC was a potentially a strength for aquaculture in EHP.
This unique facility allows for research and training (Figure 5.3). Although under- staffed, under-resourced and under-utilised, basic infrastructure is already present and can only be improved or expanded. Current discussions to transfer management of the facility of the facility from the province to NFA (Muhuju B., 2014, pers comm, 12
September) make sense, considering its more national role.
Figure 5.3: Pond Block A at HAQDEC used for research and training. Laboratory and office facilities are also available (Picture: Vira H., 2015) 149
The final common strength is that farmers training and extension programs are established and have been implemented for over 15 years. Associated extension material, particularly carp and trout training manuals (Wani et al, 1995) developed under the JICA program continue to be reprinted and are available. There are also more recent SPC produced tilapia farming manuals (Nandlal & Pickering, 2004) that are also widely accessible. These training programs also need to be titivated to reflect feedback by farmers such as the need for basic book keeping and post-harvest handling skills.
5.3.2 Weaknesses
Eight weaknesses were considered common amongst the three groups (Appendix D,
Table 1). Firstly, farmers lack essential skills to improve their operations. For instance, basic fish husbandry, book keeping and postharvest handling skills are clearly absent and knowledge on site selection, water control, pond fertilization and pond construction is weak. Furthermore limited understanding and requisite ability to access credit from available financial sources is an impediment to growth. Also a lack of management capacity severely handicaps farmers cooperatives.
The next weakness of aquaculture in EHP is the high feed cost and inconsistent supply.
Whilst the presence of expertise and facilities is a strength, the price and variable availability are negatives. As identified in the previous section (5.2.5) this is largely due to high cost of ingredients and the competition with other livestock feed producers for the same ingredients. Since feed constitutes up to 60% of farming costs (Gonzalez &
Allan, 2007) it is imperative that alternate locally available ingredients are identified and relevant research undertaken to produce affordable quality feed. Also, similar effort needs to be expended into fertilization regimes to improve productivity in small ponds as this is how the majority of fish farmers currently operate. Future studies building on
150 work by Narimbi (2015) will consider effective feed and fertilizer strategies that intend to reduce costs, improve production and increase returns for small-scale pond farmers
(Sammut & Wani, 2014).
The third common weakness was a lack of organised marketing options or strategies and plans to develop such. Whilst much focus is on strengthening food security, it would be unfair to ignore the entrepreneurial sub-sector that endeavour to make a living from fish farming. Essentially, in the spirit of the FMA 1998, NFA is required to support commercial initiatives. Furthermore, as discussed previously (Section 5.2.2), the current governments policy to strengthen SMEs dictates that government agencies support such small-scale ventures. The lack of any plans or strategies by NFA or
EHDPI to enable marketing contravenes the intent of fisheries legislation and government aspirations.
The fourth weakness is related to the first but concerns the lack of appropriate updated standardised extension material and limited use of available media in raising awareness.
Material that was developed during the JICA project and by SPC is widely available but has not been reviewed or updated to reflect current PNG conditions and emerging issues. Another concern is the lack of coordination and standardisation of training delivered by various development partners. Finally, more effort should be made to engage with the print media and strategies need to be developed to utilise social-media platforms present in PNG.
A significant weakness all groups agree is the absence of an updated strategic development plan with appropriate policies from provincial through to NFA levels. This vacuum results in the lack of strategies and direction that impacts all stakeholders. The lack of a consistently updated provincial database feeding into a national storage is also a contributing factor. Aquaculture is growing rapidly but there is limited stakeholder
151 coordination by NFA through mechanisms such as the NADMAC. Stakeholders have little comprehension about the government’s vision, much less their roles and responsibility in the activity. This in turn leads to the aquaculture sector being unable to connect with potential development partners such as politicians, donor organizations, and NGO's. Halwart et al (2003) express that coordination of stakeholders is a critical area in aquaculture development to avoid inevitable stagnancy. It is imperative that this situation be corrected, as consequences may be dire.
The sixth weakness of aquaculture in EHP is the alleged abuse and misuse of NFA PDF grants. Loopholes in the application process as well as lack of monitoring after providing grants has resulted in this situation. For instance, provinces are expected to endorse applications before submission; this process is sometimes not followed. Also, as expressed in the PEEST analysis; very little monitoring is undertaken by NFA in the provinces on the impact of the PDF. This gives rise to a false growth of aquaculture as people enter fish farming to solicit the grant and ultimately spend on non-fish related activities. Ironically, it is the maligned provincial fisheries officers that ultimately face disgruntled genuine farmers with high expectations (Kiafuli S., 2014, pers comm, 12
Sept). This has also contributed to officers hesitating to visit certain areas where there are disgruntled farmers, hence affecting extension. An independent review commissioned by NFA is therefore necessary and EHDPI should also develop in-house strategies to manage the PDF submission process and assistance in the monitoring aspects as well.
The three groups agree that with limited technical officers, coverage of the whole province, let alone the country, is unlikely. Most trained officers are employed by NFA and are therefore centrally located or tied to NFAs programs. EHDPI needs to consider strategies that negates reliance on NFA and builds capacity in province. Related to this
152 weakness is the lack of technical officers in specialised areas such as: disease, environment, genetics, nutrition, economics, engineering and research. The previous section (5.2.5) discusses this in detail; however it is clear that the lack of trained officers contributes to limited extension and the prevalence of incorrect farming practices. Also the fifth weakness is a significant contributing factor to this situation. The lack of a development plan limits any projection of future programs and required manpower and appropriate skills. The argument for training of farmers to conduct extension has its merits, however, Edwards (2009) warns that total dependence on trained farmers to conduct extension in PNG is risky, especially without verification of their knowledge and impact. The need for trained officers will remain critical until the majority of farmers exhibit correct farming practices with reasonable production outputs.
Finally, the absence of a local equipment supplier of basic aquaculture requirements
(such as seine nets, hapa nets, air stones, and air blowers) was considered a weakness by all groups. Farmers have had to make-do with what is available such as bicycle pumps for aeration and string bags for sein-nets. This can pass for small-pond farming with small numbers of fish; it will not work for large semi-intensive operations. For instance, fish cage farmers are being forced to import material from China to operate and have no local ice-supplier to keep fish fresh. The presence of a local supplier will remove a bottleneck and improve efficiency in many semi-intensive operations. Requests for material and equipment sources are currently encountered (Sien R., pers comm, 13
September); this is expected to increase over the medium term as more farmers commercialise in response to the economic climate and the governments SME policy discussed in the previous section (5.2.2).
153 5.3.3 Opportunities
Five factors are considered opportunities for aquaculture in EHP by the three groups
(Appendix D, Table 1). Firstly, farmers and their communities are receptive to training and extension programs. The farm survey and SWOT interviews indicate that farmers aren’t adequately trained and require more site visits and targeted training programs.
They are also willing to receive information or updates via media including social media. This attitude creates a healthy environment where carefully tailored programs can support the uptake of knowledge by farmers. It also allows for follow-up programs that entail impact monitoring to be implemented. EHP should seek to develop strategies that utilise this opportunity and maximise the impact of planned extension, awareness and training interventions.
Farmers are also willing to work with all stakeholders, which allows for interaction with
NGOs, donors and the governments support for fish farming. The SWOT interviews indicate that even though the activities of development organisations did not reach some locations, farmers expressed an inclination to collaborate with all entities. This includes participating in field trials or surveys for regional and international research organisations. This form of technical assistance is now increasingly accessible for aquaculture development. Furthermore, EHP communities are willing to actively participate in rural development planning including aquaculture project planning.
The third opportunity all concurred is that the climate and environment are conducive for fish farming. This has been the case in the past (Smith et al, 2007) and the PEEST review (Section 5.2.3) suggests that temperatures will increase from climate change further enhancing fish growth and productivity in EHP. Additionally, the pristine environmental conditions support the disease-free status of aquaculture in PNG, which suggests a marketing opportunity.
154 There is widespread and growing demand for aquaculture technology. All stakeholder groups subscribe that this factor presents an opportunity for government and development partners to promote the activity. Educational institutions are receptive to the introduction of aquaculture as a subject or a course in primary through to university levels as well as vocational/adult learning centers. To develop the next generation of officers, farmers and researchers, it is imperative that collaboration be pursued with the education sector. The fish for prisons initiative by NFA also needs to be reinforced by
EHP to ensure rehabilitated prisoners become contributing members of society.
Associated with the demand for the technology is the demand for farmed fish by a growing population in in rural and urban areas. The EHP farm survey results denote a high demand for fish, reflecting similar claims in work done in Morobe Province
(Singas and Manus, 2014). An outcome of this demand for aquaculture is increased credit and government funding for the development of SMEs in the primary industry sector with specific finance for aquaculture. Strategies are required to address bottlenecks such as weak transport infrastructure and limited support services
(equipment and ice). Only then can EHP capitalise on this advantageous environment for growth.
The final opportunity all agreed was the increased demand for feed. Farmers are realising the impact of feed on growth as they become more commercially focussed.
The increased demand for fish previously discussed, will entail improved production, which in turn will require more feed. The fact that fishmeal is commercially produced in-country enables the possibility of up scaling current feed production levels if needed.
However, more research is required to develop alternate ingredient sources, improve feed quality and price. Also, a better understanding of the economics of feed production is necessary. The vision should be to allow the private sector to take over production
155 whilst government continues with research. Nevertheless, the growing demand for feed is an opportunity that EHP and NFA need to exploit and use development partners to establish strategies to address.
5.3.4 Threats
The SWOT results indicate seven threats that are common to all three groups (Appendix
D, Table 1). Firstly, the deteriorating transport infrastructure that constrains aquaculture extension and marketing of products. Farmers are discouraged by bad roads, which limit access to better markets and increase freight costs. In fact, Gibson and Rozelle (2003) show that costs in PNG increase by 3% for every hour walked from accessible roads.
Fish farmers are also competing with other livestock so high transport overheads cut profits and become a disincentive for commercial fish farming. Furthermore, the increasing cost of goods and services as a result of “Dutch Disease” is also a discouraging factor. EHP should consider strategies that utilise the fisheries cooperative to enable marketing and also assist farmers access available credit facilities.
Increasing social (law and order) issues significantly affect plans, programmes and projects. Holden (2015) reports PNG as being a difficult place to do business as a result of the law and order problems. These issues affect extension, research, farmers production, marketing and other NGO interventions. For instance, prolonged tribal fighting in the past has resulted in ponds being abandoned and the farmer having to start from nothing (Anako K., 2014, pers comm, October). Similarly, stealing from ongoing research trials impact outcomes and affect staff morale (Kerowa, 2015). This is a crosscutting issue that requires a multi-sectoral approach. An immediate strategy for fish farming may be to have ponds closer to farmers dwellings and improving fencing and security measures at research facilities. Additionally, communities surround research facilities can be involved in on farm trials and extension programs.
156 The third common threat all groups agreed was that administrative decisions, slow government processes and political changes impacted plans, programs and projects. The province, in particular, is impaired by this barrier with delayed funding allocation often halting progress. Benson (2012) in a study on fisheries in PNG confirms that provincial programs are often constrained by administrative processes and sluggish disbursement of funds and to address this, NFA has allocated provincial development grants under an
MOA arrangement. Funds can be drawn down through submission of budgeted programs to the Provincial Support and Industry Development (PSID) Unit. EHP should utilise this provision to support its development plans.
Cross-border invasive aquatic species as well as imported pests and diseases present a significant risk to the industry. Gherke (2012) describes three Asian invasive fish species that entered the Fly River system in the late 1980’s from Indonesia and have now established natural populations in PNG. The striped snakehead (Channa striata), walking catfish (Clarias batrachus) and climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) have spread eastward with confirmed report of their presence in the Kikori River and even further near Port Moresby. Their air-breathing capability, hardiness, prolific breeding and voracious appetite ensure survival. In ponds, they would quickly reduce cultured populations and introduce parasites and diseases. Although temperatures are cooler in the highlands, the onset of climate change may facilitate their survival at higher altitudes. Furthermore, the absence of a specialised aquatic biosecurity officer is also a concern that NFA needs to consider. With effective monitoring by adequately trained officers the risks can be managed to acceptable levels. Also as aquaculture production intensifies the risk of disease will also grow, prompting the need for better farm management by producers. Semi-commercial operators in EHP need to be trained and
157 made aware of the risk of disease as they intensify and proactive measures, such as environmental monitoring, implemented to reduce threats.
The fifth threat is that the limited range of identified local feed ingredients poses a threat for fish feed production. The current ingredients used, other than fishmeal, are all imported and are also used in other livestock feeds (Vira & Manieva, 2015). More established feed producers regularly bulk purchase these ingredients, leaving little for aquaculture. Furthermore, the high cost of imported ingredients increases the cost of feed, which becomes a disincentive for farmers. Although government policy intervention may be an option, the negative ramifications for more established livestock limit this possibility. Research into alternate locally available ingredients and feeds is an option that has been explored in the past (Gonzalez & Allan, 2007) and continues to remain a priority (Glatz, 2012; Sammut & Wani, 2014). EHP must support ongoing research and identify progressive farmers for uptake of technology.
