Aquaculture in the Philippines
Aquaculture in the Philippines makes up a substantial proportion of the overall output of Philippine fisheries. Aquaculture has a long history in the archipelago, with wild-caught milkfish being farmed in tidally-fed fish ponds for centuries. Modern aquaculture is carried out in freshwater, brackish water, and seawater throughout the country through a variety of methods.
The most prominent farmed commodities are milkfish and tilapia. Tilapia is farmed in freshwater, while milkfish can be farmed anywhere. Other fish species are also farmed, as well as shrimp, crabs, lobsters, and molluscs. Seaweed is mostly farmed to produce carrageenan. Regulation of aquaculture generally falls to the cities and municipalities in which aquaculture farms are located, and public land and water can be rented for aquaculture from the national government.
Aquaculture has made up an increasingly large proportion of fisheries products produced in the Philippines, and there has been considerable research into improving aquacultural output. Philippine output in total makes up 1% of global aquaculture production, and the country is the fourth-largest producer of seaweed. Aquaculture products are sold alongside wild-caught products in ports. Resulting seafood products are often consumed domestically, although some high-value goods are exported.
The aquaculture industry directly employs over 230,000 individuals. While some workers own their output, many are employees of influential landowners. The creation of aquaculture ponds has destroyed large areas of mangroves, and the establishment of aquaculture in water bodies has created friction with capture fisheries. Some species imported for aquaculture have become invasive species, and aquaculture has directly introduced pollution into some ecosystems.
Resources
[edit]Area | Details | |
---|---|---|
2,200,000 km2 (850,000 sq mi) | Total ocean | |
184,600 km2 (71,300 sq mi) | Shallow marine water (≤ 200 metres (660 ft) deep) | |
106,328 ha (262,740 acres) | Inland waters | Freshwater swamps |
137,735 ha (340,350 acres) | Brackish swamps | |
200,000 ha (490,000 acres) | Lakes | |
31,000 ha (77,000 acres) | Rivers | |
19,000 ha (47,000 acres) | Reservoirs |
Philippine marine waters include 2,200,000 square kilometres (850,000 sq mi) of ocean surrounding 36,289 kilometres (22,549 mi) of coasts. Inland waters are made up of both brackish and freshwater areas,[1]: 15 and include 23 lakes over 100 hectares (250 acres).[1]: 18 The Philippine fisheries in these waters include a large aquaculture component,[2] which as of 2022 produced 54.15% of total fisheries volume.[3]: 26
Aquaculture is carried out in fresh, brackish, and marine water.[4] Philippine waters are highly productive due to large amounts of sunlight, and stable and warm temperatures.[5]: 4–5 Aquaculture generally occurs in areas under local government (city and municipal) jurisdiction, which includes their land area and the sea up to 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) from their shoreline. Aquaculture infrastructure can be built on land, in inland waters, or in coastal and nearshore areas.[6]: 1
Most brackish fish ponds are developed from mangrove areas, with agricultural land being too valuable to convert to fish ponds. Exceptions have occurred during conducive economic conditions, such as in the 1980s when sugarcane plantations were converted to shrimp ponds in Negros Occidental, amid a global slump in sugar prices and increasing shrimp prices.[7] Coastal aquaculture ponds are commonly used to rear shrimp and milkfish.[8]: 60 Different species have different ideal habitat conditions for successful rearing.[6]: 100–101 In total, there are 253,323 hectares (625,970 acres) of fish ponds, of which 239,323 hectares (591,380 acres) are brackish and 14,531 hectares (35,910 acres) freshwater.[1]: 15
Products farmed
[edit]The main two fish commodities in agricultural production are the milkfish and tilapia (mainly the Nile tilapia, followed by the Mozambique tilapia). Fish farmed to a lesser extent include carps (notably Bighead carp, as well as some Eurasian carp), catfish (Clarias species such as the walking catfish and Clarias gariepinus, as well as Pangasius species), the mudfish Channa striata, the giant gourami, barramundi, Epinephelus grouper species, rabbitfish (orange-spotted spinefoot and vermiculated spinefoot), and the Scatophagus argus spadefish.[4][9]
The rabbitfish orange-spotted spinefoot and vermiculated spinefoot, as well as Scatophagus argus, have been farmed sporadically in Pangasinan and elsewhere. Barramundi is only desired in the Western Visayas, which combined with high costs has inhibited successful farming. Low-level Epinephelus farming, while expensive, is more successful due to high demand in Chinese restaurants. It is farmed in Capiz, where tilapia is sometimes used as feed.[10]
The shrimp species farmed include the jumbo tiger shrimp, Indian prawn, Penaeus merguiensis, whiteleg shrimp, Metapenaeus ensis, and the giant freshwater prawn. The main crabs farmed are the mudcrabs Scylla serrata and Scylla oceanica.[a] Lobsters farmed include species of the Panulirus genus and the slipper lobster family.[4][9]
For molluscs, oysters farmed include Crassostrea species, Magallana bilineata, and rock oyster species. Abalone that have been farmed are those of the Haliotis genus, particularly Haliotis asinina. The green mussel Perna viridis is also widely farmed.[6]: 100 [9] Less frequent marine aquaculture products include giant clams, nacre (pearl shell), green snails, and Trochus.[8]: 60
Of seaweeds, the farming of carrageenophytes is mainly Eucheuma species such as Eucheuma denticulatum, and Kappaphycus alvarezii. Agarophytes farmed are mostly Gracilaria species and Gracilariopsis balinae. Lastly, Chlorophyceae of the Caulerpa genus such as Caulerpa lentillifera are also farmed.[9]
Tilapia, carp, and catfish are usually farmed in freshwater. Tilapia is farmed in both ponds and cages. Shrimp and crab farming usually takes place in brackish water. Saltwater farms (mariculture) are used to farm seaweed, as well as green mussels. Some fish, such as groupers and rabbitfish, are farmed in both brackish and salt water. Milkfish is farmed in fresh, brackish, and salt water.[4]
Methods
[edit]Different species are farmed with different levels of technology, ranging from simple ponds with wild-caught fry to more complicated methods of raising genetically modified fish strains.[10] Aquaculture products are grown both from stock hatched in captivity and from wild-caught juveniles.[12] Milkfish can be bred artificially to stock ponds, although many still use wild-caught fry. The rabbitfish Siganus guttatus can be hatched in captivity. Giant freshwater prawn farms rely on seedstock grown in hatcheries or imported.[10]
Fish ponds
[edit]Fish ponds, especially in brackish water, are the historical method of aquaculture, and remain widespread.[12] Traditionally, these fishponds are tidally supplied with water and food. It has since developed into a multi-pond system, with fish, especially milkfish, shifted between ponds as they grow. The use of supplementary feed has developed from using rice waste to using commercially produced feed, allowing pond farming to become both more productive and less vulnerable to weather changes.[10]
Milkfish farming in brackish fish ponds uses a variety of techniques used in varying intensities. Shrimp, mostly jumbo tiger shrimp, are also farmed in brackish ponds, sometimes on their own, or sometimes together with or in rotation with milkfish. Scylla crabs are also taken from these ponds, with bamboo fences used to keep them inside.[4] Some strains of tilapia have been developed which can survive in brackish water, to allow them to also be farmed in the ubiquitous ponds. The presence of tilapia may also improve the quality of shrimp ponds, producing phytoplankton less likely to facilitate the growth of bacteria that cause the luminous vibriosis disease. Rabbitfish and spadefish can also be farmed in brackish and saltwater enclosures, but more slowly than milkfish. Seabass are occasionally farmed in brackish ponds.[10] As rabbitfish are herbivores, they are cheap to feed.[13]
Freshwater ponds are far less common, as they compete for land with other forms of agriculture, and freshwater fish are not as popular. Where they are used, they mostly farm tilapia, which are much easier for individual farmers to breed than milkfish. Tilapia can also grow in some brackish water, although they are usually considered pests in competition with or predating on milkfish and shrimp. There is a history of small amounts of freshwater pond farming of other introduced species.[10] A small amount of rice-fish systems function as freshwater ponds.[10] These are often unsuccessful, as pesticides may harm fish, and rice growing cycles may not align with fish growing cycles.[13]
