Karargenan PDF

580
Social and economic

dimensions of carrageenan
seaweed farming
ISSN 2070-7010
FAO
FISHERIES
AND
AQUACULTURE
TECHNICAL
PAPER
Cover photographs:
Seaweed farming in Indonesia (left) courtesy of Daniel Robledo.
Seaweed farming in India (top right) FAO mediabase (S. Jayaraj).
Seaweed farming in Tanzania (bottom right) FAO mediabase (S. Venturi).
Copies of FAO publications can be requested from:

SALES AND MARKETING GROUP
Publishing Policy and Support Branch
Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension
FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome, Italy
E-mail: publications-sales@fao.org
Fax: +39 06 57053360
Web site: www.fao.org/icatalog/inter-e.htm
Social and economic

dimensions of
carrageenan seaweed
farming
Edited by
Diego Valderrama
Assistant Professor
Food and Resource Economics Department
University of Florida
United States of America
Junning Cai
Aquaculture Officer
Aquaculture Branch
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
Rome, Italy
Nathanael Hishamunda
Senior Aquaculture Officer
Aquaculture Branch
Rome, Italy
and
Neil Ridler
FAO Consultant
New Brunswick, Canada
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2013
FAO
FISHERIES AND
AQUACULTURE
TECHNICAL PAPER
580
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this

information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city
or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers,
whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have
been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar
nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.
ISBN 978-92-5-107746-7 (print)
E-ISBN 978-92-5-107747-4 (PDF)
FAO 2013
FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this
information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be
copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching
purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that
appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is
given and that FAOs endorsement of users views, products or services is not
implied in any way.
All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other
commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licencerequest or addressed to copyright@fao.org.
FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/
publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org.
iii
Preparation of this document

The goal of this document is to provide a comprehensive and balanced assessment of
the socio-economic impacts of carrageenan seaweed farming. The document includes
six country case studies on carrageenan seaweed farming in India, Indonesia, Mexico,
the Philippines, Solomon Islands, and the United Republic of Tanzania. The six papers
were prepared based on the country case study reports submitted by the following
seaweed farming experts: M. Krishnan and R. Narayanakumar for India; Iain C. Neish
for Indonesia; Daniel Robledo, Eucario Gasca-Leyva and Julia Fraga for Mexico; Anicia
Q. Hurtado for the Philippines; Mechthild Kronen and collaborators for Solomon
Islands; and Flower E. Msuya for the United Republic of Tanzania. In order to make
the entire document more coherent and succinct, the contents in the case study reports
were reorganized and condensed by the editors. Readers may contact the experts for the
original reports, which contain more detailed information.
In order to compare the experiences of carrageenan seaweed farming in different
countries and provide a global overview, the document also includes a global synthesis
report based on the six country case studies and other existing literature. The main
contributors in the preparation of the synthesis were Junning Cai (FAO), Nathanael
Hishamunda (FAO) and Neil Ridler (FAO Consultant).
Jiaxin Chen (China), PingSun Leung (the United States of America) and Alessandro
Lovatelli (FAO) are acknowledged for their valuable comments on the various drafts of
this document. Elisabetta Martone (FAO Consultant), Tina Farmer (FAO), Marianne
Guyonnet (FAO), and Ettore Vecchione (FAO Graphic Consultant) are acknowledged
for their assistance in editing and formatting.
iv
Abstract
Carrageenan seaweed farming based primarily on the cultivation of Kappaphycus and
Eucheuma species has grown significantly in the Philippines and Indonesia in the last
two decades. Growth has also taken place on a smaller scale in the United Republic of
Tanzania and a few other developing countries. Thanks to attributes such as relatively
simple farming techniques, low requirements of capital and material inputs, and short
production cycles, carrageenan seaweed farming has become a favourable livelihood
source for smallholder farmers or fishers and generated substantial socio-economic
benefits to marginalized coastal communities in developing countries. However, further
development of carrageenan seaweed farming needs to overcome various barriers and
constraints such as inclement weather conditions, disease outbreaks, uncertain and
fluctuating market conditions, lack of value-added products and value-adding activities
in most of seaweed farming countries, low incomes of seaweed farmers in some
countries, and occupational health hazards. With six country case studies and one global
synthesis, this document attempts to provide a balanced assessment and comparison
of the social and economic performance of carrageenan seaweed farming in different
countries. Various issues related to seaweedcarrageenan value chains are highlighted.
The technical and economic performance of a number of carrageenan seaweed farming
cases are systematically evaluated and compared. The positive and negative social
impacts of carrageenan seaweed farming are discussed. Issues related to governance and
institutions in the sector are reviewed. Challenges and constraints faced by different
countries in the future development of their seaweed industries are identified. The
document also highlights a series of information and knowledge gaps that need to be
filled in order to form a clearer vision of carrageenan seaweed farming development in
the future and facilitate evidence-based policy decision-making and sector management.
Valderrama, D., Cai, J., Hishamunda, N. & Ridler, N., eds. 2013. Social and economic
dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming. Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper
No.580. Rome, FAO. 204 pp.
Contents
Preparation of this document
iii
Abstract iv
Foreword viii
Abbreviations and acronyms
ix
Introduction 1
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming:
a global synthesis
1. Introduction
2. Carrageenan seaweed production and value chain
2.1 Production
2.2 Trade
2.3 Price
2.4 Value chain
3. Economic performance of carrageenan seaweed farming

3.1 Investment and capital cost
3.2 Operating expenses
3.3 Revenue and profit
3.4 Cash flow and pay-back period
3.5 Summary
4. Social performance of carrageenan seaweed farming

4.1 Employment and livelihoods
4.2 Gender
4.3 Other social benefits
4.4 Environmental externalities
5. Governance and institutions

5.1
5.2
The private sector

The public sector
6. Lesson learned and the way forward

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Carrageenan market
Carrageenan processing industry and carrageenan seaweed market
Carrageenan seaweed production
Industrial organization
Governance and policy
References
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming

in Indonesia
9
11
14
16
23
23
31
35
38
40
40
40
42
43
44
44
45
47
51
52
52
53
55
56
57
61
1. Introduction
62
62
2.1
2.2
Production and trade

Value chain
3. Carrageenan seaweed farming: economic and social performance

3.1
3.2
Economic performance
Social performance
62
65
73
73
80
vi

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Government, regulations and standards

Business alliances
Research institutes and NGOs
Farms structures
5. Challenges and the way forward

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Issues perceived by farmers

Issues perceived by processors
Issues perceived by governments
Issues perceived by development agencies and NGOs
Concluding remarks
References
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed

farming in the Philippines
82
83
84
84
85
85
86
86
86
86
87
88
91
1. Introduction
92
92
2.1
2.2
2.3
Physical conditions
Value chain
3. Carrageenan seaweed farming: Economic and social performance

3.1
3.2
3.3
Business structure and farming system

Social performance

4.1
4.2
Government and international agencies

Civil societies and research communities

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Trade and marketing

Education and R&D
Expansion, intensification and diversification
Infrastructure and services
References

farming in the United Republic of Tanzania
92
94
95
98
98
98
103
108
108
109
110
110
111
111
112
113
115
1. Introduction
116
117
2.1 History
2.2 Production and trade

3.1
3.2
3.3
117
118
122
Farming techniques
Social performance
122
124
129
131
4.1 Legal and institutional framework

4.2 Contract farming scheme
4.3 Government
4.4 International organizations and NGOs
4.5 Producer associations
4.6 Seaweed exporters
131
132
133
134
136
137
vii

5.1
5.2
Issues and challenges

The way forward
References

in Solomon Islands
137
137
141
143
147
1. Introduction
148
148
2.1 History
2.3 Value chain

3.1
3.2
148
149
152
153
Social performance
153
156
158
159
References
161

in India
163
1. Introduction
164
164
2.1 History
2.2 Production
2.3 Value chain
164
165
166
169
3.1 Techniques
3.2 Economic performance
3.3 Social performance
169
170
174
180
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Governance agencies
Financial institutions
Self-help Groups (SHGs)
Research institutes and NGOs
180
180
181
182
182
References
184

farming in Mexico
185
1. Introduction
186
186
2.1
2.2
Start-up in Mexico
Value chain

3.1
3.2
3.3
Farming and post-harvest systems

Social performance
189
191
191
192
193
196
4. Way forward
199
References
202
viii
Foreword
Within the framework of its continued efforts to reduce food insecurity and alleviate
poverty, the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department encourages commercial
or business-oriented aquaculture as a means of increasing food availability and
accessibility, generating employment and income, and improving national economies,
especially in developing countries. Reflecting on the large variety of aquatic species and
environments, commercial aquaculture can be practised in many different forms, some
of which will adjust better than others to the physical and socio-economic conditions
of any given country. Carrageenan seaweed farming, in particular, has evolved into
a successful commercial endeavour in a number of tropical countries endowed with
clear, unpolluted intertidal environments and protected beach locations. In contrast
to other forms of aquaculture, carrageenan seaweed farming has minimum capital and
technological requirements and, as such, can provide important economic opportunities
to marginal coastal communities with limited livelihood options. The major goal of this
document is to provide an assessment of the social and economic impacts of carrageenan
seaweed farming on the livelihoods of coastal communities engaged in this particular
type of aquaculture. The document is expected to yield valuable insights on the socioeconomic benefits of seaweed farming to policy-makers involved in the promotion of
national aquaculture sectors.
Jiansan Jia
Chief, Aquaculture Branch
ix
Abbreviations and acronyms
ACDI/VOCA
ACP
ADB
ADGR
AFI
AI
AIs
AMARTA
AMCA
AMPEP
AP
APBIRLI
APEC
APEDA
ARMM
ASEAN
ASL
ASPERLI
ASSOCHAM
ATC
AusAID
BAFPS
BANRURAL
BAPPEDA
BAS
BDS
BFAR
BIMP-EAGA
BPL
BPPT
CAC
CARE
CBM
CEO
Agricultural Cooperative Development International/

Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (United States
of America)
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Asian Development Bank
average daily growth rate
Aquaculture Foundation of India
Alliance Initiative
aid institutions
Agribusiness Market and Support Activity (United States of
America)
Arnavon Marine Conservation Area (Solomon Islands)
Acadian marine plant extract powder
Andhra Pradesh (India)
Asosiasi Pengusaha Budidaya Dan Industri Rumput Laut
Indonesia (Business Association of Farms and Seaweed Industry
Indonesia)
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development
Authority (India)
Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (Philippines)
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Acadian Seaplants Limited (Canada)
Asosiasi Petani dan Pengelola Rumput Laut Indonesia
(Association of Seaweed Farmers and Managers Indonesia)
Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry (India)
alkali-treated chips
Australian Agency for International Development
Bureau of Agricultural and Fisheries Products Standards
(Philippines)
Banco de Desarrollo Rural (Mexico)
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (Regional Body for
Planning and Development Indonesia)
Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (Philippines)
business development service
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (Philippines)
Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines
East ASEAN Growth Area
below the poverty line
Badan Pengkajian Dan Penerapan Teknologi (Agency for the
Assessment and Application of Technology of Indonesia)
Codex Alimentarius Commission (FAO/WHO)
Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc. (United
States of America)
Corredor Biolgico Mesoamericano
chief executive officer
CETES
CIBA
CICY
CIDA
CIF
CINVESTAV
CIPSED
CMCA
CMDRS
CMFRI
Co.
CODECY
CoET/UDSM
CONABIO
CoSPSI
CP
CRDB
CRZ
CSIR
CSMCRI
CSR
CT
DA
DBT
DGR
DKP
DRDA
EAI-BDS
EEZ
EU
EUREP
FAO
FICCI
FINCA
FOB
f.o.b.
GAP
GCI
GEF
GIP
GO
GO
GoM
Certificados de la Tesorera de la Federacin (Mexico)

Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture (India)
Centro de Investigacin Cientfica de Yucatn (Mexico)
Canadian International Development Agency
cost, insurance and freight
Centro de Investigacin y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto
Politcnico Nacional (Mexico)
Canada-Indonesia Private Sector Enterprise Development
Project
Arnavon Island Community Marine Conservation Area
(Solomon Islands)
Consejo Mexicano para el Desarrollo Rural Sustentable
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (India)
company
Coordinacin para el Desarrollo de la Zona Costera de Yucatn
(Mexico)
College of Engineering and Technology of the University of
Dar es Salaam (United Republic of Tanzania)
Comisin Nacional de Conocimiento para la Biodiversidad
(Mexico)
Commercialization of Seaweed Production in Solomon Islands
Copenhagen Pectin (Denmark)
Cooperative and Rural Development Bank
Coastal Regulation Zone (India)
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (India)
Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (India)
corporate social responsibility
Coral Triangle
Department of Agriculture (Philippines)
Department of BioTechnology, Ministry of Science and
Technology (India)
daily growth rate
Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan (Indonesian Department
of Oceans and Fisheries)
District Rural Development Agency (India)
East ASEAN Initiative Business Development Services Project
exclusive economic zone
European Union (Member Organization)
Euro Retailer Produce Working Group
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
(India)
Foundation for International Community Assistance (United
States of America)
fixed off bottom
free on board
good aquaculture practice
galvanized corrugated iron
Global Environment Facility
Growers Investment Program (India)
government order
government organization
Gulf of Mannar (India)
xi
GoMBRT
GoMMNP
GTZ
Ha or ha
HDPE
HIV/AIDS
HLL
HP
ICAR
ICCI
IDRC
IF
IFAD
IFC
IFI
IFS
IMS/UDSM
IMSS
IMTA
INAPESCA
INEGI
INI
INI RADEF
INR
IRR
ISCP
ISDA
ISO
ISSA
IT
IWP
IYF
JaSuDa
JECFA
JICA
JLG
JOCDO
KCl
KFI
kg
KITS
KMC
KNSE
KTF
KUKM
LGSP
Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust (India)

Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park (India)
German Agency for Technical Cooperation
hectare
high density polyethylene
acquired immune deficiency syndrome caused by the human
immunodeficiency virus
hanging long line
horsepower
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (India)
International Development Research Center (Canada)
Indian Pharmacopoeia
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International Finance Corporation (World Bank)
international finance institution
Indian Forest Service
Institute of Marine Sciences of the University of Dar es Salaam
(United Republic of Tanzania)
Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social
integrated multitrophic aquaculture
Instituto Nacional de Pesca (Mexico)
Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y Geografa (Mexico)
Instituto Nacional Indigenista (Mexico)
Indonesian International Rural and Development Foundation
Indian rupee
internal rate of return
Innovation Systems and Cluster Programmes (United Republic
of Tanzania)
Integrated Services for the Development of Aquaculture and
Fisheries (Philippines)
International Organization for Standardization
Indonesian Seaweed Society Association
information technology
International Waters Project
International Youth Foundation (United States of America)
Jaringan Sumber Daya (Indonesia)
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Joint Liability Group (India)
Jozani Community Development Organization (United
Republic of Tanzania)
potassium chloride
Kasanyangan-Mindanao Foundation, Inc. (Philippines)
kilogram
knowledge, information, tools and solutions
Kudumbam Model of Cultivation (India)
Kasangyangan Nursery Seaweed Enterprise (Philippines)
Kauai Tete Family (Solomon Islands)
Kementerian Negara Koperasi dan Usaha Kecil dan Menengah
Republik Indonesia (National Ministry of Cooperatives and
Small to Medium Enterprises in Indonesia)
Local Government Support Program (PhilippinesCanada)
xii
LGUs
LIPI
MACEMP
MALE
MAO
MC
MFMR
MLYWCD
MNRT
MoU
MPEDA
MRLL
M.S.
MSME
MSSRF
MSU-TCTO
MTTI
MUCHS/UDSM
MXN
MYRADA
NAAS
NABARD
NACA
NaCl
NALO
NASO
NCST
NEMC
NFDB
NFRDI
NGO
NIRD
NPV
NSO
NTB
NTT
ODA
OHSAS
OSY
PADEP
PB
PBSP
Local Government Units (Philippines)

Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (Indonesian Institute of
Sciences)
Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project (United
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Environment (United
Municipal Agriculturist Office (Philippines)
moisture content
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Solomon Islands)
Ministry of Labour, Youth, Women and Children Development
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (United Republic
of Tanzania)
memorandum of understanding
Marine Products Exports Development Authority (India)
multiple raft long line
Manonmaniam Sundaranar (University) (India)
micro, small or medium enterprise
M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (India)
Mindanao State University Tawi-Tawi College of Technology
and Oceanography (Philippines)
Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Investment (United Republic
of Tanzania)
Muhimbili College of Health Sciences, University of Dar es
Salaam (United Republic of Tanzania)
Mexican peso
Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency (India)
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (India)
National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (India)
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific
sodium chloride
National Aquaculture Legislation Overview
National Aquaculture Sector Overview
National Committee on Science and Technology (India)
National Environment Management Council (United Republic
of Tanzania)
National Fisheries Development Board (India)
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute
(Philippines)
non-governmental organization
National Institute of Rural Development (India)
net present value
National Statistics Office (Philippines)
Nusa Tenggara Barat (Indonesia)
Nusa Tenggara Timur (Indonesia)
Overseas Development Agency (United Kingdom)
occupational health and safety management system
out-of-school youth
Participatory Agricultural Development Empowerment Project
Palk Bay
Philippine Business for Social Progress
xiii
PCAMRD-DOST
PDAP
PEMEX
PENSA
PET
PFnet
PHT
PNCS
PNM
PNS
POETCY
POREMAD
PP
ppt
PROCAMPO
PROFEPA
QoL
R&D
RAGS
RBC
RC
RCC
RDS
ReCoMaP
RI
ROI
RRDA
RFEP
SACCOS
SAGARPA
SBD
SBI
SCC
SCPP
SDEV
SDSP
SEAFDEC/AQD
SECOL
SEDESOL
SEDUMA
Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and