Increasing natural disasters and predicted climate change impacts present an uncertainty for fish farming. In recent times, more flooding and drought conditions have created a conundrum with farmers concerned about changing weather patterns (Kole A., 2014, per comm, July). It is imperative that site selection becomes entrenched as an essential tool in extension and training programs. Also, appropriate GIS-based mapping of the province that identifies suitable farming areas, taking climate change into consideration, is required. Areas that will be high risk can then be discouraged and existing fish farms warned of possible risks. This is necessary to ensure farmers do not expend resources in unfeasible areas. Local research partners such as NARI have adequate capacity in this area and should be approached by EHP and NFA to collaborate.
The final threat that all agree is that landownership and tenure issues continue to present a constraint to commercial investments in aquaculture. This has happened in the past,
158 for instance the Kotuni Trout Farm a thriving business in the 1980’s in EHP, ceased operations from mismanagement and traditional landownership issues (Masuda et al,
1994). Most land is customary owned with government titled land comprising less than
10% (Filer, 2007). This is a constraint for progressive farmers wishing to commercialize in future. Similarly, steps should be taken to plan for established businesses venturing into aquaculture in joint venture or as outright operations. The Lands Act 1996 (Sections
102 and 132) should be consulted as it deals with mobilising traditional land for special agricultural use (including aquaculture). This is a multi-sectoral issue involving the
Departments of Lands, Environment and Conservation and NFA with EHP an important stakeholder. It is important that strategies to assist semi-commercial farmers or fully commercial operations be prepared in anticipation of future development to avoid confusion.
5.4 Characterisation of aquaculture in EHP
The influence of PEEST factors on fish farming and the validated SWOT factors embody aquaculture in EHP (Appendix D, Table 2). This section synthesises these factors to characterise the activity and implications.
Politically, aquaculture is supported in legislation and national development plans with this backing continuing in the province. The creation of provincial fisheries officer positions reflects this commitment. There is now widespread recognition of the food security and income creation role of aquaculture in fish farming. NFA’s strong support for aquaculture in the province satisfies its legislated position as the lead government agency in fish farming. NFA however needs to update aquaculture development strategies, policies and plans to reflect current and predicted trends. The absence of such results in current a lack of cohesion and ineffective growth which is reflected in farmers continuing incorrect practices, minimal production, marginal trading opportunities and a
159 diminished status of aquaculture compared to other livestock. Stakeholders including development partners, farmers and women in farming households are critical to the industry and their views must be captured in updated strategies. The results of this work show that stakeholders are willing to collaborate, it is now up to EHDPI and NFA to take a lead. Slow bureaucratic process and administrative changes have threatened to derail efforts in the past, particularly with funding delays. However, NFA’s direct financial support to provinces offers a solution (Benson, 2012) and must be utilised by the province to diminish this threat.
Dire rural transport infrastructure increases the price of farming input and the product thus posing a threat to any commercialisation of aquaculture. The argument that fish farming is only for food security is a misconception. Results indicate an emerging subset of EHP farmers that are operating on a semi-commercial basis with consistent trading. This is in response to a positive national economy where there is cash available in urban areas and a demand for farmed fish. On the one hand, opportunities for commercialisation have grown through government policy for SME creation that improved credit availability in addition to PDF grants from NFA. On the other hand, limited strategies by NFA and DPI to address barriers to trade; misuse and abuse of
PDF grants; as well as the absence of adequate support services (equipment and ice) have constrained further development. Moreover, farmers’ lack of knowledge in accessing available credit has resulted in this facility remaining untouched in EHP
(Mark P., 2014, per comm, 12 September). NFA has attempted to support marketing by establishing of a provincial fish farmer cooperative, however the lack of management capacity, no vision, and limited clarity on roles and responsibilities have diminished the entities effectiveness. It is now imperative that NFA and EHDPI recognise the natural evolution of a semi-commercial aquaculture subsector in the province. Barriers to
160 farmers accessing markets need to be identified and strategies developed to address.
Remedial action must be taken on the PDF program and proactive measures instituted to develop fisheries SME, reflecting the Government of PNGs aspirations.
The near-pristine environmental conditions, abundant rivers and land have been conducive for fish farming. Increasing population and related resource use now put pressure on the natural environment. Invasive species, pests and diseases further exacerbated by impacts of climate change pose a threat. Moreover, with intensification set to increase as a result of commercialisation, these risks will be amplified. Results of this work show that there has been very little done in establishing baseline data on the environmental impact of fish farming in EHP, let alone the country. The predicted effects of climate change will affect aquaculture however, the extent and location has yet to be mapped to enable officers to advice current and future operators. Furthermore, there is limited aquatic biosecurity capacity in EHP or NFA, which poses serious questions for sustainability. Results here indicate that farmers are now experiencing the impact of climate change and it is inevitable that other environmental issues will increase. NFA and EHP should consider developing environmental impact strategies and appropriate technical capacity. This work did not capture farmers’ views on the environment, however, the involvement of farming communities is critical and strategies should facilitate their participation.
Increasing law and order issues in rural society as a consequence of increasing population and resource use conflicts have been amplified by a lack of opportunities and underdevelopment. Results indicate that these issues affect fish farming in EHP with stealing and conflict over land and water reported. These issues will continue to threaten fish farming as there are currently no intervention plans to address them. Nevertheless, this work shows that aquaculture is widely embraced by rural households as it
161 complements the lifestyle and provides protein or a means to purchase it. This contribution at household level creates an entry-point to ascertain aquacultures impact on malnutrition and the contribution of women to food security. Both issues are critical to rural development in EHP (Care, 2008) and therefore the potential for aquaculture to contribute to rural development is significant. Furthermore, employment and wealth creation can help address social issues if give the right support. This study reveals that communities are willing to contribute to development planning and working with stakeholders. Aquaculture offers an entry-point for other rural interventions however, well designed strategies with the involvement of all stakeholders is critical for EHP.
Technical advancements from research have positively influenced aquaculture. The introduction of GIFT had a catalytic effect in spreading aquaculture, which is still evident. Results show that more farmers are now selling fingerlings to others, which has enabled the rapid growth of fish farming. The development of feed has aided the rise of semi-commercial operations, particularly cage culture in the EHP. These operations cannot rely on natural production and therefore the results show that feed has been an input many are reliant on to get outputs. Other strengths of aquaculture in the province include the presence of HAQDEC and local technical officers, which allows for research, extension and training. Training programs developed at HAQDEC are well established and have been widely conducted. It is evident however, that with limited numbers of specialised technical officers, it is impossible to adequately reach all farmers. Consequently, farmers still lack essential technical and management skills with many still exhibiting incorrect farming practices. Furthermore, with different stakeholders offering various training programs, there is bound to be some inconsistency in the message delivered to farmers. The lack of standardisation is evident along with limited updating of training programs and materials utilised. Associated with
162 this is the need to increase capacity of extension officers in the province. HAQDEC and technical officers are present; EHP must consider instituting programs to upgrade the knowledge of current or newly recruited extension officers as an immediate corrective action. Results also suggest the high feed costs and inconsistent production affect semi- commercial operators (although they do build into their pricing). Nevertheless, if costs can be reduced and consistent supply maintained, farmers and customers stand to benefit and the status of aquaculture strengthened. Research is required to identify alternate local ingredients to reduce the dependence on imported expensive components.
It is obvious that the demand for feed will increase because the demand from farmed fish is significant (Singas & Manus, 2014). Small-scale pond farming will not meet it; rather it is the semi-commercial subsector that will be required to increase production.
NFA and EHP must consider these issues and commence the formulation of appropriate strategies that address bottlenecks. In this study, EHP farmers have widely expressed their receptiveness to extension, research and other intervention programs. They have experienced the benefits and see the potential in fish farming which creates a good base to begin from.
163 Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
The overall aim of this study was to develop an understanding of the current status of inland aquaculture in EHP in order to underpin better management decisions from government to farmer level. This investigation was able to achieve this. This chapter outlines the major findings of this study, the contribution to knowledge of this work, and makes recommendations for management and future research.
6.2 PEEST analysis
There were significant findings made in addressing the first objective of this study i.e. the PEEST analysis. These are stated below according to each PEEST theme.
Political
The current national government legislation, policy and strategic plans capture and support aquaculture development. NFA is identified as the lead agency and is expected to coordinate the effort of stakeholders nationally; this has been largely ineffective due to an absence of updated development strategies and the lack of capacity to implement decision-making. Furthermore, weak collaboration between EHP and provincial stakeholders limits effective development and has impacted extension efforts.
Economical
Aquaculture in EHP has been influenced by the growth of the national economy. A subset of farmers are now commercially orientated and have made some progress in marketing despite infrastructure and credit constraints. The need for management skills is evident including knowledge on accessing available credit facilities; improved
164 extension and training is therefore critical. Government must consider appropriate interventions to address constraints such as improving transport infrastructure and market accessibility. The findings here imply the need for NFA to review and evaluate the PDF grant scheme. Improved monitoring and evaluation are essential and overall impact of the program over the last ten years needs to be ascertained. Strategies to develop aquaculture SME’s to reflect government aspirations need to be seriously considered. Entrepreneurial and forward thinking operators should not be ignored in preference for food security; rather, balance should be found. In a review of fisheries governance in PICTs, Adams (1996) iterates that whilst international donor’s views are important, local fisheries departments must determine development direction. Creation of an economically vibrant environment that encourages progress ultimately remains the responsibility of the government and agencies.
Environmental
The natural setting in PNG has been conducive for aquaculture and has contributed to its widespread acceptance. Little is known about the environmental impact of the activity, which therefore presents a threat. Farmers’ attitudes regarding the impact of their activities on the environment were not captured in this survey and should be considered in future work. This is particularly important for semi-intensive operations that could be impacted by environmental degradation brought by their actions. The impact of climate change is a confounding factor that also must be addressed and planned for through mapping areas for farming. Boyd (2003) contends that managing environmental issues in developing countries is hard to regulate, as there is little concern due to the lack of incentive for farmers. However, educating local communities can overcome the lack of awareness and Godfray et al (2010) further suggests that
165 effectively involving women increases the impact of such programs at the household level. Whilst effective extension services are required to facilitate awareness, the importance of relevant scientific research is equally paramount. In EHP, improved extension services, prioritised research interventions and consideration of proactive management options are important steps to address potential environmental impacts from fish farming.
Social
The onset of modernisation has not improved health and nutrition in rural PNG due to the lack of services reaching that level. This work suggests that fish farming complements EHP rural lifestyle and has entrenched itself as a food security option.
Furthermore, aquaculture improves protein availability in farming households and creates an entry point for strengthening the role of women in food security. Fish farming is also a wealth creation activity that has the potential to contribute significantly to rural development in EHP. There is however more work required in establishing the role of aquaculture in rural development, addressing malnutrition, improving recognition of the contribution of women and wealth generation. EHP, in consultation with NFA, must develop strategies around these findings to improve livelihoods and bolster the role of fish farming in the province.
Technical
The introduction of GIFT has significantly influenced fish farming, moving it from an obscure activity to a recognised food security and wealth creation contributor. Similarly, the production of fish feed has enabled the development of semi-commercial operations.
There are still areas that need to be improved in terms of farmers husbandry skills and
166 better feeding and fertilization strategies. This will require trained personnel, which is a current constraint. EHP expressly needs to have strategic plans in place to ensure it has capacity. Similarly, NFA must develop multi-sectoral strategies that build capacity through all levels of education so that the next generation is catered for.
These findings are significant because they reveal external factors influencing fish farming in EHP and also identify issues that must be addressed in future work. Previous work in this area (Smith et al 2007) did not considered PEEST influences on fish farming in PNG, therefore this study establishes a baseline for future work.
6.3 SWOT analysis
This study reveals the validated SWOT factors characteristic of aquaculture in EHP.
There were eight significant strengths: the availability of fingerlings; the local production of fish feed; the availability of local expertise; the recognition by government of aquaculture as a tool for rural development; the creation of provincial farmers cooperative; NFAs role as lead government organisation widely recognised; location of HAQDEC in the province; and farmers training courses are established and have been widely utilised.
There were also eight weaknesses identified: firstly, farmers lack essential production and management skills; high fish feed cost and inconsistent supply; lack of organised market and associated infrastructure; lack of updated, relevant extension and awareness material along with standardisation of training; the lack of an updated strategic development plan was the most significant weakness; the widespread abuse and lack of monitoring and evaluation of NFA’s PDF grant; the lack of trained personnel to service increasing farmer levels; and finally, the lack of a local aquaculture equipment supplier.
