Vietnam s seafood boom: Economic growth with impoverishment?

Transcription

1 Environ Dev Sustain DOI /s Vietnam s seafood boom: Economic growth with impoverishment? Melissa Marschke 1 Gordon Betcherman 1 Received: 15 January 2015 / Accepted: 19 July 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 Abstract By 2050 most seafood will be sourced through aquaculture, with a range of production intensities being required to sustain livelihoods and to meet future needs from seafood. This makes Vietnam a particularly insightful case, since Vietnam is at the forefront of the trend toward greater aquaculture production. Our aim in this paper is to examine the social-ecological sustainability of small producer livelihoods contributing to Vietnam s seafood boom. This paper uses original survey data to understand the range of fishery-based livelihoods that have contributed to Vietnam being a leading global exporter of seafood. We investigate the kinds of fishery-based livelihood activities that households are engaged in, consider the type and amount (kilograms) of species caught or farmed annually, and examine household perceptions of change in species quantity. We find that Vietnam s seafood sector is facing real sustainability challenges: Nearly 30 % of small producers fishers and fish farmers within our sample rest at or below Vietnam s rural poverty line. Ecological decline and disease in farmed fish is perceived to be a serious issue for all fishers. In this context, policy and management interventions need to better reflect social and ecological variability, adopt an integrated coastal systems perspective across fisheries and aquaculture, and consider the most impact-effective poverty interventions. Keywords Fishing Aquaculture Small producer livelihoods Poverty Ecological decline Vietnam & Melissa Marschke melissa.marschke@uottawa.ca Gordon Betcherman Gordon.Betcherman@uottawa.ca 1 University of Ottawa, 120 University Private, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada

2 M. Marschke, G. Betcherman 1 Introduction Asia s transition toward farmed fish over the past few decades has been fueled by a global interest in cheap fish, particularly shrimp, with farmers converting rice fields into fish farms throughout the Mekong Delta and beyond (Ito 2002). Economic development (Belton et al. 2011) and a belief that fishing and aquaculture can be a vehicle for reducing poverty and food insecurity (Béné 2009; Toufique and Belton 2014) have further contributed to this transition. Rapid change is set against the backdrop of transitional economies in which both traditional, lower-intensity aquaculture and intensive, singlespecies fish farming exist (Diana et al. 2013). At the same time, overfishing is a persistent, growing challenge globally (Worm and Branch 2012; McClanahan et al. 2013). Households along coasts, deltas, and lagoons have experienced rapid change in highly uneven ways (Barbier 2012; Bush and Marschke 2014); even so, millions of households in Asia continue to rely on fishing or fish farming as a source of livelihood (FAO 2014). Most seafood will be sourced through aquaculture by 2050 (Diana et al. 2013). This makes Vietnam a particularly insightful case, since Vietnam is at the forefront of the trend toward greater aquaculture production (FAO 2014). A variety of fishing and fish farming practices currently exist, from small producers to agri-business corporations (Armitage and Marschke 2013; Tran et al. 2013). Fishers may operate boats with low motor capacity in mangrove estuaries, rivers or along coast lines, or rely on sophisticated sonar equipment to track schools of fish in offshore waters (Pomeroy et al. 2009; Ha and van Dijk 2013). Fish farmers operate across a continuum of production intensities (low to moderate to highly intensive), in what Belton et al. (2011) and others (Tran et al. 2013) characterize as quasipeasant, quasi-capitalist, and capitalist modes of production. Unlike in some countries, ownership and labor across Vietnam s fisheries sector often remains at a household level, with fish being produced and caught for domestic, regional and export markets (Loc et al. 2010; Belton et al. 2011). Within the social science literature, specific studies have offered important insights into Vietnam s fisheries sector, such as providing an overview of small-scale fisheries policy (Pomeroy et al. 2009), highlighting compliance issues facing fishers (Ha and van Dijk 2013), describing mangrove shrimp farming systems (Primavera 2006; Ha et al. 2013), assessing high- and low-value chains (Loc et al. 2010), examining the social modes of production for catfish culture (Belton et al. 2011), or considering the winners and losers within global value chains of Vietnamese shrimp (Tran et al. 2013). General characteristics are well understood (i.e., overall production levels for fish and aquaculture, fleet size, and land area cultivated for fish farming). Less understood, however, is how households fishers and fish farmers combine a portfolio of livelihood activities within the fisheries sector and beyond, or an assessment of who is benefitting from Vietnam s seafood boom. It is this gap we seek to address, paying careful attention to the social ecological sustainability of small producer livelihoods contributing to Vietnam s seafood boom. The paper uses data from a new household survey of 599 households in coastal communities across three districts in Vietnam, combined with key informant interviews and focus groups, to consider the social-ecological complexity of livelihood activities undertaken in these communities. We use the analytic of primary economic activity to enable us to draw out the range of livelihoods found across our sample, and pay particular attention to a household s socio-economic status. Shrimp are the most widely caught and cultivated species across our data set, with the exception of offshore fishers who target tuna, squid, and mackerel. Trash fish, however, had the highest annual per household kilogram average