Development - Department of Science and Technology
Philippine Development Assistance Programme, Inc.
Petrleos Mexicanos
Program for Eastern Indonesia Small and Medium Enterprise
Assistance
Programa de Empleo Temporal (Mexico)
People First Network (Solomon Islands)
post-harvest treatment
Philippine National Carrageenan Standard
Permodalan Nasional Madani (Indonesia)
Philippine National Standard
Programa de Ordenamiento Ecolgico del Territorio Costero
del Estado de Yucatn (Mexico)
Poverty Reduction through Environmental Management,
Mariculture, Agribusiness and Association Development
polypropylene
parts per thousand
Programa de Apoyos Directos al Campo (Mexico)
Procuradura Federal de Proteccin al Ambiente (Mexico)
Quality of Life Index
research and development
red algal galactan seaweed
reinforced brick concrete
refined carrageenan
reinforced cement concrete
raw dried seaweed
Regional Programme for the Sustainable Management of the
Coastal Zones of the Indian Ocean Countries
Republic of Indonesia
return on investment
Ramanathapuram Rural Development Agency (India)
Rural Fishing Enterprise Project (Solomon Islands)
Savings and Credit Cooperative Societies (United Republic of
Tanzania)
Secretara de Agricultura, Ganadera, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y
Alimentacin (Mexico)
Solomon Islands dollar
State Bank of India
Sociedad Cooperativa de Crdito (Mexico)
Sociedad Cooperativa de Produccin Pesquera (Mexico)
standard deviation
Seaweed Development Strategic Plan (United Republic of
Tanzania)
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center / Aquaculture
Department
Secretara de Ecologa del Gobierno del Estado de Yucatn
(Mexico)
Secretara de Desarrollo Social (Mexico)
Secretara de Desarrollo Urbano y Medio Ambiente, Estado de
Yucatn (Mexico)
xiv
SEEGAAD
SEMARNAT
SEMMA
SEP
SFAB
SGSY
SHG
SIAP
SIAVI
Sida
SIPCOT
SLF
SMEs
SNAP
SPC
SPE3
SPREP
SRC
SSA
SSS
STABEX
SUA
SUCCESS
SW
SWOT
TAWLAE
TCMP
TIRDO
TN
TNC
TNCDW
TNDoF
TNMB
TZS
UAIM
UDSM
UK
UMA
UNHAS
UNIDO
UNSRAT
UP
UP-MSI
USAID
USD
USFDA
Small-holder Empowerment and Economic Growth through

Agribusiness and Association Development (United Republic
of Tanzania)
Secretara de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Mexico)
Sustainable Environmental Management through Mariculture
Activities (United Republic of Tanzania)
Secretara de Educacin Pblica (Mexico)
seaweed farming as a business (United Republic of Tanzania)
Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (India)
self-help group
Seaweed Industry Association of the Philippines
Sistema de Informacin Arancelaria va Internet (Mexico)
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited
(India)
sustainable livelihood framework
small and medium enterprises
SNAP Natural & Alginate Products Ltd. (India)
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
Sitangkai Seaweed Productivity Enhancement through
Education and Extension (Philippines)
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
semi-refined carrageenan
Secretara de Salud (Mexico)
Sociedad de Solidaridad Social (Mexico)
Systme de Stabilisation des Recettes dExportation
Sokoine University of Agriculture (United Republic of Tanzania)
Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystems (United
Spider Web
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
Tanzania Association of Women Leaders in Agriculture and
Environment
Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership
Tanzania Industrial Research and Development Organization
Tamil Nadu (India)
The Nature Conservancy (United States of America)
Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women (India)
Tamil Nadu Department of Fisheries (India)
Tamil Nadu Maritime Board
Tanzanian shilling
Unidad Agrcola Industrial para la Mujer (Mexico)
University of Dar es Salaam (United Republic of Tanzania)
United Kingdom
Unidad de Manejo Ambiental (Mexico)
Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar (Indonesia)
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado (Indonesia)
University of the Philippines
University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute
United States Agency for International Development
United States dollar
United States Food and Drug Administration
xv
VICOBA
WHO
WIOMSA
ZANEA
ZaSCI
ZASCOL
ZAZOSO
ZDFMR
ZDoE
ZDFMR
ZERI
Village Corporate Banks (United Republic of Tanzania)

World Health Organization
Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association
Zanzibar East African Seaweed Company (United Republic of
Tanzania)
Zanzibar Seaweed Cluster Initiative (United Republic of
Tanzania)
Zanzibar Agro-Seaweed Company Limited (United Republic
of Tanzania)
Zanzibar Zoological Society (United Republic of Tanzania)
Zanzibar Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources
Zanzibar Department of Environment (United Republic of
Tanzania)
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Zanzibar
Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives
Introduction
Carrageenan is a gelling agent extracted from red seaweeds. It can be used as an
emulsifier, a binder, or for suspension and stabilization in a remarkably wide range
of products in the food processing, pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries. Demand
for carrageenan has risen accordingly with demand for processed foods since research
undertaken during the Second World War demonstrated that it could substitute
for agar, the most popular colloid for food processing at the time. For almost three
decades, production of carrageenan was restricted by availability of natural stocks of
Chondrus crispus (also known as Irish moss) from Canada, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and
France and Gigartina from South America and Southern Europe.
By the late 1960s, dwindling availability of wild seaweed stocks led commercial
carrageenan producers to scout the worlds seas in order to diversify seaweed supplies;
at the same time, resources were invested in seaweed ecology research as the possibility
of cultivation offered a solution to the instability of raw material supply. Chondrus
crispus was successfully cultured in tanks but these techniques soon proved to be
economically unfeasible. The scouting efforts finally found success in the south of
the Philippines, where native Eucheuma seaweed was found to produce high-quality
carrageenan and ecological conditions made cultivation possible. The first seaweed
farm was established jointly in 1969 by Marine Colloids Inc. and University of Hawaii
Professor Maxwell Doty in the province of Tawi-Tawi in the south of the Philippines.
Its plentiful beds of Chondrus crispus had allowed Canada to emerge as the worlds
largest supplier of carrageenan seaweed between 1948 and 1974. However, production
of Eucheuma seaweeds spread rapidly in the Philippines, which soon displaced Canada
as the worlds top supplier. The lower cost of labour in the Philippines relative to
Canada also incentivized companies to shift their buying to the Asian nation. Although
the same corporations that controlled the Canadian market tried to control production
in the Philippines through plantation-style seaweed farms, they soon realized that they
could not compete with small, family-run farms. The reasons were twofold: (i) the
labour for seaweed cultivation must be highly flexible to work on the cyclical time
scales of tides and the moon, making it difficult to pay workers stable wages; and
(ii)seaweed farming has low capital and technological requirements for entry.
The success of seaweed aquaculture in the Philippines was rapidly replicated in
Indonesia. Farm production came to be dominated by two species: Kappaphycus
alvarezii (commonly known as cottonii) and Eucheuma denticulatum (known as
spinosum). Natural collection of Sarcothalia and Gigartina species from Chile and
Mexico and Chondrus crispus from Canada and France accounts for the rest. Outside
the Philippines and Indonesia, cultivation of the warm water species K. alvarezii and
E. denticulatum have been attempted in a number of tropical countries around the
world. However, significant production for export markets has been achieved only
in Malaysia and the United Republic of Tanzania. The Philippines remained as the
worlds top producer of K. alvarezii until the late 2000s, when it was surpassed by
Indonesia.
The available evidence indicates that the socio-economic impacts of carrageenan
seaweed farming on coastal communities have been overwhelmingly positive. Because
the production model favours small-scale, family operations over corporate, plantationstyle farms, seaweed farming generates substantial employment relative to other forms
of aquaculture. In addition, seaweed farming is often undertaken in remote areas where
coastal communities face a reduced number of economic alternatives. Many of these
communities have traditionally been reliant on coastal fisheries and are currently being
affected by overexploitation of these resources. In these cases, the impact of seaweed
farming goes beyond its economic benefits to communities as it reduces the incentives
for overfishing. The literature contains much anecdotal evidence documenting how the
economic fortunes of many villages have been transformed by seaweed farming. Many
of these communities routinely lived at or below the poverty level prior to engaging
in seaweed farming; with the income earned from the sale of seaweeds, many farmers
have experienced substantial improvements in their standards of living as they have
been able to send their children to school, introduce improvements to their dwellings,
enhance their diets, increase their purchasing power of material goods, etc. In particular,
seaweed farming has had a remarkably positive effect on the socio-economic status of
female farmers as it allows them to engage in an income-earning activity that can be
undertaken without neglecting traditional household chores.
However, carrageenan seaweed farming is not without its own set of challenges.
Environmentally, farmers face a myriad of challenges such as the incidence of tropical
storms and predation by herbivorous fish. In particular, a disease condition named iceice represents a formidable threat. Devastating ice-ice outbreaks have been reported
in almost all the major carrageenan seaweed farming countries. Because rampant iceice outbreaks prevented them from farming the more lucrative K. alvarezii, many
seaweed farmers in Zanzibar (the United Republic of Tanzania) chose to abandon
seaweed farming altogether. Economically, a major challenge is represented by the
uncertain and volatile market conditions. This was particularly evident during the
seaweed price bubble of 2008, when farm prices reached exorbitant levels and
then collapsed in the course of a few months. Given the sudden price increase, many
farmers rushed to harvest immature or low-quality seaweed, flooding the market
and precipitating the subsequent price crash. Socially, the recent literature has drawn
attention to some negative social impacts of carrageenan seaweed farming, such as low
incomes for farmers in some places and occupational health hazards.
Given this background, the goal of this document is to conduct a comprehensive
and balanced assessment of the socio-economic impacts of carrageenan seaweed
farming in different locations. The assessment includes six country case studies that
cover countries with established commercial production (Indonesia, the Philippines,
and the United Republic of Tanzania) and with nascent or potential aquaculture
sectors (India, Solomon Islands and Mexico). Each country study provides a review
of carrageenan seaweed farming development and attempts to quantify the impacts
of the sector on the socio-economic status of farmers. The assessment also includes
a global synthesis intended to compare carrageenan seaweed farming experiences in
different countries and provide a global overview. The synthesis highlights various
knowledge and information gaps that need to be filled in order to deepen and broaden
understanding of the industry and it also suggests several areas for further study.
This study unveils the clear potential of carrageenan seaweed farming in raising the
socio-economic status of coastal communities in developing countries. Nevertheless, it
is also evident that this potential needs to be evaluated in the context of local conditions
and from a global and dynamic perspective. Why has carrageenan seaweed farming
developed into a lucrative commercial business in some places (e.g. Indonesia and
the Philippines), whereas in other places (e.g. Eastern Africa and Pacific islands) it
has largely remained a diversified livelihood source for marginalized coastal villagers
who have no access to alternative, higher-return economic activities? Further study is
needed to deepen understanding of this fundamental question, but it is expected that the
information, knowledge and insights provided by this report should help governments
and other interested parties design policies most suitable to their countries.
Although the six country case studies and the global synthesis have been prepared
under similar frameworks and included as different chapters in this document, they
Introduction
are self-contained papers by themselves. The global synthesis is placed as the first
chapter to provide readers with a global overview. The ensuing country studies provide
more detailed and specific information on the experiences of individual countries.
The sequence of the six studies is determined, in descending order, by the countries
carrageenan seaweed farming production in 2010 according to FAO statistics.
Social and economic dimensions of

carrageenan seaweed farming:
A global synthesis
Junning Cai
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department

Rome, Italy
Nathanael Hishamunda
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department

Rome, Italy
Neil Ridler
FAO Consultant
New Brunswick, Canada
Cai, J., Hishamunda, N. & Ridler, N. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan
seaweed farming: a global synthesis. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda & N.Ridler,
eds. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp.559. Fisheries
and Aquaculture Technical Paper No.580. Rome, FAO. 204pp.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Jiaxin Chen, Anicia Hurtado, Mahadeva Krishnan,
Mechthild Kronen, PingSun Leung, Flower Msuya, Ramani Narayanakumar, Daniel
Robledo, and Diego Valderrama for their valuable comments on and inputs to the
paper.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Seaweed is a versatile product that can be used for direct human consumption or
processed into food additives, pet food, feeds, fertilizers, biofuel, cosmetics, and
medicines, among others (McHugh, 2003; Bixler and Porse, 2011). According to FAO
statistics (FishStat),1 global production of seaweed increased from less than 4million
wet tonnes2 in 1980 to almost 20million wet tonnes in 2010 (Figure1).
Not only has production increased but the source has also changed. Increasingly,
seaweed is cultivated rather than collected from the wild. According to FAO statistics,
the share of wild seaweed in global seaweed production fell from 28percent in 1980
to 4.5 percent in 2010. This declining share reflects both the increased volume of
cultivated seaweed and an absolute decrease in wild seaweed tonnage (Figure1).3
Cultivation of red seaweeds (Rhodophyceae) contributed to most of the recent
expansion in global seaweed production (Figure1). According to FAO statistics, red
seaweed farming production worldwide increased from 2million wet tonnes in 2000
(21percent of the production of all cultivated seaweeds) to almost 9million wet tonnes
in 2010 (47percent). Major red seaweed species under cultivation include Kappaphycus
and Eucheuma, which are primary raw materials for carrageenan, Gracilaria (primary
raw materials for agar) and nori (mainly for direct human consumption) (Figure2).
Agar and carrageenan are thickening and gelling agents (called hydrocolloids4)
primarily used as food additives. Demand for hydrocolloids has grown with increased
consumption of processed food. There was also an insufficient supply of wild seaweed.
FIGURE1
World seaweed production

20
18
All
Cultivated, red
Cultivated, miscellaneous
Cultivated, brown
Wild
(Million wet tonnes)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
Note: Red seaweeds include species belonging to Rhodophyceae; brown seaweeds include species belonging to Phaeophyceae;
miscellaneous seaweeds include species belonging to Chlorophyceae and Cyanophyceae as well as species unspecified.
Source: FAO Fishstat
Unless specified otherwise, the FAO statistics cited in this synthesis paper were obtained from the
FishStat data set on Aquaculture Production (Quantities and values) 1950-2010 released by the FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department in March 2012.
Wet tonne measures the weight of fresh seaweed; whereas dry tonne measures the weight of raw dry
seaweed. Unless specified otherwise, the weight of seaweed is measured in dry tonnes.
World production of wild seaweed in 2010 (886000wet tonnes) was only two-thirds of the production
in 1990 (1.3million wet tonnes).
Alginate, which is mainly extracted from wild brown seaweeds, is another major hydrocolloid (McHugh,
2003).
A global synthesis
FIGURE2
World red seaweed farming production
10
All
Nori
Gracilaria
6
Kappaphycus and Eucheuma
4
2
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Note: Kappaphycus and Eucheuma includes species belonging to Solieriaceae. Gracilaria includes species belonging to Gracilariaceae; nori
includes species belonging to Bangiaceae.
Source: FAO FishStat.
This motivated experimentation of cultivating carrageenan seaweeds in tropical waters