A 1977 national study found that around 15% of fish ponds were smaller than 1 hectare (2.5 acres), although in total there were less than 1% of all fish pond areas. Over half of fishponds were officially above 5 hectares (12 acres), including 5% which were above 50 hectares (120 acres). In 1979, 70% of fish ponds in Central Luzon were smaller than 0.5 hectares (1.2 acres). However, the largest 2% of fish ponds took up 68% of total fish pond area. Such figures do not account for the area of multiple owners being operated together, or for land being operated by someone who is not the owner. Large brackish fishponds often require multiple workers, and large owners often do not work at the ponds. Of fish ponds being leased from the government, the majority are leased by individuals with addresses in different locations to those of their fish ponds. Almost all freshwater fishponds are privately owned.[14]
Fish pond land can be leased from the government for a minimum of 25 years and a maximum of 50 years under the Fisheries Code of 1998. Private land registered as being used for fish ponds can be most valuable as land in itself, and ponds can thus be underdeveloped.[14] Fish pond productivity can be negatively affected by the El Niño–Southern Oscillation.[12] Diseases such as luminous vibriosis impede shrimp farming, and some diseases have become resistant to antibiotics.[10]
Fish pens and cages
[edit]Fish pens are enclosures in which the seabed or lakebed provides the floor. They have high capital costs but can produce large yields even without supplementary feeding. Fish cages are distinguishable from fish pens due to having an artificial bottom. This bottom means fish cages can be small, and are a cheaper alternative to fish pens. These cages can be floating, fixed to the ground, or submerged.[14] Both allow for water to naturally flow through the enclosures.[15] Fish pens can be constructed using bamboo connected with fishing net.[10] They can have high capital costs, that are greatest per unit area for smaller pens.[14] In freshwater areas, they are generally used to farm tilapia, while in marine areas they are often used to farm groupers.[14] Milkfish are farmed in both environments.[10] Different pen sizes are recommended for different species.[16]: 12 Fish pens can be damaged by natural disasters, and their operation can be impeded by water hyacinth.[17]
Fish cages require more supplementary feeding and are thus more labor-intensive than fish ponds.[12] However, they have lower capital costs. Simple cages use wire mesh or fishing nets to create an enclosure around all but the top side, supported by bamboo.[14] In shallow waters fish cages are often moored to the ground, floating cages in deeper waters are more expensive to produce.[16]: 11 Some fish cages have been imported from abroad, including from Norway and the United States.[14] Some of these can produce 30 tons of milkfish every four or five months.[12] Groupers are raised in marine cages, including wild-caught groupers thought too small to sell. Groupers can be fed tilapia whose growth was stunted by overcrowding. For milkfish, marine cages are more intensive and can produce higher output per unit area than in other locations.[10] Growth rates for caged tilapia vary from four months to a year depending on environmental conditions.[16]: 12 In the ocean, circular milkfish cages 19 metres (62 ft) wide and 15 metres (49 ft) deep can produce between 30 and 60 tons in under 150 days, and produce larger individual fish than land-based ponds. Control of milkfish diet allows for the taste of the fish to be assured.[13] Artificial milkfish feed can be as little as around 10% fishmeal.[13] However, large oceanic cages have high capital costs, both for the cages and for effective mooring mechanisms, and are very exposed to natural hazards.[13]
Very low impact pens created in mangrove areas, with some digging where needed to ensure water is present during low tide, can be used to harvest crabs without damaging the mangrove ecosystem.[10] These usually have one crab per square meter, producing 1,400 kilograms (3,100 lb) per 1 hectare (2.5 acres).[13] Fish cages can be owner-operated, but larger sets of fish cages can be owned by an individual who hires caretakers for the cages. In some coastal areas, fish cage cooperatives have been created to manage grouper cultivation as a community.[14]
Bivalves
[edit]The basic method of mussel and oyster farming is the "broadcast" method, where these products are simply farmed off the sea floor, sometimes from naturally existing mussel and oyster beds. This method means there is no conflict with vessels traveling in the area. Most farming is carried out through simple bamboo substrates. Bamboo poles fixed into mussel beds can produce a harvestable crop in six months. These are often 1 metre (3.3 ft) apart, and can be isolated or arranged in a cone around a central pole for stability. More advanced structures suspend substrates for bivalve growth from fishing lines. Rope web substrates have also been used, as have materials such as old tires.[10] The most commonly farmed mussel is the green mussel Perna viridis, which can grow in as little as six months. Harmful algal blooms impact mussel and oyster farming, especially in Manila Bay.[10] Overall, oyster farms are more common, as oysters are more widespread, although mussels are more valuable. Mussel farms are placed in deeper water than oyster farms. For both, farms are usually smaller than 1 hectare (2.5 acres).[14]
Mussel and oyster farming is a small part of overall aquaculture, with limited domestic demand. They are eaten more on special occasions than as daily food items. Farming is often undertaken alongside other jobs, such as fishing.[14] Mussels and oysters are usually sold alive,[10] and their sale is threated by red tides making their consumption risky. These algal blooms first became an issue in Manila Bay, but have spread to other mussel farming areas. The government monitors water quality, and bans the harvesting and sale of bivalves if measurements breach certain thresholds. In Manila, all bivalve sales are banned during such periods, to prevent products from affected areas being mixed in with unaffected produce.[10] The risk of red tides has led to a reluctance to encourage the development of mussel and oyster farms. While such tides cause human health risks, they do not harm the farmed bivalves. Thus, red tide-related risk is more to do with cash flow for farmers, rather than the total loss of product.[13]
Seaweed
[edit]Seaweed farming is profitable even at a small scale, to the point that the small cost of investment is exceeded by the revenue from the first harvest (105–135 days). Caulerpa and Eucheuma are the most profitable, followed by Gracilaria. Gracilaria grows better in canals with flowing water than in still ponds.[14] Eucheuma is farmed in both shallow water, often on stakes, and in deep water, where it grows on single lines, rafts, and spider web nets.[4] Lines can also be suspended between polystyrene floats in deeper water. Seaweeds are grown 30–40 centimetres (12–16 in) apart on these lines. Sometimes lines are kept within net cages, to keep wild herbivores out. Growth takes two to three months, and most farmers are small-scale. This Eucheuma farming method is used for species such as Eucheuma denticulatum, but also species that were once considered Eucheuma but are now otherwise classified, such as Kappaphycus alvarezii. Caulerpa lentillifera can be grown in milkfish ponds by propagating cuttings separated from each other by 1 metre (3.3 ft). These cuttings gain enough nutrients from pond water changes. In later stages, some fertilizer can be applied by partially submerging sacks of fertilizer above the ponds, hanging like a "teabag". Farming of Gracilaria originally used similar methods to Caulerpa, although it can also be grown in seawater in cages or along nylon lines.[10] Seaweed farms are often smaller than 1 hectare (2.5 acres), and most are operated by their owners.[14] Even a small farm can be quite profitable. Farmers can obtain new seedstock from each of their harvests, with 100 grams (3.5 oz) of seedstock producing 2,000 grams (71 oz) of final product in three months.[18]
Productivity
[edit]Aquaculture and municipal capture fisheries combined produced 73% of all catch from 2011 to 2020.[19] In 2018, the aquaculture sector produced 826.01 thousand tons of fish, crustaceans, and mollusks, worth $1.89 billion, the 11th-largest national production in the world accounting for 1.01% of global production.[1]: 9 This included 1.48 million tons of seaweed and other aquatic plants, 4.56% of 2018's global seaweed production.[1]: 9 In 2020, the aquaculture sector made up 41.82% of the total value of Philippine fisheries, directly employing 233,725 people.[1]: 21 In 2021, there were 1.34 million tons of seaweed produced, 3.82% of global production, 4th largest in the world.[3]: 141 93% of the 913.40 tons of brackish aquaculture production in 2020 was milkfish. Most (53.34%) brackish water aquaculture takes place in Bangsamoro, with a quarter (25.18%) taking place in Region I.[1]: 31 The most commonly farmed shrimp is the jumbo tiger shrimp, which made up 42,453.94 tons of the total 70,474.77 2020 shrimp production. The second most farmed was the whiteleg shrimp, of which 20,612.48 tons were produced.[1]: 42
