In Chapter 4, the role of aquaculture in IPM was discussed. This discussion focused mainly on techni-cal and/or economic aspects which can be captured with the theoretitechni-cal concepts presented above.
However, there is one point of overlap between these two technologies which does not fall into these concepts easily. It originates from the new paradigm of IPM (see Table 4.2) which stresses the impor-tance of human capital formation in IPM. Farmers learn about ecological processes in order to make appropriate pest management decisions and to take charge of all decisions on pest control. Corre-spondingly, Aquatic Life Management (ALM) has been defined as the management of all kinds of or-ganisms in the aquatic component of the ricefield ecosystem, based on ecological criteria (Horstkotte et al. 1992). ALM in rice is a special form of rice-aquaculture which minimizes the use of external in-puts such as pesticides. It can be seen as a complement to the ‘farmer-driven IPM’ which until now has focused mainly on the rice plant and the complex of pests and beneficial organisms surrounding it. Taking IPM and ALM together, one arrives at a holistic concept of ecosystem management (EM) which recognizes the interactions among the various components of the system (aquatic, semi-terres-trial and terressemi-terres-trial) and tries to maintain a balance between harmful and beneficial organisms, nutri-ent input and output and to conserve soil and water quality. This balance would allow to maximize the long-term productivity of the system both in terms of rice and in terms of aquatic organisms.
48 While rice can survive during certain periods of drought, fish depends on the proper construction of refuges if water levels fall below a certain limit. Conversely, rice can recover from flooding while fish can escape from the field and are lost to the farmer.
IPM and ALM are built on the same principles: knowledge about ecosystem processes and observa-tion of the field, in order to make informed decisions on management steps and intervenobserva-tions. While these skills are currently being taught in field schools for IPM, no such schools exist for ALM. How-ever, it can be expected that knowledge about ecosystem processes acquired in an IPM field school can be extended to the aquatic component of the ricefield ecosystem. If this is the case, one could ex-pect farmers trained in IPM to arrive at a holistic ricefield EM on their own.
In order to illustrate this point, a conceptual framework was developed which is presented in the following diagram (Figure 5.7):
The vertical axis represents farmers’ proficiencies and skills in IPM, whereas the horizontal axis ranks farmers’ proficiencies and skills in ALM. Points A, B, and C on the diagram represent the “typi-cal” groups of farmers. Point A stands for farmers who follow the conventional recommendations of rice monoculture, with high chemical input use. Farmers represented by point B might have learned to appreciate and culture aquatic life in their fields but still use high amounts of chemical pesticides on their ricefields. In point C, farmers have learned tand applied IPM without any consideration of the aquatic organisms in their ricefields. Point D stands for the optimal situation where farmers have combined IPM and ALM.
Farmers are hypothesized to move up both scales simultaneously—as they become more skilled in one technology, they start to see more options with regard to the other technology. Farmers who are trained in IPM will gradually change their perceptions towards aquatic life in a positive way and will start to make management decisions in favor of aquatic organisms. Farmers who already practice some form of aquatic life management are hypothesized to react accordingly—the more skilled they become in aquatic life management, the more they will change their pest management strategies towards IPM. Both developments are seen as a complementary and natural process in which the adoption of IPM goes hand in hand with an advanced level of ALM skills so that a move towards po-sition D seems to be the most natural and desirable development (Horstkotte et al. 1992).
Figure 5.7. Hypothesized relationship between IPM and ALM. Source: Horstkotte et al. 1992
Proficiencies and skills in IPM
(Hypothetical point)
Optimal path
Proficiencies and skills in ALM C
A
D
B
Hypotheses
The problem analysis has led to the identification of three sets of difficulties faced by small-scale rice farmers in the Philippines, which relate to income, nutrition and environmental sustainability. To combat these problems, two technologies have been proposed, namely rice-aquaculture and IPM.
These technologies appear appropriate under the current economic, political and environmental con-ditions in the Philippines. Based on the theoretical concepts discussed in this chapter, the following hypotheses can be derived for the empirical part of this study:
1. In certain locations, income from rice-aquaculture is higher than from rice monoculture49, i.e., there are niches for rice-aquaculture within existing rice-based farming systems.
2. This economic benefit is even higher if rice-aquaculture is practiced in combination with IPM.
3. The nutritional situation of farm households can be improved through the culture and use of aquatic organisms from ricefields.
4. The new approach to IPM with its emphasis on human capital formation and on the under-standing of ecosystem processes leads to a move towards ALM by farmers who have been trained in IPM. The additional benefit derived from aquatic organisms is an incentive to prac-tice IPM and thus contributes to the sustainability of rice production.
49 Fish monoculture, although theoretically possible and included in the presented framework, is not consid-ered in the remainder of the study because it is of no practical relevance in the study area.