and resulted in rapid expansion of Kappaphycus and Eucheuma cultivation (Figure2)
from 944 000 wet tonnes in 2000 (48 percent of total red seaweed cultivation) to
5.6million wet tonnes in 2010 (63percent).5
A comprehensive study of the socio-economic impacts of such an expanding sector is
opportune. The six case studies included in this technical paper cover not only countries
that have an established carrageenan seaweed industry (Indonesia, the Philippines and the
United Republic of Tanzania) but also newcomers (India, Mexico and Solomon Islands).
Information and insights provided by the studies indicate that carrageenan seaweed
farming is a profitable activity with great potential, especially for coastal communities
with abundant labour and few alternative activities (e.g. fisheries or tourism). A short
production cycle, low capital requirement, and relatively simple farming technology are
among the factors that make carrageenan seaweed farming a means of poverty alleviation
particularly attractive to smallholder farmers or fishers. However, future development
of the carrageenan seaweed industry faces various challenges such as inclement weather
conditions, disease outbreaks, uncertain and fluctuating market conditions, competition
from other sectors (e.g. fisheries, tourism and urban development), a lack of value-added
products and value-adding activities in seaweed farming countries, low incomes of
seaweed farmers in some countries, and occupational health hazards.
Based on the six case studies as well as other existing literature, this synthesis
chapter is intended to provide a global review of the socio-economic performance of
carrageenan seaweed farming. In the next section, the status and trends of seaweedcarrageenan value chains are reviewed based on official statistics (primarily FAO
FishStat and UN COMTRADE) on the production and trade of seaweeds and seaweed
products, specific data and information on seaweed value chains in individual countries
provided by the six case studies, and those provided by other existing literature
(e.g. McHugh, 2003; Panlibuton, Porse and Nadela, 2007; Neish, 2008a; Bixler and
5
According to FishStat, world cultivation of Gracilaria seaweeds increased from 73 000 wet tonnes in
2000 (3.7percent of red seaweed cultivation) to 1.7million wet tonnes in 2010 (17percent of red seaweed
cultivation). World cultivation of nori seaweeds increased from 954000wet tonnes in 2000 to 1.6million
wet tonnes in 2010, but its share in red seaweed cultivation declined from 48percent to 18percent during
the period.
Porse, 2011). Various issues at different stages of the carrageenan seaweed value chain
identified in the six case studies are highlighted in Section2.4.
In Section3, the economic performance of carrageenan seaweed farming is assessed
based on the data and information provided by the six case studies. Various performance
indicators (e.g. productivity, efficiency and profitability) are used to compare the
economic costs and benefits of 23cases of carrageenan seaweed farming examined in
the six case studies. The cases vary in terms of farming systems, scales, production
cycles and other technical parameters. The assessment also consults other literature on
carrageenan seaweed farming practices and technology (e.g. Neish, 2008b).
In Section 4, the social performance of carrageenan seaweed farming is reviewed
based primarily on the survey results discussed in the six case studies. The assessment
covers the contributions of carrageenan seaweed farming to various social aspects such
as employment, income, gender equality and community development. The assessment
also highlights some negative social impacts of carrageenan seaweed farming (e.g. low
income and occupational health hazards) based on the six case studies as well as other
literature (e.g. Frcklin et al., 2012).
Section 5 focuses on issues related to governance and institutions in carrageenan
seaweed farming. Governance structures and institutions in both the private sector (e.g.
market governance, contract farming and farmers organizations) and the public sector
(e.g. legal and policy frameworks, licensing, quality standards and public assistance) are
discussed based on the experiences of the six case study countries. Some controversial
issues are highlighted. In addition to the data and information provided by the six
case studies, the discussion also consults the FAOs National Aquaculture Legislation
Overview (NALO) and FAOLEX for legal issues and utilizes much information from
various countries policy and planning reports.
Section 6 concludes the paper. Although the six case studies and other existing
literature provide extensive information on the carrageenan seaweed industry, there are
still substantial knowledge and information gaps to be filled in order to obtain better
understanding of the development trends of carrageenan seaweed farming in the future
and propose specific policy recommendations. Some of these gaps are discussed in this
section; based on which areas for further study are suggested.
2.
CARRAGEENAN SEAWEED PRODUCTION AND VALUE CHAIN
Carrageenan seaweed farming has expanded rapidly since 2000 because of the growing
use of carrageenan. As an approved food additive, carrageenan is used worldwide to
enhance dairy and meat products; it also has a variety of applications ranging from
toothpaste to pet food.
Historically, carrageenan used to be extracted from wild seaweeds, especially Chondrus
crispus (Irish moss). However, supply from wild seaweed was insufficient, and in some
countries such as the United Republic of Tanzania, wild seaweed became depleted
(Msuya, 2011). This prompted successful cultivation of carrageenan-containing seaweeds
in tropical waters in the 1970s. Starting in the Philippines and then Indonesia where they
are native, carrageenan-containing seaweeds have been introduced as an exotic species
to the other four case-study countries, i.e. the United Republic of Tanzania, Solomon
Islands, India and Mexico. In total, about 30 countries have introduced carrageenancontaining seaweeds to evaluate potential biomass production (Neish, 2008b).
Among various carrageenan-containing seaweeds, only warm-water Eucheuma
seaweeds have been cultivated substantially and commercially. The main Eucheuma
seaweeds under cultivation are Kappaphycus (primarily K. alvarezii)6 and Eucheuma
(primarily E. denticulatum). K. alvarezii (commercially called cottonii) and
Kappaphycus used to be classified as Eucheuma seaweed. Kappaphycus alvarezii was called Eucheuma
cottonii. See McHugh (2003, p.51) for a detailed clarification on the terminology.
A global synthesis
E.denticulatum (commercially called spinosum) are raw materials for extracting kappa
and iota carrageenan, respectively. Generally speaking, kappa carrageenan is stronger
(thicker) and hence a more favoured gelling agent than iota.
Several cold-water red seaweed species (e.g. Gigartina skottsbergii and Sarcothalia
crispata from Chile and Chondrus crispus from Canada) have also been used to
extract special carrageenans that cannot be supplied by warm-water Kappaphycus and
Eucheuma (Bixler and Porse, 2011). Although cultivation of cold-water carrageenancontaining seaweeds has been experimented (Buschmann et al., 2004), to date their
production has depended almost entirely on wild collection (Bixler and Porse, 2011).
2.1 Production
According to FAO statistics, world carrageenan seaweed farming production increased
from less than 1 million wet tonnes in 2000 to 5.6 million wet tonnes in 2010, with
the corresponding farmgate value increasing from USD72million to USD1.4billion.
Major carrageenan seaweed farming countries include Indonesia, the Philippines, the
United Republic of Tanzania, Malaysia and China (Figure3 and Table1).
FIGURE3
World carrageenan seaweed farming production

6
Rest of the world
China
Malaysia
United Republic of Tanzania

Philippines
Indonesia
2
1
0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Note: Carrageenan seaweeds under cultivation are Kappaphycus and Eucheuma seaweeds (Solieriaceae)
Source: FAO FishStat
Salient facts about the main producers include the following:

Indonesia is currently the largest carrageenan seaweed farming country, accounting
for 61percent of world production in 2010. Kappaphycus is the main cultivated
species in Indonesia.
The Philippines used to be the largest carrageenan seaweed farming country,
accounting for 72 percent of world production in 2000. Its share declined to
32percent in 2010 following the rapid expansion of carrageenan seaweed farming
in Indonesia. Kappaphycus is the main cultivated species in the Philippines.
Compared with Indonesia and the Philippines, which together accounted for
90 percent of world production in 2010, carrageenan seaweed cultivation in
the United Republic of Tanzania is on a much smaller scale, accounting for
only 2.3percent of world production in 2010. The operation is concentrated in
Zanzibar (accounting for 95percent of the countrys seaweed farming production
in 2010). Unlike Indonesia and the Philippines, the main cultivated species in the
United Republic of Tanzania is Eucheuma denticulatum.
10
TABLE1
Major carrageenan seaweed farming countries, 2000 vs 2010

Year 2000
Year 2010
Quantity
(thousand wet
tonnes)
Share (%)
World
944
100.0
Philippines
679
Indonesia
197
United Republic
of Tanzania1
51
5.4
Kiribati
11
Top 5 producers
Fiji
Top 5 total
Quantity
(thousand wet
tonnes)
Share (%)
World
5 623
100.0
71.9
Indonesia
3 399
60.5
20.9
Philippines
1 795
31.9
Malaysia
208
3.7
1.2
United Republic
of Tanzania1
132
2.3
0.6
China
943
99.9
Top 5 producers
Top 5 total
64
1.1
5 599
99.6
Note: Carrageenan seaweeds under cultivation include Kappaphycus and Eucheuma seaweeds. 1 Including Zanzibar.
Source: FAO FishStat.
Carrageenan seaweed farming is on a much smaller scale in the other three

case-study countries. According to FAO statistics, the production of cultivated
carrageenan seaweed in 2010 was 8 000 wet tonnes in Solomon Islands and
4240wet tonnes in India, while the production in Mexico is not reported in the
FAO statistics.
The six case-study countries accounted for about 95percent of world cultivation
of carrageenan seaweed in 2010. Other major cultivating countries include
Malaysia (3.7percent of world production in 2010) and China (1.1percent).
The performance of carrageenan seaweed farming is constrained by a number of
environmental factors:
Seasonality, which is one of the main causes of production fluctuations, has
been a common issue for Indonesia and the Philippines. Experience of seaweed
farmers in Indonesia indicated that monthly harvest could be 2.8 times of the
average in the best season but only 42 percent in the worst season. Shifting
cultivating sites and changing cultivars have been approaches used by farmers
to accommodate seasonality, but most farmers reported that seasonal effects on
growth were a major handicap (Neish, 2013). In another study that surveyed two
hundred seaweed farmers in Indonesia (Zamroni and Yamao, 2011), changes in the
monsoon seasons were ranked as the most critical challenge.
Disease is another major problem, which not only discourages farmers but also
contributes to supply uncertainty for processors. Ice-ice disease is a common
disease that affects carrageenan seaweed farming worldwide. Primarily because
of perennial ice-ice outbreaks, cottonii cultivation in Zanzibar (the United
Republic of Tanzania) declined from over 1000 tonnes in 2001 to almost zero in
2008 (Msuya, 2013). Indonesia and the Philippines have also suffered from iceice disease (Neish, 2013; Hurtado, 2013).
Inclement weather is a great risk to seaweed farming. Indeed, the experimental
carrageenan seaweed farming project on which the Mexico case study is based
had to be terminated prematurely after the experimental farms were destroyed
by a hurricane (Robledo, Gasca-Leyva and Fraga, 2013). In the Philippines,
typhoons have damaged seaweed farms several times in the last three decades,
and seasonal weather patterns can prevent production throughout the year. Crop
insurance is available in the Philippines; and farmers are encouraged to purchase
insurance even though it adds to their costs (Hurtado, 2013). In India, insurance
A global synthesis
on infrastructure and cultivar is sometimes part of a contract farming scheme

(Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). However, crop insurance is not readily
available in Indonesia (Neish, 2013). Some relief from weather damage may be
obtained from government. For example, providing seaweed farmers with floating
rafts was part of Indias effort to rehabilitate tsunami-affected areas (Krishnan and
Narayanakumar, 2013).
Other environmental factors negatively affecting the performance of seaweed
farming include grazing by fish or other organisms (which is a common problem
identified in all six case studies) and rising sea temperatures, which could slow
seaweed growth (Hurtado, 2013; Kronen, 2013).
Seaweed farming also faces competition from other sectors. For example, seaweed
production in Solomon Islands declined in 2007 after the opening of the more-lucrative
sea cucumber fishery (Kronen, 2013). In the United Republic of Tanzania, seaweed
farming sites in some areas may become unavailable because of urban development
(Msuya, 2013).
Notwithstanding various constraining factors, carrageenan seaweed farming should
tend to continue expanding as long as the demand for carrageenan seaweeds keeps
growing. There are still many areas yet to be exploited, even in Indonesia where
seaweed farming has expanded substantially (Neish, 2013). It has been estimated that
India has the potential to produce one million tonnes of dried seaweed (Krishnan and
2.2 Trade
International trade in carrageenan products
The demand for carrageenan seaweeds is a derived demand influenced primarily by the
market for carrageenan products. Refined or semi-refined carrageenan has been widely
used in dairy, meat, pet food, water gels and other products (McHugh, 2003; Neish,
2008a; Bixler and Porse, 2011). Europe and Northern America (mainly the United
States of America) have been the main international markets for carrageenan. As more
processed food is consumed by growing, wealthier and more urbanized populations, the
carrageenan market has expanded in developing regions. The price of carrageenan in the
international market was generally stable in the first half of the 2000s but has increased
rapidly since the mid-2000s and become more volatile. This development pattern can
be exemplified by the status and trend of carrageenan exports from the Philippines
(Figure4). The Philippines is a major carrageenan producing and exporting country. The
other five case-study countries have a much smaller carrageenan processing capacity.
International trade in carrageenan seaweeds
Most carrageenan seaweeds in international trade come from the three major
carrageenan seaweed farming countries (i.e. Indonesia, the Philippines and the United
Republic of Tanzania). Chile also exports carrageenan-containing, cold-water species
from wild collection (Bixler and Porse, 2011).
Specific data on the international trade of cultivated carrageenan seaweeds are not
readily available. In UN COMTRADE data set, the commodity HS121220 (seaweeds
and other algae) includes all types of seaweeds (red, brown and others) from different
sources (wild and farmed) and in different forms (dry and fresh). However, most of
seaweed production in Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Republic of Tanzania
comes from aquaculture, and their total carrageenan seaweed farming production
accounts for more than 90percent of the world total (Table1). Therefore, the status and
trend of seaweed exports from these three countries (Figure5) can be used to reflect the
status and trends of international markets for cultivated carrageenan seaweeds. Some
stylized facts are summarized as follows:
11
12
FIGURE4
Export volume and price of carrageenan products from the Philippines
25
Africa
22
Oceania
Latin America and Caribbean
Asia
Northern America
Europe
Average export price (f.o.b., USD/kg)
17
15
12
8
6
10
USD/Kg
(Thousand tonnes)
20
10
7
5
2
0
2000
2001
2002 2003
2004 2005 2006
2007 2008
2009 2010
2011
Note: For the Philippines, the export of HS130239 comprises mainly carrageenan products. Price calculated from value and quantity.
Source: UN COMTRADE; commodity HS130239 (mucilages and thickeners nes).
As indicated by the total seaweed export of the three countries, the international
market for cultivated carrageenan seaweed doubled from about 100 000 tonnes
in 2005 to 200000tonnes in 2011. Exports to China accounted for most of the
expansion; its share in total exports increased from 27percent in 2000 to 58percent
in 2011. Europe used to be the largest international market for carrageenan
seaweed, but its share in the total seaweed exports of the three countries declined
from 49percent in 2010 to 10percent in 2011.
Indonesia is the largest carrageenan seaweed exporting country. Its seaweed exports
have increased almost eightfold (in terms of volume) since 2000, reaching almost
160000tonnes in 2011. Asian markets accounted for 95percent of the expansion;
China alone accounting for 72percent. In 2011, 68percent of Indonesias seaweed
export (in terms of volume) went to China (including China, Hong Kong SAR
and China, Macao SAR), 22 percent to other Asian countries, 4.5 percent to
Latin America and the Caribbean, 4.1percent to Europe, 1.5percent to Northern
America, 0.3percent to Oceania, and 0.3percent to Africa. The top ten markets
for seaweed exports from Indonesia in 2011 are summarized in Table2.
The Philippines was the largest carrageenan exporting country in 2000. However,
its seaweed exports declined from almost 50 000 tonnes in 2000 to about
11 000 tonnes in 2009. Its exports rebounded to 27 000 tonnes in 2011. While
54 percent of the Philippines seaweed exports (in terms of volume) went to
Europe in 2000, it was distributed more evenly in 2011: China (32percent), other
Asian countries (15percent), Europe (24percent), Northern America (24percent),
Latin America (2.6percent) and Oceania (1.2percent). The top ten markets for
seaweed exports from the Philippines in 2011 are summarized in Table2.
The seaweed exports of the United Republic of Tanzania increased from
5 000 tonnes in 2000 to about 13 000 tonnes in 2002 and then declined to
7000tonnes in 2006. However, they rebounded to almost 15000tonnes in 2011.
Europe and Northern America remained the two major international markets for
seaweed exports from the United Republic of Tanzania (about 60and 20percent
of the total, respectively, in 2011). The share of Asia increased from nil in 2000
to almost 30percent in 2011. The top ten markets for seaweed exports from the
United Republic of Tanzania in 2011 are summarized in Table2.
A global synthesis
13
FIGURE5
Seaweed export volume and price of major carrageenan seaweed farming countries
INDONESIA
250
2.0
200
1.6
150
1.2
1.6
50
100
0.8
150
50
0.4
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2000
0.4
0
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
40
2.0
12
0.4
30
1.5
0.3
20
1.0
6.0
0.2
10
0.5
3.0
0.1
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
0.5
(Thousand tonnes)
15
(USD/Kg)
2.5
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
50
China (including China, Hong Kong SAR and China, Macao SAR)
Asia (excluding China)
Oceania
Europe
Africa
Northern America
Average export price (f.o.b., USD/kg)
(USD/Kg)
PHILIPPINES
(Thousand tonnes)
1.2
(USD/Kg)
(Thousand tonnes)
0.8
(USD/Kg)
100
2.0
200
150
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
(Thousand tonnes)
THREE COUNTRIES, TOTAL
Notes: Carrageenan seaweeds account for most seaweed and algae production and export in Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Republic of
Tanzania. Price calculated from value and quantity.
Source: UN COMTRADE; commodity HS121220 (seaweeds and other algae).
The trends in seaweed export prices for the period 20002011 (Figure 5) are
similar to that of carrageenan (Figure 4). Generally speaking, seaweed exports
from the Philippines were more expensive than those from Indonesia. The prices
of seaweed exports from the United Republic of Tanzania were much lower than
those of Indonesia and the Philippines because of the dominance of the cheaper
spinosum in its exports. A more detailed discussion on seaweed prices is set out
below.
14
TABLE2
Major markets for seaweed exports from Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Republic of
Tanzania in 2011
Seaweed exports from
Indonesia
Seaweed exports from

the Philippines
Volume
(tonnes)
Share
(%)
World
159 075
100.0
China
107 632
67.7
Destination
Seaweed export from

Volume
(tonnes)
Share
(%)
World
27 141
100.0
China
8 695
32.0
6 155
3 395
Destination
Viet Nam
14 229
8.9
United States
of America
Philippines
10 404
6.5
France
Destination
World
Volume
(tonnes)
Share
(%)
14 773
100.0
Denmark
3 982
27.0
22.7
France
3 060
20.7
12.5
Viet Nam
2 941
19.9
2 736
18.5
1 220
8.3
Republic of
Korea
8 085
5.1
Spain
2 464
9.1
United States
of America
Chile
4 268
2.7
Republic of
Korea
1 778
6.6
China1
France
2 803
1.8
Thailand
797
2.9
Spain
560
3.8
United States
of America
2 257
1.4
Indonesia
599
2.2
Chile
200
1.4
Brazil
2 037
1.3
Viet Nam
539
2.0
United Arab
Emirates
49
0.3
Germany
1 460
0.9
Belgium
486
1.8
Malaysia
25
0.2
Spain
1 139
0.7
Canada
388
1.4
154 314
97.0
25 295
93.2
14 773
100.0
Top 10 total
Top 10 total
Top 10 total
1
Including China, Hong Kong SAR and China, Macao SAR.
2.3 Price
Because of strong demand for kappa carrageenan, the price of cottonii (K.alvarezii)
has doubled in the last decade. The price of spinosum (E.denticulatum), which is the
raw material for iota carrageenan, has been stagnating at a much lower level (Bixler and
Porse, 2011). As mentioned above, these price trends are illustrated in Figure5 by the
price trends of seaweed exports from major carrageenan seaweed farming countries
(Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Republic of Tanzania). For further analysis,
the trends of the three countries average seaweed export price in different international
markets are depicted in Figure6. Based on Figures5 and 6, some stylized facts on the
status and trends of the prices of carrageenan seaweed in international markets are
summarized as follows:
Indonesias average seaweed export price increased from about USD500 per tonne
in the first half of the 2000s to about USD1 000 per tonne in 2011; that of the
Philippines increased from about USD1000 to USD2000 per tonne (Figure5). As
cottonii accounted for most of the seaweed exports from these two countries, it
can be concluded that, generally speaking, the price of cottonii in the international
market doubled in the 2000s.
Generally speaking, the price of spinosum in the international market was lower
than, and did not rise as fast as, that of cottonii. The average seaweed export price
of the United Republic of Tanzania (whose main species was spinosum) increased
from about USD200 per tonne in the mid-2000s to USD290 in 2011 (Figure5).
From being declining and relatively stable in the first half of the 2000s, seaweed
export prices started rising in the mid-2000s in most international markets
and increased rapidly in 2008 (Figure 6). While supply shortage caused by
unfavourable farming conditions (rising sea water temperature, diseases, etc.) may
be a contributing factor, a sudden rise in demand from China was deemed the main
cause of the abnormal price hike in 2008 (Neish, 2008a). This event was referred to
A global synthesis
15
as a carrageenan seaweed crisis because of its disruptive impacts on the cohesion

of carrageenan seaweed value chains (Neish, 2008a). After the seaweed crisis,
seaweed prices in international markets became more volatile (Figure6).
The prices of carrageenan seaweed exports to China (the largest export market)
appear to be lower and less volatile than other export markets (Figure 6). It is
difficult to make general inferences on this pattern because seaweed exports to
different markets may not be of the same quality. Nonetheless, industry experts
have argued that seaweed buyers from China have been using campaign buying
scheme (i.e. concentrating purchases within a short period when the price is low)
to lower the cost of their purchases (Bixler and Porse, 2011).
FIGURE6
Average seaweed export price of major carrageenan seaweed farming countries

(Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Republic of Tanzania)
in different international markets
2500
(USD/tonne (f.o.b.)
2000
Asia-Pacific (excluding China)
Europe
China (including China,

Hong Kong SAR and China, Macao SAR)
North America
World
1500
1000
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
500
Note: Price calculated from value and quantity.

