Methodology

The present study has tried to analyze the background of development of shrimp monoculture in India and its impact on livelihood security of traditional resource users in the coastal belt of the country. The study utilizes the framework of political ecology in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the shrimp monoculture problem at the micro level vis- ƒÆ’ ¡-vis the global political economic transformation. The multi-dimensional approach of political ecology in general and Third World political ecology in particular offer a very useful framework to deal with the complex environmental problems arising from shrimp monoculture.

The emphasis of political ecology framework as used in this study lies on the actor approach, that is, to find out the implications of environmental changes in coastal India related to shrimp monoculture development. This approach provides a space to analyse Indian shrimp monoculture development in the context of the ongoing process of globalization, that is, the interests of different actors who shape the global market in pursuit of their respective interests. While political ecologists believe that many environmental problems are embedded in the socio-political and economic realities of a state, here the political and economic aspects of the process of change regarding patterns of resource use in the aquaculture sector of the Indian coastal belt has been given due importance. Hence, this study analyses the political and economic compulsions, including how policies are formulated, to promote shrimp monoculture in India in the broader context of the country's economic transition.

This study examined the multiple levels of India's shrimp monoculture development which are structured as follows:

Global level - focuses on the role of multilateral institutions (MLIs) in the process of policy formulation and implementation for the promotion of shrimp monoculture in Third World countries thereby creating a 'politicized environment' of change in the patterns of resource use at the micro level. It also includes the roles played by corporate capital, consumer demands and the resistance of international civil society.

National level - examines the origin and development of national aquaculture policy, in general and shrimp monoculture policy, in particular; the identification and analysis of the roles of different key actors associated with the process of shrimp monoculture development.

State level (Orissa) - focuses on the state level analysis of shrimp monoculture development through promotional policies in Orissa, shrimp culture-related institution building by different groups and the emergence of people's resistance.

District level (Bhadrak) - focuses on the case study of the expansion of shrimp monoculture in a maritime district and the emergence of a micro level social and economic network of shrimp culture.

Village level - looks at two villages of Bhadrak district, the Adhuan and Kismat Krushnapur, to analyze the impact of environmental changes created by shrimp monoculture on the livelihood patterns of villagers belonging to different economic and social groups within the existing rural 'structure of domination'.

The village level case study was carried out from among twenty-five (25) households of Talasai hamlet in Adhuan and an equal number of households in Bohumagiri 26 chain hamlet of Kismat Krushnapur. Sample households were selected in such a way so as to reflect a true caste-class composition of the greater villages. The willingness of the households to initiate a process of long-time exchange of information and sharing activities were also considered. Following a preliminary selection of households through a series of participatory survey using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques and key informant interviewing, sample households were divided into four broad categories.

1. Households with comparatively high surplus in production/ income at all times or Group I households (GI).
2. Households with medium surplus or Group II households (GII).
3. Households with surplus equal to deficit (that is no surplus but no deficit) or Group III households (GIII).
4. Households with perennial deficit budget or Group IV households (GIV).

Thereafter, a detailed participatory research was undertaken to find out the impact of shrimp monoculture on livelihood security of villagers belonging to these four groups.

Main Actors in the Shrimp Industry

The study categorizes the groups of actors associated with the shrimp industry into two on the basis of their association with the shrimp commodity chain, that is, from local to global levels, as follows: 1. place-based actors and 2. non-place based actors.

The case study revealed that powerful actors at the local level include state representatives, business houses, influential political leaders, multilateral institutions and their representatives and local landlords. Whereas the group of powerless actors include small marginal peasants and fishermen, agricultural and fish laborers and gatherers who not only belong to a group of economically weaker actors but also constitute the socially marginalized actors. The unequal power relationship between these two groups of actors enables the powerful group to exert control over the environment of the powerless group thereby controlling the access of the weaker group to resources leading to their further marginalization.

The study noted in detail that in a politicized environment of shrimp culture, powerful actors often work in coalition with each other. These powerful coalitions not only control productive resources at the micro level but also influence the process of policy formulation at the national and global levels which determine the 'appropriate' use of resources. Participation of traditional users of coastal resources in decision making and policy formulation processes relative to the future use of such resources is totally absent in the case of the shrimp industry. Thus, it is observed that the economic decisions and activities of the state, MLIs and national and transnational corporations (TNCs) are jointly causing environmental problems in the coastal belt. Ironically, this same group of actors who created the current problem has the sole prerogative of solving it. The weaker actors are forced to play a marginal role in the problem-solving process.

The other actors associated with the shrimp industry are community-based organizations (CBOs) or non- governmental organizations (NGOs) of different types with varied objectives and mandates. These actors play an equally important role in the politicized environment related to shrimp culture and the process of change associated with it. Considered to be 'powerless' they are united and emerged as a strong political force challenging the powerful group of actors.