167
Five opportunities were that: farmers are receptive to interventions; farmers are willing to work with stakeholders and participate in rural development planning; the natural environment is conducive and predicted increased temperatures will improve fish growth; there is increased demand for aquaculture technology and products; and finally, there is increasing demand for fish feed.
Seven significant threats to fish farming in EHP included: weak and deteriorating transport infrastructure and increased cost of living; increasing social (law and order) issues; administrative decisions, slow government process and political decisions negatively affecting programs; cross-border invasive species and farmers lack of awareness on environmental/disease risks; limited range of locally available feed ingredients; climate change and increased natural disasters; and the issue of land tenure which is of particular concern for commercial ventures.
Findings of the SWOT analysis enable an insight into factors driving and influencing aquaculture in EHP. It also establishes a basis for further strategic planning. Past institutional analysis of fish farming in PNG has not specifically considered SWOT factors and therefore this work sets a baseline for future comparison.
6.4 Synthesis - current status
The final objective of the study is a synthesis of the PEEST and SWOT outcomes to determine the current status of the industry and make recommendations (Section 6.5) on how to improve management at the government, community and farm level.
168 Aquaculture in EHP is politically supported through all levels of government and recognised for its food and income security role in major government documents.
NFA’s lead role is widely acknowledged, however the lack of updated strategic plans limits its influence. Provincial development stakeholders are willing to collaborate with government to strengthen interventions. NFA and EHDPI must take lead to collaboratively develop strategies that give direction and reveal roles of stakeholders.
In response to opportunities brought by growth of the national economy, a subset of farmers in EHP are operating semi-commercially. Weak transport and marketing infrastructure are limiting factors that pose threats. NFA has made credit available to support SME; however the lack of farmers’ capacity continues to limit access. NFA and
EHDPI must develop well-targeted strategies that support this emerging subset of farmers. Programs that can negatively affect this group, such as the PDF grants, must be reviewed and adjusted to support growth.
The near-pristine environmental conditions and disease-free status of aquaculture in
EHP have been conducive for fish farming. Increasing population and resource use
Figure 6.1: Fish farming suits rural lifestyle; houses are now built near ponds to discourage stealing.
169 present threats that are exacerbated by the onset of climate change and intensification of farming. The lack of baseline information and capacity in aquaculture-specific EIA limits knowledge of the impact of fish farming. Furthermore, farmers should be aware of individual and collective impacts on the environment and the implications.
Negative social trends more common in urban areas are emerging in rural EHP societies. Increased population and the lack of opportunities are some causes of these law and order issues. Conflict over land and water are increasingly common and strategies are needed to advise interested farmers. Nevertheless, fish farming complements rural life and creates a food and income security opportunity that supports rural development (Figure 6.1). Aquaculture particularly addresses malnutrition at the household level and thereby creates a tool to recognise and strengthen the role of women in rural development.
Technical advances such as the introduction of GIFT and the development of fish feed have significantly changed the industry and contributed to its growth. The presence of technical officers and HAQDEC in EHP has strengthened fish farming with training and advice accessible for all. Farmers still lack skills due to a limited number of technical personnel. There are also many sources within the province that offer extension advice which can differ and confuse the farmer; standardisation of material is imperative. The high cost of fish feed must be reduced with the development of cheaper locally available ingredients or fertilizer and feed combinations. Farmers are also willing to collaborate with stakeholder organisations in planning or research interventions.
170 6.5 Recommendations
This study has characterised and revealed issues specific to aquaculture in EHP. The following recommendations based on this work are therefore made for government, farmer and research consideration.
6.5.1 Government management
1. An updated national aquaculture development plan must be compiled. It is
imperative that this be a collaborative effort involving government, NGO,
farmers and development partners involved in fish farming. Direction, roles and
responsibilities must be specified with NFA taking the lead in this process.
2. NFA build capacity or seek improved working relationship with organisations
with skills in emerging critical areas such as EIA, environmental management
and aquatic biosecurity.
3. EHDPI to compile a development plan reflective of the NFA strategy. This also
should be a collaborative effort that captures the views of farmers, government
agencies and NGOs in the province.
4. NFA to review the impact of the PDF grant and consider more effective schemes
to support fish farming.
5. EHDPI to establish a continuous refresher-training program for district fisheries
officers to be undertaken at HAQDEC. Provincial fisheries recruits should also
be required to attend this training.
6.5.2 Farmer management
1. EHDPI and NFA to build the capacity of fish farmers cooperative. This is to
enable the cooperative to become the marketing vehicle for farmers.
2. EHDPI to improve extension strategies and NFA to develop policy to
standardise extension materials and accredit training providers.
171 3. EHDPI should develop a training program that empowers farmers to access
available credit. Other interventions that remove barriers to trade must be
developed.
6.5.3 Research
1. This work was limited to EHP. Cultural and environmental diversity implies that
conditions in other areas of PNG will be different. Findings cannot be
superimposed and province-specific studies are recommended. The process
developed through this study will be used to upscale the work to include five
other provinces through an ACIAR funded project (Sammut & Wani, 2014).
2. Livelihood analysis of aquaculture has never been undertaken to determine the
impact of fish farming on rural households. This will now be undertaken in PNG
as a result of initial findings of this work and will also capture the role of women
(Sammut & Wani, 2014).
3. Alternate locally available ingredients are essential to reduce fish feed costs and
improve availability. This work was supportive of initial investigations into feed
and fertilizer combinations (Narimbi, 2015) that will be expanded in a larger
project (Sammut & Wani, 2014).
4. NFA to commission environmental baseline studies for selected sites;
particularly for localities where farmers are venturing into commercialisation.
Extension and awareness material should also be developed as an output that
will be used to educate farmers.
5. Site selection modelling and criteria to be established in the light of climate
change to prevent pond construction in identified high-risk areas. Extension and
awareness material must also be developed to inform farmers.
172 Such interventions will need to be largely driven by NFA in collaboration with EHDPI and be inclusive of the stakeholders to ensure development needs in the province are well targeted. There are lessons to be learned from the development of aquaculture in nearby developing nations, and opportunities for PNG to manage development sustainably, without repeating the mistakes of aquaculture development elsewhere.
NFA should be well placed to tackle the issues identified by this study if it embarks on the recommendations stated above; it currently has a draft Ten Year Aquaculture
Development Strategy with ACIAR that, if ratified, will underpin the development of new aquaculture research projects that will address the elements of the SWOT described by this study. Similarly, it is member country of the SPC enabling access to aquaculture development opportunities. Furthermore, lessons learnt from PNGs development of aquaculture can also be used by SPC and other regional organisations to benefit other
PICTs. Currently, the overall bottleneck to growth lies within Government and the effectiveness of NFA as a decision maker and as a facilitator of research.
173 References
Abraham, S. C. (2006). Strategic Planning - A Practical Guide for Competitive Success. Mason: Thomson South-Western.
Acharya, S., Yoshino E, Jimba M., and Wakai S. (2007). "Empowering rural women through a community development approach in Nepal." Community Development Journal 42(1): 34-46.
ACIAR. (2010). Increasing production from inland aquaculture in Papua New Guinea for food and income security. Retrieved January 2015, from Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: http://aciar.gov.au/project/fis/2008/023
ACIAR. (2013). Evaluation of the potential for commercial aquaculture of the freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii in Papua New Guinea. Retrieved January 2015, from Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: http://aciar.gov.au/project/fis/2011/049
ACIAR. (2014). Fisheries Project Profiles. Retrieved 2015, from ACIAR: http://aciar.gov.au/programarea/Fisheries
Adams, T. (1996). "Governance of fisheries and aquaculture in the Pacific Islands region." ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative, 3rd Dialogue, Belize City, Belize: 5-10.
Adams, T., Bell, J., and Labrosse, P (2001). "Current status of aquaculture in the Pacific Islands." In Subasinghe R P, Bueno P., Phillips M. J., Hough C., McGladdery S. E., & Arthur, J. R. eds. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-25 February 2000. pp. 295-305. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome.
Adelson, J. L. and D. B. McCoach (2010)."Measuring the mathematical attitudes of elementary students: The effects of a 4-point or 5-point Likert-type scale." Educational and psychological measurement 70(5): 796-807.
Ahmed, N., & Luong-Van, J. (2009). Can rice-fish farming provide food security in Bangladesh? Aquaculture Asia, 16(1), 23.
Ahmed, M. and M. H. Lorica (2002). "Improving developing country food security through aquaculture development—lessons from Asia." Food Policy 27(2): 125- 141.
Aipit, S., Aipit, J., and Laman, M. (2014). "Malnutrition: a neglected but leading cause of child deaths in Papua New Guinea." The Lancet Global Health 10(2): e568.
Alam, M. F., Khan, Md A., and Huq, A.S. M. A. (2012). "Technical efficiency in tilapia farming of Bangladesh: a stochastic frontier production approach." Aquaculture International 20(4): 619-634.
174 Allen, B. (2014). Papua New Guinea National Census 2011: Rates of Population Change in Local Level Government Areas. Retrieved January 2015, from Australian National University: http://ips.cap.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/IB- 2014-44-Allen-ONLINE.pdf
Allen, B., Bourke, R M., and Gibson, J. (2005). "Poor rural places in Papua New Guinea." Asia Pacific Viewpoint 46(2): 201-217.
Allen, M. and Z. Hasnain (2010). "Power, pork and patronage: Decentralisation and the politicisation of the development budget in Papua New Guinea." Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance(6).
Amben, S., Dom, M. and Ayalew, W. (2013) "People, pigs and PNG Vision 2050: A glimpse of Morobe Province" Lae: 7th Huon Seminar Proceedings, pp. 121-129
Anderson, T. (2006). "On the economic value of customary land in Papua New Guinea." Pacific Economic Bulletin 21(1): 138-152.
Apaise, T. (2002). Super Tilapia Report. Eastern Highlands Department of Agriculture and Livestock-HAQDEC. Papua New Guinea: Eastern Highlands Provincial Administration.
Asafu-Adjaye, J. (1996). "Revitalising growth in Papua New Guinea's agricultural sector." Agricultural systems 51(3): 299-316.
Asian Development Bank. (2012). Asian Development Bank and Papua New Guinea: Factsheet. Retrieved 2015, from Asian Development Bank: http://www.adb.org/publications/papua-new-guinea-fact-sheet
Asian Development Bank. (2014). Country Assistance Program Evaluation for Papua New Guinea. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Aslan, I., Çınar, O., and Kumpikaitė, V. (2012). "Creating strategies from tows matrix for strategic sustainable development of Kipaş Group." Journal of Business Economics and Management 13(1): 95-110.
Auditor General. (2014). District Services Improvement Program - A report on the key findings resulting from the 2012/ 2013 District audits. Port Moresby: Auditor- General’s Office of Papua New Guinea.
Ayalew, W. and R. Kambuou (2008). Status of Management of Plant and Animal Genetic Resources in Papua New Guinea. Capacity Building for Development and Implementation of Risk Management Systems on Genetic Resources: proceedings of the APEC-ATCWG Workshop, Taichung, Chinese Taipei, October 14-17.
Bailey, C. and M. Skladany (1991). Aquacultural development in tropical Asia. Natural Resources Forum, Wiley Online Library.
175 Barclay, K., Kinch, J., McCormack, F., and Barclay, K. (2013). "Local capitalisms and sustainability in coastal fisheries: Cases from Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands." Engaging with Capitalism: Cases from Oceania 33: 107-138.
Barnett, J. (2001). "Adapting to climate change in Pacific Island countries: the problem of uncertainty." World Development 29(6): 977-993.
Barnett, J. (2011). "Dangerous climate change in the Pacific Islands: food production and food security." Regional Environmental Change 11(1): 229-237.
Basu, P. K. (2000). "Conflicts and paradoxes in economic development: Tourism in Papua New Guinea." International Journal of Social Economics 27(7/8/9/10): 907-916.
Bature, B. N. (2013) "The Dutch Disease and the Diversification of an Economy: Some Case Studies." IOSR, Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 15(5): 6-14
Baxter, M. W. (2001). Enclaves or equity: The rural crisis and development choice in Papua New Guinea, Australian Agency for International Development Canberra.
Banks, G., Kuir-Ayius, D., Kombako, D., and Sagir, Bill. (2013). "Conceptualizing mining impacts, livelihoods and corporate community development in Melanesia." Community Development Journal: bst025.
Baras, E., Jacobs, B., and Mélard, C. (2001). "Effect of water temperature on survival, growth and phenotypic sex of mixed (XX–XY) progenies of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus." Aquaculture 192(2): 187-199.
Bell, J., Batty, M., Ganachaud, A., Gehrke, P., Hobday, A., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Johnson, J., Le Borgne, R., Lehodey, P., and Lough, J. (2010). "Preliminary assessment of the effects of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture in the Pacific." Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea.