Despite the growth of the cottonii price in the international market, the low
farmgate price has been one of the major concerns of seaweed farmers. In 2009, when
the farmgate price of cottonii was about USD1200 in Indonesia and the Philippines
(Bixler and Porse, 2011; Hurtado, 2013), it was only about USD390 in India (Krishnan
and Narayanakumar, 2013), USD330 in Solomon Islands (Kronen, 2013), and USD210
in the United Republic of Tanzania (Msuya, 2013). Linked to the low farmgate pricing
is oligopsonistic pricing. There are relatively few processors to purchase raw seaweed,
which leaves farmers in a weak bargaining position. To remain competitive, processors
must therefore buy at the lowest possible price. This is a particular concern for
Solomon Islands and the United Republic of Tanzania, whose seaweed industries are
relatively small and dependent on overseas processors. Rising fuel costs for shipping
have reduced the margins of exporters, and therefore the farmgate price they can offer.
In the United Republic of Tanzania, most seaweed farmers deemed the prices
of seaweed (which did not rise as fast as their cost of living) not worth the efforts
they put in but felt powerless in the face of such unfair and discouraging prices
because it was difficult to find alternative buyers (Msuya, 2013). After the collapse
of cottonii cultivation due to ice-ice disease outbreaks, many farmers (especially
men) in Zanzibar have abandoned seaweed farming because the farmgate price of the
alternative, spinosum, was only half that of cottonii (Msuya, 2011). Seaweed buyers,
on the other hand, deemed their prices justified because of the aids they provided to
farmers (e.g. farming materials and extension services). They argued that in order for
16
them to offer high prices, farmers should increase the production level so as to help
lower the unit cost of marketing seaweed (Msuya, 2013). Lack of economies of scale
in seaweed farming was also a problem in Solomon Islands, where exporters offered
monetary awards to motivate farmers to increase their deliveries (Kronen, 2013).
Volatility in seaweed prices is another problem, which reflects periodic disequilibrium
in supply and demand under an oligopsonistic market structure. The volatility appears
to have increased recently with the loss of cohesion in the value chain. In addition to
Figure6, evidence of more volatile seaweed prices is also documented in the six case
studies:
In the Philippines, the export price of dry cottonii (f.o.b. Cebu City) averaged
about USD800 a tonne between 2003 and 2007 with relatively little fluctuation,
whereas in 2007 the price was driven enormously high by strong demand from
China and reached USD2750 a tonne in 2008. When the supply reacted swiftly to
the price hike, the price was dampened and dropped to USD1300 a tonne in 2009
and then rebounded to USD1600 in 2010 (Hurtado, 2013).
In Solomon Islands, the farmgate price of cottonii declined from about USD300 in
the early 2000s to about USD200 in the mid-2000s because of an increase in fuel
prices; the price then increased to about USD400 in 2008 because of the strong
demand in the international market (Kronen, 2013).
Price volatility is a common phenomenon for economic activities dictated by
market mechanisms that may not function properly because of imperfect institutions
and/or information. A seaweed industry that contains many small-scale pricetakers is especially prone to boombust cycles. When strong demand drives up the
market price, seaweed farmers tend to increase their production; farmers may even
harvest immature crops in order to grasp the opportunity of a good price (Hurtado,
2013), especially when they are afraid that the price hike may be transitory. On the
other hand, processors would tend to reduce demand as prices rise by substituting
cheaper alternatives (McHugh, 2006). A likely result would then be supply exceeding
demand and consequently a collapse in price. At the trough, seaweed farmers become
discouraged and abandon their farms. This has happened in the Philippines, Solomon
Islands and the United Republic of Tanzania.
Price volatility is also compounded by the absence of relevant, reliable and timely
production statistics and market intelligence. Unlike for some agricultural commodities
such as coffee or tea, there are no organized markets to provide benchmarking
international prices for seaweed (Tinne, Preston and Tiroba, 2006). Under the situation
where seaweed farmers, traders and processors make decisions based on speculations
or misinformation, market fluctuations tend to be inevitable. Unavailability of reliable
information is especially detrimental to uninformed seaweed farmers who are at the
lowest end of the seaweed value chain and often forced to accept whatever price is
offered.
2.4 Value chain
A seaweed-carrageenan value chain begins with seaweed farmers and ends with
the users of carrageenan products. Typically, the value chain involves four stages:
cultivation, post-harvest treatment, trading and processing. The cultivation stage
produces fresh seaweeds through planting, daily management and harvesting. The
post-harvest treatment stage purifies and dries fresh seaweeds into raw dry seaweeds
(RDS). The trading stage consolidates and delivers RDS to processors. Then, the
processing stage turns RDS into carrageenan and/or other products. Key players in
the value chain include farmers, trading agents (collectors, consolidators, traders and
exporting companies) and processors.
The value chains vary in the case-study countries. The Philippines has the most
complete and sophisticated value chain containing every stage from seaweed
A global synthesis
cultivation to carrageenan blending (Panlibuton, Porse and Nadela, 2007; Hurtado,

2013). Indonesia still exports most of its RDS to overseas markets (primarily China),
yet it has developed substantial carrageenan (especially semi-refined carrageenan)
processing capacity (Neish, 2013). The United Republic of Tanzania has little
carrageenan processing capacity and exports most of its RDS (Msuya, 2013); so does
Solomon Islands (Kronen, 2013). The value chain in India is the shortest with most
contracted farmers selling their seaweed directly to the processor (Krishnan and
Cultivation
Cultivation of fresh seaweed is usually conducted by a number of small-scale,
independent seaweed growers. As compared with the wage worker system, such an
industrial structure allows more flexible and efficient labour participation in seasonal,
labour-intensive seaweed farming activities. However, it also means that decisionmaking on seaweed production is decentralized to numerous independent growers.
Contract farming has been used to coordinate the production of independent seaweed
farmers in some countries such as India (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013) and the
United Republic of Tanzania (Msuya, 2013).
In addition to the performance constraints highlighted above, other issues at the
farming stage indentified by the case studies include:
Premature harvest because of cash flow problems or rashness to seize the
opportunities of high price (Hurtado, 2013).
Difficulties encountered by small-scale farmers in harvesting and transporting
large crops to the drying site (Msuya, 2013).
Lack of proper shoes to protect farmers from being stung by organisms (e.g. sea
urchins and box fish) at the farming site (Msuya, 2013).
Post-harvest treatment
Typically, harvested fresh seaweeds need to go through post-harvest treatment to
remove impurities and reduce the moisture content in order to become RDS suitable
for storage, transport and processing.
Impurities that ought to be removed from harvested fresh seaweeds may come from
the farming environment (e.g. junk weeds, shells, sands, stones, mud and dirt) or from
the farming system (e.g. raffia/tie-ties and ropes). Salt is also considered an impurity,
but its removal may not be necessary because natural potassium chloride may facilitate
the processing of cottonii (Neish, 2013).
Fresh seaweeds are usually sun-dried on a variety of drying apparatus (e.g. concrete
slabs, wooden/bamboo platforms or racks, coconut branches, mats and fishing nets)
or directly on grass or sandy beaches. The drying process may take 23days in sunny
weather but could take up to 7days in rainy seasons (Msuya, 2013).
Generally speaking, the drier the RDS is, the higher the quality is. The industry
standard for the maximum moisture content of dry cottonii is 38percent in Indonesia
(Neish, 2013) and 40percent in the Philippines (Hurtado, 2013). More-detailed quality
standards on dried seaweeds in the Philippines can be found in Hurtado (2013).
Fresh seaweeds decompose quickly after harvest; whereas sun-drying is subject
to weather uncertainties. Thus, finding more controllable and cost-effective drying
methods has been a key technical issue persistently preoccupying the industry (Neish,
2013). However, to date, sun-drying remains the main (if not the only) option in
practice.
Drying may not be necessary under special situations. For example, in India,
seaweed farmers under contract farming can ship their fresh seaweed harvests directly
to processing facilities for production of biofertilizer (Krishnan and Narayanakumar,
2013).
17
18
Post-harvest treatment is usually done by seaweed growers. However, additional

drying and quality control may be conducted by trading agents to achieve the quality
desired by processors (Kronen, 2013; Neish, 2013). In the Philippines, seaweed
growers who find the sun-drying process laborious and time-consuming may pass the
task to traders or farmers associations by selling them fresh or semi-dried seaweeds
(Hurtado, 2013).
Issues at the post-harvest stage identified by the case studies include:
seaweed not dried enough and/or impurities not removed sufficiently (Hurtado,
2013; Neish, 2013);
added impurities through drying directly on sandy beach (Krishnan and
Narayanakumar, 2013);
added impurities by trading games such as sandsalt adulteration (Hurtado, 2013).
Trading
Seaweed farmers usually sell their harvests to local collectors or consolidators who
accumulate seaweed collections to a substantial amount and then sell them to large
traders who eventually deliver the products to processors. In Indonesia, a large farmer
may bypass collectors and sell RDS directly to a central trading centre (Neish, 2013).
In the Philippines, there may be a small trader between local consolidators and a large
trader who owns a warehouse (Hurtado, 2013). In the United Republic of Tanzania
and Solomon Islands, traders usually hire local agents to help them collect seaweeds
from farmers (Msuya, 2013; Kronen, 2013).
In Indonesia, collectors and traders usually charge price-based brokerage fees that
normally do not exceed 5percent of the seaweed price (Neish, 2013). In the Philippines,
collectors and traders may charge brokerage fees at weight-based rates (Hurtado, 2013).
In addition to the main function of being the broker between farmers and processors,
trading agents may play other roles in seaweed value chains. For example, collectors
and large traders in the Philippines often take on the task of drying (Hurtado, 2013). A
central trading centre in Indonesia offered cash advances to farms and collectors who
would pay back the advances with their seaweed deliveries (Neish, 2013). Under the
price-based charging scheme, as the brokerage fee varies with the seaweed price, traders
essentially shoulder part of the risk of price variations.
In Indonesia and the Philippines, commercial collectors are usually ex-farmers and
come from the same ethnic background and villages as the farmers from whom they
collect seaweeds. According to the farm survey in Neish (2013), trust and integrity
are two key elements facilitating and sustaining good business relationship between
Indonesian seaweed farmers and collectors. The farm survey also indicates a relatively
high degree of trust and commitment between farmers and collectors in Indonesia.
Besides commercial collectors and traders, farmers associations may also serve
as brokers between farmers and processors. In Indonesia, many farmers sold their
harvests to farmers groups, cooperatives or credit unions (Neish, 2013). In the
Philippines, farmers associations helped reduce the layers of intermediaries by
collecting seaweeds from member farmers, drying the seaweeds and then selling them
directly to processors with the assistance of government agencies or non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) (Hurtado, 2013).
Generally speaking, a more direct trading scheme could increase the profits of
seaweed farmers by reducing the layers of intermediaries. However, while farmers
associations could play an active role in improving the efficiency of seaweed trading,
the vital roles of commercial trading agents may be irreplaceable in seaweed value
chains where a large number of smallholder farmers try to satisfy the demand of
processors that may locate overseas. Therefore, the key is to establish an enabling yet
competitive environment to improve the efficiency of commercial trading agents rather
than trying to bypass them completely.
A global synthesis
In special situations, traders may not be necessary. For example, seaweed farmers
in India may follow predetermined arrangements under a contract farming scheme to
deliver their harvests directly to the processor (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013).
Issues at the trading stage include:
high transportation costs (especially regarding domestic freight and for smallscale operations) caused by inadequate infrastructure and/or high fuel prices
(Neish, 2013; Kronen, 2013; Msuya, 2013);
high trading costs due to multiple layers of collecting or trading (Neish, 2013);
cost of RDS export affected by exchange rate fluctuations (McHugh, 2006).
Processing
Carrageenan seaweeds can be processed into refined carrageenan (RC) or semi-refined
carrageenan (SRC). The former is a traditional product with a high carrageenan content,
fit for human consumption, but difficult and expensive to produce. The latter, SRC,
as the name suggests, is a product with a lower carrageenan content. It was initially
unfit for human consumption and used primarily for pet food or as raw materials to
produce RC. The production of pet-grade SRC declined in the 2000s because of the pet
food industrys increased use of dry pellets and substitution of low-cost gelling agents
(Bixler and Porse, 2011). However, food-grade SRC, which is called Philippine Natural
Grade (PNG) or Processed Eucheuma Seaweed (PES), was developed in the 1970s and
it has become a popular substitute for RC since the 1990s. It is almost equivalent to RC
in many applications but much cheaper (Panlibuton, Porse and Nadela, 2007; Bixler
and Porse, 2011).
It is estimated that, at the end of the 2000s, RC accounted for about half of the world
carrageenan production; food grade SRC (PES) for 40 percent; and non-food grade
SRC for 10percent (Bixler and Porse, 2011; Neish, 2013). The processing capacity for
RC is located primarily in Europe, the Americas, China and the Philippines, while that
for SRC is primarily located in the Philippines, Indonesia and China (Bixler and Porse,
2011; Neish, 2013).
Being capital-intensive and technically demanding, RC production used to be
highly consolidated and controlled primarily by a few large companies, which were
usually subsidiaries of large transnational food and/or agriculture corporations in
Europe and Northern America (Bixler and Porse, 2011). Because of cost-saving and
other considerations, there has been a trend for large RC producers to shift their
processing facilities to areas such as the Philippines and China (Panlibuton, Porse
and Nadela, 2007). The SRC industry has lower capital and technical requirements
and allows the participation of many small companies. This has caused a significant
change in the structure of the carrageenan business, which is discussed in greater
detail below.
As the main ingredient, RC or SRC usually needs to be blended with other
hydrocolloids and ingredients based on custom-made formulations to serve the special
needs of different end users. Carrageenan blending is usually conducted by large
carrageenan producers or blending houses that specialize in the formulation and
marketing of carrageenan-blended products (Panlibuton, Porse and Nadela, 2007).
Generally speaking, food-grade SRC and gel-press RC are often used for relatively
low-end applications such as improving the texture and tenderness of pre-cooked
poultry products, suspending cocoa particles in chocolate milk, and making water-gel
products. Alcohol-precipitation RC is often used for relatively high-end applications
such as toothpaste, cold soluble dairy products, and pharmaceutical products
(McHugh, 2003; Bixler and Porse, 2011).
Table 3 provides a summary of different types of carrageenan products. More
detailed discussion on carrageenan processing and products can be found in McHugh
(2003), Panlibuton, Porse and Nadela (2007) and Bixler and Porse (2010).
19
20
Depending on the quality of the RDS as well as the processing method, the gum
yield of carrageenan seaweed processing ranges from about 8to 30percent. Although
the other 7092 percent contains useful nutrients (proteins, minerals, etc.), it is
usually not recovered but treated as waste (Neish, 2013). An exception is the case
in India where carrageenan seaweeds were processed to produce organic fertilizer
with carrageenan extracted as a by-product (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013).
Carrageenan seaweeds have also been used to make other value-added products such as
cosmetic products (e.g. soap and body cream) and confectionery products (e.g. candies
and crackers) (Msuya, 2011).
Major issues at the processing stage identified by the case studies include:
Lack of value addition in the carrageenan seaweed business, which mainly exports
RDS as raw materials for overseas processors (Neish, 2013), especially for small
countries such as the United Republic of Tanzania (Msuya, 2013) and Solomon
Islands (Kronen, 2013). Lowered capital and technical requirements allow smallscale processors to enter the carrageenan business (Pickering, 2006), yet access to
the markets for carrageenan products remains a major barrier to overcome.
Useful nutrients not recovered during the production of carrageenan, which is
not only wasteful but also could increase the cost of effluent treatment or inflict
environmental costs to the surrounding environment (Neish, 2013).
Value chain structure
Generally speaking, carrageenan seaweed cultivation and post-harvest treatment
are labour-intensive activities entailing relatively small amounts of initial capital
TABLE3
A summary of carrageenan products