Finally, the legislative bodies of the country are also powerful actors in the national shrimp monoculture and have played a very significant role in shaping the future of the industry. The High Court of Tamil Nadu had issued a ban on all the shrimp farms violating the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Act which was later upheld by the Supreme Court of India in 1994. In effect, all shrimp farm activities (within 500m of high tide level) in the country are declared illegal. However, the study found out that the verdict has not been implemented due to lack of willingness on government to safeguard the interest of the industry. Moreover, there has been a constant effort from government to nullify the court's judgement through the introduction of the Aquaculture Authority Bill 97.

Within a few years of its inception shrimp monoculture activity has raised serious concerns among environmentalists, economists and social activists due to large-scale externalities that are never included in the production cost. Several NGOs have made attempts to classify the negative impact of shrimp monoculture using three broadly-defined and interrelated categories, that is, environmental, economic and social. However, in reality these distinctions are blurred in the common people's perceptions who are affected of said externalities. Common people considers shrimp monoculture as a new competitor in the use of coastal resources, that is, land, water and forest which are essential to traditional coastal dwellers to ensure their livelihood security. NEERI has published a full report on the state of shrimp culture in India and its impact on the environment and socio-economic life of the people. Several grassroots organizations as well as national and international NGOs and ENGOs have published a large number of reports on the impact of shrimp culture.

Findings at the Global Level

Global actors like MLIs, corporate giants, consumer countries of the First World play significant roles in the promotion of shrimp monoculture in Third World countries such as in India. Below are some observations and findings the study noted at the global level:

1. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Bank have formulated policies to introduce the process of shrimp culture in the global fishery sector.
2. MLIs like the FAO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have directly contributed to shrimp culture development in the Third World countries like India by providing multilateral and bilateral assistances.
3. The discourse of global food security and poverty alleviation among MLIs and corporate sectors involved in shrimp culture poses as a justification of shrimp culture development in the developing countries which in most cases have proven to be a myth.
4. The main goal of MLIs and corporate giants is to maximize the production of shrimp for the global market by initiating a process of control over natural resources of Third World countries and utilizing the same according to the global market demand.
5. The geographic distribution of global shrimp production is largely concentrated in the South and Southeast Asian countries while the US, Japan and EU countries predominates in the global marketing sphere as consumers of cultured shrimps.
6. Shrimp has established its position strongly in the export basket of Third World countries of Asia over the decade. Correspondingly, it is observed that these countries are increasingly dependent on shrimp culture as a source of considerable foreign exchange earnings.
7. In the era of globalization and open market economy, Third World countries have incurred huge debt burden compelling them to succumb to structural adjustment programs (SAPs) imposed by MLIs especially the World Bank and the IMF. SAPs emphasise the promotion of export-oriented production like shrimp cultivation.
8. A global concern regarding aquaculture activities started in the mid-1990s which forced shrimp-producing as well as -consuming countries to come together to discuss the issues of externalities of shrimp monoculture in several international fora. A number of agreements, plans of action and guidelines including the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) were developed. However, the implementation of these are left to the respective states on a voluntary basis.
9. Third World countries mostly with huge debt problems do not have enough incentive to implement the CCRF. Nor they have made enough serious efforts to control the unabated growth of shrimp monoculture considered as foreign exchange earners.
10. There are several serious socio-economic and ecological crises that have started to take shape in connection with the shrimp monoculture in the shrimp-producing countries.
11. A growing awareness of the international civil society regarding the impact of the shrimp industry in Third World countries is gaining momentum facilitated by international NGOs.
12. Sustainability in shrimp culture has become a theme in international debates. All the global actors associated with shrimp monoculture are concerned about sustainability though often with different constructions.

Findings at the National Level

The post-independence agrarian and fishery policies of India introduced during the colonial era has been embedded in the resource management patterns of the primary sector. This was marked by the abolition of land rights of the traditional users, introduction of private property and integration with the capitalist market of the West""a reflection of a greater degree of commercialization of agriculture. There is greater penetration of commodity-money relations in the Indian agrarian system on the one hand while an increasing poverty, hunger and loss of livelihood security of millions of traditional resource users on the other. Thus, a structure of exploitation was imposed on the latter which continues even today in independent India, though in a changed form.

After independence a few measures had been taken to reduce the extreme economic disparities in rural India, albeit, only with limited success. The basic exploitative structure remains. This is reinforced by new government policies which introduce strong capitalist systems in the primary sector's resource use and production.

The government-engineered Green Revolution in agriculture between the 1960s and 1970s, upon the prescription of MLIs, created an ever tremendous poverty among the marginal poor sectors. It initially increased food production but in the long run led to a centralised control of trade in food grains which made farmers dependent on corporate sectors for various inputs. Green Revolution, thus, paved the way for introducing similar packages of technocratic solutions to production and food security problems in other fields of primary resources in the Indian economy""well-known as Social Forestry, White Revolution and Blue Revolution for forest, livestock and water management, respectively.