Bell, J. D., Ganachaud, A., Gehrke, P. C., Griffiths, S. P., Hobday, A. J., Hoegh- Guldberg, O., Johnson, J. E., Le Borgne, R., Lehodey, P.L., and Janice M (2013). "Mixed responses of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change." Nature Climate Change 3(6): 591-599.
Bell, J. D., Johnson, J. E., & Hobday, A. J. (2011). Vulnerability of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change: SPC FAME Digital Library.
Bell, J. D., Kronen, M., Vunisea, A., Nash, W. J., Keeble, G., Demmke, A., Pontifex, S., and Andréfouët, S. (2009). "Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific." Marine Policy 33(1): 64-76.
Bell, J. D., Reid, C., Batty, M. J., Lehodey, P., Rodwell, L., Hobday, A. J., Johnson, J. E., Demmke, A. (2013). "Effects of climate change on oceanic fisheries in the
176 tropical Pacific: implications for economic development and food security." Climatic change 119(1): 199-212.
Benson, C. S. (2012). "Shifting accountabilities? Understanding the connections between national and provincial fisheries in Papua New Guinea." Marine Policy 36(4): 859-866.
Berdach, T. J., & Mandeakali, L. (2005). Regional: Mainstreaming environmental considerations in economic development planning processes in selected Pacific developing member countries. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Beveridge, M., Phillips, M. J., and Macintosh, D. J. (1997). "Aquaculture and the environment: the supply of and demand for environmental goods and services by Asian aquaculture and the implications for sustainability." Aquaculture research 28(10): 797-807.
Bolton, B. R. (2009). The Fly River, Papua New Guinea: Environmental studies in an impacted tropical river system (Vol. 9): Elsevier.
Bolton, J., Robertson-Andersson, D., Shuuluka, D., & Kandjengo, L. (2009). Growing Ulva (Chlorophyta) in integrated systems as a commercial crop for abalone feed in South Africa: a SWOT analysis. Journal of Applied Phycology, 21(5), 575- 583.
Bostock, J., McAndrew, B., Richards, R., Jauncey, K., Telfer, T., Lorenzen, K., Little, D., Ross, L., Handisyde, N., and Gatward, I. (2010). "Aquaculture: global status and trends." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1554): 2897-2912.
Bourke, R. M. (2000). An Overview of Food Security in PNG. Papua New Guinea Food and Nutrition 2000 Conference (pp. 5-14). Lae: Australian Center for International Agricultural Research.
Bourke, R. M. and Harwood, T. (Eds) (2009). Food and Agriculture in Papua New Guinea, ANU E Press.
Boyd, C. E. (2003). Guidelines for aquaculture effluent management at the farm level. Aquaculture , 226, 101-112.
Braun, T. (2012). Stocktake of the gender mainstreaming capacity of Pacific Island governments: Papua New Guinea, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea. http://www. spc. int/images/publications/en/Divisions/Hdp/png- gender-stocktake. pdf (Accessed 26 November 2012).
Brummett, R. E. and M. J. Williams (2000). "The evolution of aquaculture in African rural and economic development." Ecological economics 33(2): 193-203.
Brummett, R. E., Lazard, J., and Moehl, J. (2008). "African aquaculture: realizing the potential." Food Policy 33(5): 371-385.
177
Buckwell, R. (1960). General report on the present state of fish culture work in the Highlands of New Guinea. Port Moresby: Department of Agriculture & Livestock.
Care International. (2008). Building a better life in rural areas. Retrieved 2015, from Care International - Papua New Guinea: http://www.care- international.org/news/stories-and-blogs/economic-development/papua-new- guinea-building-a-better-life-in-rural-areas.aspx
Carpenter, M.A. and Sanders, G.W. (2007). Strategic management: A dynamic perspective: Concepts and cases. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Çelik, A., Metin, İ., & Çelik, M. (2012). Taking a photo of Turkish fishery sector: a SWOT analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 1515-1524.
Coates, D. (1987). "Consideration of fish introductions into the Sepik River, Papua New Guinea." Aquaculture research 18(3): 231-241.
Coates, D. and W. Ulaiwi (1995). "A simple model for predicting ecological impacts of introduced aquatic organisms: a case study of common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in the Sepik-Ramu River Basin, Papua New Guinea." Fisheries Management and Ecology 2(3): 227-242.
Cochrane, K., De Young, C., Soto, D., and Bahri, T. (2009). "Climate change implications for fisheries and aquaculture." FAO Fisheries and aquaculture technical paper 530: 212.
Coelli, T. and E. Fleming (2004). "Diversification economies and specialisation efficiencies in a mixed food and coffee smallholder farming system in Papua New Guinea." Agricultural Economics 31(2-3): 229-239.
Coffey Natural Systems. (2008). EIA process under PNG Environment Act 2000. Retrieved 2014, from Cares Nautilus Minerals: www.cares.nautilusminerals.com/Assets/Documents/EIA%20Process.pdf
Coffey. (2013). Economic & Public Sector Program - Annual Report 2013. Port Moresby: Government of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade.
Cooter, R. D. (1991). "Inventing market property: the land courts of Papua New Guinea." Law & Society Review 25(4): 759-801.
Cowx, I., Arlinghaus, R., & Cooke, S. (2010). Harmonizing recreational fisheries and conservation objectives for aquatic biodiversity in inland waters. Journal of Fish Biology, 76(9), 2194-2215.
DEC. (2007). PNG National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Port Moresby: Department of Environment & Conservation.
178 De Silva, S. S., Nguyen, T.T.T., Abery, N.W. and Amarasinghe, U.S. (2006)."An evaluation of the role and impacts of alien finfish in Asian inland aquaculture." Aquaculture research 37(1): 1-17.
Dey, M. M. (2000). "The impact of genetically improved farmed Nile tilapia in Asia." Aquaculture Economics & Management 4(1-2): 107-124.
Dey, M. M., Bimbao, G. B., Yong, L., Regaspi, P., Kohinoor, A. H. M., Pongthana, N. and Paraguas, F. J. (2000). "Current status of production and consumption of tilapia in selected Asian countries." Aquaculture Economics & Management 4(1-2): 13-31.
Dey, M. M., Paraguas, F. J., Bimbao, G. B. and Regaspi, P. B. (2000). "Technical efficiency of tilapia growout pond operations in the Philippines." Aquaculture Economics & Management 4(1-2): 33-47.
Dixon, P. B., Kauzi, G. and Rimmer. M.T. (2010). "Effects on the PNG Economy of a Major LNG Project*." Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy 29(2): 143-155.
DNPM, D. (2010). Papua New Guinea Development Strategic Plan. Port Moresby: Department of National Planning & Monitoring.
Douvere, F. and C. N. Ehler (2011). "The importance of monitoring and evaluation in adaptive maritime spatial planning." Journal of Coastal Conservation 15(2): 305-311.
Dugan, P., Dey, M. M., and Sugunan, V. V. (2006). "Fisheries and water productivity in tropical river basins: enhancing food security and livelihoods by managing water for fish." Agricultural Water Management 80(1): 262-275.
Dyson, R. G. (2004). "Strategic development and SWOT analysis at the University of Warwick." European Journal of Operational Research 152(3): 631-640.
Edwards, P. (2000). Aquaculture, poverty impacts and livelihoods, Overseas Development Institute, London
Edwards, P. (2009). Promoting small-scale inland aquaculture in Papua New Guinea. Aquaculture Asia Magazine, 14(3), 11-17.
Ellis, K. and E. Darko (2013). "Options for a growth/PSD strategy in Papua New Guinea." Overseas Development Institute, UK
FAO. (1978). South China Sea Fisheries Development & Coordinating Programme – Cage culture of marine fish in East Coast Peninsular Malaysia. Retrieved 2015, from FAO: http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AC016E/AC016E03.htm
FAO/WHO. (2002). Human vitamin and mineral requirements. Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation. Bangkok: FAO/WHO.
179 FAO (2010). Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles - Independent State of Papua New Guinea. Retrieved June 6, 2014, from FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department: http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/PNG/en#CountrySector- ProductionSector
FAO. (2014). State of world fisheries and aquaculture 2014. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization.
FAO. (2015). FAO Country Profiles. Retrieved 2015, from FAOSTAT: http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E
FAO. (2015). Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Retrieved from FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department: http://www.fao.org/fishery/code/en
Felsing, M. and G. Haylor (1999). "Aquaculture extension: Overview and a framework of options A case study of aquaculture extension planning by a DFID research project in Eastern India." Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling.
Filer, C. (2011). "New Land Grab in Papua New Guinea." Pacific Studies 34(2): 269- 294.
Fleisher, C. S., & Bensoussan, B. E. (2003). Strategic and competitive analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Fleisher, C. S., and Bensoussan, B. E. (2007). Business and competitive analysis. New Jersey: FT Press Financial Times.
Floyd, D. W., Sullivan, R. M., Vertrees, R. L., & Cole, C. F. (1991). Natural Resources and Aquaculture: Emerging Policy Issues in the North Central States. Society and Natural Resources, 4(2): 123-131.
Formica, S. and T. H. Kothari (2008). "Strategic destination planning: Analyzing the future of tourism." Journal of Travel Research.
Garza‐Gil, M. D., Varela‐Lafuente, M., & Caballero‐Miguez, G. (2009). Price and production trends in the marine fish aquaculture in Spain. Aquaculture Research, 40(3), 274-281.
Gherke, P. (2012, September). Invasive Asian species. Retrieved from Fisheries Research and Development Corporation: http://frdc.com.au/Search/Results.aspx?k=Invasive%20Asian%20species%20thr eaten%20freshwater%20fisheries
Gibson, R. S., Heywood, A., Yaman, C., Sohlström, A., Thompson, L U, and Heywood, P (1991). "Growth in children from the Wosera subdistrict, Papua New Guinea, in relation to energy and protein intakes and zinc status." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 53(3): 782-789.
Gibson, J. and S. Rozelle (2003). "Poverty and Access to Roads in Papua New Guinea*." Economic development and cultural change 52(1): 159-185.
180
Glass, J. R., Kruse, G. H., & Miller, S. A. (2015). Socioeconomic considerations of the commercial weathervane scallop fishery off Alaska using SWOT analysis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 105, 154-165.
Glatz, P. (2012). Enhancing role of small scale feed milling in the development of the monogastric industries in Papua New Guinea. Retrieved 2015, from ACIAR: http://aciar.gov.au/project/asem/2010/053
Glatz, P., Workneh, A., Black, I., Pandi, J., Deklin, J., Mazi, M., et al. (2013). Improving profitability of village broiler production in PNG. Canberra: ACIAR.
Glucksman, J., West, G. (1963). Freshwater fisheries. Port Moresby: Department of Agriculture Stock & Fisheries (unpublished internal report - NFA archives).
Glucksman J., West G. and Berra M. T. (1976) The introduced fishes of Papua New Guinea with special reference to Tilapia Mossambica. Biology Conservation (9): 37-44
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., and Toulmin, C. (2010). "Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people." science 327(5967): 812-818.
Gonzalez, C. and Allan, G. (2007). Preparing Farm-made fish feed, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Nelson Bay.
Graham, P., Nash, W., Vira, H., and Zeng, C. (2012). Promising Indigenous Fish Species and Bioremediation for Barramundi Aquaculture in Northern Australia, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).
Gupta, A. (2013). "Environmental and pest analysis: An approach to external business environment." Merit Research Journal of Art, Social Science and Humanities 1(2): 13-17.
Gupta, M. and B. Acosta (2004). "From drawing board to dining table: the success story of the GIFT project." NAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly 27(3-4): 4-14.
Gupta, M. V. and B. O. Acosta (2004). "A review of global tilapia farming practices." Aquaculture Asia 9: 7-12.
Gwaiseuk, W. R. (2001). "The role of agriculture in the PNG Economy. In.‘." Food Security for Papua New Guinea’eds. Bourke, RM, Allen, MG and Salisbury, JG ACIAR Proceeding(99): 30-36.
Haberkorn, G. (2008). "Pacific Islands’ population and development: Facts, fictions and follies." New Zealand Population Review 33(34): 95-127.
Hähnlein, S., Bayer, P., Ferguson, G., and Blum, P. (2013). "Sustainability and policy for the thermal use of shallow geothermal energy." Energy Policy 59: 914-925.
181 Haines, A. K., &and Kelleher, K. (1979). Report on Highlands fisheries patrol. Port Moresby: Department of Agriculture & Livestock.
Haines, A. K. and R. N. Stevens (1983). Subsistence and commercial fisheries. The Purari — tropical environment of a high rainfall river basin. T. Petr, Springer Netherlands. 51: 385-408.
Hair, C., Wani, J., Minimulu, P., & Solato, W. (2006). Improved feeding and stocking density for intensive cage cultuer of GIFT tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, in Yonki Reservoir. Final Report on ACIAR Miniproject. Canberra: ACIAR .