Method | Total production (metric tons) | Key regions (production in metric tons) | |
---|---|---|---|
Freshwater | Fish ponds | 170,939.11 | III (132,827.85) |
Fish cages | 74,010.90 | IV-A (64,576.88) | |
Fish pens | 39,847.67 | IV-A (26,575.91) | |
Small farm reservoirs | 114.41 | Bangsamoro (37.16), XII (36.03), III (24.98) | |
Rice-fish systems | 5.21 | I (2.23) | |
Marine | Fish cages | 149,661.38 | I (101,984.67) |
Fish pens | 846.38 | I (309.90), VI (197.48) | |
Seaweed | 1,468,653.27 | Bangsamoro (711,141.33), IV-B (320,717.21), IX (202,606.31) | |
Oysters | 53,032.06 | III (38,880.26), VI (10,569.86) | |
Mussels | 19,228.97 | VI (8,534.16), IV-A (5,654.23), VIII (4,085.92) |
Tilapia made up 96% of all freshwater fish pond production in 2020, with the rest including milkfish, carp, catfish, mudfish, gourami, and prawns.[1]: 32 Freshwater cage aquaculture is also dominated by tilapia, which makes up 86.82% of production, with the rest being milkfish, carp, and catfish.[1]: 33 Freshwater fish pens produced 42.71% tilapia, 30.21% milkfish, and 27.06% carp. Of the small amount produced in small farm reservoirs, 73% was tilapia, with the remainder being milkfish, carp, catfish, gourami, and mudfish.[1]: 34 Of the very small rice-fish system production, 71.02% is tilapia.[1]: 35 Milkfish dominates marine fish cages production, making up 99.91% of output.[1]: 36 Milkfish similarly dominates marine fish pen production, making up 98.38% of the total.[1]: 37 However, the largest mariculture product is seaweed, the production of which made Bangsamoro the most productive fisheries region in 2020.[1]: 10
The production of algae through aquaculture grew from 707.0 thousand tonnes in 2000 to around 1,500 thousand tonnes annually in the years since then.[20]: 27 In 2012, the Philippines 1.75 million tons of farmed seaweed produced made the country the world's third-largest producer.[4] Carrageenan makes up 94% of seaweed exports.[1]: 11 In 2022, seaweed exports were 48,491 metric tons, exported to the United States, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, and China.[3]: xii–xiii, 108, 124 Seaweed and oyster farming products are often sold to exporters of high-value goods, rather than being farmed directly for local food supply.[21]
Philippine aquaculture is hampered by the lack of a "trash fish" — a cheap fish that can be used to feed farmed fish — as most fish in the Philippines are directly valuable for human consumption. This increases the cost of farming carnivorous fish. Another common impediment is access to juveniles, for fish, crabs, and shrimp. For many species farmers often rely on hatcheries to obtain stock for their ponds.[10] Milkfish fry are deliberately wild-caught as juveniles to stock aquaculture ponds.[4] Some giant freshwater prawn operations have relied on imported juveniles.[10] Shellfish farming is vulnerable to red tides, and is thus risky as a sole source of income.[13] The damage caused by the annual typhoon season means coastal aquaculture is more developed than ocean mariculture.[20]: 36 Production is also affected by the El Niño–Southern Oscillation.[12]
Socioeconomic impact
[edit]Aquaculture provides food security, employment, and export goods. In some areas, it is the dominant industry. As an example, tilapia farming is a core component of the economy of Lake Sebu, South Cotabato, in 1994 making up over 50% of total income and employing 10% of workers.[12] Riverine and marine aquaculture provide an economic opportunity for poorer individuals, as access to water is much more available than access to land, which is often the property of rich landowners.[21] As of 2020, there were 233,725 individuals involved in aquaculture.[1]: 21 Aquaculture products are often sold in ports, where there are established fish markets that buy and sell products from capture fisheries.[4] They take up 0.83% of the average spend of urban populations (compared with 0.54% for wild-caught fish), and 0.80% of the average rural spend (compared with 0.67%).[22]: 7
Small-scale fishermen often have difficulty accessing credit, with informal loans having interest as high as 20%. Credit is sometimes provided by buyers, in exchange for a guarantee of future produce. Some formal loans are issued by the government through various funds. In addition, under Presidential Decree 717, banks must have 25% of their loanable funds restricted to agriculture and fisheries projects. Compliance with this mandate has been patchy, and most bank loans go to larger companies.[23] Fees for fish pond rental are small, and some interest-free loans are defaulted.[24]: 46 Aquaculture development projects have tried by the government as a way to alleviate poverty among municipal fisherfolk.[17][13]
Fish ponds are often not worked by their owners, with the workers instead being caretakers or renters. Lobbying by the fish pond industry is influential. Although initially included in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, fish ponds were later exempted from this land reform effort. Meanwhile, the rental price of government land was kept at below-market rates. The possession of land is often valuable on its own, even if little effort is put into fish pond productivity. Almost all freshwater aquaculture is from private enterprise. The government has more ownership of brackish ponds, although these are often leased to private bodies on a long-term basis.[14]
As fish pens are capital intensive, they exacerbated inequality in Laguna de Bay. Artisanal fisheries were forced to navigate around water now occupied by fish pens, and conflict emerged due to fears of poaching. Public pressure to dismantle fish pens has not overcome the political influence of fish pen owners.[14] While the overall productivity and value of waters with fish pens in them may increase, resulting value is concentrated amongst fishpen owners rather than other users of the area.[7] In 1997, fish cages located where Laguna de Bay flows into the Pansipit River were ordered to be demolished, to allow for fish migration and to improve scenic beauty.[14]
While some aquaculture-related jobs are performed by both genders, such as fish feeding, many, particularly those requiring more demanding physical labor such as construction, are predominantly held by men. A 1995 study found women more commonly involved in oyster farms than mussel farms, possibly due to oysters being farmed in shallower water. Women play a notably prominent role in seaweed farming. They also play a role in the post-harvest processing for different types of aquaculture, as well as in product marketing. It is not uncommon for women to be owner-operators of aquaculture farms.[17] Some fish farmers have formed NGOs that serve as advocacy groups. These sometimes come into conflict with wild-fishery NGOs, due to the competing priorities of aquaculture and capture fishing.[23]
Environmental effects
[edit]Land use
[edit]The conversion of mangroves into brackish fish ponds and shrimp ponds has been a major contributor to mangrove deforestation.[7] This destroys ecosystem services obtained by local communities, while often producing much less value in return.[25]: 85 Intensive farming can introduce pollutants into the surrounding environment. The replacement of sugar cane plantations with shrimp farms in Negros Occidental salinized affected land.[7] Freshwater farming has less impact on the environment, and its wastewater can be used for irrigation.[7]
Aquatic environment
[edit]Fish pens congest water bodies, and divert resources from the natural ecosystem. This can affect not only wild fish populations, but also crustaceans and mollusks.[7] While less immediately damaging to the benthic environment than fish pens, fish cages still cause the introduction of excess nutrients. They are recorded as having caused the level of dissolved oxygen in Lake Sampaloc to decrease, creating a dead zone a few meters below the surface. The disturbance of such a lake, bringing deoxygenated water closer to the surface, can cause a mass fish kill, even of caged fish.[7] The presence of aquaculture infrastructure, both for ponds and for aquatic structures, can affect sediment and water flow.[8]: 61
Chemicals and antibiotic compounds introduced to water systems by aquaculture can pollute the local environment.[7] Mariculture also introduces nutrient pollution into the water that can lead to fish kills. The water quality of affected areas varies throughout the year.[26] Oyster, mussel, and seaweed farms are relatively low impact, both environmentally, due to the simple material requirements, and visually, due to their being mostly underwater.[7]