3 Vietnam s seafood boom: Economic growth with impoverishment? of all species caught, which speaks to Vietnam s controversial use of trash fish within fish farming and, perhaps, suggests a waning in options of what some fishers can target. We examine the multi-dimensional challenges facing this sector, paying particular attention to how poverty and ecological decline impacts small producer fishers and fish farmers. 2 Context, materials, and methods Vietnamese fisheries have experienced rapid growth: between 1990 and 2011 fishing grew by 5.7 % and aquaculture grew by 14.7 % (Belton and Thilsted 2014). Fisheries (capture fish and farmed fish) contribute to over 10 % of Vietnam s gross domestic product (GDP) and nearly 50 % of agricultural GDP (Scholtens and Badjeck 2010). Vietnam is the third largest aquaculture producer globally, next to China and India (FAO 2014), even as Vietnam 1 has weaker institutions and managerial capacity than other Southeast Asian countries (Kagawa and Bailey 2006). Fish products were the sixth most valued export in the first 6 months of 2013, next to telephones and mobile parts, textiles, computers and components, footwear, and crude oil (Vietrade 2015). Major markets for Vietnamese seafood include Japan, Europe and the USA (FAO 2014). From a food security perspective, Vietnam lies within the top 30 countries globally that rely on fish as an important source of animal protein consumption (Allison 2011). Vietnam s capture fisheries are dominated by multi-species, multi-gear, and small-scale fishers (Ha and van Dijk 2013; Nguyen and Fisher 2014). Over 80 % of Vietnam s catch is caught at a depth of less than 50 m (Pomeroy et al. 2009) using engines with less than 45 horsepower (Pham et al. 2014). Vietnam s total fishing fleet consisted of 127,000 vessels in 2010 (Pham et al. 2014). Small boats may be 3 m wide and 10 m long; larger boats may be 8 m wide and 20 m long (Ha and van Dijk 2013). As the number of fishing vessels and total fleet engine power have increased at 12 % per annum, Vietnam s catch per unit effort has decreased from 1.11 ton per horsepower in 1985 to.34 ton per horsepower in 2005 (Pomeroy et al. 2009). Major fishing gear includes gillnets, trawls, long lines, lift nets with lights, and traps (Pham et al. 2014). Vietnam s aquaculture is also dominated by small producers in production and trading (Tran et al. 2013). Around 95 % of shrimp or mixed-species farms are occupied by extensive and improved extensive farms, contributing two-thirds of total Vietnamese shrimp production (Anh et al. 2011). A significant portion of catfish production also remains at the household level although even in cases where farm size is small, catfish production is not something in which poor households are engaged and cannot be considered small scale in terms of a quasi-peasant activity (Belton et al. 2011: 575). Since 2007 farmed fish production has surpassed fishing effort (see Fig. 1), and Vietnam is at the forefront of a blue revolution. 2 Aquaculture is dominated by two farmed species: penaeid shrimp (Penaeus monodon, Litopenaeus vannamei) and pangasius catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus), with frozen shrimp being Vietnam s top export (1,278,001 tons in 2009) closely followed by frozen catfish (1,208,385 tons) (FishStatJ 2014). Shrimp surpasses catfish in terms of export earnings (FishStatJ 2014). To contribute to a better understanding of Vietnam s fisheries sector, we choose to focus our efforts in three districts within two regions of Vietnam where fishers and fish farmers 1 Vietnam has a medium human development index (HDI), with a ranking of 127 out of 187 (UNDP 2013). 2 In aquaculture, the blue revolution refers to the overall increase in the availability of fish for human consumption vis-à-vis farmed fish (see Ponte et al. 2014).

4 M. Marschke, G. Betcherman Fig. 1 Vietnam s total (tons) production, aquaculture, and fish, Source: FishStatJ, Accessed June 2014 operate at an individual or household level rather than as a larger corporate identity. For these reasons, we refer to households our sample as small producers (with the exception of offshore fishers), encompassing small-scale fishers (Berkes et al. 2001; Chuenpagdee et al. 2006; Kittinger 2013) and small producer fish farmers (Belton et al. 2011; Tran et al. 2013). We included districts with: (a) high production rates for wild and farmed fish; and (b) diverse forms of aquaculture, suggesting a mix of production intensities (extensive to intensive) and diverse forms of fishing, from inshore to offshore. Considerable variation exists within the three districts and twelve communes that comprised our survey and indepth interviews. See Fig. 2. Note that catfish production, which is found in other parts of the Mekong Delta, was not found in the study sample districts. Had we included catfish, incomes from aquaculture would likely have been higher (see Bush et al. 2009; Belton et al. 2011; Ponte et al. 2014). Two of the study districts are located in the Mekong Delta in Ca Mau province, with the third district surrounding Tam Giang lagoon in Hue province, north central Vietnam. Ca Mau province is known for its various forms of extensive and modified shrimp farming systems (Tran et al. 2013). In 2009 shrimp farmers in Ca Mau produced 98,100 tons of shrimp accounting for 21.5 % of national production (Ha and van Dijk 2013). Shrimp production is also common in Hue province, through the practice of pond aquaculture and net enclosures within the lagoon scape (Armitage and Marschke 2013). In 2012, the total number of registered offshore vessels in Ca Mau was 1356; in Hue, a total of 256 offshore vessels were registered (GSO 2014). The population density in Hue (Phu Vang district) is nearly three times that found in the other two Mekong Delta districts (see Table 1), even though the number of households are similar in each area (between 171,363 and 187,132 households). All three districts have greater levels of fisheries production than aquaculture production, which is counter to Vietnam s overall trend toward greater aquaculture production. This is because these districts, in addition to nearshore fishing and aquaculture livelihoods, have a significant offshore fleet. Official poverty rates in two of the three districts hover around the Vietnamese average poverty ratio of 14.2 %, with the other study district, Tran Van Thoi (Mekong Delta), having a significantly lower poverty rate (6 %). Field methods included key informant interviews (n = 14) and focus group discussions (n = 5) prior to implementing the survey, a household survey (n = 599), and follow-up interviews to ground-truth survey results with key informants (n = 35). Initial interviews