At the same time the policy of the Indian government of liberalizing the country's entire economy to promote massive industrial development resulted in the abolition of several restrictions on production. Introduced in the early 1980s, the new liberal policy intends to open up the Indian market for foreign investment. Subsidies and several other incentives were introduced to lure private entrepreneurs into investing in export- oriented production while huge reduction of subsidies in the traditional agriculture and fishery sectors were announced. This policy of liberalization in the 1980s was reinforced by a new investment policy in the 1990s aimed at stimulating economic growth by mobilizing resources relying strongly on market forces. In order to deal with the country's balance of payment (BOP) crisis extreme focus has been given to the expansion of export-oriented production during this period. The government had to accept huge loans from the IMF but with certain structural adjustment conditionalities. Special schemes have been announced for export-oriented units (EOUs). Aquaculture/shrimp monoculture was identified as a major thrust area.

Shrimp monoculture was first launched in the country through the Coastal Aquaculture Project (CAP) of 1986 under the sixth Five Year Plan (1988-1993). The project offered special infrastructure facilities to multinational corporations (MNCs), transnational corporations (TNCs) and the local corporate sector to invest in shrimp monoculture. The Brackish-Water Fishery Development Authority (BFDA) and Marine Product Export Development Authority (MPEDA) were established to ensure smooth development of shrimp monoculture. The Government of India also received multilateral assistance from the World Bank and development aid for aquaculture projects from consumer countries like Britain. Different federal governments also came forward to welcome this foreign-exchange-earning industry and introduced special facility packages to attract investment in their respective states. Thus, shrimp monoculture""a highly input-intensive, species-specific commercial culture of brackish-water shrimp"" gained momentum in India in the mid 1990s.

The total potential area for brackish-water shrimp culture was estimated to be around 1.2 million hectares, of which 13,816 hectares were under cultivation in 2000. With an annual production of 70,000 metric tons of shrimp India became the fifth in world shrimp production between 1998 and 1999. This huge contribution of shrimp to India's exports was the reason why government took a promotional role to develop the industry. Between 1997 and 1998 India has registered an export turnover of Rs. 4,120 crores of which shrimp alone contributed 2,700 crores. Cultured shrimp, hence, contributed 43% in quantity and 60% in value of India's total aquaculture exports. Foreign exchange earnings registered a 14% growth in 1999 or a growth of 23% in three years. Japan, USA and EU countries are the major markets of Indian shrimp.

Within a decade commercial shrimp monoculture has replaced India's traditional brackish water shrimp culture system which were practised by coastal communities for generations. These traditional practices differ from one coastal state to another. They were low-input, natural-shrimp production systems that were often carried out in rotation with paddy or other types of aquaculture. Foreign exchange earnings coming from said production system may be low. However, such system sufficiently meets the local needs and demands of both producers and consumers in the coastal belt.

Findings at the State Level

Orissa is a maritime state of India with five coastal districts and a long coastline of 480 kilometers. Considered as one of the backward states in the country in terms of social and economic development and industrialization, the state economy is primarily dependent on primary sector economic activities. Millions of coastal dwellers of Orissa depend on agriculture, fishing and gathering activities for their livelihood. Problems of poverty and unemployment are immense as 49% of the state's rural population lives below the poverty line. The level of unemployment is around 784,000 in 2001 as estimated by the planning commission in the Ninth Plan (1998-2003).

With this backdrop the state government introduced shrimp monoculture under the auspices of BFDA ostensibly to alleviate poverty and to create rural employment opportunities. The state stands fourth in the country's aquaculture potential. With respect to total production and intensification Orissa achieved the second position in 2000 after Andhra Pradesh. Rapid expansion of the industry took place in the mid-1990s because of active implementation of government policies and through local government efforts. Significant growth of allied industries of shrimp was also observed in Orissa during this period. Shrimp culture is contributing to 77% of the state's total exports in terms of quantity and 92% in terms of value.

Orissa exports 98% of its total cultured shrimp. Big national companies and TNCs have invested huge amounts in aquaculture along with financial assistance and projects coming from the World Bank. Orissa's shrimp industry is comparatively new as compared to the history of shrimp culture in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. It still employs intensive to semi-intensive production systems which are now less practised elsewhere in the country. The following are the main observations noted in the study at state level:

• A state-level collaboration between the government, MLIs and the corporate sector which shapes the strategic directions of the shrimp industry and coastal resource use is present;
• The state government fully supports the industrialization of shrimp culture and confers a special status in the new agricultural policy of the state thereby, allowing the proliferation of such within coastal regulated zones in many cases;
• The objectives of the BFDA shrimp culture project of generating income opportunities among resource poor households in Orissa failed miserably because of contradictions in government policies, poor coordination between several government departments and poor implementation process;
• The government project failed to develop public sector enterprises in shrimp culture and in allied industries as this sector is largely controlled by TNCs operating in the state;
• The BFDA project failed to protect small and marginal shrimp farms. Most of the small shrimp farms depend heavily on large shrimp companies for inputs and post-harvest processing. They are forced to accept highly unfavourable conditions/contracts offered by these large companies;
• There is large-scale alienation of traditional coastal resource users from productive resources in all the coastal areas of Orissa. Several socio-economic and environmental conflicts in the coastal belt have surfaced as a result of shrimp culture;
• Majority of the shrimp farms continue with their production unabated as the Supreme Court judgement is implemented in the state only partially; and
• A strong state-level NGO movement against shrimp culture is gaining momentum with linkages to various national and international NGOs and local grassroots organizations.