Halwart, M., Funge-Smith, S., and Moehl, J. (2003). "The role of aquaculture in rural development." Review of the State of World Aquaculture, FAO, Rome: 47-58.
Harper, S., Zeller, D., Hauzer, M., Pauly, D. and Sumaila, U. R.(2013). "Women and fisheries: Contribution to food security and local economies." Marine Policy 39(0): 56-63.
Hasan, M. (2000). Nutrition and feeding for sustainable aquaculture development In R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery & J.R. Arthur, eds. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-25 February 2000. pp. 193-219. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome
Hasnain, Z., Keefer, P., & Menzies, N. (2011). How Capital Projects are allocated in Papua New Guinean Villages: The Influence of Local Collective Action, Local- level Institutions, and Electoral Politics. New York: The World Bank.
Havice, E. and K. Reed (2012). "Fishing for development? Tuna resource access and industrial change in Papua New Guinea." Journal of Agrarian Change 12(2-3): 413-435.
Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis-where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of Strategy and Management, 3(3), 215-251.
Highlands Aquaculture Development Center. (1996). Current status of aquaculture in the Highlands: district and provincial reports on aquaculture. Aiyura: HAQDEC.
Ho, J. K.-K. (2014). "Formulation of a Systemic PEST Analysis for Strategic Analysis." European Academic Research 2(5): 6478-6492.
Holden, P. (2015, May 19). Reforms can secure Papua New Guinea's growth. Retrieved from Nikkei Asian Review: http://asia.nikkei.com/Viewpoints/Perspectives/Reforms-can-secure-Papua- New-Guinea-s-growth
IFC. (2014). Papua New Guinea Small and Medium Enterprise Risk - Factsheet.
182 Retrieved 2015, from International Finance Corporation: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/7af973004a13ce13962effdd29332b51/PN G-Factsheet+SME+RSF.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Index Mundi. (2014). Papua New Guinea - composition by sector. Retrieved January 2015, from Index Mundi: http://www.indexmundi.com/papua_new_guinea/gdp_composition_by_sector.ht ml
Infofish. (2012). www.infofish.org. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.infofish.org/wp-content/uploads/Country-Profile-PAPUA-NEW- GUINEA-04-2012.pdf
Investment Promotion Authority. (2015). Economic Policies. Retrieved January 2015, from Investment Promotion Authority Papua New Guinea: http://www.ipa.gov.pg/why-png/economic-policies/
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K.(1993): Exploring Corporate Strategy – Text and Cases." Europe: Prentice and Hall.
Jones, P. (2012). "A profitable patch." Partners in Research for Development (Spring 2012): 24.
Joshi, P. K., Gulati, A., Birthal, P. S., and Tewari, Laxmi. (2004). "Agriculture diversification in South Asia: patterns, determinants and policy implications." Economic and Political Weekly: 2457-2467.
Kajanus, M., Leakinen P., Kurttila M., and Kangas, J. (2012). "Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management." Forest Policy and Economics 20: 1-9.
Kavieng Fisheries College. (2013). Institute of Sustainable Marine Resources. Retrieved 2015, from PNG National Fisheries Authority: http://www.fisheries.gov.pg/FisheriesAuthority/BusinessGroups/InstituteofSusta inableMarineResources/tabid/178/Default.aspx
Kamang, I., Hair, C., & Vira, H. (2011). Post-harvest storage, preservation and handling techniques for Fly River herring (Nematalosa spp) for fishmeal production. Retrieved 2015, from Final report: Developing aquaculture based livelihoods in the Pacific Islands region and tropical Australia - Papua New Guinea (Appendix 2.1-2.7): http://aciar.gov.au/files/fis2006138_appendix_2.pdf
Kan, T. T. (1981). Some aspects on the state of aquaculture in PNG. Conference on economic development and growth of Papua New Guinea (pp. 1-19). Lae: University of Technology (NFA archives).
Kan, T. T. (1987). "PNG Inland Fisheries." Kagoshima University Resource Center South Pacific, Occasional Papers 13: 12-19.
183 Kawarazuka, N. and C. Béné (2010). "Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to household nutritional security: an overview." Food Security 2(4): 343-357.
Kawarazuka, N. and C. Béné (2011). "The potential role of small fish species in improving micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries: building evidence." Public health nutrition 14(11): 1927-1938.
Kearney, R. (1976). The expansion of fisheries in Papua New Guinea: prospects and problems. Paper/for Waigani Seminar, Secretariat for the Pacific Community, Noumea.
Kerowa, B. (June 2015). Progressive renovation report- HAQDEC status report. Aiyura: HAQDEC.
Kia, K. (2001). 5th trout farmers training report. Aiyura: HAQDEC (Unpublished internal report).
Kinch, J., Bagita, J., & Minne, B. (2003, January/March). Exploring the potential for seaweed farming in Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. SPC Newsletter # 104, pp. 25-31.
Koczberski, G., Curry, G. N., and Bue, V. (2012). "Oil palm, food security and adaptation among smallholder households in Papua New Guinea." Asia Pacific Viewpoint 53(3): 288-299.
Kolkolo, U. M. (2005). "Codes of practice for the introduction and transfer of marine and freshwater organisms." International Mechanisms for the Control and Responsible Use of Alien Species in Aquatic Ecosystems: Report of an Ad Hoc Expert Consultation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy: 133-148.
Kovari, J. (1986). Investigations into the re-establishment of carp fishing in the highlands. Retrieved 2015, from FAO: http://www.fao.org/3/contents/f18feba8- e85d-5735-b80b-2f3cd4b45a04/R9612E00.htm#ch3.
Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J. and Kajanus M. (2000). Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis - A hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics, (1), 41- 52.
Kyler, J. (2003). Assessing Your External Environment: Retrieved from Competia: http://www.mbadepot.com/external_link.php?ID=2818
La'a, K., & Glucksman , J. (1972). Experimental fish ponds in the highlands. Harvest (2) 2, 71-73 (NFA archives).
Lakari, J., & Tapat, D. (2011, January 31). Potential for aquaculture development in Papua New Guinea. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from Malum Nalu: http://malumnalu.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/potential-for-aquaculture- development.html
184
Lehodey, P., Bertignac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, A., and Picaut, Joel (1997). "El Niño Southern Oscillation and tuna in the western Pacific." Nature 389(6652): 715- 718.
Lewis, I., Maruia, B., and Walker, S. (2008). "Violence against women in Papua New Guinea." Journal of Family Studies 14(2-3): 183-197.
Locke, J. T. (2009). "Climate change-induced migration in the Pacific Region: sudden crisis and long-term developments." Geographical Journal 175(3): 171-180.
Lorica H. (2002). "Improving developing country food security through aquaculture development—lessons from Asia." Food Policy 27(2): 125-141.
Lynch, R. (2006). Corporate strategy (4th ed.). Harlow, [England] ; New York, N.Y.: FT/Prentice Hall.
Masuda, K., Kia, K., & Sekizawa, H. (2011). Report on assessment of tilapia fishery at Mipan Village, Middle Fly District, Western Province. Kiunga: Division of Fisheries & Marine Resources, Western Province.
Masuda, K., Vonole, R., & Sagom, P. (1994). Viability of trout farming in Papua New Guinea. Port Moresby: Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources (unpublished internal report).
Mather, P., Nandlal, S., Hurwood, D., & Gonzales, C. (2012). Project FIS/2005/108 Freshwater prawn aquaculture in the Pacific region: improving culture stock quality and nutrition in Fiji. Australian Center for International Agriculture Research, p. 7
Mathew, P. (1996). "Changing trends in tribal fights in the highlands of Papua New Guinea: a five-year review." Papua New Guinea Medical Journal 39: 117-120.
Mbahinzireki, G. B., Dabrowski, K., Lee, K., El-Saidy, D., and Wisner, Erik R (2001). "Growth, feed utilization and body composition of tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) fed cottonseed meal-based diets in a recirculating system." Aquaculture Nutrition 7(3): 189-200.
McKinna, E. M., Nandlal, S., Mather, P. B., and Hurwood, D. A. (2010). "An investigation of the possible causes for the loss of productivity in genetically improved farmed tilapia strain in Fiji: inbreeding versus wild stock introgression." Aquaculture research 41(11): e730-e742.
Mibank. (2015). Fishing Loan. Retrieved January 2015, from Mibank: http://www.microbank.com.pg/products/nfa_fishing_loan.html
Milton, D., Yarrao, M., Fry, G., & Tenakanai, C. (2005). Response of barramundi, Lates calcarifer, populations in the Fly River, Papua New Guinea to mining, fishing and climate-related perturbation. Marine and freshwater research, 56(7), 969-981.
185
Minimulu, P. (2004). Studies on farmed based feed for freshwater fish. Goroka: Highlands Regional Office - NDAL.
Mowbray, D. and Duguman, J. (2009)."Environment and Conservation Policy and Implementation." Policy Making and Implementation: Studies from Papua New Guinea: 165.
Mueller, I., Vounatsou, P., Allen, B. J., and Smith, T. (2001). "Spatial patterns of child growth in Papua New Guinea and their relation to environment, diet, socio- economic status and subsistence activities." Annals of human biology 28(3): 263-280.
Nagoli, J., Phiri, E. M., Kambewa, E., and Jamu, D. (2009). Adapting integrated agriculture aquaculture for HIV and AIDS-affected households: the case of Malawi, WorldFish.
Nandlal, S. (2012). "Freshwater aquaculture production in the South Pacific region as a means of increasing regional food security and sustainability." Food security in East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Pacific island countries and territories: 42. ACIAR, Canberra.
Nandlal, S. and T. Pickering (2004). Tilapia Fish Farming in Pacifc Island Countries Volume 2: Tilapia Grow Out in Ponds, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia.
NAQIA. (2009). Fees & Charges. Retrieved 2015, from National Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection Authority: http://www.naqia.gov.pg/Fees&charges/Fees&charges.html
NARI. (2014). Livestock Research and Development. Retrieved 2015, from PNG National Agriculture Research Institute: http://www.nari.org.pg/livestock- research
Narimbi, J. (2015). MPhil Thesis: Quantifying tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) diets in inland aquaculture ponds in Papua New Guinea using stable isotope analysis. Sydney: UNSW.
National Aids Council of Papua New Guinea (2005). “Situational analysis for strategic planning at district level. Eastern Highlands Province. Social mapping project.” National Aids Council of PNG, Port Moresby
National Fisheries Authority. (2004). “The National Aquaculture Development Policy”. Port Moresby: National Fisheries Authority.
National Fisheries Authority. (2011). A review of the development of aquaculture feeds and feeding in PNG (Draft). Port Moresby: National Fisheries Authority.
National Fisheries Authority. (2011). National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Port Moresby: National Fisheries Authority.
186
National Fisheries Authority. (2013). Aquaculture. Retrieved April 9, 2014, from Papua New Guinea National Fisheries Authority: http://www.fisheries.gov.pg/FisheriesIndustry/Aquaculture/tabid/109/Default.as px
National Research Institute. (2010). Papua New Guinea District and Provincial Profiles. Port Moresby: National Research Institute.
National Strategic Plan Task Force.(2009). Papua New Guinea Vision 2050. Port Moresby: Independent State of Papua New Guinea.
NDAL. (2006). National Agriculture Development Plan 2007-2016. Port Moresby: National Department of Agriculture and Livestock.
NFA. (2003). NFA Newsletter: Fishing Line. Retrieved 2015, from National Fisheries Authority: http://www.fisheries.gov.pg/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lrcwq81qy84%3D&tabid =88
NFA. (2013). Fisheries Credit Fund. Retrieved 2015, from PNG National Fisheries Authority: http://www.fisheries.gov.pg/PolicyandRegulation/ProjectManagement/ImpactPr ojects/FisheriesCreditFund/tabid/206/Default.aspx
NFA. (2013). NFA recognizes and Support PNG Fisheries Cooperatives. Retrieved 2015, from PNG National Fisheries Authority: http://www.fisheries.gov.pg/FisheriesAuthority/NewsandMedia/MediaReleases/ NFArecognizesandSupportPNGFisheriesCooperati/tabid/283/Default.aspx
Ningal, T., Hartemink, A. E., and Bregt, A. K. (2008). "Land use change and population growth in the Morobe Province of Papua New Guinea between 1975 and 2000." Journal of Environmental Management 87(1): 117-124.
Nelson, E., Loomis, H., and Bendorf, G. (2012). "Tri-Mode Systems: Continuity Issues in a Lifestyle Business Case Study." Journal of Management 13(1): 27.
Odhuno, F., Sanida, O., Yala, C., and Webster, T. (2014). Taxation policies and practices affecting businesses and individuals - Discussion Paper 142. Port Moresby: The National Research Institute.
Ok Tedi Mining Limited. (2013). A Report Accompanying the Mine Closure Plan 2013, describing the Social and Economic Impacts of Mine Closure. Tabubil: Ok Tedi Mining Limited.