5 Vietnam s seafood boom: Economic growth with impoverishment? Fig. 2 Map of Vietnam, highlighting the study sites within three districts and focus group discussions held with extension staff, government officials, fishers, and local academics throughout 2012 focused on understanding the range of fishing-related livelihood strategies found in Hue and Ca Mau, with follow-up interviews in January 2014 with individual households focusing on specific details related to fishing and fish farming. Here an emphasis was placed on ensuring survey results were being properly interpreted, along with understanding the choice of species caught or farmed, livelihood diversification, and the poverty dimensions associated with particular fishing or cultivation methods. Our household survey, entitled the Vietnam Fisheries Transitions Survey, was carried out in December 2012 and January The content of the survey was based on the multitopic household survey design of Vietnam s Living Standards Measurement Survey 3 and fisheries modules piloted by Worldfish in Uganda and Malawi (c.f., Béné et al. 2012). Our questionnaire included nine modules: household information; employment and earnings; 3 The Vietnam Living Standards Measurement Survey (VLSMS) is a comprehensive household survey carried out biennially between 2002 and 2010 by Vietnam s General Statistical Office. We drew from the 2010 version of the VLSMS in designing our survey questionnaire. The VLSMS, as found in many other countries, is based on a design developed by the World Bank.

6 M. Marschke, G. Betcherman Table 1 Key fishery indicators per district Characteristic VN total Ca Mau province Hue province Ca Mau province Dam Doi district Tran Van Thoi district Hue province Phu Vang district # of hhs 22 mil 1.2 m 182, , m 171,363 Pop density (km 2 ) Total land (km 2 ) 330, Aqua prod (tons) 3,115, ,763 70,360 24,119 12, Fish prod (tons) 2,705, ,820 82,260 94,580 33,659 19,540 Poverty ratio (%) a Data sources: GSO data (2014); Ca Mau and Hue district data (2012) a Note that official poverty estimates differ from WB-GSO poverty estimates in that poverty rates are lower. This table draws on official poverty estimates since this data drills down to the district level. It is likely that overall poverty rates in these areas would be higher using WB-GSO data since agriculture (which includes fishing and fish farming) is a sector that has particularly high rural poverty rates. See Badiani et al. (2013) other sources of income; fishing; aquaculture; assets and housing; lending and borrowing; risks and coping strategies; and perceptions of risk and well-being. The survey asked for household-level information on these topics for 2012, often with recall questions for ,5 Data were collected in face-to-face interviews, 6 usually with the household head. 7 Many households in our survey were engaged in multiple livelihood activities, but we have categorized each according to an income-based primary economic activity. Respondents were asked for total income and for an income breakdown by five livelihood categories fishing, aquaculture, agriculture, wage, and salary employment, and self-employment. Primary economic activity was determined in a two-stage process. Firstly, the activity accounting for the highest share of household income was identified. 8 Secondly, for analysis in this paper, we grouped primary economic activity into three categories: fishing, aquaculture, and other (which includes agriculture, wage and salary employment, and self-employment), before further categorizing fishing and aquaculture households. For fishing households, we identified nearshore fishers or offshore fishers based on horsepower (30 hp or less for nearshore fishers) and, among aquaculture households, as extensive or intensive fish farmers (through self-identification, and verified by annual income). This 4 The survey questionnaire, variable dictionary, and database are available from the authors. 5 The identification of the three districts for our research was based on national-level statistical data, with four communes per district then being selected with a target response of 50 households per commune. These communes were identified in consultation with the provincial department of fisheries to ensure that the range of fishing and fish farming activities found within each district would be represented. Depending on the commune, up to eight villages were surveyed. The inclusion of households was based on neighborhoodstratified random sampling. 6 The survey fieldwork was carried out by Vietnamese surveyors affiliated with the Hue University of Agriculture and Camau Agricultural Extension Centre. Data were inputted by the Hue University survey team with final editing undertaken at the University of Ottawa % of the survey respondents identified themselves as the household head. 8 However, in some cases, primary activity could not be unambiguously identified on the basis of income because of missing data, incorrectly reported data, or equal incomes in more than one livelihood category. In these situations, incomes were imputed and additional information from the survey was considered in order to assign the primary activity.