Findings at District Level

This study selected Orissa's Bhadrak district for a micro-level case study for two reasons: i) it is where most of the World Bank projects are in operation and ii) it hosts a growing anti-shrimp monoculture movement. The main findings in the district of Bhadrak are as follows:

• The shrimp industry in Bhadrak shows characteristics similar to those at the state level. Powerful actors of shrimp culture at the district level are, also, often found working in collaboration with each other;
• Bhadrak district has the highest intensity of shrimp culture in Orissa. Identification and conversion of private agriculture land to shrimp culture were large-scale;
• A strong vertical integration in the shrimp industry exists in Bhadrak. Only three large companies dominate the shrimp industry while owners of small farms have become contract farmers to the former;
• Both World Bank and TNCs poured in financial assistance and investments in Bhadrak, respectively to support the growth of the district's shrimp industry;
• Political leaders and government officials in the district are often found to be engaged in the shrimp business;
• Different government departments often lack communication especially in regard to aquaculture development. Database regarding shrimp culture is very poorly developed in Bhadrak as it is a newly built district (1993);
• Whenever conflicts regarding the legitimacy of shrimp culture in the coastal belt of the district arise, district officials often tend to interpret regulations in ways beneficial to the shrimp industry;
• The BFDA through the shrimp culture project has failed to create employment opportunities for the resource poor households in the district;
• The same agency has also failed to develop infrastructures for the shrimp industry in the district. Hence, allied shrimp industries like hatcheries, processing and packaging units, among others are very poorly developed;
• In effect, the district earns only from the production of raw shrimp and not from the value-added shrimp products which are more profitable;
• Large-scale socio-economic and ecological problems arising from shrimp culture are evident in the district;
• The Supreme Court judgement directing for the demolition of shrimp farms within coastal regulated zones is not well implemented in the district; and
• Positively, there is a growing mass awareness against shrimp culture activities in the same.

Case Study of Two Villages: Adhuan and Kismat Krushnapur

A village level case study was carried out in two coastal villages of Bhadrak district particularly, Adhuan and Kismat Krushnapur. The study was undertaken from April 1998 to January 2000. Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques were mostly used for the case study along with standardized questionnaire survey administered to shrimp farmowners and employees as main respondents.

The main objectives of the village survey were as follows:

1. understand village dynamics,
2. develop an understanding about the socio-cultural conditions of the villages,
3. identify the present and potential village resources both physical/natural and human,
4. identify the different economic groups in both villages,
5. document the income opportunities of these various groups,
6. study livelihood strategies of households under normal conditions,
7. study the responses of different groups of households to specific changes in their local environment,
8. observe the patterns of interaction of the villagers with the shrimp industry and examine conflicts arising from these interactions,
9. study the patterns of changes in coping strategies of different groups of villagers to ensure livelihood security in the context of changing rural environment due to shrimp culture activities, and
10. understand how natural/spontaneous groups (like resistance groups) emerge in villages in response to specific situations and needs arising out of households'changing access to resources due to shrimp culture.

A detailed participatory survey in shrimp farms was also conducted with the following objectives:

1. gather information about the significance of the industry in the local socio-economic setting,
2. understand the rural network of shrimp farming and its connection with the national and global sphere,
3. determine the most powerful actors and their interest associated with the industry at the rural level,
4. identify short- and long-term patterns of interaction between political and economic interests in the shrimp industry with local inhabitants,
5. document the shrimp farmers' perception of conflicts associated with the industry, and
6. document the response of the industry to new legislative development and to the emerging people's resistance against the farming.

To analyse the coping strategy of villagers belonging to different economic groups in Adhuan and Kismat Krushnapur the study followed the basic concept of Bohle's (2001) model of double structure of vulnerability. In applying this model, an analysis of the risk exposure to which the villagers of Adhuan and Kismat Krushnapur are threatened from within the context of a normal exploitative rural economic structure was undertaken. This concept helped us understand how the process of change induced by shrimp culture affects the livelihood strategies of the households and influences their capacity to cope with a changed situation in the short and long term, thereby, determining the degree of vulnerability of the households. Thus, using the concept of vulnerability as elaborated in the model the varied access of the villagers to different natural and social productive assets were analyzed. The access model developed by Blaikie (1993) was also used to develop a structure for household survey, analysis of livelihood opportunities and asset of the villagers and thereby understanding the existing 'structure of domination' in the rural set up.