Carrageenan
products
Alkali-treated
cottonii
(ATC) chips
Major raw
materials used
(Panlibuton,
Porse and
Nadela, 2007)
Processing
method
(McHugh, 2003)
Major producing
regions/countries
(Neish, 2008a;
Bixler and Porse,
2011).
Non-food-grade
SRC
Food-grade SRC
(PES)
Cottonii
Seaweed treated in hot alkaline solution of potassium

hydroxide to remove water-soluble contents; dried; then:
chopped into
pieces
Main contents
(McHugh, 2003)
Main uses
(McHugh, 2003;
Panlibuton, Porse
and Nadela,
2007; Bixler and
Porse, 2011).
Semi-refined carrageenan (SRC)
milled
bleached, milled,
and sterilized
Kappa + cellulose
Further
processed into
SRC or RC
Pet food
10
RC
(gel-press)
RC
(alcohol)
Cottonii or
Gigartina
Any kind of
carrageenan
seaweed: cottonii,
spinosum, Gigartina
or Chondrus
Carrageenan first extracted into an

aqueous solution; then recovered by:
gel-press
method
alcohol-precipitation
method
Kappa
Any type of
carrageenan: kappa/
iota/lambda
Low-end product: meat (ham, precooked poultry, fat replacement),

dairy (cheese, chocolate milk,
etc.), water-based food (watergel, salad dressing, etc.)
High-end product:
toothpaste,
cold-soluble
dairy products,
pharmaceutical
products (capsules,
etc.)
Europe, Americas, China and the

Philippines
China, Indonesia and the Philippines
Share of total carrageenan

production worldwide in 2009 (%),
based on the estimation in Bixler and
Porse (2011)
Refined carrageenan
(RC)
41
26
23
Source: Based on information provided by McHugh (2003); Panlibuton, Porse and Nadela (2007); Neish (2008a); Bixler
and Porse (2011).
A global synthesis
21
investments and material inputs. The use of farming areas in the ocean is usually free
of charge except for some licensing or registration fees in some countries.
The price paid to farmers is determined in part by the complexity of the supply chain
and partly by the quality of the seaweed. The existence of large and persistent price
gaps between cottonii and spinosum (whose production costs are similar) indicates that
seaweed farmgate prices have been primarily demand-driven. However, this situation
could change in the future as the costs of labour and natural resources in carrageenan
seaweed farming countries increase because of economic growth.
Typical costs incurred at the trading stage include the cost of collecting, consolidating
and packing (primarily labour cost), cost of transportation, and brokerage fees charged
by collectors and traders. Based on information and assumptions in Neish (2013), an
example of the cost of RDS exported by Indonesia under different seaweed farmgate
prices is presented in Table4.7 The results indicate that seaweed is the main component
of the cost of RDS exported from Indonesia to processors in southern China; the
total mark-up at the trading stage is generally less than 20percent of the cost.8 Some
implications of this value chain structure are summarized as follows:
Given that other factors remain the same, if the farmgate price of semi-dry seaweed
doubled from USD500/tonne to USD1000/tonne, the cost of RDS for processors in
southern China would rise by about 87percent from USD674/tonne to USD1257/
tonne. The 87percent reflects not only the share of the farmgate value of semi-dry
seaweed in the cost of RDS (82.4percent) but also the share of collector and trader
fees (4.1percent), which is assumed to be 5percent of the farmgate value.
TABLE4
An example of the cost of RDS exported by Indonesia to Southern China

Item
No.
Low farmgate price

Cost items for one tonne of RDS
Value
500
% of the
cost of RDS
Value
Farmgate price of semi-dry seaweed (USD/tonne)
(2)
Semi-dry seaweed needed (tonne)
(3)
Farmgate value of semi-dry seaweed (USD)
556
82.4
1 111
88.4
(4)
Total cost of trading (USD)
118
17.6
146
11.6
(5)
- Cost of sorting and sacking (USD)
13
2.0
13
1.1
(6)
- Cost of transport to market (USD)
22
3.3
22
1.8
(7)
- Cost of baling (USD)
25
3.7
25
2.0
(8)
- Collector and trader fees (USD)
28
4.1
56
4.4
(9)
- Cost of transport to overseas processors (USD)
30
4.5
30
2.4
(10)
Cost of dry seaweed for overseas processors

(USD/tonne)
674
100.0
1 257
100.0
1 000
% of the
cost of RDS
(1)
1.111
High farmgate price
1.111
Notes: (1): Price paid to seaweed farmers. (2): 10percent of shrinkage (i.e. one tonne of seaweed delivered at farmgate
would become 0.9tonnes of RDS after further drying by traders); (3) = (1) (2). (4) = (5) + (6) + (7) + (8) + (9). (5):
Cost of consolidating seaweed (USD12/tonne of semi-dry seaweed). (6) Cost of transportation to the trading centre
(USD20/tonne of semi-dry seaweed). (7) Collector and trader fees equal to 5percent of the farmgate value of semi-dry
seaweed. (8) Cost of baling dry seaweed for export (USD25/tonne of RDS). (9): Transportation cost for exporting to
southern China (USD30/tonne). (10) = (3) + (4).
Source: Based on information and assumptions in Neish (2013).
The analysis in Table4 is slightly different from Neish (2013, Table3) in some aspects. First, instead of
treating the shrinkage due to further drying as a separate cost item, the analysis here includes it as part
of the cost of semi-dry seaweed paid to farmers. Second, the analysis here also includes the cost for export
shipment. Third, the analysis considers only two scenarios (low and high prices); the high farmgate price
is assumed to be twice as much as the low price in order to facilitate discussion.
As indicated in Table4, the share is 17.6and 11.6percent for the case of low and high farmgate prices,
respectively. As some trade costs (e.g. insurance) are not accounted for, these numbers should be treated
as indicative only.
22
Conversely, given that other factors remain the same, if the overseas processors
wanted to reduce the cost of RDS from USD1 257/tonne to USD674/tonne (a
46percent decline), the farmgate price of semi-dry seaweed would need to drop
by half from USD1000 to USD500.
Suppose an increase in fuel price doubles the cost of transportation (including
the cost of transport to market [USD13] and that of export shipment [USD30]);
and the shock be shouldered entirely by seaweed farmers, who tend to be pricetakers, then the farmgate price would need to go down from USD500 to USD461
(a decline by 7.7percent).
The production cost of carrageenan includes the cost of RDS and the processing
cost. An example of the cost of SRC produced in Indonesia is presented in Table5. The
results indicate that, generally speaking, RDS is the main component of the production
cost of SRC in Indonesia;9 the share of processing cost is only 36percent in the case of
a low seaweed price and 23percent in the case of a high price.
Given that other factors remain the same, if the price of farmgate seaweed doubled
from USD500/tonne to USD1000/tonne, the cost of SRC produced in Indonesia
would rise by 56 percent from USD4 196/tonne to USD6 529/tonne. The
56percent reflects the shares of farmgate seaweed and collector and trader fees in
the cost of SRC (53and 2.6percent, respectively), which are under the influence
of the farmgate price.
In addition to the production cost, the value of carrageenan products when
reaching end users may also reflect the expenses on research and development (R&D),
formulation, marketing, etc. Specific information on these aspects is lacking, but
industrial experts have pointed out that tailor-making carrageenan products to suit
the needs of end users tends to be a high-value-added business (Panlibuton, Porse and
Nadela, 2007; Bixler and Porse, 2011).
Generally speaking, the global seaweed-carrageenan value chains have changed from
a highly integrated structure in the 1970s to a much more diverse, market-oriented
structure in the 2000s (Bixler and Porse, 2011; Neish, 2013). The advent of SRC in
the mid-1980s and its increasing popularity (especially after food-grade SRC was
accepted by western markets) are deemed a key factor driving the transformation. The
less demanding (in terms of capital and technical aspects) SRC processing technology
TABLE5
An example of the estimated cost of SRC exported by Indonesia
Item
No.
Cost items for one tonne of SRC
Low farmgate price

for semi-dry seaweed
(USD500/tonne)
Value
% of the
cost of SRC
High farmgate price

for semi-dry seaweed
(USD1000/tonne)
Value
% of the
cost of SRC
(1)
Cost of RDS (USD)
2 696
64.2
5 029
77.0
(2)
- Cost of farmgate seaweed (USD)
2 222
53.0
4 444
68.1
(3)
- Collector and trader fees
111
2.6
222
3.4
(4)
- Other trading cost
362
8.6
362
5.5
(5)
Cost of processing (USD)
1 500
35.8
1 500
23.0
(6)
Cost of SRC (USD/tonne)
4 196
100.0
6 529
100.0
Notes: (1) Take the cost of exported RDS (Item 10 in Table 4) as a proxy of the cost of RDS for local processors; multiply
it by four (assuming 25 percent of gum yield; i.e. 4 tonnes of RDS needed to produce 1 tonne of SRC). (2) Item (3) in
Table 4 multiplied by four. (3) Item (8) in Table 4 multiplied by four. (4) = (1) (2) (3). (5) Assume that the processing
cost for one tonne of SRC is USD1 500 (Neish, 2013). (6) = (1) + (5).
Source: Based on information and assumptions in Neish (2013).
The indicative numbers in Table 5 may underestimate the share of RDS in the cost of SRC, which
could be increased because of costly local shipping, quantity and/or quality losses during trading, local
taxation, and rent-seeking activities (Neish, 2013).
A global synthesis
allowed many small carrageenan processors to enter the business and disrupt the
traditional direct and stable relationships between seaweed farmers and a few dominant
carrageenan processors (Neish, 2013). Other factors, such as the rapid expansion
of carrageenan seaweed cultivation in Indonesia and the fast-growing carrageenan
industry in China, also contributed to the loss of cohesion in the seaweed-carrageenan
value chains. With more and more newcomers joining both ends of the value chains,
direct and stable business relationships between farmers and processors have been
gradually replaced by a market mechanism dictated by price and mediated through
traders (sometimes multiple layers of them). Under this market governance structure
(Neish, 2013), the industry has become more competitive yet volatile. The sudden
and large demand shock from China in 2008 caused severe price fluctuations that
destabilized the industry to the extent that some experts called it a seaweed crisis
(Neish, 2008a, 2013).
Given time, the competitive market mechanism is expected to help the industry
gradually regain its order through consolidation and/or integration. However, the
process can be facilitated by more proactive actions, such as promoting collective
actions of farmers through farmers organizations and providing more reliable and
timely market intelligence to reduce premature harvest, speculation and/or other
irrational behaviour (Neish, 2013).
3.
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF CARRAGEENAN SEAWEED FARMING
The economic performance of seaweed farming is determined by its economic costs
and benefits. The main economic costs include capital, material inputs and labour. The
economic benefits can be measured by the revenue and cash flow generated by seaweed
production. Profit is an indicator of the net benefit, which measures trade-offs between
benefits and costs. A synthesis of the technical and economic performance of 23cases
of Kappaphycus farming examined in the six case studies (Table6) is provided overleaf.
3.1 Investment and capital cost
The physical capital needed for carrageenan seaweed farming usually includes farming
systems, vessels, shelters, drying facilities, and miscellaneous equipment or tools.
Farming system
A variety of farming systems have been used in carrageenan seaweed farming (Neish,
2008b; Hayashi et al., 2010). The most widely used are off-bottom and floating
systems. In both systems, cultivars (or propagules) are tied to (polypropylene) lines as
the substrate. Off-bottom systems are usually used in near-shore, shallow waters with
the substrate placed near the sea floor. Floating systems are usually used in deeper
waters with the substrate floating near the sea surface.
Off-bottom is the traditional system widely used in carrageenan seaweed farming. A
typical off-bottom system hangs cultivation lines between stakes pegged to the ocean
floor. Off-bottom systems located at near-shore farming sites could be constructed
and managed by family labour (also women). However, an off-bottom system may
face high risks of fish grazing and rope breaking and, hence, need more-intensive plot
maintenance (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013).
Near-shore areas are limited and subject to the competition of other sectors (e.g.
tourism and urban development). In the United Republic of Tanzania, suitable farming
sites for off-bottom systems have largely been utilized (Msuya, 2013). In India, nearshore water quality has been threatened by industrial and urban effluent (Krishnan and
A floating system uses ropes, floats, weights and other materials (e.g. bamboo) to
build a floating structure to suspend cultivation lines. Floating systems expand seaweed
farming to deeper waters that provide more abundant farming sites.
23
Philippines, Zamboanga
Solomon Islands
Solomon Islands
Solomon Islands
18
19
20
21
22
23
13
Mexico
12
17
Mexico
11
Philippines, Tawi-Tawi
Mexico
10
16
Mexico
Philippines, Tawi-Tawi
Indonesia
Philippines, Palawan
Indonesia
14
Indonesia, South Central Sulawesi
15
Indonesia, Bali
Indonesia, South Sulawesi
Indonesia, Nusa Tenggara Timur
India
India
Country
CaseNo.
Three representative farms

based on field survey
Two representative farms

using different farming
systems
Six representative farms using

different farming systems and/
or in different locations
Two scenarios of a
hypothetical floating raft farm
Off-bottom
2.4
Off-bottom
Off-bottom
0.324
0.3
1.8
2.7
1.62
1.8
30
2.7
3.4
Floating line
Off-bottom
Floating line (SW)
Floating raft (MRLL)
Floating line (HLL)
Floating line (HLL)
Off-bottom (FOB)
Off-bottom (FOB)
Floating raft (100 g seed)
Floating raft (50 g seed)
Off-bottom (100 g seed)
Off-bottom (50 g seed)
Floating raft
A representative large-scale
leader farm
Two scenarios of a
hypothetical off-bottom farm
Floating raft
Off-bottom (long-stake)
Floating raft
5.3
10.8
Floating raft
Off-bottom (short-stake)
54
54
Cultivation
line (km)
Floating raft (6 cycles/year)
Floating raft (4 cycles/year)
Farming system
A representative small-scale
nuclear family farm
Average of surveyed farms in

different regions.
Two scenarios of a
representative farm
Notes
Cases of Kappaphycus farming in the six case-study countries
TABLE6
0.27
0.05
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.36
0.50
0.11
0.99
1.00
1.00
Farm
area (ha)
9.2
21.7
17.4
0.806
0.662
8.5
2.85
2.75
8.57
0.9
2.143
54
27
54
27
33
6.6
3.1
5.7
6.6
5.9
108
72
Annual
production
(tonne/year)
Kronen (2013, Table2)
Msuya (2013, Tables1, 2, 3, 4 & 5)
Hurtado (2013, Tables4, 5 & 6)
Robledo, Gasca-Leyva & Fraga (2013,

Tables1, 2 & 3)
Neish (2013, Tables7, 8, 9, 10 & 11)
Neish (2013, Table5)
Krishnan & Narayanakumar (2013,

Tables5, 6 & 7)
Source
24
A global synthesis
Floating raft systems are widely used in carrageenan seaweed farming countries
such as India (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013), Indonesia (Neish, 2013), Mexico
(Robledo, Gasca-Leyva and Fraga, 2013) and the Philippines (Hurtado, 2013). Floating
rafts can be used as drying racks; they can be moved to another location to avoid fish
grazing or even removed from the water during bad weather conditions (Krishnan
and Narayanakumar, 2013). The use of floating raft systems in the United Republic
of Tanzania has been constrained by the low durability of rafts as well as a lack of
materials (bamboo) needed for raft construction (Msuya et al., 2007).
Floating lines, such as the hanging long-line (HLL) system used in the Philippines
(Hurtado, 2013) and the deep-water floating line system used in the United Republic of
Tanzania (Msuya, 2013), are other popular floating systems. In the United Republic of
Tanzania, a floating line system was deemed more forest friendly than an off-bottom
system because it does not need to use wood stakes (Msuya, 2013).
Unlike an off-bottom system, a floating system is more technically demanding to
construct and/or install and, hence, may entail hired labour. Sophisticated floating
systems such as the multiple raft long line (MRLL) and spider web (SW) usually
require professionals to install them (Hurtado, 2013).
Off-bottom systems are the most common in Indonesia, the Philippines and the
United Republic of Tanzania, whereas in India, bamboo raft culture accounts for
almost all of cultivation (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). However, there may be
differences within countries. In Indonesia, farmers generally use off-bottom horizontal
short-stake systems or small bamboo rafts in Bali; and horizontal long-stake systems
in South-central Sulawesi (Neish, 2013). In the Philippines, the off-bottom technique
is widespread, but some regions use hanging long-lines while others prefer floating or
submerged rafts (Hurtado, 2013).
Technical efficiency in utilizing ocean area
In Indonesia, the short-stake off-bottom system used in Bali had an average of 48km
of cultivation line in one hectare of farming area, which was much higher than the
long-stake off-bottom system and the floating raft system used in other places of the
country (Figure7, Case4 vs Cases3, 5 and 6). The floating raft system used in India
also had high efficiency (54 km/ha) in utilization of ocean area (Figure 7, Cases 1
and 2).
Productivity of a farming system
Figure 8 illustrates the productivity of farming systems in terms of dried seaweed
production per unit of cultivation line. The evidence indicates that:
The productivity of an off-bottom system varied widely from the low end for the
fixed-off-bottom (FOB) system in the Philippines (Cases14 and 13) as well as the
short-stake and long-stake systems in Indonesia (Cases6 and 4) to the high end
for the off-bottom systems in Solomon Islands (Cases 22, 21 and 23). Even for the
same country, the productivity of the FOB system in Zamboanga, the Philippines
(Case13) was twice as high as that in Tawi-Tawi (Case14).
From a global perspective, the floating raft systems locate at the lower end of the
productivity spectrum in Figure 8. However, the raft system in Nusa Tenggara
Timur (NTT), Indonesia (Case5) had a higher productivity (in terms of tonnes
per kilometre) than the other systems used in Indonesia.
The floating line systems (Cases 15, 20 and 16) locate at the higher end of the
productivity spectrum in Figure8. The productivity of the HLL system used in
Tawi-Tawi, the Philippines (Case16) was almost three times as high as that of the
FOB system in the same area.
Figure9 illustrates the productivity of farming systems in terms of dried seaweed
production per unit of farm area. The evidence indicates that:
25
26
FIGURE7
Technical efficiency in utilizing ocean area: evidence from India and Indonesia
5. Indonesia, Nusa Tenggara Timur [raft, 0.5 ha, 3.4 km]
6.8
Floating (raft)
6. Indonesia, South Central Sulawesi [long-stake, 0.36 ha, 2.7 km]
7.5
Off-bottom
10.9
3. Indonesia, South Sulawesi [raft, 0.99 ha, 10.8 km]
48.2
4. Indonesia, Bali [short-stake, 0.11 ha, 5.3 km]