7 Vietnam s seafood boom: Economic growth with impoverishment? additional categorization allows us to better understand and assess the variety of fishers and types of fish farmers found across Vietnam s fisheries sector. Within our sample population (599), four-fifths of our household respondents were male with a median age of 46.7 years. An average of 4.8 people lived in each household, although household membership varied between 1 and 9 members. Educational differences existed between the household head and the highest level of education attained within a household. For example, although 10 % of household heads had completed high school, 30 % of households had a household member that had completed high school; this speaks to the increasing educational attainment of the next generation. Most households (79 %) were engaged in multiple livelihoods, with 65 % of households drawing on two or three sources of income. Few households were engaged only in fishing (12 %) or only in aquaculture (17 %). Importantly, and as will be further discussed, considerable livelihood variation existed within fishing (55 % of households caught three species) and aquaculture (52 % of households cultured three species) activities. 3 Results 3.1 The range of fishers and fish farmers A range of fishers and fish farmers were found across our sample, with primary livelihood activities including nearshore fishing (20 %), offshore fishing (11 %), extensive fish farming (32 %), intensive fish farming (8 %), and other livelihood activities (wage employment, self-employment, and farming) 9 (28 %) (Table 2). Considerable household variation exists in terms of assets, land, income, and livelihood diversity although there is a strong reliance on shrimp as an important resource for all households (70 % of households across our entire sample cultivate black tiger shrimp). Fishers targeted wild shrimp in the nearshore, squid in the offshore, and trash fish in all water areas. For fish farmers, black tiger shrimp was cultivated across production intensities. Average incomes by primary livelihood activity varied greatly, from an annual household income of 65 million VND per year to 645 million VND. By means of comparison, the average annual household income for a rural dweller in Vietnam in 2012 was 392 million 10 (GSO 2014). Table 2 illustrates that extensive fish farming households earn less than other households, even with greater land ownership (2.13 ha) and assets (5.9) than nearshore fishers (.56 ha, an average of 5 assets) and those practicing other primary livelihoods (1.84 ha, an average of 5.9 assets). Nearshore fishers, for example, earn nearly one-third more (93.9 mil) than extensive fish farmers (65.1 mil). Small producer households whose primary economic activity is a non-fishing-based livelihood (wage or self-employment) often continue to farm fish (83 % of households) and are able to earn more money (86.6 mil) 9 Some wage and self-employment work could fall within the fishing sector (hiring out one s labor or to operating a fisheries-related business, such as fish processing or distribution), although many households in this other category have a main income source outside the fisheries sector (e.g., government work, factory work, operating a local store). What this survey did not capture were individuals involved as laborers in the offshore fisheries sector. Interviews with boat owners suggested that labor shortages are mainly filled by migrant laborers from throughout Vietnam. 10 In USD, average annual household income within our data set ranged from $3,142 and $31,175 per household per year, or $655 and $6,495 per capita per year. Nearshore fishers, extensive fish farmers and those in the other category all are well under Vietnam s average annual household income ($18,946). Conversion rate average for 2012 is 1USD = 20,689.9 VND.

8 M. Marschke, G. Betcherman Table 2 Selected characteristics across production intensities compared Nearshore Offshore Extensive Intensive Other a Primary fish activity Main species targeted Mixed shrimp Squid Bl. Tiger shrimp Bl. Tiger shrimp Bl. Tiger shrimp Avg. assets b Avg. land (ha) Mean hh income (VND) 93.9 mil mil 65.1 mil mil 86.6 mil Mean proportion of hh income by primary N = 599 a Category of other refers to households whose primary income stems from farming, wage, or self-employment. Within this category, 83 % of households also obtained income from fish farming (i.e., it was not their highest source of income in 2012, but was an important contributor to a households livelihood portfolio). In contrast, only 10 % of households had fishing income b Seventeen assets were included: car, motorbike, motorboat, rowboat, cellphone, television, stereo, machine pump, computer, fridge, freezer, air conditioner, washing machine, electric cooker, gas cooker, water heater, and microwave than those relying on extensive fish farming as their primary economic activity. This may be linked to being able to move between small producer fishery- and non-fishery-based livelihoods. Offshore fishers earn significantly larger amounts compared with any other group, and ten times that of extensive fish farmers. Worth noting, offshore fishers own little land (less than one quarter of a hectare), even though high incomes (645.1 mil) suggest that these households could afford to purchase land if interested. The mean proportion of household income derived from a primary economic activity suggests that nearshore fishers (.74) supplement their income with other livelihood activities to a greater extent than offshore fishing households who rely mainly on their fishing activities (.91). A similar dynamic is found between extensive and intensive fish farmers (.76 and.89, respectively): In this case, land ownership between extensive and intensive fishers does not differ to a significant extent (2.13 and 2.72 ha, respectively). Those relying other primary economic activities (wage, self-employment, and farming) draw on a mix of non-fishing and fishing livelihoods to a greater extent than other households (.70). The degree of diversification found across households may be related to the risks associated with small producer livelihoods: Small producers diversify as a coping strategy, whereas wealthier fishers and fish farmers secure enough income to use this to help buffer against stresses and shocks. 3.2 Capture fishers Range of fishing This year is very hard for all fishers in this commune. The weather is not very good, and we can only catch something one or two days a month. Nearshore fishing is not a good life. Right now my husband has to work as a laborer on an offshore fishing boat since we do not have enough rice to eat. Nearshore fisher, Ca Mau, Jan 2014