Ecosystem changes
[edit]The deliberate capture of milkfish fry creates unused by-catch.[4] Other aquaculture species are mostly non-native.[27]: 37 Since 1907, 169 freshwater foreign species have been introduced (not all for aquaculture purposes), of which at least 82% have formed invasive wild populations. Introduced Eurasian carp and Nile tilapia have impacted multiple native species, for example, endemic species of Mount Isarog National Park. Tilapia played a role in bringing the native sinarapan fish to the brink of extinction and greatly reduced the population of flathead grey mullet in Naujan Lake. In Laguna de Bay, walking catfish, Hypostomus plecostomus janitor fish, and clown featherback knifefish harm aquaculture and native species. The walking catfish directly outcompetes the native broadhead catfish. Sailfin molly have harmed native insect populations. The Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus janitor fish has become established in Agusan Marsh.[27]: 14–15 Tilapia may have introduced the Arctodiaptomus dorsalis copepod, which competes with native copepods.[27]: 16
While the establishment of some invasive populations was accidental, like those of janitor fish and clown featherbacks, some populations were created intentionally, like those of Nile tilapia.[27]: 4 Many introductions took place from the 1970s to the 1990s.[27]: 7 The release of captive native species poses risks to the genetic variability of wild populations.[8]: 61 Non-fish invasive species include Pontederia crassipes water hyacinth and Chinese softshell turtles, bred ornamentally and for food respectively. These damage not only the natural environment and biodiversity, but also aquaculture operations in affected waters.[27]: 11–13
Management
[edit]Fishery resources fall under the Department of Agriculture, which contains the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA), and the National Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI). PFDA manages ports. NFRDI was created by the Fisheries Code of 1998.[23]
The Fisheries Decree of 1975 blocked the privatization of government-owned fish ponds.[14] The Local Government Code of 1991 devolved responsibility for fisheries licensing and regulation to cities and municipalities (with the exception of leasing public land for fish ponds, which remains with BFAR). RA 8435, the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act, was passed on December 22, 1997, quickly followed by RA 8550, the Philippine Fisheries Code, on February 25, 1998.[23]
The Fisheries Code of 1998 has provisions that affect or are directly targeted at aquaculture.[28] This code mandates that aquaculture areas, including privately owned ones, be registered with their Local Government Unit. It maintained the block against privatization.[14] The Fisheries Code initially banned fish pens, cages, and traps, in lakes, although this provision was not included in widely debated drafts. Sea-based cages are supposedly restricted from the migration routes of wild fish populations.[28] The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of 1998 includes the guarantee of water resource access for seaweed farmers.[28] BFAR's Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 214 (2001), also known as the Code of Practice for Aquaculture mandates environmental impact assessments for aquaculture projects,[27]: 79 as does the more general Fisheries Code of 1998.[27]: 89 The Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001 and the BFAR Fisheries Administrative Order 233-1 of 2010 promote the protection of native species, including those important for aquaculture.[29]
Bodies of water are public property, and their use requires local government approval.[7] Under the Fisheries Code, while public water bodies can be leased for use, they cannot be sold. Only 10% of the surface area can be used for aquaculture.[28] Fish ponds can be under 25-year leases from BFAR, shorter leases, or on private property.[25]: 85 Mangrove areas are considered forests, and fall under the jurisdiction of the national government.[7] Theoretically, mangroves are protected and cannot be converted, limiting potential fish pond area.[28] Laws regulating the use of public natural resources, such as requiring 50 metres (160 ft) of mangroves near the water's edge, are often flouted.[7] Under the Fisheries Code of 1998, all unused or underused fish farms should be restored to mangrove forests, although rent costs being so low means classifying a fish pond as underused is difficult.[25]: 85
Local governments are responsible for licensing aquaculture structures, such as fish pens, cages, and traps.[4] Where multiple local governments share a water body, a joint Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (FARMC) can be formed. These councils include not only local government or barangay officials, but representatives from NGOs, fisherfolk groups, and the private sector.[28] BFAR is responsible for fish pond lease agreements, imports and exports, and food safety.[4]
Fisheries in Laguna de Bay are regulated by the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA). The LLDA's approval is required for any construction in the lake, including aquaculture infrastructure such as fish pens and fish corrals.[30]: 52 While the Laguna Lake Development Authority limits individual pens to 5 hectares (12 acres), and corporate pens to 50 hectares (120 acres), these rules have at some times been bypassed through the use of paper corporations.[14] The appearance of the invasive clown featherback in Laguna de Bay, possibly washed into the lake by Typhoon Ketsana in 2009, reduced the native populations of not only the wild Leiopotherapon plumbeus, but farmed bighead carp, milkfish, and Nile tilapia. Native species in the lake such as the climbing perch, Manila sea catfish, Celebes goby, broadhead catfish, and mudfish can also be used for aquaculture.[29]
Research has often involved government bodies.[10] The Department of Science and Technology (DOST) carries out research related to fisheries, including through its Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development (PCAMRD). Many colleges have fishery courses that offer majors in Inland Fisheries, Marine Fisheries, and Fish Processing Technology. The Inland Fisheries majors have a strong focus on pond aquaculture.[23] The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center carries out aquaculture research in Iloilo.[4] A Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan (CNFIDP) was put in place for 2006–2025, and included plans to increase aquaculture.[4] The most recent revision was issued for 2021–2025.[31]
History
[edit]Early aquaculture
[edit]The first farmed fish is thought to be milkfish (locally called bangus), whose fry was collected from tidal waters and raised in brackish ponds. The water of these ponds was supplied by the tides, with food either coming with the tide or caught from the wild. The practice eventually evolved into a series of ponds allowed the fish to be moved as they grew larger. The original technique likely came from the East Javan mainland or its offshore island of Madura prior to the Spanish arrival to the Philippines. The traditional practice persisted in Mactan, Cebu, until 1921.[10]
Freshwater fish ponds were likely first used sometime in the early 20th century, although there is history of small-scale rice-fish system use. 1905 saw the introduction of three species of Hawaiian mosquitofish, and the largemouth bass was imported from California. In 1915, Eurasian carp began to be farmed, being imported from Hong Kong. In 1916 and 1918 the carp was also introduced into natural lakes in Mindanao. In 1925 the Bureau of Science imported 16,000 juvenile carp from China. Giant gourami were imported from Thailand in 1927. Later introductions include Trichogaster gourami species in 1938, and bighead carp, silver carp, and Indian carp in 1967 and 1968. Despite this, production remained limited due to competition with cropland and a cultural preference for marine fish. Freshwater farming did not significantly expand until the introduction of Nile tilapia in the 1970s.[10]
Oyster farming was established in 1931 in Hinigaran, Negros Oriental, using the "broadcast" method where oysters are simply laid on the seabed. In the years afterward it was introduced with new methods to Binakayan in Cavite by the Bureau of Science, leading to the area around Manila Bay becoming the center of oyster farming in the Philippines. It later spread throughout the country, and where shipping navigation was not a potential issue, it was able to be farmed with deliberately placed substrates.[10]