Findings of the Village Case Study

Adhuan is a village mainly inhabited by a community of poor and deprived schedule caste fishermen. Kismat Krushnapur, however, is a village of migrant peasants mostly belonging to higher castes with slightly better economic conditions than those of Adhuan's. Both of these villages have been exposed to shrimp culture activities and externalities since the last ten years. Three large shrimp companies along with two small shrimp farms are found in these villages. The shrimp farms are constructed mostly in coastal agricultural land and mangrove areas and have often encroached in common property resources (CPRs) of the villages which often cause immense tension between the shrimp farm owners and the villagers.

Livelihood Strategy Analysis of Surveyed Households

In Adhuan and Kismat Krushnapur the analysis shows that almost 90% of GI families are literate and all of them belong to upper castes. Many are engaged in business or service within and outside the villages while a few play a crucial role as village moneylenders. Generally, they accumulate enough surplus to reinvest either in the primary sector of production or in savings. These households have good access to institutional credit. They are also the major entrepreneurs in the village employing several wage laborers from the agriculture and fishing sector.

Landholding pattern suggests that the concentration of high quality and larger plots of land are owned by these households. Their access to other productive assets is also very good. These households enjoy considerable political power in the locality and have good nexus with local bureaucrats. Due to the economic and social compulsions of poor families these households often enjoy extra constitutional power in the village parliament despite being a minority.

In Adhuan the income of GI group is derived approximately from agriculture (57%), fishing (12%) and from other sources (31%). Other sources include loan interests being the local moneylenders. In Kismat Krushnapur the income of GI households comes from agriculture, 68%, and from other sources, 32%. Their access to productive assets like land, capital, forest and water as well as access to education is quite high.

This economic power along with their higher position in Hindu caste hierarchy enables them to gain a social and economic position of superiority in the village. In Kismat Krushnapur most of the households belonging to this group are large peasants while in Adhuan was a combination of large peasants and fisherfolk. These households have considerable contribution in strengthening the existing exploitative economic and social structures in these villages.

The GII group in both villages is composed of seven households in each village. They can be classified as 'well to do' class with good access to education, political and social power. Most of them have their own assets to engage in production and can manage to create surplus. The households in Adhuan earn mainly from fishing (27%), agriculture (45%) and other sources (28%). While in Kismat Krushnapur income of these households mainly comes from agriculture (53%) followed by other sources (47%) including wage labour in the agriculture sector.

Most of these households possess their own agricultural land, a part of which is usually rented out for sharecropping. Though, economically, they stand below the GI group, they manage to maintain a profit almost throughout the year. Generally, they do not have to borrow money for consumption or during crisis. These households also have access to formal credit (banks and cooperatives) for the expansion of their income opportunities under various rural development schemes. However, in Kismat Krushnapur seven households belonging to the GII group have, however, a stronger economic position compared to the same household group in Adhuan. This is mainly due to income from permanent well-paid services.

The important distinction between this group in both villages is that households of Kismat Krushnapur are often found to be engaged in small business as a secondary source of income which is largely absent in Adhuan. Other income sources among the GII household group in Adhuan are mainly services. In economic and political terms most GII households enjoy secure position in both villages.

Twenty-one households belong to the GIII household group from both villages: 11 and 10 from Adhuan and Kismat Krushnapur, respectively. In Adhuan almost all of these households belong to the scheduled castes while in Kismat Krushnapur they belong mainly to higher castes. The households belonging to this group in Adhuan derive 16% of their income from fishing, 17% from agriculture, 31% from fish labor, 26% from agricultural labor and 10% from other sources. Other sources include gathering and small business such as net weaving or handicraft. In Kismat Krushnapur this group derives their income from the following: 38% from fishing, 23% from agriculture, 9% from wage labour in the fishery sector, 16% from agricultural labour and 14% from other sources, mainly small household business.

In both villages households belonging to this group tend to have more diversified sources of income than GI and GII. They are more dependent on wage labor and sharecropping to secure household food needs. However, as the wage structure stagnates these households are becoming increasingly vulnerable to even a minor change in the economy or the environment.

In general GIII household groups fall in the no-surplus-no-deficit category. These households do not have to borrow consumption loans. However, with no considerable savings they are always vulnerable to household budget deficits especially when an urgent need for money arises such as a social occasion, increase in the costs of agricultural inputs, procurement of production equipment or a family emergency. Fifty-three percent (53%) of these households are found to be indebted from local moneylenders and another 6% from banks (agricultural cooperative loan). These households are not in a position to repay their creditors within the stipulated time. Thus, most of these households live under a constant threat of economic disempowerment.