9 Vietnam s seafood boom: Economic growth with impoverishment? I fish for tuna, mackerel and other high value species offshore. We find fish because we have good equipment but I am not sure if this will continue because Vietnamese waters no longer have many fish left. We need to go further away, to other countries, but that is too risky. Offshore fisher, Ca Mau, Jan 2014 Fishers practice a range of fishing activities ranging from artisanal or nearshore fishing with wooden boats equipped with small engines (10 horsepower) and basic communication tools (cell phones) to offshore fishing with large engines (200 plus horsepower) and sophisticated communication gear (GPS, sonar equipment). 11 While all fishers spend time on their boats away from home, the cost of fishing gear, engine capacity, and length away from home increases significantly for offshore fishers. Nearshore fishers, for example, may fish within a few kilometers of shore for half a day or a day and only catch a few kilograms of low value fish, whereas offshore vessels (consisting of boat owners or hired captains and crew 12 ) may either fish within 20 km of the shore for up to 5 days or may be at sea for up to 15 days catching hundreds or thousands of kilograms of high-value fish and trash fish (see Ha and van Dijk 2013 for further analysis). Nearshore fishing households have limited land access (.56 ha on average) and derive a quarter of their income from activities other than fishing. Offshore fishers were, by far, the richest households in our sample, earning around seven times more than nearshore fishers. These households owned little land and relied almost completely on fishing as a source of income (see Table 2). As one fisher explained, [b]efore the typhoon of 1997, the production for tuna, mackerel and other high value species was really good. But we did not get nearly as good a price as we do now. The most common gear used by nearshore fishers were gill nets (40 %), traps (37 %), and trawl nets (16 %), whereas common offshore gear included seine nets (44 %), hooks and lines (40 %), and dredges (15 %). Over half of all fishers in our sample relied on a single fishing gear (52 %), with an additional 47 % using a second gear. While most households owned one boat (87 %), only a few households had a second (11 %) or third (2 %) boat. Average horsepower per household had a positive and statistically significant relationship with income (Fig. 3). Fishing households (112) with an engine of 30 horsepower or less earned an average annual income of 98 million VND; households owning a boat with an engine capacity between 30 and 90 earned an average annual income of 246 million VND (14 households); and 51 households had boats with greater than 90 horsepower earning 769 million VND on average. 13 With our data, it is not possible to determine the direction of the relationship between household income and engine power. The positive correlation is consistent with the notion that engine power is important for fishers 11 Song Doc is a particularly prosperous fishing and fish-processing community located on Vietnam s west coast, with offshore vessels targeting tuna, squid and mackerel. Because of the very high earnings of (offshore) fishing households primarily in this commune and the much lower earnings of (largely nearshore) fishing households in many other communes, income inequality is very high across our data set. Survey data and qualitative information collected in follow-up interviews reinforced the relative prosperity of offshore fishing households based on major investments in boats, engines and gear to enable offshore fishing. 12 Interviews with boat owners revealed benefit-sharing arrangements between boat owners, a captain and crew. While the details of profit-sharing varied, all benefit-sharing arrangements were based on catch volume and operational costs. 13 Note that 17 households in our sample had missing data for horsepower, meaning these numbers are slightly different from Table 2. In USD, households with an engine of 30 horsepower or less had an average income of $4737, households with an engine over 30 until 90 earned an average annual income of $11,890 and households with horsepower greater than 90 earned $37,168.

10 M. Marschke, G. Betcherman to access productive fishing grounds and to benefit economically. At the same time, higher incomes allow households to purchase more horsepower Variety of species fished 14 Shrimp (Penaeidae family) is the most common aquatic species caught by fishers. Of the 135 households targeting shrimp, 67 % (90 households) were nearshore fishers, 8 % were offshore fishers, 11 % were extensive fish farmers, and 14 % were those who had an other primary activity. Trash fish and squid (Squillidae family) were two other important species caught by fishers. A total of 81 households caught trash fish: 53 % (43 households) were nearshore fishers, 35 % were offshore fishers, 5 % were extensive fish farmers, and 7 % had an other primary activity. For squid, a total of 80 households targeted squid, with 33 % being nearshore households, 59 % (48 households) being offshore households, and 8 % of households having other as a primary activity. That said, fishers caught a diversity of aquatic species (25 in total), including bony fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, and shells. A few species caught are considered high value (oceanic tuna, mackerel, squid), while many are considered low value (trash fish). For nearshore fishers (127 hh), mixed shrimp (90 hh), goby (Gobiidae family) (45 hh), and trash fish (42 hh) were the most commonly caught species, although a total of 18 species were caught in our sample including squid (26 hh), whipfin silver biddy (Gerres filamentosus) (15 hh), crab (Syllica spp.) (10 hh), and carp (9 hh). There were also cases where five or less households caught a particular species, including catfish (Hypostomus plecostomus), tigerfish (Datnioides microlepis), mussels, bream (Gnathodentex spp.), ray, oyster, mackerel (Scombridae family), snails, mahi mahi (Coryphaena spp.), or red mullet (Parupeneus heptancanthus). Turning to offshore fishers (67 hh), the most common species caught were squid (48 hh), oceanic tuna, including Skipjack (P. pelamis) tuna 15 (36 hh), mackerel (30 hh), and trash fish (28 hh), although a total of 12 species were caught in our sample including mixed shrimp (11 hh). There were also cases were five or less households caught a particular species including grouper, ray, mahi mahi, bream, tigerfish, leather jacket, and silver croaker fish (Argyrosomus argentatus). Table 3 shows the kilograms caught for the three most popular fish species in 2012 within our sample (mixed shrimp, squid and trash fish). A total of 135 households caught 1420 kg of mixed shrimp, 80 households caught 10,143 kg of squid, and 80 households caught 10,893 kg of trash fish in Note that households across the range (nearshore, offshore, other) all caught mixed shrimp, squid, and trash fish, although volumes of squid and trash fish were particularly high for offshore fishers. Tuna held the next highest amount in terms of volume, with 36 households catching a mean annual average of 5946 kg. 14 Aquatic species were identified in the Vietnam Fisheries Transitions Survey by their common Vietnamese name and later translated into English. The Vietnamese fish checklist at fishbase.org was used to identify the most specific biological nomenclature possible for common fish names. Although some marine and brackish water fish species could only be specified to the level of class, subclass, order, or suborder, many were identifiable to the level of family, genus and species. It was easier to specify farmed fish species, since the number of farmed species is limited, in comparison to capture fisheries. We verified our final list with Vietnamese fisheries experts. We have included the family, genus and species, where identifiable, after the common English name the first time an aquatic species is mentioned in Sects and Although a total of nine tuna species can be found in the offshore and shallower waters, skipjack tuna (P. pelamis) accounts for 93 % of all landings. Tuna resources have not been assessed, with little data existing regarding this fishery. Vietnam is the third largest tuna importer globally, with tuna and tuna products mainly exported to the US, EU and Japan (Vu and Nguyen 2012).