Fisheries Administrative Order No. 14 of 1937 established the Fishpond Lease Agreement (FLA) system and a Fishpond Permit (FP) system. The FP system was an annual rent of government land in order to operate a fish pond. The FLA system provided for 10-year loans that could be renewed four times. The maximum size that could be rented was 200 hectares (490 acres).[14] Due to the reliance on wild catch to support traditional milkfish ponds, shrimp fry often also ended up in these ponds. When this happened, such shrimp were also harvested from milkfish ponds. Species known to have been farmed as a secondary product include jumbo tiger shrimp, Indian prawns, and Penaeus merguiensis. Metapenaeus ensis may also have been farmed. Fish ponds were also occasionally contaminated with seaweed, such as sea lettuce. Seaweed was already harvested wild for eating, and gained increasing use as fish food.[10]
Industrialization
[edit]The fishing of milkfish in the sea was banned on August 5, 1949, through Fisheries Administrative Order 25 in order to ensure fry would be available to stock inland lakes and aquaculture.[32] Accidental Caulerpa lentillifera contamination, possibly due to use as fish food, shifted to deliberate cultivation in Mactan during the early 1950s to meet local demand, becoming the first commercially farmed seaweed species.[10]
Mozambique tilapia were imported from Thailand by Deogracias Villadolid, Director of the Bureau of Fisheries, in 1950. Tilapia were much easier to breed than milkfish, making it possible for anyone to maintain a small-scale tilapia farm in a simple backyard pond as small as 10 square metres (110 sq ft). This practice became quickly popular, and in many cases, ponds became overcrowded, leading to fish becoming stunted. Unwanted fish were released into the wild, where they have become an invasive species affecting not only the environment but also milkfish and shrimp ponds.[10] While BFAR did grow juveniles for distribution, the spread of tilapia was not driven by BFAR. News media called the tilapia a "wonder fish", and politicians seeking to curry favor with their constituents sought juveniles for distribution.[17]
The maximum area that could be leased to an individual to create fish ponds was decreased in 1954 to 100 hectares (250 acres). This was further decreased to 50 hectares (120 acres) in 1959, although the area that could be leased to corporations increased to 400 hectares (990 acres). Land area restrictions were often bypassed, for example by having multiple individuals within one family apply separately. The lease length was extended to 20 years in 1960 through Fisheries Administrative Order No. 60 and to 25 years in 1979 through Fisheries Administrative Order No. 129. A system through which applications could be made for leased areas to be purchased from the government was ended for all applications after November 9, 1972, by Presidential Decree No. 704 of 1975.[14]
Mussel farming began with a 300 square metres (3,200 sq ft) Perna viridis enclosure in Binakayan, Cavite, established by the Bureau of Fisheries in 1955 in an existing oyster farm. This saw mussels grown on bamboo poles, an attempt to shift the view of oyster farmers from treating mussels as a pest to treating them as another commodity. Production remained around Manila Bay until the 1970s, due to the limited natural range of Perna viridis. Some stock was imported from Thailand in the 1960s, to unknown impact. (The widespread Modiolus modulaides[b] is unsuitable for aquaculture.) Perna viridis eventually spread to other areas, such as Sapian Bay and Batan Bay in Panay and Maqueda Bay Samar, possibly as biofouling pollution in bilge water. In 1976, attempts began in Sapian Bay to farm mussels on nylon ropes webbed across bamboo on the seafloor. Other attempts saw ropes suspended from rafts, although neither method became popular.[10] As of 1980, there were 1,125 oyster farms covering 460.3 hectares (1,137 acres) and 629 mussel farms covering 230.2 hectares (569 acres).[14]
In the 1960s, crabs of the Scylla genus, which had previously been opportunistically farmed in milkfish ponds, began to be more actively managed, being deliberately fenced into fish ponds. Economic benefits were limited by the high cost of feeding meat to crabs. Farming crabs within natural mangrove forests is one method used to reduce overhead costs.[10]
Prior to the onset of seaweed aquaculture, wild Eucheuma was harvested for eating in the Visayas and Mindanao, and wild Gracilaria and Gelidiella acerosa was exported for agar.[34] In the 1960s Indonesian Eucheuma exports from Indonesia became unreliable.[34] The resulting demand, due to the carrageenan in Eucheuma, led to exports from the Philippines.[10] The first export was of 150 tons, which grew to 450 tons by 1968.[34] Within two years wild sources were depleted, spurring deliberate cultivation in the late 1960s. This was initiated by the University of Hawaii's Maxwell Doty, on behalf of an American company.[10] Research was carried out by the American company in collaboration with the Bureau of Fisheries.[34] The first commercial farm was established in Caluya in 1967, which developed submerged methods after initial surface-level lines resulted in the seaweed being oversaturated with sunlight. The farm moved to Ilin Island in 1969, and then to Sitangkai in 1971. Family farms were established in 1972, when exports were 500 tons. By 1974 farming in Sitangkai was considered self-sufficient, and they produced over 12,000 tons. In 1976, farms were established at the Danajon Bank. This was, like Sitangkai, a remote area where fisherfolk had trouble getting their catch to market, meaning a reliable second source of income was an attractive prospect.[35]
Another experimental seaweed farm was established in Calatagan, where Kappaphycus alvarezii was discovered.[35] This 1973 discovery was then thought a mutation of Euchemuma. Growing faster then existing varieties, it soon began to be cultivated, starting in Sulu. This allowed for a significant expansion in seaweed farming. Eucheuma denticulatum is also still farmed. At some point Gracilaria, which had been grown on a small scale as food for milkfish around Manila Bay, also began to be commercially farmed to produce agar. It is likely this began following the experience of Eucheuma farming began in 1973.[10] Some Gracilaria was known to be exported to Japan. BFAR began research into effective commercial Gracilaria farming in the late 1980s, and the Seaweed Production Development Project was created in August 1991 by BFAR, FAO, and UNDP.[36] By 1989 seaweed exports reached 31,000 tons, of which 60% was Eucheuma.[18]
President Marcos issued a decree to develop the fishing industry in 1973, which included support for the creation of family-sized fish ponds. It was also intended to stimulate commercial fish pond development, although this did not succeed. The use of one site identified as a location for commercial milkfish ponds, Vitali Island in Zamboanga, was brought back by the Southern Philippines Development Authority in the 1980s as a potential location for jumbo tiger shrimp farming as a livelihood option for former Moro National Liberation Front fighters. However, its scall was reduced and it operated just as a normal commerical farm.[17]
Bamboo fish cages were first introduced in 1965 to Laguna de Bay to experiment with farming various fish species, although their use remained limited.[14][15] In the 1970s, bamboo and net milkfish pens were established in the freshwater Laguna de Bay,[10] starting with a demonstration pen in Cardona, Rizal. This was an initiative of the Laguna Lake Development Authority, and initial tests showed a pen could produce 1,500 kilograms (3,300 lb) without any fertilizer or extra feeding. This success led to wide adoption, with 4,800 hectares (12,000 acres) of pens present by 1973. These pens produced as much fish as the remaining 85,000 hectares (210,000 acres) of lake produced in wild-caught fish.[14] The LLDA began the Laguna de Bay Fishpen Development Project in the late 1970s to make fish pens more accessible to poorer fishermen, supported by the Asian Development Bank and the OPEC Special Fund. This was not able to compete with private expansion.[17] Fish pen usage continued to grow, reaching 7,000 hectares (17,000 acres) in 1980, and 34,000 hectares (84,000 acres) in 1983. This oversaturation decreased the productivity of individual pens, lengthening milkfish maturation time to 7–8 months from 4-5 and causing the need for supplemental feed. Microcystis algal blooms caused milkfish and tilapia from the lake to have an "earthy-muddy" taste, reducing market value. Many fish pens became economically unfeasible and were abandoned, especially after being damaged by typhoons. By 1998, there were only 167 registered fish pens which altogether covered only 4,425 hectares (10,930 acres), which even when taking into account unregistered fish pens represented a substantial decrease.[14]