The level of literacy in these households is lower in Adhuan than in Kismat Krushnapur. These households are officially considered socially marginalized. They, however, do not fall below poverty line (BPL) and are, therefore, not entitled to receive special subsidies from government. But households belonging to this group often fall into the BPL during a crop failure, loss of employment or when their access to productive resources are reduced like alienation or degradation of land and sudden changes in their socio-economic make-up.

There are five households which fall in GIV household grouping in each of the villages studies. These households belong to the acute-grain-deficit category because they fail to earn or produce enough for subsistence. All GIV households in Adhuan belong to scheduled castes while that of Kismat Krushnapur are a combination of scheduled castes and other socially marginalized/backward castes.

This group derives its income from different combined types of economic activities. While it shows a great degree of seasonal diversification of income sources, however, it also reflects the resource-poor condition of the households. In Adhuan GIV households earn 24% from fishing, 8% from agriculture, 24% from fish labor, 31% from agricultural labor and 13% from other sources mainly, gathering. In Kismat Krushnapur the households' income sources come from agriculture including sharecropping (20%), fish labor (27%), agricultural labor (41%) and other sources like gathering (12%).

The ten households in both villages are considered BPL households by government and are entitled to receive subsidies. However, this help is really insignificant compared to their needs. Their average household size is ten, half of it are dependents""constantly facing a grain deficit. Most of these households do not own lands nor any other productive assets but depend entirely on labor. With a wage stagnation and a high consumption debt burden the economic and social condition of these families have worsened over time. Social and economic marginalization of these households further increased.

GIV household groups depend very much on CPRs to earn their daily income. Changes in the access to CPRs would hit this group badly. Literacy rate is very poor; almost all women belonging to this household group are illiterate. GIV households do not have any access to bank credit. These households come under various rural development and poverty alleviation schemes of the state and central governments. However, they seldom receive such assistance. Their lack of participation in local politics and decision-making process and poor access to information and education worsen their situation.

Among the common coping strategies adopted by grain deficit households working as wage earners both in the agriculture and fishery sectors is the most important. This requires physically able adult members in the household. The study has shown that households of GIII and GIV which have more adult members than the others cope better with deficit problems in comparison to other households in the same grouping. Having a large number of dependents is a disadvantage to households belonging to GIII and GIV. Household size is also crucial in coping with deficit. Household size of GIII groups which are comparatively smaller do better in coping with food insecurity. Access to subsidized food given by government is important for the food security of GIII and GIV households.

The study also revealed that for GIV and GIII households access to CPRs are of primary significance. The survey revealed that while households of GI and GII spend 6% and 4% of their income, respectively, for buying firewood and fodder, households belonging to GIII can only spend 1%. GIV households depend entirely on gathering to maintain their livestock and to collect firewood for everyday use. Thus, changes in access to pastures or mangroves brought about by certain developments in their daily set-up would destabilize the capacity of these resource-poor households to cope effectively with changes.

It is also observed that with reduced access to CPR the households of GIII and GIV have to depend increasingly on the remaining accessible CPR. This process, further, contribute to the destruction or degradation of CPR. This is a vicious cycle as the degree of negative dependence on CPR increases with reduced access to CPR and increased degree of marginalization of these households and vice versa.

Conflicts Arising Out of Shrimp Culture on the Coastal Belt

The study revealed that both villagers and shrimp farmowners have limited interactions. The processes of these interactions, however, gave rise to a number of conflicting situations in both villages under study. Below are the following areas which bring villagers and shrimp farmowners into direct interactions/transactions and, from time to time, confrontations:

Major environmental and ecological issues resulting to conflict:

• Most of the farms are situated within the 500-meter high tide level (HTL) which fall under CPR;
• Conversion of agricultural land and land devoted to salt production into shrimp farms is a common practice in both villages;
• Brackish-water shrimp culture has been established in ecologically fragile regions;
• Naturally- and artificially-made saline canals coming from the sea into mainland areas are being used for shrimp culture. The flow of these natural saline canals is being obstructed by prawn farming activities which allowed the intrusion of brackish water into agricultural farms resulting in the loss (read: salinization) of agricultural lands and potable water;
• Loss of landing grounds for fish catches of traditional fisherfolk is a constant source of conflict among the villagers of Adhuan;
• Coastal aquaculture has resulted in the loss of mangrove ecosystem which provides protection against cyclones and other natural hazards and provides natural habitats for spawning or marine breeding. This, in turn, affected wild catch of shrimp of local fishermen;
• Coastal shrimp farms are situated in ecologically unsuitable areas. No proper peripheral drainage has been provided around the farms. The saline water intake and effluent discharge points are located in close proximity to agricultural fields and natural water bodies. These activities resulted in degradation of agricultural land and fragile coastal land and loss of fish catch;
• Fencing around the farm by large companies consequently blocks free access of villagers to the seashore;
• Waste water discharges of aquaculture farms released into the creeks are not properly flushed out during low tide. This leads to the accumulation of pollutants in the creek affecting the quality of intake water for these farms;
• Destruction and disappearance of native fish species due to increased salinity and wild seed catch of shrimps;
• Unscientific management practices lead to skin and water-borne diseases in the contiguous population;
• Shrimp farms have not contributed in the development of social infrastructure facilities such as roads, electricity and potable water facilities;
• Shrimp farms have not generated employment opportunities for the villagers; traditional employment opportunities even reduced as a result of out-migration to nearby towns and cities; and
• Shrimp farms tend to encroach upon government lands; they stir up land speculation forcing agricultural landowners and salt-making villagers to sell their land.