Olufayo, M. O. (2012). "The Gender roles of women in aquaculture and food security in Nigeria." Tanzania Proceedings, IIFET
187 Omot, N. (2012). "Food security in Papua New Guinea." Food security in East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Pacific island countries and territories: 28. In: Templeton D. (ed.) 2012. Food security in East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Pacific island countries and territories. ACIAR Technical Reports No. 80. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra. 53pp.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. and N. L. Leech (2007). "A call for qualitative power analyses." Quality & Quantity 41(1): 105-121.
Pacific Climate Change Science. (2011). Current and future climate of Papua New Guinea. Retrieved 2015, from Pacific Climate Change Science: http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/06/14_PCCSP_PNG_8pp.pdf
Pamphilon, B., Mikhailovich, K., and Chambers, B. (2014). "‘Training by Papua New Guinea women, for Papua New Guinea women’: lessons from the development of a co-constructed course for women smallholder farmers." International Journal of Lifelong Education 33(6): 721-736.
Panigrahi, J. K., & Mohanty, P. K. (2012). Effectiveness of the Indian coastal regulation zones provisions for coastal zone management and its evaluation using SWOT analysis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 65, 34-50.
Phan, L. T., Bui, T. M., Nguyen, T. T. T., Gooley, G. J., Ingram, B. A., Nguyen, H. V., Nguyen, P. T., and De Silva, S. S. (2009). "Current status of farming practices of striped catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam." Aquaculture 296(3): 227-236.
Pickering, T. (2007). Advances in seaweed aquaculture among Pacific Island countries. Eighteenth International Seaweed Symposium, Springer.
Pickering, T. and Wani J. (2011). "Public-private partnerships are paying off in PNG inland aquaculture." SPC Fisheries Newsletter #135, pp. 13-15
Pickering, T., Pama, G., Singh, A., Varawa, J., Mana, R., and Totome, R. (2014) "Creating an aquaculture industry for a new type of freshwater prawn in Papua New Guinea." SPC Fisheries Newsletter #144, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea.
PNG Department of Education. (2014). Tuition Fee Free. Retrieved January 2015, from Papua New Guinea Department of Education: http://www.education.gov.pg/TFF/presentation.html
Ponia, B., & Mobiha, A. (2002, April).Aquaculture in Papua New Guinea. SPC Fisheries Newsletter #101, pp. 18-25.
Ponia, B. (2009, March). Aquaculture updates from Papua New Guinea. Retrieved January 2015, from SPC Aquaculture Portal: http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i d=48:aquaculture-updates-from-papua-new-guinea&catid=19:programming
188
Ponia, B. (2010). A Review of Aquaculture in the Pacific Islands 1998-2007: Tracking a Decade of Progress Through Official and Provisional Statistics, Secretariat of the Pacific Community.
Prein, M. (2002). "Integration of aquaculture into crop–animal systems in Asia." Agricultural systems 71(1): 127-146.
Rapson, A. M. (1957). “Coastal and fishery problems of Papua New Guinea.” Bangkok: Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and Far East.
Reynolds , L. F. (1970). Fish culture in fertilized ponds. Port Moresby: Department of Agriculture Stock & Fisheries (Unpublished internal report - NFA archives).
Rimmer, M. A. and B. Ponia (2007). "A review of cage aquaculture: Oceania." FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 498: 211.
Rimmer, M. A., Sugama, K., Rakhmawati, D., Rofiq, R., and Habgood, R. H. (2013)."A review and SWOT analysis of aquaculture development in Indonesia." Reviews in Aquaculture 5(4): 255-279.
Roberts, J. (2012). "Behavioural beliefs concerning gender and high-risk sexual behaviours inthe context of HIV/AIDS in PNG: views from within teacher education." PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Rogers, C., Bleakley, R., Ola, W., & CARE ICD Project Team. (2011). Rural poverty in remote Papua New Guinea: Case study of Obura-Wonenara District. Canberra: Australian National University.
Roos, N., Wahab, M. A., Chamnan, C., and Thilsted, S. H. (2007). "The role of fish in food-based strategies to combat vitamin A and mineral deficiencies in developing countries." The journal of Nutrition 137(4): 1106-1109.
Russell, L. (2011). "Poverty, climate change and health in Pacific island countries." University of Sydney, Sydney
Sammut, J. (2009). Training in soil assessment and scientific writing for aquaculture officers in Papua New Guinea. Retrieved 2015, from ACIAR : http://aciar.gov.au/project/fis/2009/027
Sammut, J. (2010). Increasing production from inland aquaculture in Papua New Guinea for food and income security. Retrieved 2015, from Australian Center for International Agricultural Research: http://aciar.gov.au/project/fis/2008/023
Sammut, J., and Wani, J. (2010). "Project FIS/2009/027: Training in soil assessment and scientific writing for aquaculture officers in Papua New Guinea." Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra
189 Sammut, J., & Wani, J. (2014). Project FIS/2014/062 document: Improving technologies for inland aquaculture in PNG. Canberra: ACIAR.
Sanni, A., Olowosegun, T., Sule, A. M., Muhammed, A., Yemi, I. Y., and Onimisi, H. U.(2009). "Capacity Building and Training Requirement for Effective Fisheries and Aquaculture Extension in Nigeria-A Review." Journal of Nature and Science 7(4): 66-71.
Schuster, W. (1951). "A Survey of the Island Fisheries of the Territory of New Guinea and Papua." Marine and Freshwater Research 2(2): 226-236.
Shahid, H., Shafique, O., Shokat, A., Bodla, O. H., and Arshad, S. (2012). "PEST Analysis Of Engro Fertilizers, Pakistan." Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 2(10): 1-5.
Shelly, A. and D’Costa M. (2002). "Women in aquaculture: initiatives of caritas Bangladesh." Penang, Malaysia, ICLARM-The World Fish Center: 77-87.
Siaosi, F., Huang, H., and Chuang C. (2012). "Fisheries development strategy for developing Pacific Island Countries: Case study of Tuvalu." Ocean & Coastal Management 66: 28-35.
Sigurðardóttir, S., Stefánsdóttir, E. K., Condie, H., Margeirsson, S., Catchpole, T. L., Bellido, J. M., . . . Palialexis, A. (2015). How can discards in European fisheries be mitigated? Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of potential mitigation methods. Marine Policy, 51, 366-374. Silva, S. S., Nguyen, T.T.T., Abery, N. W., and Amarasinghe, U. S. (2006). "An evaluation of the role and impacts of alien finfish in Asian inland aquaculture." Aquaculture research 37(1): 1-17.
Singas, S. and P. Manus (2014). "Factors Influencing Adoption of Pond Fish Farming Innovations in Potsy of Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea." Universal Journal of Agricultural Research 2(6): 191-197
Smith, P. T. (2007). Aquaculture in Papua New Guinea: status of freshwater fish farming, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).
Smith, P. T. (2013). Small-scale aquaculture in Papua New Guinea: examination of entry points for international aid donors. In: M.G. Bondad-Reantaso & R.P. Subasinghe, eds. Enhancing the contribution of small-scale aquaculture to food security, poverty alleviation and socio-economic development, pp. 131–142. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 31. Rome, FAO. 255 pp.
SPC, (2008).Regional strategy for developing marine finfish aquaculture in the Pacific Islands. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Community.
SPC. (2009). HOF6 Meeting Outcomes. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Community.
190 Stead, S. M. (2005). "Changes in Scottish coastal fishing communities—Understanding socio-economic dynamics to aid management, planning and policy." Ocean & Coastal Management 48(9): 670-692.
Storey, A. W., & Yarrao, M. (2008). Development of aquatic food web models for the Fly River, Papua New Guinea, and their application in assessing impacts of the Ok Tedi Mine. Developments in Earth and Environmental Sciences, 9, 575-615.
Tacon, A. (1986). "Papua New Guinea: Development of carp feeds." Rome, FAO.
Tanaka, H. (1987). Some Notes on Aquaculture Development in the South Pacific, Secretariat for the Pacific Community, Noumea.
Terrados, J., Almonacid, G., & Hontoria, L. (2007). Regional energy planning through SWOT analysis and strategic planning tools.: Impact on renewables development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(6), 1275-1287.
The World Bank. (2015). Papua New Guinea. Retrieved 2015, from The World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/country/papua-new-guinea
The World Bank. (2015). Access to electricity (% of population). Retrieved from The World Bank - IBRD IDA: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS
Tidwell, J. H. and G. L. Allan (2001). "Fish as food: aquaculture's contribution." EMBO reports 2(11): 958-963.
Toneba , P. (1980). Carp breeding and distribution. Harvest (6) 3, 145-148 (NFA archives).
Trading Economics. (2015). Papua New Guinea Inflation Rate 1978-2015. Retrieved from Trading Economics: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/papua-new- guinea/inflation-cpi
Tsiakkiros, A. and P. Pashiardis (2002). "Strategic planning and education: the case of Cyprus." International Journal of Educational Management 16(1): 6-17.
Turongruang, D. and Demaine H. (2002). "Participatory development of aquaculture extension materials and their effectiveness in transfer of technology: the case of the AIT Aqua Outreach Progamme, Northeast Thailand." Rural Aquaculture: 307-321
UNAids. (2013). Papua New Guinea. Retrieved from UNAIDS: http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/papuanewguinea
United Nations Data. (2015). Papua New Guinea. Retrieved January 2015, from UN Data: https://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Papua%20New%20Guinea
191 University of Technology. (2013). Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 2015, from PNG University of Technology: http://www.unitech.ac.pg/InformationAbout/Departments/Agriculture/Course Structure
Václavíková, M., Václavík, T., and Kostkan, V. (2011). "Otters vs. fishermen: Stakeholders’ perceptions of otter predation and damage compensation in the Czech Republic." Journal for Nature Conservation, 19(2): 95-102.
Valderrama, D., Iyemperumal, S., and Krishnan, M. (2014). "Building consensus for sustainable development in aquaculture: A Delphi study of better management practices for shrimp farming in India" Aquaculture Economics & Management 18(4): 369-394.
Vira, H. (2015). Sweet potato (Ipomea batatas) as feed for by Australian redclaw (Cherax quadricarinatus) and implications for its aquaculture in PNG. Contemporary PNG Studies: Divine Word University Research Journal Vol 22, pp. 48-54
Vira, H., & Manieva, J. (2015). Fishmeal production in PNG: Implications for aquaculture development. Port Moresby: National Fisheries Authority.
Wani, J. (1998 , February). First ever trout farmers training course in PNG. HAQDEC Newsletter Vol 1: Issue 1, pp. 6-8.
Wani, J. (2004). "The status of aquaculture development in Papua New Guinea: an information paper." National Fisheries Authority, Port Moresby.
Wani, J., Masuda, K., and Murri, P. (1995). Carp farming manual. Aiyura: Highlands Aquaculture Development Center.
Wani, J., Solato, W., & Sammut, J. (2012, October). Farming Fish for Change. Retrieved January 2015, from ACIAR Partners Magazine: http://aciar.gov.au/publication/pmg042
Wardlow, H. (2007). "Men’s extramarital sexuality in rural Papua New Guinea." American Journal of Public Health 97(6): 1006.
Weather & Climate Information. (2015). Papua New Guinea. Retrieved 2015, from Weather & Climate Information: http://www.weather-and-climate.com/average- monthly-Rainfall-Temperature-Sunshine-in-Papua-New-Guinea
Weather Online. (2015). Papua New Guinea. Retrieved 2015, from Weather Online: http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/climate/Papua-New-Guinea.htm
Wei, Q., Zou, Y., Li, P., and Li, L. (2011). "Sturgeon aquaculture in China: progress, strategies and prospects assessed on the basis of nation-wide surveys (2007– 2009)." Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27(2): 162-168.
192 Weihrich, H. (1982). "The TOWS matrix—a tool for situational analysis." Long range planning 15(2): 54-66.
Weihrich, H. (1999). "Analyzing the competitive advantages and disadvantages of Germany with the TOWS Matrix-an alternative to Porter’s Model." European Business Review 99(1): 9-22.
Welcomme, R. L. (1988). International introductions of inland aquatic species, Food & Agriculture Organisation, Rome
WHO. (1996). Trade, foreign policy, diplomacy and health. Retrieved 2015, from World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/
Windybank, S. and Manning, M. (2003). "Papua New Guinea on the brink." Center for Independent Studies, Sydney
Winnington, A. (2007). "Small Arms Violence in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea: Analysis of Hospital Related Data 1999-2007." Hospital 1999: 34.
WorldFish Center (2011) Aquaculture and Food Security in Solomon Islands, Policy Brief No 2011-08, Penang, Malaysia
WWF (2014). Lakes Kutubu&Sentani. Retrieved June 2014, from WWF Global: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/kutubu_sentani_lakes.cfm
193 Appendices
194 Appendix A: Brief description of stakeholder focus group organisations
1. The National Agriculture Research Institute (NARI) This government organisation was mandated to lead agriculture and livestock research in PNG - including small-scale pond farming (NARI, 2013). NARI has been involved in aquaculture research, training and development work in the EHP and is collaborating with ACIAR and NFA in developing fish feed with farm trials in progress.
