Impacts of shrimp and prawn farming on local environments andlivelihoods in south west coastal part of Bangladesh

Md. Rashedul Islam
Student ID: 47136804
Department of Environment Systems
GSFS, The University of Tokyo
31st July, 2015

1

Most of farms are constructed bytransforming prime agricultural land
Number of shrimp farmers: 538,000
Number of prawn farmer: 295,000

20000015000010000050000
01985-86 1995-96 2005-06 2012-13

100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0Fig. 1: Trend of increasing farming area and production of shrimp

Farm area
70000
60000
50000
4000030000
20000
10000
0Prouduction

1994-95 2000-01 2005-06 2012-13

40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0

Production in MT

Occupied major economic activity inthe south-west coastal part of
Bangladesh

Farm area in ha

Rapid expansion took place due
suitable agro-climatic condition andavailability resources

Production

250000Farm area in ha

Shrimp farming has been started atearly of 1980s and prawn farming at
early of 1990s

Farm area

Production in MT

Introduction

Fig. 2: Trend of increasing farming area and production of Prawn(Source: DoF, 2002, 2014)2

Culture Environment
Saline water

ShrimpShrimp farm in wet season

Freshwater

Prawn-rice farm in wet season

Saline water

Shrimp farm in dry season

Prawn

Freshwater

Prawn-rice farm in dry season3

Production Cycle:Months
DecemberJanuary

NovemberDecember

OctoberNovember

September-OctoberAugustSeptember

JulyAugustJune-July

May-June

April-May

MarchApril

FebruaryMarchJanuaryFebruary

Yield typeFirst cycle of shrimp production
Second cycle of shrimp production
Prawn production cycle
Boro rice production cycle

ShrimpPrawn-rice

Aman rice production cycle

RiceFig. 3: Production cycle of different crops (Source: Field survey, 2014)
Others20%

Product Flow:Shrimp and Prawn
3%97%

Domesticmarket
15%85%

Exportmarket

Localmarket

Supermarkets

USA 26%

Russia 3%
Japan 4%
Netherlands 5%
Germany8%

UK 13%

Belgium
21%

Fig. 4: Major Export destination in 2012-2013 FY(Source: BFFEA, 2014)

4

Study area objectives of the present study
Study area: Rampal and Dumuria Sub-district insouthwest coastal part of Bangladesh
Objectives:
1. Assess the impact of shrimp farming and prawnrice farming on local environments andlivelihoods
2. A comparative study between Rampal sub-district
and Dumuria sub-district to Justify the impact ofshrimp and prawn rice farming

Dumuria
RampalFig. 5: Shrimp and prawn farming zone insouthwest coastal part3. Cost-benefit study of three major crops i.e., shrimp
farming, prawn-rice farming and rice farming tofind their economic suitability as well as to find aconclusion of the study*white marks indicate present study areas
5

Data collection and data source
Both primary and Secondary data were collected
Data source
Primary DataSecondary Data
Laboratory analysis Soil Resource andEnvironmental Soil salinity(240)
Development InstituteDepartment ofCrop production
Agriculture Extension
Livestock
Department of Livestock
EconomicShrimp and prawn farms
Department of Fisheries
Cost-benefit
Questionnaire(different farming types)
survey (90 )Questionnaire
Livelihoods and Income
survey (50)Homestead forest
Statistics Department
SocialQuestionnaireSocial facilities (education,sanitation, recreation etc.)
survey (50)

Data types

Specific fields* Parentheses indicates the sample numbers6

Major findings
Study area 1: Rampal Sub-district (Shrimp farming zone)
Total Upazila area: 27,644 ha
Total cultivable land: 20,718 ha
Present shrimp farm area: 14,877 ha% of land use type

120
10080

Agricultur only
Agriculture + Shrimp farmShrimp farm only

6040200
Year 1981 Year 1991 Year 2001 Year 2014

Fig. 7: Changes of land use pattern in Rampal over last
three decades
Fig. 6: Map of Rampal Sub-district with union boundaries(Source: DAE & DoF, Rampal , 2014)

7

Salinity intrusion in Rampal Sub-district§Recent laboratory analysis
confirmed that, Soil salinity is stillincreasing§Land are becoming unsuitable forcrop production at allSalinity ds/m

§ From1980, Shrimp farming
gradually increasing soil salinity

Sub-district average soil salinity (ds/m)
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Year 2014 Year 2001 Year 1991 Year 1984
Time period
Fig. 8: Trend of increasing sub-district average soil salinity over time

Union level average soil salinty (ds/m)
3025201510502014
20011991
1984

Fig. 9: Union level average soil salinity at different time periods(Source: SRDI and Field Survey 2014)

8Study area 2: Dumuria Sub-district (Agriculture and freshwater prawn farming zone)
Total Upazila area: 44,797 ha
Total cultivable land: 34,873 ha
Prawn farming area: 8,226 ha
Shrimp farming area: 5,855 ha% of land use type