1 & 2. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km]
54.0
Length of cultivation line per unit of farming area (km/ha)

Notes: km measures the total length of the cultivation lines of a farming system; ha gauges the farm area.
Source: Calculated, based on cases listed in Table 6.
FIGURE8
Productivity of different farming systems (in terms of the length of cultivation line)
14. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [FOB, 1.62 km ]
7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km]
13. Philippines, Zamboanga [FOB, 1.8 km]
4. Indonesia, Bali [short-stake, 0.11 ha, 5.3 km]
1. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 4 cycles/year]
16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, 1.8 km ]
19. United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom, 0.3 km]
20. United Republic of Tanzania [line, 0.324 km]
15. Philippines, Palawan [HLL, 2.7 km ]
23. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 2.4 km]
21. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km]
22. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km]
Off-bottom
0.55
0.56
Floating (raft)
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.19
1.25
1.33
1.53
1.68
2.00
2.21
2.49
Floating (line)
3.17
3.83
4.35
5.43
Production of dried seaweed
(tonne/km of cultivation line/year)
The productivity of an off-bottom system varies from the 9 tonnes/ha for the
long-stake system used in South Central Sulawesi, Indonesia (Case6) to 60tonne/
ha for the short-stake system used in Bali (Case4).
The productivity of a raft system varies widely from 6tonne/ha for the raft system
used in South Sulawesi, Indonesia (Case3) to 108tonne/ha for that used in India
(Cases1 and 2).
In summary, the evidence does not indicate distinct patterns in the productivity of
different farming systems, neither in terms of production per unit of cultivation line
(Figure8) nor in terms of production per unit of farming area (Figure9). This should
not be surprising because a direct comparison of the productivity of two farming
systems may reflect mostly the differences in their farm locations (e.g. temperature,
weather condition, and water quality) that affect the growth rate of seaweed and the
number of growing cycles (as two primary factors determining the productivity).
Evidence from the literature (summarized in Hayashi et al., 2010) indicates that the
growth rate of Kappaphycus varies widely across different farming systems and/or the
same system used at different locations (ranging from 0.2to 10.86percent per day).
Investment for building a farming system
Off-bottom is generally deemed the least-capital-intensive farming system. Evidence
provided by the case studies confirms this perception. As indicated in Figure10, the FOB
A global synthesis
27
FIGURE9
Productivity of different farming systems (in terms of the size of farming area)
Off-bottom
Floating (raft)
9
11
Floating (line)
9. Mexico [off-bottom, 1 ha (50-g seed)]
27
11. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (50-g seed)]
27
18. Philippines, Zamboanga [SW, 0.27 ha]
31
12. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (100-g seed)]
54
10. Mexico [off-bottom, 1 ha (100-g seed)]
54
57
17. Philippines, Zamboanga [MRLL, 0.05 ha]
60
4. Indonesia, Bali [Short-stake, 0.11 ha, 5.3 km]
72

108
Production of dried seaweed

(tonne/ha/year)
system in Tawi-Tawi, the Philippines (Case14) cost about one-third as much as the HLL
system in the same area (Case16). The same holds for the FOB system in the United
Republic of Tanzania (Case19) as compared with the floating line system (Case20).
However, it should be noted that the low investment cost of an off-bottom system
may not necessarily be the result of its economical use of materials but could be
thanks to the availability of free materials such as wood stakes gathered from nearby
mangroves (Kronen, 2013; Msuya, 2013). In the Philippines, a FOB system relying on
free wood stakes cost only USD28.4/km of cultivation line (Case14), while one relying
on purchased wood stakes cost USD115/km (Case13).
Amortized capital cost of a farming system
It should also be noted that because of its longer lifespan, the relatively high initial
investment for a farming system does not necessarily result in a high annual amortized
capital cost (i.e. depreciation). For example, while building the floating line system in
the United Republic of Tanzania (Figure10, Case20) cost almost three times as much
as building the off-bottom system in the country (Figure10, Case19), the amortized
annual capital costs of the two systems (Figure11, Cases20 and 19) were almost the
same because of the longer lifespan of the floating line system (2.7 years) compared
with the off-bottom system (1year).
In Figure11, the amortized capital costs of some off-bottom systems (Cases13 and
19) and floating systems (Cases1, 2, 7, 8 and 20) were not very different, in the range
of USD5060km. The FOB system in Tawi-Tawi, the Philippines (Figure11, Case14)
and the HLL system in Palawan, the Philippines (Figure11, Case15) had relatively low
amortized capital costs because of the free materials they used (free wood stakes for the
former and free floats for the latter).
Economic efficiency of a farming system
The economic efficiency (i.e. cost-effectiveness) of a farming system can be measured
by its amortized capital cost per unit of seaweed production. The indicator measures
the trade-offs between the productivity of a farming system (Figure8) and its amortized
capital cost (Figure11). A farming system with a relatively low amortized capital cost
per unit of production has a relatively high economic efficiency.
28
FIGURE10
Initial investments for different farming systems

Off-bottom
28.4
14. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [FOB, 1.62 km ]
Floating (raft)
34.1
15. Philippines, Palawan [HLL, 2.7 km ]
Floating (line)
51.7
19. United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom, 0.3 km]
88.3
16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, 1.8 km ]

107.5
107.5
115.0
13. Philippines, Zamboanga [FOB, 1.8 km]
145.1
20. United Republic of Tanzania [line, 0.324 km]
192.3
1 & 2. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km]

Initial investment in farming system (USD/km)
FIGURE11
Amortized capital costs of different farming systems

14. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [FOB, 1.62 km, 3.1 years ]
15. Philippines, Palawan [HLL, 2.7 km, 3.0 years ]
16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, 1.8 km, 2.3 years ]
Off-bottom
9.2
Floating (raft)
11.4
Floating (line)
38.8
19. United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom, 0.3 km, 1 year]
51.6
13. Philippines, Zamboanga [FOB, 1.8 km, 2.2 years]
52.2
20. United Republic of Tanzania [line, 0.324 km, 2.7 years]
53.0
8. Indonesia [raft, 30 km, 2 years]
53.7
7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km, 2 years]
53.8
56.7
1 & 2. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 3.4 years]

Amortized capital cost of farming
system (USD/year/km)
Notes: km measures the total length of the cultivation lines of a farming system; years measures the lifespan of a farming system.
In Figure12, the floating line (HLL) system in Palawan, the Philippines (Case15) is
the most economically efficient farming system, costing only USD3.6for one tonne of
dried seaweed production. The high efficiency of Case15 was thanks to its relatively
high productivity (Figure8) and low amortized capital cost (Figure11).
Most of the floating line systems in Figure12 (Cases15, 20 and 16) have a relatively
high economic efficiency. The SW system in Zamboanga, the Philippines (Case 18)
is the only exception. Indeed, this expensive farming system (Hurtado, 2013) has the
highest amortized capital cost per unit of seaweed production (USD111.1/tonne) in
Figure12.
In Figure 12, most of the off-bottom systems have a relatively high economic
efficiency. Case9 has the lowest efficiency among the off-bottom systems in Figure12
A global synthesis
29
FIGURE12
Economic efficiency of farming systems: evidence from the case studies

15. Philippines, Palawan [HLL, 2.7 km , 8.57 t/y, 3 yrs]
14. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [FOB, 1.62 km , 0.9 t/y, 3.1 yrs]
20. United Republic of Tanzania [line, 0.324 km, 0.806 t/y, 2.7 yrs]
19. United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom, 0.3 km, 0.662 t/y 1 yrs]
16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, 1.8 km , 2.75 t/y, 2.3 yrs]
2. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 6 cycles/year, 108 t/y 3.4 yrs]
10. Mexico [off-bottom, 1 ha (100-g seed), 54 t/y, 5 yrs]
12. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (100-g seed), 54 t/y, 5 yrs]
1. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 4 cycles/year, 72 t/y, 3.4 yrs]
13. Philippines, Zamboanga [FOB, 1.8 km, 2.143 t/y 2.2 yrs]
8. Indonesia [raft, 30 km, 33 t/y 2 yrs]
7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km, 6.6 t/y, 2 yrs]
17. Philippines, Zamboanga [MRLL, 0.05 ha, 2.85 t/y, 2.8 yrs]
18. Philippines, Zamboanga [SW, 0.27 ha, 8.5 t/y, 2.8 yrs]
Off-bottom
3.6
16.7
Floating (raft)
21.3
Floating (line)
23.4
25.5
28.4
28.4
41.1
42.6
43.9
48.9
48.9
56.9
71.6
82.3
111.1
Amortized capital cost per unit of dried

seaweed production (USD/tonne)
Notes: km measures the total length of the cultivation lines of a farming system; ha gauges the area of a farm site; t/y = tonnes/year
measures the farms annual production of dried seaweed; years measures the lifespan of a farming system.
because its use of small cuttings (50g) resulted in relatively low productivity (Robledo,
Gasca-Leyva and Fraga, 2013). Although Case13 has a relatively low efficiency among
the off-bottom systems, its efficiency is nevertheless higher than the floating raft
system (Case17) and the floating line system (Case18) in the same area.
In Figure 12, most of the floating raft systems have a relatively low economic
efficiency. Case 2 is an exception. Despite its relatively high amortized capital cost
(Figure 11), the floating raft system in India operating six cycles per year (Case 2)
achieved a relatively high economic efficiency because of its relatively high productivity
(Figure8).
Supposing the price of dried seaweed were USD1000, then the amortized capital
costs of the farming systems in Figure12 would be between 0.36and 11.1percent of
their farm revenues.
Vessel
Vessels (boats or canoes) are needed for seeding, crop management, harvesting,
and transport of cargos (cultivars, harvested fresh seaweeds, dried seaweed, etc.).
Non-motorized vessels are usually used in small-scale operations and they are
convenient for tasks that do not require transporting heavy cargos (e.g. routine crop
management). Motorized vessels are needed for large operations and special tasks such
as transporting harvested fresh seaweeds (especially for large harvests and/or longdistance transportation).
An off-bottom farm located in shallow waters may only allow the use of nonmotorized boats (Hurtado, 2013), which tends to make the transport of large crops
inconvenient and costly. A floating device was developed in the United Republic of
Tanzania to help farmers transport harvested fresh seaweeds to drying sites (Msuya,
2013).
Depending on the size, materials and cost of labour used in boat construction, the
costs of non-motorized boats used in carrageenan seaweed farming vary (Table7). The
evidence from the Indonesia and Philippines cases indicates that motorized vessels tend
to be more expensive than non-motorized vessels (Table7).
Many smallholder farmers own at least non-motorized vessels (e.g. dug-out canoes)
to facilitate routine crop management. Farmers with large operations may own
30
TABLE7
Examples of investment in vessels used in carrageenan seaweed farming

Capital investment in vessels (USD per boat)
Countries
Non-motorized
Source
Motorized
Indonesia
150
500
Neish (2013, Table7)
Philippines
120
526
Hurtado (2013, Table4)
United Republic of
Tanzania
3431
Msuya (2013)
A boat (worth TZS430000) owned by a 58-member cooperative.
motorized boats that tend to be used also for activities other than seaweed farming
(Hurtado, 2013; Neish, 2013).
In Solomon Islands, owning a motorized boat was usually uneconomical for
smallholder farmers. Although some of them may be able to borrow motorized boats
for use during harvest seasons, establishment of community-owned motorized boat
transport was requested by seaweed farmers in the country to help them deliver
dried seaweeds to selling points (Kronen, 2013). In the United Republic of Tanzania,
58 members of a cooperative contributed an average of USD5.9 (TZS7 414) each to
build a community-owned vessel (Msuya, 2013).
Evidence provided by the cases in Table6 reveals no clear patterns on the economic
efficiency of vessels used in different farming systems and/or different countries
(Figure13).
The two cases in the United Republic of Tanzania (Cases 20 and 19) had the
highest economic efficiency in vessels because of their low investment (USD6) in
the community-owned vessels.
Given the same investment, the economic efficiency of vessels would be higher
for a larger production scale (e.g. Case9 vs 10; Case11 vs 12; Case15 vs 16; and
Case17 vs 18).
It should be noted that as vessels may be used for activities other than seaweed
farming, the amortized capital cost for vessels in Figure13 may be overestimated. On
the other hand, besides amortized capital cost, the cost of vessels may be reflected
FIGURE13
Economic efficiency of vessels: evidence from the case studies

20. United Republic of Tanzania [line, USD6, 0.806 t/y, 9 yrs]
19. United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom, USD6, 0.662 t/y, 9 yrs]
10. Mexico [off-bottom, USD1077, 54 t/y, 5 yrs]
12. Mexico [raft, USD1077, 54 t/y, 5 yrs]
Off-bottom
0.8
1.0
Floating (raft)
4.0
4.0
Floating (line)
8. Indonesia [raft, USD1300, 33 t/y, 5 yrs]
7.9
11. Mexico [raft, USD1077, 27 t/y, 5 yrs]
8.0
8.0
9. Mexico [off-bottom, USD1077, 27 t/y 5 yrs]

15. Philippines, Palawan [HLL, USD526 , 8.57 t/y, 5 yrs]
7. Indonesia [raft, USD500, 6.6 t/y, 5 yrs]
18. Philippines, Zamboanga [SW, USD646, 8.5 t/y, 5 yrs]
13. Philippines, Zamboanga [FOB, USD120, 2.143 t/y, 5 yrs]
16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, USD526 , 2.75 t/y, 5 yrs]
14. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [FOB, USD120 , 0.9 t/y, 5 yrs]
17. Philippines, Zamboanga [MRLL, USD646, 2.85 t/y, 5 yrs]
12.3
15.2
17.1
18.7
38.2
44.4
50.9
Amortized capital cost per unit of
dried seaweed production(USD/tonne)
Notes: USD measures the farms investment in vessels. t/y = tonnes/year measures the farms annual production of dried seaweed;
years measures the lifespan of vessels.
A global synthesis
31
elsewhere such as the expense for hiring a boat or the price discount given to traders
that shoulder the task of transportation.
Other physical capital investments
In addition to the farming system and vessels, other physical capital investments in
carrageenan seaweed farming include shelters for activities such as attaching cultivars
to lines (Neish, 2013), drying apparatus (Neish, 2013; Msuya, 2013), and miscellaneous
equipment and tools (e.g. knives, diving masks, mats, ladders, baskets, tarps, sacks,
and plastic bags). These items are often used in activities other than seaweed farming
(Neish, 2013).
Only a few cases in Table 6 provide information on other capital investments
(Figure 14). In the Mexico cases, the economic efficiency of other physical capital
investments was increased by the use of larger cultivar cuttings (Case 9 vs 10, and
Case11 vs 12). The Indonesia cases do not indicate apparent difference in the economic
efficiency for a small operation (Case7) and a large one (Case8).
Financial capital
In India, farmers in a self-help group (SHG), especially one in a contract farming
relationship with the processor, may be able to obtain bank loans to finance their initial
investments in seaweed farming (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013).
In the India cases in Table 6, seaweed farmers paid USD12 (Case 1) or USD8
(Case2) of loan interest for one tonne of dried seaweed production, which was 6.0and
4.4percent of the total production cost, respectively (Krishnan and Narayanakumar,
2013, Table6).
3.2 Operating expenses
Seed
Species
Because of the popularity of kappa carrageenan, K. alvarezii (cottonii) has become
the main carrageenan seaweed species under cultivation in most carrageenan seaweed
farming countries. K. alvarezii generally has a relatively high growth rate compared
FIGURE14
Economic efficiency of other physical capital investments: evidence from the case studies
6.3
6.3
Off-bottom
Floating (raft)
Floating (line)
12.6
12.6
20. United Republic of Tanzania [line, 0.324 km, 0.806 t/y, 2.5 yrs]
13.2
19. United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom, 0.3 km, 0.662 t/y, 2.5 yrs]
16.1
8. Indonesia [raft, 30 km, 33 t/y, 4.8 yrs]
16.1
7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km, 6.6 t/y, 4.8 yrs]
16.4
Amortized capital cost per unit of dried
seaweed production (USD/tonne)
Notes: Other capital investments include shelters, drying apparatus and/or miscellaneous equipment and tools. km measures the total
length of the cultivation lines of a farming system; ha gauges the area of a farm site;; t/y =tonnes/year measures the farms annual
production of dried seaweed; years measures the average lifespan of other capital investments.
32
with other species (Neish, 2008b). Ice-ice disease is a major constraint on K.alvarezii
farming.
K. striatum (commercially called sacol) is another Kappaphycus strain under
substantial cultivation in the Philippines (Hurtado, 2013). K.striatum was introduced
in the United Republic of Tanzania as a substitute for K.alvarezii but did not perform
well in trials (Msuya, 2013).
Because of stagnant demand for iota carrageenan, E. denticulatum (spinosum) is
a less popular and cheaper species compared with cottonii. The price gap has grown
recently as the price of cottonii has risen significantly because of strong demand (Bixler
and Porse, 2011). However, spinosum has remained the main cultivated species in the
United Republic of Tanzania because of the failure of cottonii cultivation owing to
disease and other environment factors (Msuya, 2013).
Seed cost
Cultivar represents a major cost in carrageenan seaweed farming. In the hypothetical
cases of Mexico (Case912 in Table6), which are assumed to be completely commercial
operations, the cost of purchased cultivars accounted for more than 30percent of the
total production cost of seaweed farming (Robledo, Gasca-Leyva and Fraga, 2013,
Table 3). In India, the cost of seed materials was 27 percent of the imputed value of
seaweed production from a 3m 3m raft (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013).10
However, carrageenan seaweed farmers usually purchase cultivars only in the initial
production cycles and use part of the harvest in one cycle as cultivars for the next. In
Indonesia, a farmer usually starts with stocking one kilometre of line; hence, it takes
23 years for the farm to develop to full size through self-propagation of cultivars
(Neish, 2013). In the United Republic of Tanzania, a farmer may reserve about onetenth of the fresh seaweed harvest as cultivars (Msuya, 2013).
Under such self-propagation schemes, there are different ways to account for the initial
cash expenditure on cultivars. One method, which is adopted in the cases of Indonesia
(Cases7 and 8 in Table6) and the Philippines (Cases1318), treats the expenditure as a
cost in the period when it is incurred. Under this method, seaweed farming would appear
to have relatively low (even negative) profits in early periods. Such low profits are not
an indicator of underperformance but reflect an accounting discrepancy caused by not
accounting self-propagated cultivars as part of farm revenue. The discrepancy would be
offset or mitigated in later periods by not accounting self-propagated cultivars as seed cost.
Another method, which is adopted in the cases of India (Cases 1 and 2), treats
expenditures on purchased cultivars as an initial investment. This method helps correct
the problem of seemingly low profits in initial periods.
Under certain situations, farmers may not need to spend money on cultivars. For
example, in the cases of Solomon Islands (Cases2123), cultivars were provided by the
government as a public assistance to seaweed farming development (Kronen, 2013). In
the cases of the United Republic of Tanzania (Cases19 and 20), cultivars were provided
by the exporters. However, these seed materials were not actually free because farmers
needed to sell their seaweed produce at discounted prices to cover the materials
provided by exporters (Msuya, 2013).
Labour
Carrageenan seaweed farming entails intensive labour inputs in various activities, such
as attaching cultivars to cultivation lines, placing cultivation lines in sea (i.e. planting),
The seed materials cost INR105 (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013, Table 3). The sales revenue of
dried seaweed was INR320. The fresh seaweed harvest reserved as seed materials (18percent of the total
fresh seaweed production) would have earned an additional INR69 in revenue had it been sold as dried
seaweed. Thus, the share of seed materials in the imputed value of seaweed production is equal to 105/
(320 + 69) = 27percent.
10
A global synthesis
routine maintenance and caring, harvesting, drying, packing, transporting, maintenance