11 Vietnam s seafood boom: Economic growth with impoverishment? Fig. 3 Relationship between average horsepower per boat and household income. Observations in the scattergram represent individual households While many fishing households had been fishing the same species for the past decade, some households had begun to target additional species. For example, over 20 % of households began to catch shrimp, crab, squid, trash fish and oysters after Households add a particular species into their fishing portfolio based on marketing opportunities, ease of catch, and what can be found in the waters being fished. Trash fish has gained significantly in popularity in the past few years Variation in quantity Fishers fishing in nearshore and offshore waters, targeting low- and high-value species, believed that individual fish stocks had declined compared with 2002 levels. For example, 92 % of shrimp fishers believed shrimp stocks were in decline. Households linked stock decline to inadequate fishing gear (relying on older gear, meaning households were no longer competitive, 54 %) and to greater competition for shrimp stocks (21 %). As one fishing household noted, [w]e only have a small boat and limited gill nets. We cannot compete with households who can afford more modern fishing gear. For trash fish, 90 % of fishers also believed that trash fish volumes had declined since 2002 because of inadequate gear (30 %) and greater competition for trash fish stocks (21 %), although natural fluctuations and variation was another explanation given (38 %) for this perceived decline. Since trash fish are composed of a mix of juvenile fish species, this is worth noting. Across all species, fishers consistently believe that in 2012 they caught far less than they had in Nearshore fishing households spoke about how difficult it was to find fish, particularly on hot days during the dry season. Several fishers spoke of needing to target small fish if they were to make enough money to cover their fuel costs on a given fishing trip, even though they knew that these fish were too young (juveniles) and that this affected their ability to grow. Another interviewee commented how,

12 M. Marschke, G. Betcherman Table 3 Top three species caught (by number of hh and volume) Mixed shrimp Kg/year Squid Kg/year Trash fish Kg/year Primary nearshore Primary offshore , ,843 Primary extensive Primary intensive Primary other Total all sectors , ,893 if you want to survive, you have to do something besides fishing. Our entire family moved to Ho Chi Minh [city] to do construction work for two years. It was not very nice but we saved enough money to repair our house and have a little extra. Fishing only covers our day to day expenses. Migration or switching out of fishing to sell one s labor (as seen in the first quote to this section) is indicator that fishers are facing real challenges and that this is not a particularly viable livelihood for some households. Offshore fishers were also concerned about catch levels, even though they targeted highvalue species such as tuna, squid, and mackerel and were economically well off. Comments such as few fish are left in the sea or it is now hard to find fish, even with our equipment were common, and these households expressed concerns about overall stock declines, the challenge of predicting severe storms, and the economic risks involved with high-end fishing. One interviewee explained that while he preferred to send his crew to fish in Thai waters, this was not feasible given the vigilance of the Thai police. If we go to Thailand, we can catch far more than we can within Vietnam. Two years ago Thai police caught one of my boats in their waters. My captain and crew were sent to prison; my boat was confiscated by the police. I am scared to do this again, so we only fish in Vietnam even though it is not so good here. Strong markets for high-value species such as tuna may help to temporarily buffer these fishers from the impacts of stock declines, but this cannot likely continue. 3.3 Fish farmers Continuum of fish farming We practice traditional [extensive] aquaculture. We cannot do anything else with the land no rice, no fruit trees and while we can earn enough, since we are lucky to have 7 ha of land, aquaculture is also very risky as so many factors are out of our control such as the weather, the general environment, the quality of shrimp fingerlings, and disease. (Extensive shrimp farmer, Ca Mau, Jan 2014) Farmers cultivate fish across a continuum of production intensities, ranging from extensive to intensive practices. Within our data set, nearly two-thirds of all households practice some form of extensive monoculture or polyculture in ponds, rice fields, mangroves, and net enclosures, while less than 10 % of households practice intensive monoculture in