Major socio-cultural and economic issues of conflicts:

• Land alienation of poor households due to pollution and land conversion due to forced selling;
• Loss of employment among sharecroppers and agricultural laborers;
• Loss of mangrove resources due to pervasive cutting for fuel and other uses;
• Loss of grazing grounds due to shrimp culture's encroachment on CPRs;
• Loss of natural resources caused by cyclones due to destruction of coastal vegetation;
• Loss of land due to desertification;
• Loss in terms of potable water;
• Loss in fishing income;
• Loss due to damage of productive assets such as fishing net;
• Opportunity loss due to non-approachability of seacoast;
• Loss of marine biodiversity;
• Deterioration of public health and spread of diseases;
• Social and economic disempowerment particularly for women belonging to poor economic households; and
• Loss of traditional rural culture, value system and security.

The main concern of grassroots actors associated in regard to shrimp culture is the loss of livelihood opportunities and denial of access to natural resources on which they have depended upon for generations. Economically, marginalized actors lack access to assets and productive resources than other actors. A few of them cannot generate the minimum income even for survival. Both women and children are even more marginalized than others. The more socially and economically marginalized households are, the more they become dependent on environmental resources.

Resource-poor actors depend heavily on access to natural resources and CPR to compensate their deficit in household income. The management of CPR is complex and varies from community to community. However, it should be recognized that indigenous people have a better understanding of local environmental resources. They often practice the most effective environmental management system allowing economic use of resources and at the same time assuring the conservation of the same. Hence, an imposed model of development on traditional coastal resource users by powerful actors will tend to either fail or generate conflict if the perceptions and knowledge of traditional resource users are not incorporated in the planning, formulation and implementation of any project concerning the use of productive resources at the local level.

Resistance of Coastal 'Powerless Actors' Against Shrimp Monoculture

The resistance against the shrimp industry at the national level in India began in 1992 and have gained momentum between 1993-94. The activists formed the organization People's Alliance Against Shrimp Industries (PASI) comprising the leading social groups and community leaders such as Mr. S. Jagannathan (Land For Tiller, Tamil Nadu), Mr. Jacob Raj (Prepare Andhra Pradesh), Mr. B. Das (Orissa Krushak Mahasangha, Orissa), Ms. Vandana Shiva (Research Foundation for Science and Ecology, New Delhi) and Mr. Claude Alvares (The Goa Foundation).

The marginalized actors of Adhuan and Kismat Krushnapur often have difficulty in directly protesting against the powerful actors of the shrimp industry. Different protest strategies are observed in the two villages. In general, there has been a constant effort made to avoid direct confrontations with powerful actors in the shrimp industry in the locality. This is reflected in certain changes of household survival strategies such as selling out of polluted land at very low prices to shrimp farms and by going on long distances to fetch drinking water everyday among the village women, among others. These are considered adaptive responses to cope with the changed economic condition.

Another response by marginalized households is to look for new income opportunities generated by the development of shrimp culture in their locality. This is reflected in the participation of women and children in large-scale collection of wild seed of shrimps from nearby rivers and estuaries to sell it to the farms. The third way of adaptation is in-migration of members of marginalized households in Adhuan and Kismat Krushnapur to nearby towns in search for alternative income opportunities. These reflect the constant efforts of marginalized groups to adapt with the changing economic and environmental conditions confronting them.

However, these short-term coping strategies or resistances have limitations and cannot solve the basic conflict that unfolded as a result of environmental changes due to shrimp culture practices in the villages. Marginalized groups in Adhuan and Kismat Krushnapur have turned to direct or what is considered 'everyday' forms resistance. There occurred a number of incidents of stealing shrimps or cutting wood from shrimp farms and stealing fuel like diesel, among others. In Adhuan the long standing history of common struggle against colonial rulers has laid a common base for marginalized households to come together to form a grassroots organisation to put up a united fight against the oppression of shrimp farms which has not been seen in Kismat Krushnapur. The formation of such organization in Adhuan started with the incident of clashes between a shrimp farm and agitated villagers over the issue of taking possession of CPRs. Thereafter, a renowned social activist, Mr. B. Das has facilitated the process of consolidation of spontaneous resistance that gave rise to a systematic grassroots organization.