In the late 1970s BFAR began its Blue Revolution Program, which sought to expand mussel, oyster, and seaweed farming. Other projects followed until the mid-1980s, including the establishment of four Brackishwater Aquaculture Development and Training Centers which sought to refine the farming of milkfish in different climates, and the creation of the National Freshwater Fisheries Technology Center which bred and sold tilapia juveniles.[17]
The 1970s and early 1980s saw the introduction of new tilapia species and hybrids, most crucially Nile tilapia, first imported in 1972.[16]: 4 While Nile tilapia did not do as well in brackish water as Mozambique tilapia,[16]: 9 they grew faster than Mozambique tilapia,[10] and were resilient to poor environmental conditions.[37]: 45 Nile tilapia were also more popular with consumers.[38]: 16 [39] In the same period, it became possible to farm single-gender ponds so no breeding occurred. Experiments found that ponds could be monosexed through the use of androgens, and later ponds could be bred from genetically modified males with YY chromosomes. These two changes allowed freshwater tilapia farming to expand from a small-scale seasonal enterprise into commercial production. Monosex hybrids of different species have been tested, but did not become farmed commercially. These were generally Oreochromis aureus or Oreochromis urolepis hornorum males bred with Mozambique or Nile tilapia females. These hybrids have also been experimented with for saline tolerance.[10]
The first Nile tilapia fish cages were trialed in Laguna de Bay, and in 1976 they were produced commercially in floating cages in Lake Bunot. The practice spread to Lake Bato, Lake Buhi, Lake Buluan, Lake Maini, Lake Sampaloc, and Lake Taal.[16]: 10–11 The Laguna de Bay market saw rapid success due to being able to supply the large Metro Manila market. While the traditional provider of juveniles was BFAR, a private hatchery industry quickly developed in this area.[38]: 16 While wild-caught fry were available in some areas, such fry were likely affected by hybridization with Mozambique tilapia.[40] By the mid-1980s, tilapia were the second most farmed fish after milkfish.[16]: 5 In some areas it had a dramatic effect. One barangay in Bay, Laguna, saw a huge shift in income as one-third of all households created backyard hatcheries, often as a secondary source of income.[37]: 47–48
Seabass were introduced to tilapia ponds in the 1970s as an attempt to manage overcrowding. Demand in the Western Visayas led to deliberate cultivation in the mid-1980s, although it was not very profitable. The farming of Epinephelus groupers began after this, possibly starting with the raising of smaller wild-caught individuals. This proved more profitable, and created a market for stunted tilapia to serve as food.[10]
A National Rice-Fish Culture Program (Palay-isdaan in Tagalog, from palay, unhusked rice, and palaisdaan, fish pond) was launched in 1979, with Nile tilapia and common carp being stocked in rice fields modified to have a long ditch and higher dikes. The program did not achieve much success, with theoretical yields not being obtained due to a number of practical impediments. Monitoring ceased after 1986 following decreasing take-up.[17] The 1980s also saw attempts to promote fish farming as a secondary crop for rice farmers, with ponds watered by irrigation canals.[14] 1979 also saw the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center develop milkfish hatchery technology, which led to the establishment of a "National Bangos Breeding Program" in 1985. The first private milkfish hatchery was established in 1996.[10]
Jumbo tiger shrimp were successfully bred in captivity the 1970s. Dedicated shrimp faming began in Negros Occidental in response. This farming intensified in the 1980s. As sugar exports declined, sugar fields were often converted into aquaculture farms. New markets for shrimp opened, especially in Japan. Jumbo tiger shrimp became the largest marine export of the Philippines, reaching a high of US$300 million in exports in 1992. The expansion was slowed by the death of Japanese emperor Hirohito in 1989, which reduced demand. Meanwhile, intensive farming had led to antibiotic-resistant diseases such as luminous vibriosis spreading within Negros Occidental. While there was a substantial decline in production due to these events, shrimp farming continued outside of Negros. Farming of the other shrimp species did not expand to the same amount. While the shrimp of other Penaeus species could be bred, this cost the same as breeding jumbo tiger shrimp and produced smaller adults. The farming of Indian prawns and Penaeus merguiensis continued to rely on wild-caught fry. Giant freshwater prawns have been sporadically cultivated since the relevant technology was introduced in the 1970s. The first dedicated commercial production began in 1981, but failed. A hatchery is operated by BFAR.[10]
Barramundi, which had opportunistically been raised in existing ponds, saw attempts to specifically farm them in the 1980s.[10] A 1980 ban on the conversion of mangroves to aquaculture was ineffective, with conversion rates increasing in the following years.[25]: 84 A census of fisheries that year found that aquaculture employed 221,492 people, 24.1% of the total fisheries workforce.[12] A 1982 study by the government and the FAO suggested the country had 9,145 hectares (22,600 acres) of potential oyster farming areas and 4,925 hectares (12,170 acres) that would be conducive to mussel farming.[13]
The 1980s also saw a rise in fish cage use in Laguna de Bay, usually to farm tilapia more cheaply than using a fish pen. From producing 7,187 million tons in 1985, freshwater fish cages produced 35,362 million tons in 1993. That year saw marine fish cage use become large enough to be recorded, and combined production reached 43,000 million tons in 1997. By 1995, cage use had spread to Taal Lake, where 3,140 fish cages were registered under 1,138 operators. As Taal Lake is deeper than Laguna de bay, most of its fish cages are floating rather than fixed. By 1998, there were 640 fish cage farms registered with LLDA, ranging from 50 square metres (540 sq ft) to the legal maximum of 10,000 square metres (110,000 sq ft) (the average size was 2,734 square metres (29,430 sq ft)). The most common individual cage size was 12 metres (39 ft) by 15 metres (49 ft), although local governments around Laguna de Bay sought to standardize them at 10 metres (33 ft) by 10 metres (33 ft).[14] The National Freshwater Fisheries Technology Center (then called the Fish Hatchery and Fishery Extension Center) was established by the BFAR with the assistance of USAID, becoming a significant national producer and distributor of tilapia fingerlings.[17]
From 1981 to 1997, total seaweed production increased from 83,000 million tons to 627,105 million tons.[12] Of the 12 provinces in which it was farmed in 1987, Tawi-Tawi was the largest with an estimated 5,000 hectares (12,000 acres) of seaweed farms. In 1986, only 199 farms were officially licensed in Tawi-Tawi, possibly only one-fifth of the total number. From 1992 to 1996, seaweed farming expanded by 17% annually, and by 1997 farms were present in 30 provinces and cities. Many seaweed farms are small-scale and farmer-owned. Seaweed farming was often carried out alongside other methods of obtaining income, such as fishing.[14] In 1991, BFAR began a project with the assistance of UNDP and the FAO to develop Gracilaria farming in eastern Sorsogon, supporting farmers and creating a processing center to generate demand. This developed into the National Seaweed Culture Center, supporting seaweed farming throughout the country.[17]
Under the 1987 constitution
[edit]In 1986, President Corazon Aquino re-included fish ponds in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program through executive order, which was reinforced through law in 1988. This measure was intended to redistribute fish ponds if their size exceeded 5 hectares (12 acres). A BFAR order to increase the cost of FLA land leases from PhP 50.00 per 1 hectare (2.5 acres) to PhP 1000.00 was blocked by the Couth of Appeals following legal action by the Chamber of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Lobbying against land reform,[c] supported by BFAR, resulted in fish ponds once again being exempted in 1995. This was justified as a measure to protect the shrimp farming industry, although the industry declined nonetheless.[14] The Local Government Code of 1991 shifted seaweed licencing responsibilities from the national government, which allowed seaweed farms to have a maximum size of 1 hectare (2.5 acres), to local governments.[10]