2. The Highlands Aquaculture Development Center (HAQDEC) Established to conduct research, training and extension in aquaculture, HAQDEC is a key government institution in developing the industry (SPC, 2011). Located in EHP, it is influential in promoting and building capacity for aquaculture in PNG.
3. EHP DPI This is the provincial department mandated to coordinate all agriculture and livestock extension and development (NDAL, 2006). It has an aquaculture section and is continuing extension and training programs with some collaboration with various NGO and government agencies throughout EHP.
4. National Department of Agriculture & Livestock (NDAL) This government department coordinates all agriculture and livestock extension and development throughout the seven highlands provinces. It operates collaboratively with respective provincial DPIs and is also involved in aquaculture extension and development (NDAL, 2006).
5. Care International (CI) CI is a key NGO involved in rural development operating in the most remote areas of EHP (Care International, 2008). Aquaculture is included as a poverty alleviation and nutrition improvement intervention. Collaborating with local farmers, CI has a reasonably successful ongoing program.
195 6. Nationwide Microbank Limited (NMB) This is a private financial organisation involved in providing banking services to rural communities throughout the province. NMB has received PGK2 million from NFA to provide micro-credit to fish farmers (NMB, 2015). The institution is widely recognised in the province and credited with enabling the unbanked to access financial services.
7. Inland Aquaculture Research Project This project is a collaborative intervention by NFA and ACIAR in developing inland aquaculture. Staff members are based in Goroka and Aiyura undertaking research, development, training and extension (Sammut, 2013). The operation of the only consistent fish feed production facility for the province and the country is managed by this group.
8. Eastern Highlands Fish Farmers Cooperative (EHFFC) As a strategy to improve marketing and strengthen the aquaculture industry, NFA established provincial cooperatives from 2011 to 2012 (NFA, 2013). These entities are comprised of active farmers with advice and direction from NFA and provincial DPIs. The EHFFC has been active in promoting aquaculture.
196 Appendix B: Questionnaires used in survey, consent form and information form
197 Eastern Highlands Aquaculture Farmer SWOT Survey QUESTIONNAIRE
Serial #:______Date: ______Interviewer: ______1. Respondents details District Name of respondent
Local Level Govt Gender
Ward Age
Village Marital status
GPS location Number of dependents in house 2. Fish farming unit a. What is the farm ownership? þ I Farmer and immediate family II Community III Others (church, school, prison, etc.) b. What is the primary occupation of the farm owner? þ I Agriculture II Fish farming III Trading IV Hired worker V Formal employment c. History of farming
I Year started farming?
II Reason for farming?
III Received training? From who or what organisation? IV Received extension advice? From who or what organisation? d. What is the main fish species being farmed þ I GIFT II Common carp III Rainbow trout IV Other e. Farming data
I Number of ponds
198 II Number of stocked ponds
III Average pond surface area (m2)
IV Water source (creek, river, etc.)
V Flow through system (yes/no)
VI Is feed supplied? If yes what?
VII How often is feed supplied?
VIII Source of fingerlings
IX How often are harvests made
X Reason for harvest
f. Marketing
I Does the farm regularly sell fish?
II Where is the main market?
III What is the average size of fish sold (cm)? IV Average number of fish sold per harvest? V What is the price of average fish sold?
g. Main constraint
I What is the main constraint?
II Where do you think you can get support to help you?
3. SWOT Circle score that expresses how much the farmer agrees with the statement. KEY: 1= Strongly disagree 2= Disagree 3= Possibly but no evidence or have not experienced 4= Agree 5 = Strongly agree
199 S1 Water is freely available and accessible
S2 Land freely available
S3 Extension services readily available
S4 Fingerlings are widely available
S5 Good climate and environment for fish farming
S6 Funding and credit is accessible
S7 NGO or donor support is accessible
S8 EH farmer’s cooperative is supporting farmers
S9 Good demand for farmed fish
W1 Lack of extension material and training for farmers
W2 Lack of regular updates and information on fish-farming development and opportunities through radio/newspaper W3 Fish feed is expensive and/or not always available
W4 Farmers lack skills in farming
W5 Farmers lack basic record keeping and management skills
W6 Lack of organised market for farmers
W7 Farmers lack skills in preservation/postharvest handling
W8 Lack of access to aquaculture equipment such as scoop- nets, seine-nets, etc. discourages/hinders farming W9 Bad transport infrastructure discourages/hinders farming
O1 Demand for farmed fish is growing
O2 Farmers need more training and extension
O3 Children should be taught fish-farming at school as a lesson
O4 Farmers would use social media (Facebook) to read about fish farming if available O5 Farmers are happy to work with all stakeholders and have no preference
200 O6 Good affordable fish feed is needed to improve farming
T1 It is getting more expensive to farm fish
T2 Stealing of fish from ponds is increasing
T3 Stealing is discouraging fish-farming
T4 Conflict on water use for fish farming and other use is growing T5 Conflict on land use for fish farming and other use is growing
T6 Lack of organised market is discouraging fish farming
T7 Disease introduction will discourage fish farming
T8 Slow growth of fish even though feed is regularly given, discourages fish farming T9 Pollution of water supply affects my farm
4. Are there any other comments that want to be made?
201
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES PARTICIPANTS CONSENT FORM SWOT analysis of aquaculture development in Eastern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea
You are making a decision whether or not to participate. Your signature indicates that, having read the information provided on the participant information sheet, you have decided to participate. …………………………………………… ……………………………………………… Signature of Research Participant Signature of witness ……………………………………………… ……………………………………………… Please PRINT name Please PRINT name ……………………………………………………………… Signature of investigator ………………………………………………………………. Please PRINT name REVOCATION OF CONSENT A SWOT analysis of aquaculture development in Eastern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea I hereby WITHDRAW my consent to participate in the research proposal described above and direct that any data collected from me be destroyed. I understand that such withdrawal WILL NOT jeopardize any treatment or my relationship with The University of New South Wales. …………………………………………… ……………………………………………… Signature Date ……………………………………………………………. Please PRINT name
The section for Revocation of Consent should be forwarded to Havini Vira, PO Box 533 Goroka or contact him on mobile 73604073
202
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES TOK ORAIT LO WOKBUNG Fis fama sevey lo kirapim development lo Isten Hailens Provins, Papua Niu Gini
Yu nau stretim tingting lo wokbung lo displa sevey. Taim yu sainim displa pepa, em soim olsem yu ridim na klia lo as tintin blo displa wok na yu wanbel lo wokbung. ……………………………………………… ……………………………………………… Sign blo fama Sign blo witnes ………………………………………………. ……………………………………………… Plis raitim nem Plis raitim nem ……………………………………………………………… Sign blo ofisa ………………………………………………………………. Nem blo ofisa
TOK NOGAT LO WOKBUNG Fis fama sevey lo kirapim development lo Isten Hailens Provins, Papua Niu Gini Mi nau RAUSIM tok orait blo mi lo wokbung lo displa wok na mi laikim olgeta toktok blo mi we ofisa bin kisim mas raus. Mi klia olsem displa tok nogat blo mi bai NO INAP bagarapim wokbung blo mi wantim University of New South Wales lo taim bihain.
……………………………………………… ……………………………………………… Sign De
………………………………………………………………. Plis raitim nem
Displa tok nogat yu mas salim lo Havini Vira, PO Box 533 Goroka or ringim em lo mobile 73604073
203
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES PARTICIPANTS INFORMATION STATEMENT SWOT analysis of aquaculture development in Eastern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea
Participant selection and purpose of study You are invited to participate in this study to support aquaculture development in EHP. The study is part of an MPhil research program at UNSW. The outcomes of this investigation will assist authorities develop appropriate plans and policies for the sector. You have been selected because of your involvement in the aquaculture industry.
Description of study and risks If you decide to participate, you will be interviewed with closed questions with your answers recorded by the interviewer on the forms. The interview will start with basic questions about yourself, where you live and your farm. You will then be asked on your views about certain factors influencing aquaculture development and your response will be recorded on a scale of one to five with your confirmation. The interview will take at least half an hour. The interview will be in pidgin. We do not anticipate any risks as a result of your participation in this interview. Your answers will assist us understand the characteristics of fish-farming in EHP and aid in the development of this important sector. However, we cannot guarantee or promise that you will receive any benefits from this study.
Confidentiality and disclosure of information Any information that is obtained from this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed with your permission or except when required by law. If you give your permission by signing the consent form, the results of this study will be published in international journals and in an MPhil thesis for the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW, Sydney. In all publications, information will be provided such that you cannot be identified.
Your consent Your decision to participate or not will not prejudice your future relations with the UNSW. You are free to withdraw your consent at any time.
Inquiries If you have any queries during or after this study, please do not hesitate to contact Mr Havini Vira on +675 73604073 (PNG Digicel) or +61 0449187652 (Aust Vodafone).
204 Also contactable is Assoc. Prof Jesmond Sammut on +61 0403154863 for relevant discussion.
Complaints may be directed to the Ethics Secretariat, the University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, telephone: +61 2 93854234, fax: +61 2 93856648 or email: [email protected]
Please keep this information sheet and copy of signed consent form. The researcher will keep a copy of the signed consent form
205
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES TOKSAWE LO WOK PAINIMAUT Fis fama sevey lo kirapim development lo Isten Hailens Provins, Papua Niu Gini
Displa fama sevey em blo women? Wok blo lukautim fis em kamap bikpla insait lo provins. Displa fama sevey em blo halvim ol ofisa lo wokim wok painimaut blo wanpla mastas digri pepa lo UNSW. Kaikai blo dipla mastas pepa bai halvim DPI na NFA lo kamapim gutpla plen na policy blo developim wok blo lukautim fis. Yu wanpla fis fama insait lo provins we mipla askim lo wokbung wantaim lo displa sevey.
Fama sevey bai askim wonem? Sapos yu wanbel lo wokbung wantaim ol ofisa, bai mipla askim sampla kwesten lo yu na bai ofisa raitim bekim blo yu lo pepa. Bai mipla stat wantaim askim lo nem blo yu na yu stap we na sampla askim lo fis fam blo yu. Bihain bai mipla mekim sampla tok na bai yu bekim sapos yu wanbel na lo wonem skel yu wanbel lo toktok. Ofisa bai makim 1-5 lo hamas yu wanbel; sapos yu wanbel stron em bai 5 na yu no wanbel stret em bai 1 na go olsem. Ofisa bai askim lo tok pidgin na mipla ting bai sevey holim yu 30 minit. Mipla no lukim wanpla hevi yu bai kisim lo sindaun liklik taim wantaim ofisa lo bekim ol askim. Bekim blo yu bai helpim wok developmen blo lukautim fis insait lo provins tasol mipla no nap promis lo yu bai kisim sampla benefit stret lo yu lo wokbung wantaim mipla.
Tok promis blo ofisa lo noken tokaut Mipla tok promis lo yu olsem bai nogat wanpla tok yu mekim bai kamap lo public wantaim nem blo yu. Olgeta bekim blo yu bai stap wantaim ofisa na sapos igat need lo tokaut, bai tok orait mas kam lo yu pastem or kot oda mas kamap pastaim lo ol ofisa. Sapos yu sainim pepa lo wokbung, em yu wanbel tu lo mipla usim ansa blo olgeta fama lo raitim ol pepa na pinism mastas digri lo UNSW. Lo olgeta pepa mipla raitim bai nem blo yu na ol fama bai ino kamaut ples klia.
Tok orait blo yu Tok orait blo yu or nogat bai ino nap bagarapim wokbung blo yu wantaim UNSW nau na taim bihain too. Yu gat pawa lo tok nogat lo wokbung wantaim ofisa lo disla sevey.
Sapos yu gat askim
206 Sapos yu gat sampla askim, plis noken poret lo ringim Mr Havini Vira lo Digicel mobile namba 73604073 or namba blo em lo Australia +61 0449187652. Yu ken ringim too Assoc. Prof. Jesmond Sammut lo +61 0403154863.
Sapos yu gat bel hevi lo wokbung, yu ken rait lo askim Ethics Secretariat, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052 or ring lo telephone: +61 2 93854234, fax: +61 2 93856648 or email: [email protected]
Plis sainim tuple pepa blo tok orait lo wokbung na holim wanpla copy blo yu yet, narapla bai ofisa kisim go.