13 Vietnam s seafood boom: Economic growth with impoverishment? ponds. There is significant variation across production intensities in pond area, type, cultivation methods, stocking density, and number of crops cultivated per year. Pond preparation for intensive aquaculture requires digging, aeration equipment, and installing a water exchange system, whereas little pond preparation is necessary for extensive aquaculture. And, while all farmers stock their ponds, either from a mix of fish, crab, or shrimp found in local water bodies or with bought fingerlings, stocking density varies greatly (between \4 head/m 2 and between 40 and 100 head/m 2 ). Table 4 highlights key characteristics of pond aquaculture at the various production intensities found across our data set (see Baluyut 1989, Edwards 1998 for a detailed analysis of production intensity). Those practicing extensive aquaculture follow the lunar calendar, harvesting crab and black tiger shrimp twice per month during low tides. Farmers are selective in their harvesting, prioritizing larger-sized crab and shrimp to enable juveniles to further fatten. Stocking takes place when needed or if species are found from the wild, enabling farmers to take advantage of market prices. Harvest levels per hectare are linked to salinity, soil conditions, water quality, and weather. Intense heat can be an issue, particularly in the dry season when the earth cracks and water is scarce. As one extensive fish farmer commented: we put the crab and shrimp into the pond and they then just disappear. This has happened a few times now. Maybe because of the weather? (Ca Mau Jan. 2014). Households respond to environmental change in many ways, including an intensification of effort on their shrimp and fish farms. Intensive aquaculture was far less common (less than 10 % of households), which is reflective of the dominance of small producer shrimp farming in Vietnam (Ha et al. 2013; Tran et al. 2013) and because our sample did not capture catfish production. Those that listed intensive shrimp farming as their primary livelihood held greater land holdings (2.72 ha on average) than any other livelihood group in our sample. Some households had been practicing intensive shrimp farming for the past decade, and spoke of having done well enough, over time, to enable them to save money for times when crops failed. Some of these households also had extensive shrimp ponds, which served as a back up strategy for food and income when intensive crops failed. There were also new entrants into intensive shrimp farming. As one Ca Mau fish farming household noted (2012): Table 4 Key characteristics of the continuum of fish farms Characteristic Intensive (white leg shrimp) Intensive (black tiger shrimp) Improved extensive Extensive (traditional) Pond area, depth m 2 ; m Pond type Earth or plastic liner m 2 ; m Earth or plastic liner ,000 m 2 ; m Earth [10,000; m Cultivation Mono Mono Mono or poly Poly Stocking density head/m head/m head/m 2 \4 head/m 2 # crops/year Continuous Feed supply Industrial feed Industrial feed A little No Disease treatment? Yes Yes Yes No Aerator Yes Yes No No Source: Focus group discussions, 2013, Ca Mau Earth

14 M. Marschke, G. Betcherman For years we did traditional [extensive] fish culture, mainly shrimp and crab, but last year I decided to try to make more money. I divided my pond and prepared a section for white leg shrimp [intensive]. Actually my son sent me money so I could prepare the pond. If I fail, it will be hard, but I will still have my other pond which is enough for my food so I hope it is alright. Fish farming in Vietnam has only emerged in the past two decades, with many rice farmers turning to fish farming and then, with time, moving across production intensities. Norn, a former rice farmer owning 1.7 ha of land, is an example of this. He began adding shrimp to his rice fields in the early 2000s, and continued to do polyculture (shrimp, crab, and rice) until At that point he had watched his brother harvest several intensive shrimp crops successfully and decided to convert.5 ha into two intensive shrimp ponds. Seeing my brother count out so much money made me a little envious, so I felt that I had to try intensive shrimp culture. With shrimp-rice farming I never have the chance to make that kind of money. Norn s first 2 years were highly successful, although he now has issues with his supply of water which is affecting his shrimp crops. Even so, he was happy that he made the shift. Now if my crop goes well, I can make 400 million VND (USD 18,800) per year whereas with shrimp-rice farming I only can make 20 million VND (USD 940). Even if my crop does not go that well, I still make more money than before. This speaks to the potential of intensive shrimp farming, but also the risks that come with such levels of production. Only farmers that have access to capital and enough land can really take the risk of switching to more intensive production intensities Variety of species cultivated Black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon), which can be cultivated across production intensities, was the most common species cultivated: 94 % of fish farming households cultivated a mean annual average of 462 kg of black tiger shrimp, with 88 % of these black tiger shrimp cultivating households having done so since White leg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), however, is growing in popularity: An average of 3434 kg per household was produced in 2012, with only two households (of 33) having cultivated white leg shrimp in Farmers spoke of disease spreading throughout the Mekong Delta in 2010, linked to poor-quality black tiger fingerling, and resulting in crops taking extra weeks to harvest. This, combined with the economic crisis in 2008 that resulted in a global decline in market demand for black tiger shrimp, has contributed toward a huge push into white leg shrimp (Ha and Bush 2010). The government in Ca Mau encouraged intensive farmers to switch from black tiger shrimp to white leg shrimp in the mid 2000s although uptake has been variable (c.f., Ha and Bush 2010). Interviews in 2014 with several provincial officials in Ca Mau suggested that they believed that most intensive shrimp farmers now cultivate white leg shrimp and continue to do so, even with the arrival of EMS (early mortality syndrome) that affected an estimated 30 % of white leg shrimp cultivating households. Meanwhile, household-level production figures in our sample show that many small producers continue to cultivate black tiger shrimp at extensive and intensive levels (see Table 5), even though white leg shrimp has a lower risk profile and can be grown at higher densities (Lebel et al. 2010). While fish farmers felt that white leg shrimp was the way to go, not all intensive farmers could afford to switch. As one intensive fish farmer noted, I have a hatchery for black tiger shrimp, which was really popular in this area until a few years ago. Now people want to do white leg shrimp as you can earn more