Development of genetically improved farmed tilapia (GIFT) began at Central Luzon State University (CLSU) in 1988. This university partnered with BFAR, the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources, and the Norwegian Institute for Aquaculture Research, and was funded by the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Development Programme.[10][17] At the same time, CLSU was also carrying out the "Genetic Manipulation for Improved Tilapia" program, funded by the UK Overseas Development Administration. Both began to have commercial applications in the mid-1990s. The GIFT project became replaced by a non-profit, the GIFT Foundation International, Inc, from December 1997.[10][17]
In the 1990s, fish pens began to be used for milkfish in the Lingayen Gulf (bordering the provinces of Pangasinan and La Union) and other shallow marine areas. These pens usually ranged between 450 square metres (4,800 sq ft) and 2,400 square metres (26,000 sq ft).[10][14] This developed into fish cage farming, which spread further, being able to be used both in inland rivers and in coastal marine water. Fish canges were imported from Norway in 1996. Imports from the United States could be used in deeper water and were installed off the east coast. Milkfish continued to dominate aquaculture throughout this period, being able to be farmed across varied environmental conditions.[10] After conflict arose between fish farmers and artisanal fishermen in Pangasinan, due to conflicts over space the environmental damage of supplemental fish farm feeding, 95% of the 3,000 fish pens and cages in Pangasinan were dismantled in 1997 following an Executive Order from President Fidel V. Ramos.[14]
In the mid-1990s, intensive shrimp farming methods were applied to milkfish when the rapid shift to industrial shrimp ponds led to market oversaturation and the spread of disease. Artificial feeding of milkfish became more common. Supplemental milkfish feed was often provided by companies that had previously produced shrimp feed, and so commercially produced feed began to replace the use of waste rice material.[10] A Korean company built a shellfish processing plant in Capiz in 1995, specifically targeted at exporting mussels and oysters.[14]
In 1988, aquaculture produced 26.4% of fisheries output.[12] Aquaculture grew 5.42% annually in the decade leading to 1997. In 1995, the Philippines was the fourth-largest aquaculture producer.[2] In 1997, Philippine aquaculture produced 957,546 million tons, which was 34.6% of overall fisheries output and worth PHP27,400 million.[12] At this time, 68% of all freshwater fish ponds were in Central Luzon. As of 1995, oyster farms covered 227.98 hectares (563.4 acres) and mussel farms covered 381.22 hectares (942.0 acres). Both had stable levels of production over the decade prior.[14] The FLA fishpond land lease system of 25 years renewable to 50 years was preserved in the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, as was the ban on the permanent sale of government land used for fish ponds, although the maximum area was decreased to 250 hectares (620 acres) for corporations.[14] In 1998, the first commercial farming of tilapia able to survive in brackish water took place in Negros Occidental, in this case a hybrid of Mozambique tilapia and Oreochromis urolepis hornorum. Tilapia farming began to replace milkfish farming.[10]
From 1980 to 2010, capture fisheries were dominant. Since this time, aquaculture has since increased in relative prominence.[22]: 8 In 2012, aquaculture produced an estimated PHP92.3 billion of products. The most farmed product was seaweed, which accounted for 70% of all produce. Aside from seaweed, marine production made up 5% of produce, with brackish water and freshwater making up 12.5% each. There were 790,900 tonnes of fish produced, making up 25.4% of all fish production. The most farmed animals were milkfish, tilapia, and jumbo tiger shrimp.[4]
Municipal fisheries and aquaculture combined produced 73% of all catch from 2011 to 2020.[19] From 2012 to 2021, aquaculture was far more productive than municipal fisheries, whose productivity was in turn slightly higher than that of commercial fisheries.[41]: 27 In terms of value the difference was not as large.[41]: 28 In 2013, aquaculture made up 41% of fisheries production.[22]: 8 From 2013 to 2022, aquaculture production by volume has fluctuated slightly, although its value has increased.[3]: 33 In 2019, the Philippines was producing 2.07% of global fisheries (including fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants) production, the eighth-largest amount in the world. This included a 1.01% share of non-plant aquaculture production (858.28 thousand metric tons), and a 4.19% share of total plant aquaculture production (1.50 million metric tons).[41]: xviii The production of seaweed through aquaculture grew from 707.0 thousand tonnes in 2000 to around 1,500 thousand tonnes annually in the years since then.[20]: 27
In 2021, 2.25 million metric tons were produced from aquaculture, 52.88% of all fisheries production. The most produced item was seaweed (1.34 million metric tons, or 31.63% of all fisheries production), which was also among the most exported products. The region with the highest production was Bangsamoro. Nationally, 2.19 million people were employed in fisheries, 11.28% in aquaculture.[41]: xviii–xx Bangsamoro produced the most aquaculture products by volume, although in terms of value aquaculture in other regions produced more.[41]: 34
In 2022, there were 2.35 million metric tons of aquaculture products created in the Philippines, 54.15% of all fisheries products in the Philippines, with a total value of around PhP 124.00 billion. The biggest item by volume was seaweed, which at 1.54 million metric tons made up 65.8% of aquaculture production. The largest environment for aquaculture aside from seaweed farms was brackish ponds, followed by freshwater ponds and marine cages. By product type, the second largest by volume and highest by value was milkfish, of which 184,162.33 metric tons (47.47%) were produced in fish ponds and 180,290.27 metric tons (46.47%) were produced in fish cages. Tilapia was third by volume and third by value, with 77.19% of these tilapia being farmed in fish ponds. Shrimp was fourth by volume and second by value, with the most produced and most valuable shrimp being jumbo tiger shrimp. Seaweed farms produced the fourth-most value.[3]: 32, 39–44, 48–49
In 2022, seaweed was the highest-produced product by volume, with 1,544,959.98 metric tons produced. This created a value of PhP 16,60 billion, less than some other fishery products due to seaweed having a lower value per unit weight.[3]: 30 Large volumes of seaweed production meant Bangsamoro was the region producing the most aquaculture products, with its 1,042,064.26 metric tons being 97.95% seaweed (66.07% of national seaweed production). The region producing the most value from aquaculture however was Region III, which produced 300,345.65 metric tons worth over PhP 40 billion. Much of this was tilapia, which made up 48.61% of Region III's production by volume and 28.25% by value. The value of Bangsamoro's aquaculture products was PhP 11.57 billion.[3]: 32, 39, 46
Notes
[edit]- ^ The Scylla genus has seen various taxonomic revisions, and Scylla oceanica is now usually considered a part of Scylla serrata.[11]
- ^ Formerly Modiolus metcalfei[33]
- ^ The Negros Prawn Producers and Marketing Cooperative wrote in 1998: "the implementation of the (land reform) law is liable to cause widespread strife among the landowners.....There is no showing that land reform will enliven the plight of the poor. Wtihout undermining their capabilities, it is also doubtful whether they (the farmers) can put up the necessary capital to maximize land use. Having been used to having a landlord on whom to call in times of need, this plunge to independence may have a crippling effect."[14]
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s "Philippine Fisheries Profile 2020" (PDF). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. 2020. ISSN 2704-3355.
- ^ a b Wilfredo G. Yap (1999). "Introduction". Rural Aquaculture in the Philipines. FAO.
- ^ a b c d e f g "2022 Philippine Fisheries Profile" (PDF). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. October 2023. ISSN 2704-3355. Retrieved August 9, 2024.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles Philippines". Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved June 9, 2024.
- ^ Managing Coastal Habitats and Marine Protected Areas (PDF). Philippine Coastal Management Guidebook Series. Vol. 5. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. ISBN 971-92289-4-6.
- ^ a b c Managing Municipal Fisheries (PDF). Philippine Coastal Management Guidebook Series. Vol. 6. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. ISBN 971-92289-5-4.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Wilfredo G. Yap. "Environmental Issues". Rural Aquaculture in the Philippines. FAO.
- ^ a b c d Department of Environment and Natural Resources (2001). Managing Impacts of Development in the Coastal Zone (PDF). Philippine Coastal Management Guidebook Series. Vol. 7. ISBN 971-92289-6-2.