of farming system or vessels, etc. Many of these activities often rely on family labour.
Hired labour (wage workers or hired services) is often needed for laborious tasks (e.g.
attaching cultivars and harvesting) and/or relatively large operations.
Family labour
In the cases of the United Republic of Tanzania (Cases19 and 20), family labour were
used in most of the activities except transportation. The total family labour input
needed to produce one tonne of dried seaweed was 85 person-days for Case 19 and
80person-days for Case20. About 53percent of the labour input was used for seed
preparation and planting (including attaching cultivars to lines and placing cultivation
lines in sea), 28 percent for maintenance and care (including farm management and
separation of entangled tie-ties and ropes), and 19percent for harvesting and packing
(Msuya, 2013).11The imputed value of the family labour was USD0.24 per person-day
(Msuya, 2013),12 which implies about USD23 of imputed labour cost for one tonne of
dried seaweed production in Case19 and USD19/tonne in Case20.
In the cases of Solomon Islands, the imputed cost of family labour was USD3.76
per person-day (USD0.47 per person-hour; eight working hours per day). For Case22,
which was a relatively large operation relying substantially on hired labour, the total
imputed value of family labour used was USD80 per tonne of dried seaweed production
and 20percent of its farm revenue. For the relatively smaller operations relying more
on family labour, the total imputed value of family labour was USD138 per tonne
(35percent of the farm revenue) for Case21 and USD238 per tonne (61percent of the
farm revenue) for Case2 (Kronen, 2013, Table2).
Hired labour
Figure15 presents the operating expenses of hired labour in the cases of the Philippines,
Indonesia, Mexico and the United Republic of Tanzania.13 The evidence indicates that
the cases of the Philippines had relatively small expenses for hired labour. For small
operations in relatively shallow waters (Cases 13, 14 and 16), hired labour was used
only in seed preparation and planting. For relatively large operations in deeper waters
(Cases17 and 18), hired labour was also used in harvest and drying (Hurtado, 2013).
In Indonesia, seaweed farmers usually paid hired workers on a piecework basis for
labour-intensive tasks such as attaching cultivars to lines (costing USD6 per kilometre
of lines in South Sulawesi), placing lines in sea, harvesting, and drying (Neish, 2013).
For the small nuclear farm (Case7), workers were hired only for attaching cultivars to
lines (Figure15). For the large leader farm (Case8), one-third of the labour expense
was used for hiring labour to attach cuttings; the rest was evenly distributed among
hired labour for placing cultivation lines to sea, harvesting and drying (Neish, 2013,
Table10).
In the Mexico cases, expenses on hired labour accounted for over 30percent of the
total production cost (Robledo, Gasca-Leyva and Fraga, 2013, Table3). Most of the
expenses were used to pay the wages of full-time employees who were responsible for
routine maintenance and care. As the wages were fixed regardless of the production
scale, the use of larger cultivar cuttings (Cases 10 and 12) would lower the labour
expense needed for the same amount of production (Figure15). Extra workers were
also hired on a piecework basis to help conduct the task of seeding, harvesting and
drying (Robledo, Gasca-Leyva and Fraga, 2013).
Calculated based on information provided in Msuya (2013, Table4).
11
TZS37.5 per hour (USD1 = TZS1255). Assuming eight working hours per day.
12
The cases of India and Solomon Islands do not provide specific information on the cost of labour.
13
33
34
FIGURE15
Expenses on hired labour or service: evidence from the case studies

16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, 1.8 km , 2.75 t/y, USD5/t]
Transportation
20. United Republic of Tanzania [line, 0.324 km, 0.806 t/y, USD17/t]
17
14. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [FOB, 1.62 km , 0.9 t/y, USD18/t]
18
19. United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom, 0.3 km, 0.662 t/y, USD18/t]
18
Harvest and post-harvest
13. Philippines, Zamboanga [FOB, 1.8 km, 2.143 t/y, USD20/t]
20
Seed prepartation
and planting
17. Philippines, Zamboanga [MRLL, 0.05 ha, 2.85 t/y, USD22/t] 12
10
18. Philippines, Zamboanga [SW, 0.27 ha, 8.5 t/y, USD23/t]14
10
7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km, 6.6 t/y, USD44/t]

8. Indonesia [raft, 30 km, 33 t/y USD131/t]
Maintenance and care
44
73
58
12. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (100-g seed), 54 t/y, USD170/t] 5
55
111
10. Mexico [off-bottom, 1 ha (100-g seed), 54 t/y, USD170/t] 5
55
111
55

0
55
222
222
100
200
300
Expenses on hired labour per unit of

dried seaweed production (USD/tonne)
Notes: km measures the total length of the cultivation lines of a farming system; ha gauges the area of a farm site; t/y = tonnes/
year measures the farms annual production of dried seaweed; USD/tonne measures the total expense on hired labour or service; Seed
preparation and planting includes attaching cultivars to lines and placing cultivation lines to sea; Harvest and post-harvest treatments
includes removing cultivation lines from sea, drying and/or packing; Maintenance and care indicates farm management activities
(seeding, routine caring, harvesting, drying, etc.) conducted by full-time employees.
In the cases of the United Republic of Tanzania (Cases19 and 20), it cost USD16
to hire service (labour plus the vehicle) for transporting fresh seaweed harvest that
could generate one tonne of dried seaweed; and it cost about USD1.2 to hire service
for transporting one tonne of dried seaweed from the drying place to market (Msuya,
2013, Table4).
Fuel and boat maintenance
In Case 22, the off-bottom farm in Solomon Islands incurred USD52 (per tonne of
dried seaweed production) in fuels and maintenance expenses on a motorized boat
used for daily operations; the expense was equal to 13.4 percent of its farm revenue
(Figure16). For Case23, where only fuel expense for a borrowed boat was accounted
for, the ratio was 6.3 percent of farm revenue. The evidence confirms the claims of
surveyed farmers that high transportation cost represented a major constraint on
carrageenan seaweed farming in the country (Kronen, 2013).
The fuel and boat maintenance cost was equal to more than 10percent of the farm
revenue for the relatively small operations in the Philippines (Cases16 and 17) but only
about or less than 5percent for relatively large operations (Cases15 and 18). Similar
economies of scale also exist in Indonesia (Case7 vs 8) and Solomon Islands (Case21
vs 23).
Total operating expense
Figure17 summarizes the total (cash) operating expenses in the cases in Table6. For the
reason explained above, the total operating expense does not include the expenditure
on initial seed materials for cases using self-propagated cultivars (i.e. all cases except
those of Mexico). Total operating expense also does not include the imputed value of
family labour, which does not incur cash expenditure.
The total cash operating expenses in Figure 17 vary from less than USD50 (per
tonne of dried seaweed production) for simple off-bottom or floating line systems in
the United Republic of Tanzania (Cases 20 and 19) and Solomon Islands (Cases 21
and 23) to more than USD400 per tonne for the sophisticated farming systems in the
A global synthesis
35
FIGURE16
Expenses on fuel and boat maintenance: evidence from the case studies
Indonesia
0.5
8. Indonesia [raft, 30 km, 33 t/y, USD4.5]

7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km, 6.6 t/y, USD11]
Solomon Islands
1.3
21. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km, 17.4 t/y, USD11, fuel only]
Philippines
2.8
3.6
18. Philippines, Zamboanga [SW, 0.27 ha, 8.5 t/y, USD39]

15. Philippines, Palawan [HLL, 2.7 km , 8.57 t/y, USD48]
5.1
23. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 2.4 km, 9.2 t/y, USD25, fuel only]
6.3
10.8
17. Philippines, Zamboanga [MRLL, 0.05 ha, 2.85 t/y, USD116]
12.9
16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, 1.8 km , 2.75 t/y USD138]
13.4
22. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km, 21.7 t/y, USD52]
Ratio of fuels and boat maintenance

expense to farm revenue (%)
measures the farms annual production of dried seaweed; USD measures the fuel and boat maintenance expense per tonne of dried
seaweed production. Farm revenues of the cases in Indonesia calculated based on the price of dried seaweed being USD850.
FIGURE17
IND IND
Total cash operating expense (excluding seed materials) in carrageenan seaweed farming:
evidence from the case studies
Transportation
and marketing
Farm management
137
MEX
1. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 4 cycles/year, 72 t/y USD143] 116 27

2. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 6 cycles/year, 108 t/y, USD143] 116 27
7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km, 6.6 t/y, USD64] 53 11
5
8. Indonesia [raft, 30 km, 33 t/y, USD145] 140
551
9. Mexico [off-bottom, 1 ha (50-g seed), 27 t/y, USD689]
431
10. Mexico [off-bottom, 1 ha (100-g seed), 54 t/y, USD568]
11. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (50-g seed), 27 t/y, USD689]
551
12. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (100-g seed), 54 t/y, USD568]
431
13. Philippines, Zamboanga [FOB, 1.8 km, 2.143 t/y, USD395]
395
14. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [FOB, 1.62 km , 0.9 t/y, USD274]
274
15. Philippines, Palawan [HLL, 2.7 km , 8.57 t/y, USD89] 40 48
16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, 1.8 km , 2.75 t/y, USD203] 65
138
17. Philippines, Zamboanga [MRLL, 0.05 ha, 2.85 t/y, USD564]
448
393
18. Philippines, Zamboanga [SW, 0.27 ha, 8.5 t/y, USD432]
19. United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom, 0.3 km, 0.662 t/y, USD18] 18
20. United Republic of Tanzania [line, 0.324 km, 0.806 t/y, USD17] 17
21. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km, 17.4 t/y, USD30] 19 11
52
22. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km, 21.7 t/y, USD227] 174
23. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 2.4 km, 9.2 t/y, USD43] 18 25
137
137
PHL
137
116
SLB
TZA
39
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Total operating expense per unit of

measures the farms annual production of dried seaweed; USD measures total cash operating expense; Farm management includes
expenses on hired labour (excluding hired service for transportation) and maintenance of farming system as well as seed materials for the
cases of Mexico; Transportation and marketing includes expense on fuel and boat maintenance, hired service for transportation (the
United Republic of Tanzania), and marketing (Mexico).
Philippines (Cases 17 and 18) and the completely commercial operations in Mexico
(Cases912).
3.3 Revenue and profit
Revenue
Farm revenue is determined by production and price. Besides the growth rate of
36
cultivar, seaweed production also depends on the number of cycles or days available
for farming during a year. In the Indonesia cases (Cases 7 and 8), seaweed farming
was conducted all throughout the year in eight cycles (45days per cycle and 360days
in total). For the United Republic of Tanzania, the floating-line case (Case 20) also
had eight 45-day cycles, while the off-bottom system (Case19) lost one crop because
of disease and, hence, had only seven 45-day cycles (315 days in total) of successful
production.
The number of cycles or days is lower for countries in higher-latitude zones with
winters being too cold to conduct carrageenan seaweed farming. For the India cases,
the first-year operation (Case1) had only four 45-day cycles (180days in total), while
the operations afterwards (Case2) had six cycles (270days in total). The Mexico cases
had four 60-day cycles (240 days in total), while those of the Philippines had five
45-day cycles (225days in total).
Given production, farm revenue is determined by the price of dried seaweed, which
essentially measures revenue per unit of production. The prices of dried seaweed are
between USD947/tonne and USD1 093/tonne in the Philippines cases, USD1 000/
tonne for Mexico, USD391/tonne for Solomon Islands, USD331/tonne for India, and
USD207/tonne for the United Republic of Tanzania. Three price scenarios (USD500/
tonne, USD850/tonne and USD1 200/tonne) were examined in the Indonesia cases;
the average (i.e. USD850/tonne) is used in the analysis here. Low prices may partly
reflect the poor quality of seaweeds and/or price discounts given to trader that provide
farming materials and/or extension services (Msuya, 2013).
Profit
Profit is equal to farm revenue minus total cost (capital cost plus operating expense).
Figure 18 summarizes the profits of 19 cases in Table 6. The operating expenses in
Figure18 do not include expenditures on initial seed materials by farms relying on self-
FIGURE18
Profitability of carrageenan seaweed farming: evidence from the case studies

689
89
689
114
22. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km, 21.7 t/y USD391/t] 51 227 114
Capital cost
1. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 4 cycles/year, 72 t/y, USD331/t] 57 143 131
19.United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom,0.3 km, 0.662 t/y, USD207/t] 4118 148
Operating expense
2. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 6 cycles/year, 108 t/y, USD331/t] 38 143 150
Profit
20.United Republic of Tanzania [line, 0.324 km, 0.806 t/y, USD207/t] 36 17 154
23. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 2.4 km, 9.2 t/y, USD391/t] 58 43 291
568
321
21. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km, 17.4 t/y, USD391/t] 31 30 331
568
334
564
388
432
514
18. Philippines, Zamboanga [SW, 0.27 ha, 8.5 t/y USD1074/t] 128
633
8. Indonesia [raft, 30 km, 33 t/y, USD850/t] 73 145
395
636
13. Philippines, Zamboanga [FOB, 1.8 km, 2.143 t/y, USD1093/t] 63
706
7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km, 6.6 t/y, USD850/t] 80 64
736
14. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [FOB, 1.62 km , 0.9 t/y, USD1072/t] 61 274
808
16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, 1.8 km , 2.75 t/y, USD1075/t] 64 203
842
15. Philippines, Palawan [HLL, 2.7 km , 8.57 t/y, USD947/t] 16 89
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
USD per tonne of dried

seaweed production
Notes: km measures the total length of the cultivation lines of a farming system; ha gauges the area of a farm site; t/y = tonnes/
year measures the farms annual production of dried seaweed; USD/tonne indicates the price of dried seaweed (assuming USD850 as
the price of dried seaweed in the Indonesia cases); Capital cost includes amortized annual capital cost (i.e. depreciation) of physical
investments and financial cost (interests and insurance premiums); Operating expense indicates total cash operating expense excluding
seed materials (except for the cases for Mexico) and family labour (same as Figure 17); Profit is equal to price minus capital cost and
operating expense (discrepancy due to rounding); i.e., Price = Profit + Capital cost + Operating expense.
A global synthesis
propagated cultivars (the Mexico cases being the only exceptions) or the imputed value
of family labour; thus, the profits here may not be exactly the same as those calculated
in the case study papers.
All the 19cases in Figure18 had positive profits, ranging from USD89 per tonne of
dried seaweed (Case11) to USD842/tonne (Case15). Points to note are:
Seaweed price as a key factor affecting profit. Because of low seaweed prices,
the cases from India, Solomon Islands and the United Republic of Tanzania
had relatively low profits even though they had low capital costs and operating
expenses. Indeed, given the price in the United Republic of Tanzania (USD207/
tonne), which is the lowest among all the cases, only 8cases out of the total of
19cases would be able to break even (Cases19 and 20 of the United Republic of
Tanzania; Cases21 and 23 of Solomon Islands; Case15 of the Philippines; Case7
of Indonesia; and Cases1 and 2 of India).
High break-even price for sophisticated and/or commercialized farms. In the
Philippines, the seaweed price would need to be at least USD686/tonne to cover
the total cost of the sophisticated MRLL system (Case17); whereas the break-even
price is USD560/tonne for the SW system (Case18). In Mexico, the break-even
prices for the commercial off-bottom farm (Case10, 100g seed) and floating raft
farm (Case12, 100g seed) are USD666/tonne and USD679/tonne, respectively.
More cost-effective floating line systems. In the Philippines, the two HLL systems
(Cases15 and 16) had lower total costs (per tonne of dried seaweed production)
than other farming systems in the country; the two cases had the highest profits
among all the cases. Being sophisticated systems used in deeper waters, the
floating line system (SW) in Case18 had a lower total cost than the floating raft
system (MRLL) in Case17. In the United Republic of Tanzania, the floating line
system (Case20) had a lower total cost than the off-bottom system (Case19).
Economies of scale in stocking density. The use of small cultivar cuttings (50g) in
Cases9 and 11 result in underutilization of the production capacity and, hence,
a relatively high capital cost as well as operating expense per unit of production.
The two cases have the lowest profits among all the cases.
Small vs large operations. In Indonesia, the small nuclear farm that used relatively
less hired labour (Figure15) had a slightly higher capital cost but a much lower
operating expense than the large leader farm. In Solomon Islands, the large farm
(Case21) had a lower capital cost as well as operating expense than the smaller
farm (Case23).
Profit per unit of family labour
Profit that does not exclude the value of family labour can measure the net income of
family labour. In Solomon Islands, the net income of family labour was USD1.14/hour,
USD0.68/hour and USD0.58 for cases 21, 22 and 23, respectively; all the three were
higher than the average hourly wage of unskilled labour (USD0.47/hour) in Honiara,
the capital of the country (Kronen, 2013).
In the United Republic of Tanzania, the net income for family labour was USD0.19/
hour for the off-bottom system (Case 19) and USD0.24/hour for the floating line
system (Case20); both were higher than the hourly wage paid to hired labour for tying
cultivars (USD0.03/hour) (Msuya, 2013). Further discussion on the low income of
seaweed farming in the United Republic of Tanzania is given in Section4.1.
Profit per unit of farming area
Figure19 presents profit per unit of farming area for some cases in Table6; the measure
provides an indicator of the profitability of land use in carrageenan seaweed farming.
In Figure19, the land profitability ranges from less than USD2500/ha to more than
USD20000/ha.
37
38
FIGURE19
Profitability of land use in carrageenan seaweed farming: evidence from the case studies
11. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (50-g seed), 27 t/y, USD1000/t]
9. Mexico [off-bottom, 1 ha (50-g seed), 27 t/y, USD1000/t]
8. Indonesia [raft, 30 km, 2.75 ha, 33 tt/y, USD850/t]
7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km, 0.55 ha, 6.6 t/y, USD850/t]
1. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 4 cycles/year, 72 t/y, USD850/t]
Off-bottom
2 391
Floating (raft)
3 076
7591
Floating (line)
8 467
9 460
18. Philippines, Zamboanga [SW, 0.27 ha, 8.5 t/y, USD1074/t]
16 163
2. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 6 cycles/year, 108 t/y, USD331/t]
16 228
12. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (100-g seed), 54 t/y, USD1000/t]