15 Vietnam s seafood boom: Economic growth with impoverishment? Table 5 Number of households farming a particular species Black tiger shrimp Kg/year Crab Kg/year White leg shrimp Kg/year Primary nearshore Primary offshore Primary extensive Primary intensive Primary other Total all sectors money and we hope there is less disease. I am not able to switch to white leg shrimp. I have problems with my fingerlings and some disease in my two ponds so do not have the money or land to do so (Ca Mau Jan. 2014). This speaks to the challenges that farmers and hatchery producers have in switching between species. Moreover, for those households practicing forms of extensive aquaculture, natural conditions are more favorable for black tiger shrimp (Ha and Bush 2010). Table 5 also shows that crab is another commonly cultivated species (339 hh), producing an average of 132 kg per household annually. Many households (71 %) had been cultivating crab since Black tiger shrimp and crab are common in polyculture, although these fish farmers are not, for the most part, getting particularly high annual household incomes (74 m VND and 72 VND, respectively 16 ). While the most common species cultivated at all production intensities were black tiger shrimp and mud crab (Scylla serrata), considerable variability existed particularly for extensive fish farmers. Of the 210 extensive fish farming households, black tiger shrimp (200), crab (194), and rabbit fish (Siganus guttatus) (72) were popular in terms of cultivation. Far less common (five or less households) in terms of cultivation included white leg shrimp, Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), elongated goby (Pseudapocryptes elongates), green mussel (Perna viridis), greasy back shrimp (Metapenaeus ensis), and snapper. For the 46 intensive fish farmers, the main species cultivated included black tiger shrimp (45), crab (29), and white leg shrimp (26). Here too there were cases of five households or less farming a particular species, including Nile tilapia, elongated goby, and blood cockle (Anadara granosa) Variation in quantity Household perceptions related to changes in production levels (quantity) varied. In the case of black tiger shrimp, 49 % of households believed that their overall quantities had declined in the past decade because of disease, less reliable stocking sources, and challenges with water quality. Conversely, those households (45 %) who believed production levels had increased felt this was due to better techniques, more reliable stocking sources, and better shrimp prices to enable reinvestment into their farms. In the case of crab, 60 % of households cultivating crab felt they had better production levels due to enhanced techniques, reliable stocking sources, better water quality, and higher prices. Those households, 26 %, who felt it was harder to cultivate crab, cited water quality and disease 16 This works out to be USD 3571 and 3480 per household, respectively.

16 M. Marschke, G. Betcherman as major challenges. As another Ca Mau farmer noted, [f]rom 1993 until 2006 the crops for both extensive and intensive were really great. After 2006, until now, it is not as easy to earn money. It is linked to the quality of the soil, the environment and maybe not doing pond treatment properly. 4 Discussion Fishers follow each other. In a short time we went from 1000 ha of intensive aquaculture to 5000 ha of intensive aquaculture. In the future, if intensive aquaculture fails, people will withdraw and then turn to another livelihood. We do things here that do not feel very stable, so we follow each other hoping something will work for a little while. In the past it was farming and fishing, now it is fish farming and we ll see what it is in the future. (Commune official, Ca Mau, Jan 2014) Households pursue multiple livelihood strategies, acknowledging the precarious nature of fishery-based livelihoods particularly for small producers. As the above quote suggests, coastal households move between livelihood activities depending on what works. Fish farming, for example, may complement capture fisheries, increasing fish availability during the rainy season when capture fish are scarcest (Belton et al. 2014). Income from government work or a small business can supplement and buffer against the seasonality and risks associated with fishery-based activities. Still, low annual incomes, limited horse power, older fishing gear, and a lack of capital to invest in better fish farming techniques speaks to the high-levels of uncertainty that households are subjected to (Bush et al. 2010). Vietnam s seafood boom faces real sustainability challenges. Table 6 illustrates this, showing the poverty headcount rate for households in the different primary economic activity categories. 17 Over 20 % of these households rest at or below Vietnam s rural poverty line; however, households relying on nearshore fishing and extensive aquaculture have poverty rates approaching 30 %. Only one in ten intensive aquaculture households and just 3 % of offshore fishing households are below the poverty line. Those small producers that do not fall below the poverty line often have incomes close to the poverty line and remain vulnerable to falling back into poverty as a result of idiosyncratic shocks and related economy-wide shocks (financial crisis, climate-related shocks) (Badjeck et al. 2010; Badiani et al. 2013). While our finding that there is a wide income distribution in the fisheries sector is expected given the variety of practices observed, the level of poverty experienced by small producers fishers and fish farmers is surprising in light of Vietnam s general economic transition. Poverty headcounts do not reveal other dimensions of poverty including vulnerability and exclusion (Béné and Friend 2011) nor, conversely, reflect the potential poverty alleviation benefits found in the sector. The destitution facing some small producers goes beyond access to fisheries resources (Béné et al. 2010a). For example, the risks associated with illness or poor weather are perceived by many small producers to be greater than the risks associated 17 Vietnam s rural poverty rate rests between VND 400,000 (USD 227) and VND 653,000 (USD 371) per year, depending on how it is calculated (Badiani et al. 2013). We use the higher annual poverty rate of 653,000 VND to illustrate the economic challenges facing many nearshore fishers, extensive fish farmers and those practicing a mix of activities found in the other category. Note that when using the poverty rate of VND 400,000, 10 % of households in our sample lie at or below the poverty line.