- ^ a b c d Wilfredo G. Yap (1999). "Resources". Rural Aquaculture in the Philipines. FAO.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as Wilfredo G. Yap (1999). "Overview of Philippine Aquaculture". Rural Aquaculture in the Philippines. FAO.
- ^ Clive P. Keenan; Peter J.F. Davie; David L. Mann (1998). "A revision of the genus Scylla de Haan, 1833 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Portunidae)". The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. 46 (1): 217–245.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Wilfredo G. Yap (1999). "Role of Aquaculture in Development". Rural Aquaculture in the Philipines. FAO.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Wilfredo G. Yap (1999). "Recommendations for Rural Aquaculture Projects". Rural Aquaculture in the Philippines. FAO.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah Wilfredo G. Yap (1999). "Socio-economic Aspects of Philippine Aquaculture". Rural Aquaculture in the Philippines. FAO.
- ^ a b Jovenal F. Lazaga; Leonardo L. Roa (1985). "Financial and Economic Analyses of Grow-Out Tilapia Cage Farming in Laguna de Bay, Philippines". In Ian R. Smith; Enriqueta B. Torres; Elvira O. Tan (eds.). Philippine Tilapia Economics (PDF). Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research and Development. p. 108. ISBN 971-1022-18-4. ISSN 0115-4435.
- ^ a b c d e f g Rafael D. Guerrero III (1985). "Tilapia Farming in the Philippines: Practices, Problems and Prospects". In Ian R. Smith; Enriqueta B. Torres; Elvira O. Tan (eds.). Philippine Tilapia Economics (PDF). Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research and Development. ISBN 971-1022-18-4. ISSN 0115-4435.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Wilfredo G. Yap (1999). "Opportunities for Further Development". Rural Aquaculture in the Philippines. FAO.
- ^ a b Medina N. Delmendo; V. Alvarez; H.R. Rabanal (1992). "Agro-Industrial Relevance of Seaweed Farming to Rural Coastal Communities". The Evolution of Seaweed Farming Development and its Relevance to Rural Agro-Industrial Development of Coastal Communities in the Philippines. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
- ^ a b Gaea Katreena Cabico (March 5, 2023). "Prioritizing artisanal fishers' conditions crucial to sustainable Philippine fisheries — report". PhilStar. Retrieved August 8, 2024.
- ^ a b c The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020 Sustainability in Action. FAO. 2020. doi:10.4060/ca9229en. hdl:10535/4529. ISBN 978-92-5-132692-3. ISSN 2410-5902. Retrieved August 6, 2024.
- ^ a b Wilfredo G. Yap. "Discussion and Conclusion". Rural Aquaculture in the Philipines. FAO.
- ^ a b c David Suh; Robert Pomeroy (April 16, 2020). "Projected Economic Impact of Climate Change on Marine Capture Fisheries in the Philippines". Frontiers in Marine Science. 7. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00232.
- ^ a b c d e Wilfredo G. Yap (1999). "Institutional Aspects". Rural Aquaculture in the Philippines. FAO.
- ^ Stuart J. Green; Alan T. White; Jimely O. Flores; Marciano F. Carreon III; Asuncion E. Sia (2003). Philippine Fisheries in Crisis: A Framework for Management (PDF). Coastal Resource Management Project. ISBN 971-92753-1-6.
- ^ a b c d Alan T. White; Roy Olsen D. De Leon (2004). "Mangrove Resource Decline in the Philippines: Government and Community Look for New Solutions". In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries (PDF). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. p. 84. ISBN 971-92753-4-0. Retrieved August 16, 2024.
- ^ Maria Lourdes San Diego McGlone; Gil Jacinto; Imelda Velasquez; Daisy Padayao (2004). "Status of Water Quality in Philippine Coastal and Marine Waters". In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries (PDF). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. pp. 97–98, 104–105. ISBN 971-92753-4-0. Retrieved August 16, 2024.
- ^ a b c d e f g h "The National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan 2016-2026" (PDF). Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Biodiversity Management Bureau. 2016.
- ^ a b c d e f Wilfredo G. Yap (1999). "National Programmes For Aquaculture Development". Rural Aquaculture in the Philipines. FAO.
- ^ a b Frolan A. Aya (2019). "Towards Reviving the Production of Philippine Native Aquatic Species" (PDF). Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center. Retrieved September 24, 2024.
- ^ "Development of National and Local Government Fisheries Registration and Licensing Frameworks for the Philippines: Registration and Licensing Framework for the Municipal Capture Fisheries Sector of the Philippines" (PDF). USAID. Retrieved August 30, 2024.
- ^ "Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan (2021-2025)" (PDF). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. ISSN 2815-2131. Retrieved July 21, 2024.
- ^ Porfirio R. Manacop, Sr. (1975). "Some Observations on the Sabalo Fishery in the Philippines" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Bangos Symposium. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center. Retrieved August 16, 2024.
- ^ "Modiolus metcalfei (Hanley, 1843)". WORMS. Retrieved October 1, 2024.
- ^ a b c d Medina N. Delmendo; V. Alvarez; H.R. Rabanal (1992). "Introduction". The Evolution of Seaweed Farming Development and its Relevance to Rural Agro-Industrial Development of Coastal Communities in the Philippines. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
- ^ a b Medina N. Delmendo; V. Alvarez; H.R. Rabanal (1992). "Development of Eucheuma Seaweed Farming". The Evolution of Seaweed Farming Development and its Relevance to Rural Agro-Industrial Development of Coastal Communities in the Philippines. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
- ^ Medina N. Delmendo; V. Alvarez; H.R. Rabanal (1992). "Gracilaria Farming Development". The Evolution of Seaweed Farming Development and its Relevance to Rural Agro-Industrial Development of Coastal Communities in the Philippines. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
- ^ a b Ma. Corazon B. Gaite; Jose Noel A. Morales; Olga Criselda R. Orilla; Bernardine B. Pili (1985). "The Adoption of Tilapia Farming and Its Impact on the Community of Sto. Domingo, Bay, Laguna, Philippines". In Ian R. Smith; Enriqueta B. Torres; Elvira O. Tan (eds.). Philippine Tilapia Economics (PDF). Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research and Development. ISBN 971-1022-18-4. ISSN 0115-4435.
- ^ a b Luz R. Yater; Ian R. Smith (1985). "Economics of Private Tilapia Hatcheries in Laguna and Rizal Provinces, Philippines". In Ian R. Smith; Enriqueta B. Torres; Elvira O. Tan (eds.). Philippine Tilapia Economics (PDF). Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research and Development. ISBN 971-1022-18-4. ISSN 0115-4435.
- ^ Enriqueta B. Torres (1985). "Tilapia Marketing in Central Luzon and Metro Manila, Philippines". In Ian R. Smith; Enriqueta B. Torres; Elvira O. Tan (eds.). Philippine Tilapia Economics (PDF). Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research and Development. p. 187. ISBN 971-1022-18-4. ISSN 0115-4435.
- ^ Emma M. Escover; Rodrigo L. Claveria (1985). "The Economics of Tilapia Cage Culture in Bicol Freshwater Lakes, Philippines". In Ian R. Smith; Enriqueta B. Torres; Elvira O. Tan (eds.). Philippine Tilapia Economics (PDF). Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research and Development. p. 56. ISBN 971-1022-18-4. ISSN 0115-4435.
- ^ a b c d e "Philippine Fisheries Profile 2021" (PDF). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. 2022. ISSN 2704-3355. Retrieved August 9, 2024.
External links
[edit]- Fisheries Administrative Order No. 214 Code of Practice for Aquaculture in the Philippines
- P. B. Sivickis (March 30, 1929). "Modes of Distribution of the Mudfish in the Philippines". Nature. 123 (3100): 493. Bibcode:1929Natur.123..493S. doi:10.1038/123493a0.
- "Mudfish breeding and culture" (PDF). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. December 2012.
- "Why Grow Red Tilapia?" (PDF). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Regional Office No. 5.