The present nature of the grassroots organization existing in Adhuan is of a protest type. The main goal of the grassroots organisation in Adhuan is to publicize the illegal work of shrimp farmers and the adverse effect on the life of the rural folks. Recently, it engages into initiatives of helping the members and other affected households in the community to look for alternative employment opportunities and survival strategies, among others. The grassroots organization of Adhuan receives constant support from national level NGOs like Orissa Krushak Mahasangha and Orissa Matsajibi Mahasangha. Adhuan's grassroots organization also received support from various nationally and internationally-acclaimed environmental NGOs. Greenpeace, Mangrove Action Projects and Earthlink Samudra among others highlighted the struggle of weaker actors of Adhuan in their international publications. However, the participation of villagers in this grassroots organization is not without divergent expectations and interests. At times these become obstacles in undertaking the original activities of the organization. It is also evident that the grassroots organization's dependency on national and international NGOs becomes unavoidable which, often, brings considerable influences over the work of the former.

Debates on Strategies Towards Sustainable Shrimp Culture

Sustainability in shrimp culture is becoming the main issue among the powerful actors for two reasons: one, to legitimize the perpetuation of shrimp culture in the coastal areas and two, to counter balance the attack of environmental activists on the shrimp industry. Powerful actors frame sustainability by looking at the whole issue from the vantage point of product maximization and less on environmental conservation to avoid large-scale criticism. FAO has developed a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishery (including shrimp culture) aimed at promoting sustainable management practices of shrimp culture in its member states. The Government of India along with other member-countries of FAO has voluntarily agreed on the necessity of adapting strategies to cope with the changed scene of shrimp culture in the country. For corporate actors, however, sustainable development in shrimp culture refers to the ideal situation of production which will assure large-scale profit with selective environmental conservation like low-intensity production to avoid problems of diseases and self-polluting effects. The World Bank also tries to incorporate sustainability in its shrimp culture projects, mainly at ensuring large-scale production and profit with reduced disease problems for sustained global market supply of shrimp. This, certainly, raises strong criticism on MLIs to adapt a pro-people sustainability approach in shrimp culture in India. Grassroots actors and NGOs on the other side of the spectrum have a different understanding of sustainability. It refers to the short- and long-term livelihood security of traditional resource users and the conservation of fragile ecosystem under the management of the coastal dwellers.

The study has found out that there are opportunities for sustainable shrimp cultivation but several human and environmental factors have to be considered. Since shrimp culture development is dependent on the entire coastal ecological system, coastal zone management is crucial for sustainability. It is necessary to take an integrated approach to manage natural resources in the coastal belt for the benefit of the majority population. The study findings suggest that the current method of shrimp farming and its impact on the environment clearly indicates the serious need for reforms in the existing patterns of shrimp farming.

The whole approach of the initiative to make shrimp farming sustainable from the perspective of powerful actors is mainly concerned with the control of environmental degradation (to a certain extent) which could make the conflicts less severe. However, several studies (including this study) have already established the fact that as long as shrimp aquaculture continues to take place in its present form in coastal environments, all shrimp culture enterprises will pose as a constant threat to the right of traditional resource users. MAP (1996) has aptly pointed out:

"Besides putting an emphasis on 'environmental diagnosis' and corrective mechanisms to enable shrimp industry to work in a sustainable way in Third World countries, the major need is to initiate a 'mandatory social analysis' to determine who exactly are the beneficiaries of shrimp aquaculture development."

It is clear in this study that the ecologically-degrading shrimp culture not only brings environmental and economic costs but also social costs to traditional resource users in the coastal belt. Traditional resource users of the coastal belt can only bring about a meaningful change in the present pattern of resource extractions by foreign-owned shrimp farms if they raise their voices against the ongoing exploitation and participate actively in developing an alternative agenda against shrimp monoculture practice. To ensure stability and balance between multiple coastal resource use a community-based coastal zone management (CBCZM) approach could be initiated, (as suggested by many NGOs in several international seminars concerning coastal resource management). It will create a scope for traditional resource users to use their resources according to local needs, keeping in mind the demand of the future generation. This approach recognizes the rights of local communities to develop their plans for regional coastal management (as mentioned in the FAO CCRF). It can also be applied in shrimp culture management.

This study has documented traditional sustainable practices of shrimp culture but traditional knowledge is often neglected by powerful actors including NGOs. In developing countries, this has often resulted in a constant effort of imposing a foreign resource management practice on traditional coastal resource users in the guise of implementing sustainable resource management programs (MAP 1996). It also reaffirms the need for initiating an effective coastal zone management program in order to document and maintain the traditional knowledge of local people which is often neglected in modern development practices. A local resource management program, with full participation of the traditional coastal resource users, should be facilitated by the state by providing adequate legal and administrative framework to support traditional coastal management systems. But the strategies of sustainable management must evolve in the most participatory manner. Sustainability should consider the social, cultural and spiritual foundations of traditional resource management practices. All actors associated with the shrimp industry must, therefore, understand holistically the traditional systems of aquaculture in attempting to achieve sustainability in aquaculture practices.

| More...