120
10080

Agricultur only
Agriculture + Prawn farm
Agriculture + Shrimp farm
Shrimp farm only

60
40
200
Year 1981 Year 1991 Year 2001 Year 2014

Fig. 10: Map of Dumuria Sub-district with union
boundaries

Fig. 11: Changes of land use pattern in Dumuria over last
three decades(Source: DAE & DoF, Dumuria, 2014)

9Soil Salinity in Dumuria sub-district
Salinity ds/m

10.00
8.00

Union level average soil salinity in 2014

6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

Fig. 12: Union level average soil salinity in Dumuria sub-district (Source: Field survey 2014)

10 unions (Soil salinity <4 ds/m)- at acceptable limit for all types ofcrops production
4 unions (Soil salinity <8 ds/m)-salinity tolerant varieties grow well
(Source: DAE, Dumuria, 2014)

In 1981: 34,360 ha
In 2014: 32,016 ha
Single crop land: 5,140 ha
Double crop land: 22,785 ha
Triple crop land: 4,092 ha
10Comparative study between two sub-district
Rice production in MT ha-1

A. Crops production▪Input material used:
Seed,Fertilizer,
Pesticidewere found similar in both sub-districts

32.5

RampalDumuria

21.5
1
0.5
0
Year 1981 Year 1991 Year 2001 Year 2014
Fig. 13: Rice production trend over last three decades

25.00
20.00

Vegetable production in MT ha-1
RampalDumuria

15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00

Year 1981

Year 1991

Year 2001

Year 2014

Fig. 14: Vegetables production trend over last three decades(Source: DAE, Rampal and Dumuria, 2014, Field survey, 2014)11

Relationship between soil salinity andrice production in 2013-14
Soil salinity > 8 ds/m significantly reduce rice production (DAE, Rampal, 2014)

Per ha production in MT

Union level average soil salinity and rice production
3.00
2.50
2.00

Dumuria
sub-district

1.50
1.00

Rampal subdistrict

0.50
0.00
0.00

5.00

10.00
15.00
20.00
Soil Salinity (ds/m)

25.00

Fig. 15: Correlation between soil salinity and per ha rice production(Source: DAE, Rampal and Dumuria, 2014, Field survey, 2014)12

B. Livestock and poultry
Two major causes are:-Reduction of grazing fields-Scarcity of fodder (due to lossof agricultural crop production)(Source: Department of Livestock, Rampaland Dumuria, 2014)

40200-20-40-60-80-100-120

Goat

Duck

ChickenRampal subdistrict
Dumuria sub-district

25% of total area

-Dying due to salinity stress-Conversion into shrimp farms

BufalloFig. 16: Percentages of changes of livestock and poultry overlast three decades in Rampal and Dumuria

C. Homestead forest withsettlement area
Two major causes are:Cattle23.28

Rampal18.28

201510

13.40

14.07

Dumuria
15.94
14.72

50Year 1991

(Source: Department of statistics, Rampal andDumuria, 2014; DAE, 2014)

Year 2001

Year 2011

Fig. 17: Changes in homestead forest area over last two decades
in two sub-districts
13D. Impacts on livelihoods: marginal and landless farmers
New livelihood options:

In Rampal, shrimp farming ceased the livelihood options are:Share
cropping

Loss of livelihood
opportunities

Agriculture
laborLivestock

Cottageindustry

Agriculture

Cattlefattening

Milkproduction

Shrimp farming

16%

Collection of shrimp
and prawn PL

20%

Seasonal labor force

12%

Rickshaw van pulling

24%
20%

OthersIn Dumuria , besides traditional livelihoods,
prawn-rice farming -- involved large number ofmarginal farmers in this sector:
Prawn-rice farming

20%

Labor in prawn farms

16%

Sharecropping

28%

Agriculture labor

12%

Cottage business

16%

Livestock rearing

8%

Lower grade and low paid

Diversity of income generation sources
Subdistricts% of marginal household
More than 3 Triple

DoubleSingle

Rampal

0123256

Dumuria

2860

120(Source: Field survey 2014)14Household income andaccess to social facilities

In Dumuria:--livestock rearing--cottage business--agriculture labor--labor at prawn farms and depots(Source: Field survey 2014)

Currency in BDT

Average monthly income

15000
10000

Rampal5000

Dumuria0Household Family member's Total income
head's income
incmoeFig. 18: Monthly average income of marginal and landless households
in two sub-districts

Percentage of Family

Major income source of family
members-In Rampal:--Larvae fishing--Part time work at shrimp depot--labor force at different sector

20000100Household facilities

8060
40

Rampal20

Dumuria0

Access to safe Use of sanitarydrinking water
latrineAccess toelectricity
connection

Dropoutchildren fromPrimaryeducation

Fig. 19: Differences of availing social facilities by marginal household in
two sub-districts
15

Cost-benefit analysis of three different crops

Farm size:▪Prawn farms are small, because:-Per unit production cost is high-mostly operated by small andmedium scale farmers (84%)- convenience of management

5

Average farm size in hectare (ha)