207 Appendix C: Cross-tabulations and Chi-squared tests
SWOT x location crosstab crosstab chisq Fishers p 0.05 null Ho Conc S1 0.012 0.011 sig reject yes loc does affect no loc does not S2 0.219 0.21 nsigf accept affect S3 0.005 0.001 sig reject yes loc does affect S4 0.021 0.01 sig reject yes loc does affect
no loc does not W1 0.094 0.073 nsigf accept affect no loc does not W2 0.067 0.061 nsigf accept affect W3 0.015 0.006 sig reject yes loc does affect W4 0.093 0.031 sig reject yes loc does affect W5 0 0 sig reject yes loc does affect W6 0.064 0.009 sig reject yes loc does affect W7 0 0 sig reject yes loc does affect no loc does not W8 0.768 0.746 nsigf accept affect
no loc does not O1 0.102 0.103 nsigf accept affect O2 0.009 sig reject yes loc does affect no loc does not O3 0.056 nsigf accept affect no loc does not O4 0.126 0.102 nsigf accept affect no loc does not O5 0.091 nsigf accept affect no loc does not O6 0.063 0.092 nsigf accept affect no loc does not O7 0.094 0.079 nsigf accept affect O8 0 0 sig reject yes loc does affect O9 0.007 0.007 sig reject yes loc does affect no loc does not O10 0.122 0.117 nsigf accept affect no loc does not O11 0.083 0.13 nsigf accept affect
T1 0.015 0.007 sig reject yes loc does affect T2 0 0 sig reject yes loc does affect T3 0 0 sig reject yes loc does affect T4 0.004 0.001 sig reject yes loc does affect T5 0.015 sig reject yes loc does affect T6 0 0 sig reject yes loc does affect T7 0 0 sig reject yes loc does affect
208 T8 0.002 0.001 sig reject yes loc does affect no loc does not T9 0.222 0.23 nsigf accept affect T10 0 0.001 sig reject yes loc does affect
SWOT x years farmed crosstab crosstab chisq Fishers p 0.05 null Ho Conc S1 0.117 0.015 sig reject yes yrs does affect S2 0.17 0.102 nsig accept no yrs does not affect S3 0.435 0.172 nsig accept no yrs does not affect S4 0.915 0.902 nsig accept no yrs does not affect
W1 0.033 0.012 sig reject yes yrs does affect W2 0.767 0.654 nsig accept no yrs does not affect W3 0.669 0.427 nsig accept no yrs does not affect W4 0.651 0.471 nsig accept no yrs does not affect W5 0.704 0.551 nsig accept no yrs does not affect W6 0.669 0.196 nsig accept no yrs does not affect W7 0.538 3625 nsig accept no yrs does not affect W8 0.02 0.017 sig reject yes yrs does affect
O1 0.107 0.401 nsig accept no yrs does not affect O2 0.031 0.021 sig reject yes yrs does affect O3 0.09 0.052 nsig accept no yrs does not affect O4 0.016 0.015 sig reject yes yrs does affect O5 0.608 0.463 nsig accept no yrs does not affect O6 0.423 0.04 sig reject yes yrs does affect O7 0.21 0.027 sig reject yes yrs does affect O8 0.35 0.353 nsig accept no yrs does not affect O9 0.605 0.408 nsig accept no yrs does not affect O10 0.753 0.386 nsig accept no yrs does not affect O11 0.31 0.336 nsig accept no yrs does not affect
T1 0.403 0.429 nsig accept no yrs does not affect T2 0.297 0.312 nsig accept no yrs does not affect T3 0.038 0.018 sig reject yes yrs does affect T4 0.212 0.201 nsig accept no yrs does not affect T5 0.098 0.174 nsig accept no yrs does not affect T6 0.26 0.323 nsig accept no yrs does not affect T7 0.506 0.518 nsig accept no yrs does not affect T8 0.016 0.166 nsig accept no yrs does not affect T9 0.24 0.357 nsig accept no yrs does not affect T10 0.001 0.026 sig reject yes yrs does affect
209 Cross tab of location x various factors Factor chisq Fishers p 0.05 null Ho Conc Ownership of pond no location does (family/community) 0.955 0.955 nsig accept not affect no location does Occupation (subsistence/formal) 0.159 0.159 nsig accept not affect no location does Number of years farming 0.588 0.671 nsig accept not affect no location does Training received 0.401 0.375 nsig accept not affect yes location does Extension services received 0.005 0.006 sig reject affect yes location does Species farmed 0 0 sig reject affect no location does Total area farmed 0.211 0.354 nsig accept not affect no location does Flow through water supply 0.664 0.664 nsig accept not affect yes location does Feed source used 0.004 0.006 sig reject affect no location does Feeding frequency 0.41 0.436 nsig accept not affect yes location does Fingerling source 0 0 sig reject affect no location does Number of harvests per year 0.771 0.843 nsig accept not affect no location does Reason for harvest 0.496 0.478 nsig accept not affect yes location does Main market 0.002 0.009 sig reject affect no location does Main product (table-size/fingerling) 0.079 0.185 nsig accept not affect yes location does Selling size 0.024 sig reject affect no location does Price of product 0.066 nsig accept not affect no location does Main constraint 0.325 0.541 nsig accept not affect
210 Appendix D: Table 1: Common SWOTs of aquaculture in EHP # Strengths 1 Fingerlings (particularly GIFT) are widely available for farmers to purchase from other farmers or through NGO's and government (DPI) 2 The ability to produce feed locally using locally available ingredients (including fish meal) is an enabling factor to improve production 3 There is some technical know-how and expertise available in-country to utilise and expand on
4 Government, NGO's and development partner recognise and support aquaculture as a rural development tool. 5 Cooperative societies established by NFA provide a voice for farmers and create a forum for exchange of information, training and planning. 6 External development partners and NGO's are present in-country to support aquaculture development. Many already have ongoing programs that can be coordinated with other interventions through NFA (NADMAC) 7 A dedicated built-for-use aquaculture research and training facility is already established in- country (HAQDEC) 8 Farmers training programs have been established and used extensively. This can be improved and expanded. # Weaknesses 1 Farmers continue to lack essential skills to improve their operations. Basic fish husbandry, book keeping and postharvest handling skills are absent. This further translates into the limited knowledge on how to access credit from available financial sources and a lack of management capacity in the farmers cooperatives.
2 High feed cost and inconsistent supply. Largely due to high cost of ingredients and the competition with other livestock feed producers for the same ingredients. 3 A lack of organised marketing options or strategies and plans to develop such is prevalent. 4 There is limited extension and training promoting correct farming practices into rural areas. This includes a lack of appropriate extension material and limited use of available media in raising awareness. 5 The absence of an updated strategic development plan with appropriate policies from provincial through to NFA is evident. This gives rise to the lack of succession plans, breeding stock management plans, marketing plans and coordination of stakeholders. The lack of provincial and national databases is a contributing factor.
6 Abuse and misuse of NFA PDF grants gives rise to false expectations, corruption and a false growth of the activity as people enter fish farming to solicit the grant. Many loopholes in the application process as well as lack of monitoring after providing grants has resulted in this situation.
211 7 Limited number of technical officers are insufficient to cover all districts. Most officers are employed by NFA and are therefore centrally located as NFA lacks regional presence. There are also not enough technical officers in specialised areas such as: disease, environment, genetics, nutrition, economics, engineering and research.
8 No local equipment supplier of basic aquaculture requirements such as seine nets, hapa nets, air stones, air blowers, etc. # Opportunities 1 Farmers are receptive to training and extension programs. They are also willing to receive information or updates via media including the fast emerging social media platform. Communities are willing to actively participate in rural development planning or project programs.
2 Farmers are willing to work with all stakeholders which allows input from the growing NGO, donor and government support for fish farming. Similarly, technical support from regional and international research organisations is now accessible for this aquaculture development. 3 The climate and environment is conducive for fish farming with land and water widely available. The current disease-free status of aquaculture in PNG also presents a marketing opportunity. 4 There is a widespread and growing demand for aquaculture technology. This is also closely followed by the demand for farmed fish by a growing population in in rural and urban areas. Educational institutions are receptive to the introduction of aquaculture as a subject or a course in primary through to university levels as well as vocational/adult learning centers. This includes the fish-for-prisons and fish-for-schools programs. Outcome of the demand is increased credit and government funding made available for the development of SME's in the agriculture/fisheries sector. 5 Farmers are realising the impact of feed on growth as they become more commercially focussed. The demand for feed will grow and to support this, retail feed ingredient suppliers are willing to facilitate the procurement of required input through agreements with wholesalers. The fact that fishmeal is commercially produced in-country enables the possibility of upscaling current feed production levels if needed.
# Threats 1 The deteriorating transport infrastructure constrains and limits aquaculture extension, training and marketing. Farmers are discouraged when transport limits their access to better markets. Farmers are also competing with other livestock so high freight costs as a result of limited transport options cuts profits and is a disincentive to commercial fish farming. The increasing cost of goods and services is also a discouraging factor.
2 Increasing social (law and order) issues significantly affect plans, programmes and projects. They also affect farmers production and NGO interventions. For instance, prolonged tribal fighting will result in ponds being abandoned and the farmer having to start from nothing. Similarly, stealing from an ongoing research trial impacts on outcomes.
3 Administrative decisions, slow government processes and political changes all impact on plans, programs and projects. Continuous changes or prolonged delays curbs enthusiasm and eventually curtails initiatives.
212 4 Cross-border invasive aquatic species as well as imported pests and diseases present a significant risk to the industry. The absence of a specialised officer in this field is also of concern. The lack of effective monitoring by a technical officer increases the risk and the level of impact. This will progressively grow as aquaculture intensifies through commercialization.
5 Limited local feed ingredients presents a significant threat for fish feed production. Other more established feed producers bulk purchase the ingredients leaving little for aquaculture. The high cost of the imported ingredients also increases the cost of feed and becomes a disincentive for farmers.
6 Natural disasters and climate change present a risk to fish farming. Increased flooding and drought conditions create a conundrum and careful site selection becomes an essential tool. Increased disasters as a result of climate change will threaten many existing fish farms.
7 Land ownership and tenure issues may present a constraint to commercial investments in aquaculture. This has happened in the past (Kotuni Trout Farm) and is a risk that should be addressed prior to any significant investment.
213 Table 2: Synthesis of PEEST and SWOT factors influencing aquaculture in EHP
PEEST Factors Validated SWOT factors of EHP aquaculture Influencing Strengths Weakness Opportunities Threats aquaculture in EHP Political – national • Recognition of • Absence of • Slow development plans aquaculture as updated bureaucrati and appropriate a rural strategic c processes, legislation is development development release of tool. plans/policies funds and supportive with NFA • NFA to guide political charged to manage. recognised as stakeholders changes • Dedicated lead agency in and coordinate impact provincial aquaculture development. interventio fisheries officer development ns. with increased coordination. number of farmers. • Coordination of extension is limited. • Coordination of research is limited. Economic – the • Establishment • Limited • Demand for • Weak current climate of EH farmers marketing aquaculture transport presents cooperative by options and and farmed infrastructu opportunities, which NFA to assist lack of fish is re increases marketing. strategies to growing price of some farmers have address with credit product and realised. barriers to to support input costs. • Weak transport trade. SME infrastructure • Misuse/abuse growth limits of PDF grants available. opportunities. affects • Production development. related barriers • Absence of constrain local marketing. equipment • Farmers still suppliers. lack accesses to widely available credit/funding.
214 Environmental – • The natural • Invasive natural conditions environment species, are conducive and supports pests, farmers have fish farming diseases with the and the exploited this but disease free lack of a little is understood status of qualified about impacts. aquaculture biosecurity • Rivers and a marketing officer or streams are opportunity. monitoring widely used for program. intake and • Climate discharge but change and little understood associated on impact. impacts are • Agriculture- unknown. aquaculture integration offers an option to limit environmental impact. • Studies to be conducted to establish baseline for future growth. • Disease-free status of aquaculture must be protected. • Climate change impacts are being felt and must be planned for. Social – • Farmers and • Increasing modernisation has communitie law and brought change to s are willing order issues rural life with to work affect with all production. implications for stakeholders • Lack of aquaculture. in planning aquaculture • Fish farming sits projects for specific well in rural life. developmen strategies to • Aquaculture t. address addresses land malnutrition and ownership can be issues for strengthened by commercial improving the operations. role of women. • Increased population has
215 brought social problems. Aquaculture offers solutions and contributes to rural development.
Technical – research • Fingerling • Farmers still • Farmers and • Limited and training has availability. lack technical communitie range of impacted • Local and s are locally aquaculture production of management receptive to available feed. skills. extension ingredients significantly. • Availability of • High feed programs. for feed • The introduction local expertise costs and • Increasing production. of GIFT has in EHP. inconsistent demand for changed fish • Presence of supply. formulated farming. HAQDEC in • Lack of feed by the • The EHP supports consistency in emerging development of training and training semi- feed has extension. provided by commercial increased semi- • Training stakeholders sub-sector intensive programs with with no therefore farming. associated updates on research is • Limited materials are extension required. technical well material. capacity in all established. • Limited areas constrains trained development. officers in extension and specialised roles.
216