42.83

32.16

20.7510Shrimp farm

Prawn-rice farm

Rice farmFig. 20: Average farm size of different farming types§Production cost of prawn farm is high:-very high price of prawn larvae-require supplementary feed-labor intensive

400000Currency in BDT

Production cost:

Production cost ha-1

3000002000001000000

Shrimp farming

Prawn-rice
farming

Rice farming

Fig. 21: Production cost of different farming types for one ha farm size

(Source: Field survey 2014)16

Percentages of breakdown cost
Pawn-rice farming
Riceproductioncost
15%

Dike repair
3%

Fixed cost Labor
11%10%

Prawn PL
stocking
25%

Harvesting
2%
Fuel
1%
Fertilizer
3%

Carp frystocking
10%

Feed
20%

Fig. 22: Item-wise percentages of cost involved in prawn-rice farming
Shrimp farming
Labor
Lease value
31%

Harvesting
6%
Fertilizer
12%

14%

Farm repair
6%

Shrimp PL
stocking
18%
Feed
4%

Carp
Fingerling
9%Fig. 23: Item-wise percentages of cost involved in shrimp farming

17Correlation of different variables with Net Profit by farming types
Net profit
ShrimpVariables

farming

Farm area-0.88

Prawn-rice
farming-0.56Shrimp/prawn PL number

0.93

0.85

Carp fingerling number

0.71

0.63

Feed

0.82

0.86

Fertilizer

0.73

0.77

Labor cost

0.54

0.92

0.56

Total production cost

0.94

0.87

0.80

Material cost

In shrimp farming, minimum to maximum ratio- for production cost, 2.06 and for net profit 1.96
In Prawn-rice farming, minimum to maximum ratio- for production cost, 1.82 and for net profit 1.65

Ricefarming
0.22
0.83

The negative correlation between farm
size and net profit may be because of-Higher amount of input supply-Intensive management- operated by lease holders

18

Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ration of different farming systems

Initial establishment cost:
Rice farming system: BDT 0.00
Shrimp farming system: BDT 101,400

1500000

Currency in BDT

For calculation of NPVTime period considered: 10 years
Rate of interest considered: 10%

Net Present Value (NPV)

1000000
500000
0NPV of Shrimp NPV of Prawnfarm
rice farm

Prawn-rice farming system: BDT 126,750

NPV of Ricefarm

Fig . 24: NPV of different farming types

Higher BCR in shrimp farming:
more profitable in terms of quantityof cost involved
But, Higher NPV in Prawn-rice farming
more profitable in terms of capacityof net earning from per unit area

Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)
2.5
2

1.99

1.77

1.54

1.5
10.5
0Shrimp farming

Prawn farming

Rice farming

Fig . 25: Discounted BCR of different farming types

19

Risk avoidance opportunity
Two major type of risks are associated with shrimp, prawn and rice production
1. Casualty risk (disease, mortality, flood, heavy rainfall and drought, pest attack)

Income from carp
fish 11%

Income fromprawn 61.6%
Income fromcarp fish 15.6%
Income frompaddy 16.2%

Rice farming

Income fromshrimp 89%

Prawn-rice farming

Shrimp faming

2. Price risk (production, stock, demand of product in national or foreign market)

Income fromvegetables 6.6%

Income from
Boro rice 55.17%

Income from
Aman rice 44.83%# In Bangladesh, there is no insurance policy in crop production sector# So it is important for farmers to have an opportunity to avoid the risk
20

Despite lot of positive approaches, expansion of prawn farming mainly
hindered by:Intensivemanagement

Highproduction cost

Prawn-rice farming:

Shrimp farming:
Total production cost BDT 94,811 ha-1

Total production cost BDT 307,816 ha-1

Price of Post larvae BDT 500/thousand

Price of Post larvae BDT 4000/thousand

No use of supplementary feed

Require supplementary feed, 1750 kgha-1

Average labor count 53 man days

Average labor count 152 man days

Action needed for promotion of prawn farming
Establishment of adequate hatchery
Production of low cost feed
Provision of soft loan for farmers
Transfer of technology by extension services
Demarcation of suitable shrimp farming areas by land zoning programs
Awareness building among the locals
21

Conclusion:§ The findings clearly indicates that, shrimp farming is significantly increasing soil
salinity and negatively impacting the local environments▪ Shrimp farming is also resulting in loss of livelihoods of marginal famers, reducing
their income level and capacity of availing fundamental social facilities.
§ Prawn-rice farming on the other simply voids salinity related controversies andalso creates larger livelihoods opportunities for marginal people.
§ Cost-benefit study also proves prawn-rice farming as more profitable venture
than other framings, but the prime draw back is high production cost
§ Proper institutional arrangement (credit support, production of low cost feedand seed, extension services etc.) can inspired farmers to adopt prawn-rice
farming instead of shrimp farming.
▪ More attention is needed in this sector not only to earn foreign exchange but
also to create a healthy environment with elevated income level of the locals.

22Thank You

23