17 121
17 806
17. Philippines, Zamboanga [MRLL, 0.05 ha, 2.85 t/y, USD1074/t]
22100
Annual profit per unit of
farming area (USD/ha/year)
Notes: km measures the total length of the cultivation lines of a farming system; ha gauges the area of a farm site; the farming area of
Cases 7 and 8 (farms located in South Sulawesi, Indonesia) estimated based on the technical efficiency parameter for Case 3 in Figure 7; t/y
= tonnes/year measures the farms annual production of dried seaweed; USD/tonne indicates the price of dried seaweed (Figure 18).
The land profitability in Figure19 does not accurately measure the economic return
to land use in seaweed farming, especially when the value of other productive factors
(e.g. family labour) is not excluded from the profit. However, the indicator could
provide useful information for spatial planning to determine the allocation of coastal
areas among different economic activities.
Profit margin
As indicated in Figure20, the profit margin (i.e. the ratio of profit to farm revenue) of
most of the 19cases exceeded 50percent. This implies that even if their farm revenues
were reduced by half (e.g. by a 50percent drop in price or loss of half of the crops) or
their total costs doubled, these farms would still break even.14
Generally speaking, a case with lower profit tends to have a lower profit margin.
However, the cases from the United Republic of Tanzania (Cases19 and 20) and Cases21
and 23 of Solomon Islands had relatively low profits but relatively high profit margins.
3.4 Cash flow and pay-back period
Figure21 summarizes the cash flow situations of 17cases in Table6.15 The evidence
indicates that most cases had positive net cash inflow in the first year, which means that
these farms were able to recover their initial investments within one year.
Case22 of Solomon Islands and Case17 of the Philippines had net cash outflows (i.e.
negative net cash inflows) in the first year because of their investments in motorized
boats. However, their positive net cash inflows in the second year were more than
enough to cover the outflows in the first year, which implies that the pay-back periods
of their investment were less than two years.
Usually, break-even means a profit greater than zero. The zero-profit threshold is used here for
simplicity, but it should be noted that for cases where profit does not exclude family labour, break-even
profit should at least be enough to cover the opportunity cost of family labour.
14
Cases1 and 2 from India are combined because they represent the first- and second-year situations of
the same farm. The initial investments in drying facilities and boats in the Solomon Islands cases are
estimated from the amortized annual capital cost based on the assumption of a five-year lifespan.
15
A global synthesis
39
FIGURE20
Cost structure and profit margin in carrageenan seaweed farming:

evidence from the case studies
11. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (50-g seed), 27 t/y, USD89/t 22
22. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km, 21.7 t/y, USD114/t] 13
1. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 4 cycles/year, 72 t/y, USD131/t] 17
2. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 6 cycles/year, 108 t/y, USD150/t] 11
18. Philippines, Zamboanga [SW, 0.27 ha, 8.5 t/y, USD514/t] 12
13. Philippines, Zamboanga [FOB, 1.8 km, 2.143 t/y, USD636/t] 6
14. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [FOB, 1.62 km , 0.9 t/y, USD736/t] 6
19. United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom, 0.3 km, 0.662 t/y, USD148/t] 20
20. United Republic of Tanzania [line, 0.324 km, 0.806 t/y, USD154/t] 17
8. Indonesia [raft, 30 km, 33 t/y, USD633/t] 9
23. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 2.4 km, 9.2 t/y, USD291/t] 15
16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, 1.8 km , 2.75 t/y, USD808/t] 6
7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km, 6.6 t/y, USD706/t] 9
21. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km, 17.4 t/y, USD331/t] 8
15. Philippines, Palawan [HLL, 2.7 km , 8.57 t/y, USD842/t] 2 9
0
Capital cost
Operating expense
Profit
69
69
11
29
58
32
57
57
33
36
52
43
40
45
43
40
48
36
26
58
69
71
9
8
74
17
11
74
74
75
19
83
85
89
20
40
60
80
100
Ratio to farm revenue (%)
measures the farms annual production of dried seaweed; USD/tonne indicates the value of profit (Figure 18); Capital cost includes
amortized annual capital cost (i.e. depreciation) of physical investments and financial cost (interest and insurance premiums); Operating
expense indicates total cash operating expense excluding seed materials and family labour (same as Figure 17); Profit is equal to price
minus capital cost and operating expense (discrepancy due to rounding).
FIGURE21
Cash flows in carrageenan seaweed farming: evidence from the case studies
11. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (50-g seed), 27 t/y, USD-66/t]
9. Mexico [off-bottom, 1 ha (50-g seed), 27 t/y USD-2/t]
22. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km, 21.7 t/y, USD38/t]
1 & 2. India [raft, 1 ha, 54 km, 1st yr (4 cy., 72 t), 2nd yr (6 cy., 108 t), USD135/t]
20. United Republic of Tanzania [line, 0.324 km, 0.806 t/y, USD141/t]
19. United Republic of Tanzania [off-bottom, 0.3 km, 0.662 t/y, USD153/t]
23. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 2.4 km, 9.2 t/y, USD206/t]
17. Philippines, Zamboanga [MRLL, 0.05 ha, 2.85 t/y, USD223/t]
12. Mexico [raft, 1 ha (100-g seed), 54t/yr, USD240/t]
21. Solomon Islands [off-bottom, 4 km, 17.4 t/y, USD286/t]
18. Philippines, Zamboanga [SW, 0.27 ha, 8.5 t/y, USD371/t]
13. Philippines, Zamboanga [FOB, 1.8 km, 2.143 t/y, USD521/t]
8. Indonesia [raft, 30 km, 33 t/y, USD592/t]
7. Indonesia [raft, 6 km, 6.6 t/y, USD631/t]
14. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [FOB, 1.62 km , 0.9 t/y, USD695/t]
16. Philippines, Tawi-Tawi [HLL, 1.8 km , 2.75 t/y, USD698/t]
15. Philippines, Palawan [HLL, 2.7 km , 8.57 t/y, USD789/t]
First year
Second year
-323
191
-196
191
-88
3
165
268
92
190
117
189
61
-65
111
175
209
101
350
510
369
369
362
341
642
485
505
700
700
591
526
757
799
720
871
859
Net cash inflow per tonne of

Notes: km measures the total length of the cultivation lines of a farming system; ha gauges the area of a farm site; tonnes/year
measures the farms annual production of dried seaweed; USD/tonne indicates average annual net cash inflow in the first two years.
The off-bottom and floating raft farms in Mexico would be able to recover their
initial investments within one year with 100 g seeds (Cases 10 and 12, respectively)
but not with 50g seeds (Cases9 and 11, respectively). Indeed, it would take more than
two years for the understocking off-bottom and floating raft farms to recover their
investment (Robledo, Gasca-Leyva and Fraga, 2013).
40
3.5 Summary
The economic analysis above indicates that, where properly conducted, carrageenan
seaweed farming can be highly profitable and viable. Relying on free or low-cost
materials and own labour, family farms in the Philippines (Cases15 and 16) could earn
more than USD800 per year from one tonne of dried seaweed worth about USD1000
(Figure18). Even with the cost of materials and labour fully accounted for, commercial
farms in Mexico (Cases10 and 12) could still earn more than USD300/tonne per year
(Figure18).
Physical capital is usually not a major cost in carrageenan seaweed farming. In
Figure 20, the annual capital cost was less than 10 percent of farm revenue in many
cases and less than 20percent for almost all the cases. Most of the farms were able to
recover their initial investments within one year (Figure21).
Materials are usually not a major expense. No fertilizer is needed. Seed materials
are usually self-propagated. However, fuel and boat maintenance could cost more than
10percent of farm revenue (Figure16).
Labour is a primary cost in carrageenan seaweed farming. Routine maintenance
and care usually relies entirely on family labour, whereas hired labour is used to help
with labour-intensive activities such as attaching cultivars, planting and harvesting.
Farms relying mostly on family labour had high profit margins (more than 50percent),
whereas the profit margin for the two commercial operations in Mexico (Cases10 and
12) had profit margins of more than 30percent (Figure20).
4.
SOCIAL PERFORMANCE OF CARRAGEENAN SEAWEED FARMING
4.1 Employment and livelihoods
Contribution to employment
Seaweed farming is a labour-intensive activity. In a family operation, spouses, children
and immediate family members work together on the farm. They prepare and seed the
lines, harvest the crop, and provide maintenance. Labour is shared particularly during
busy periods such as harvesting and drying. Tying the seed is the most labour-intensive
activity and non-family labour may be used. Seaweed farmers in Indonesia and the
Philippines tend to cluster together into villages with the same language and divide
themselves into work groups. Similarly, in India, where seaweed cultivation is organized
by SHGs, family labour may be supplemented by members from the same community.
In the United Republic of Tanzania, where small family farms dominate, one
production cycle required about 66.5 hours of labour input and generated about
100kg of dried seaweed (Msuya, 2013, Table4). This implies that annual production
of one tonne of dried seaweed entailed 84 person-days (assuming 8 working hours
per day) of labour input and could generate 0.28 full-time equivalent jobs per year
(assuming 300working days per year). In this situation, an industry with 10000tonnes
of annual production of dried seaweed16 could generate 2 800 full-time equivalent
jobs. As seaweed farming tends to be a part-time occupation, the number of people
participating in seaweed farming tends to be much more than the number of full-time
equivalent jobs.
In India, a survey of 437households in Mandapam and Rameshwaram indicates that,
on average, two family members participated in seaweed farming for 153days per year.
With an estimated 1000households engaged in seaweed farming in the two districts,
there could be a total of 2000family farmers devoting half their annual working time
to seaweed farming (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013).
Besides farming activities, the carrageenan seaweed industry also generates jobs
along the seaweed-carrageenan value chains. In the Philippines, it was estimated that
The United Republic of Tanzania produced 110 000 tonnes of fresh seaweed in 2009, which could
generate about 10000tonnes of dried seaweed.
16
A global synthesis
the seaweed industry involved 100000150000seaweed farmers, 3000050000local

consolidators, and more than 20000small traders. The seaweed-carrageenan industry
also created a large number of supportive and administrative jobs in laboratories and
government offices (Hurtado, 2013).
Hired labour for laborious activities such as tying the seed tends to be low-paid
jobs, especially with the availability of abundant unskilled labour. For example, in the
United Republic of Tanzania, the hourly wage of seed-tying job was USD0.03/hour,
much lower than the net income of family labour (USD0.19/hour and USD0.24/hour
for Cases19 and 20, respectively) (Msuya, 2013; see also discussion in Section3.3 of
this synthesis paper). In the Philippines, hired workers (mostly female) were paid
USD3.004.25/day to remove impurities from seaweed (Hurtado, 2013).
Contribution to livelihoods
Most carrageenan seaweed farmers are coastal inhabitants without many assets. They
share equipment, such as boats or drying facilities, with other families. They may be
too impoverished to afford basic items such as lines, in which case they must accept
them from intermediaries, as in India and the United Republic of Tanzania, in return
for selling the harvest at a pre-arranged price.
Carrageenan seaweed farming requires only minimal capital and material inputs; its
farming techniques are relatively easy to grasp; and it can be conducted most of the
year in short production cycles. These characteristics, among others, make seaweed
farming a favourable source of livelihoods in coastal communities. As a livelihood
activity, it could offer relatively high and continuous incomes to families. There have
been fluctuations in incomes depending on monsoon activity in certain countries but
annual average incomes from seaweed culture are very attractive to coastal families in
some places. Being a labour-intensive activity, it may preclude many other activities
and become a substitute for, rather than a complement to, other livelihood possibilities
(e.g. in the Philippines). However, its attraction is evident from the case studies and
interviews with coastal families most of whom have benefited from seaweed farming.
In Indonesia, carrageenan seaweed farming provided a stable annual average income
USD5000 to a typical nuclear family farm; for a leader farm, the annual income could
be more than USD15 000. Many surveyed farmers indicated that seaweed farming
contributed to most of their incomes but only cost half or even less of their time
(Neish, 2013; Zamroni and Yamao, 2011).
In the Philippines, seaweed culture could offer higher returns than alternative
activities. Surveyed farmers reported that income from seaweed farming had increased
their annual income by USD6321 895, helping them to meet daily needs, including
childrens education. Cultivation periods are a maximum of 66 days compared with
several months for growing abalone, finfish or lobster, or agriculture crops, such as
rice, corn and cassava (Hurtado, 2013).
In Solomon Islands, surveyed farmers deemed seaweed farming a diversified
livelihood source that improved their incomes and living standards and made them
more food secured. Although traditional fisheries could be more lucrative on an
hourly basis, seaweed farming tends to be a more stable livelihood source, providing
more income to households on an annual basis than fisheries, which relies on depleting
natural resources (Kronen, 2013).
In India, seaweed farming brought higher and more stable incomes to surveyed
farmers than did fishing. Income from seaweed farming has not only increased the
physical consumption and wealth of farmers but also facilitated their participation in
social functions such as social and religious travelling (Krishnan and Narayanakumar,
2013).
In the United Republic of Tanzania, many surveyed farmers (especially able and
hard-working ones) deemed seaweed farming a beneficial economic activity that not
41
42
only helped them finance their daily expenses but also enabled them to improve housing
and purchase assets. However, some farmers deemed the price of E.denticulatum too
low to be worth the effort (Msuya, 2013). Further discussion on this issue is given
below.
Low income from seaweed farming
Contrary to generally positive views in the literature on the contribution of seaweed
farming to livelihoods, which are generally supported by the six case studies, a recent
study (Frcklin et al., 2012) brought attention to some less encouraging aspects of
seaweed farming in Zanzibar (the United Republic of Tanzania). One major issue is the
negative health impacts of seaweed farming, which is discussed below. Another issue is
the extremely low income from seaweed farming. The median daily income of seaweed
farmers ranged from USD0.5/day to USD2.4/day in seven villages being surveyed
(20farmers interviewed in each village) (Frcklin et al., 2012).
As indicated in Section3.3, with a seaweed price of USD207/tonne, the net income
of family labour was USD0.19/hour and USD0.24/hour for the cases from the United
Republic of Tanzania (Cases19 and 20, respectively). Assuming eight working hours
per day, the daily incomes would be USD1.5/day and USD1.9/day, which are close to
the upper bound of the range of the survey results in Frcklin et al. (2012).
The low seaweed price is the main cause of low income from seaweed farming in the
United Republic of Tanzania, but it may not be the only reason. Given the seaweed
price in the cases from Solomon Islands (USD391/tonne), the net income of seaweed
farmers in the cases from the United Republic of Tanzania would have been USD0.43/
hour (Case 19) and USD0.53/hour (Case 20), which would still be lower than in
the Solomon Islands cases (USD0.581.14/hour). This indicates that a relatively low
productivity could be another factor behind low income from seaweed farming in the
United Republic of Tanzania.
The daily incomes of USD1.5/day and USD1.9/day are calculated based on the
assumption of 8working hours per day. However, in reality, the seaweed farmers in
Cases19 and 20 worked only part-time in a 45-day production cycle and earned about
USD15 net income in total. This implies a net income of USD0.3 per day, which is far
from being able to keep the farmers livelihoods above the international poverty line of
USD1.25/day currently used by the World Bank. Thus, it is not surprising that most
of the surveyed farmers in Frcklin et al. (2012) need to rely on additional incomegenerating activities.
Occupational health hazards
The survey in Frcklin et al. (2012) indicated poorer health conditions for female seaweed
farmers in Zanzibar (the United Republic of Tanzania) compared with women involved
in other activities. Prominent health problems of the surveyed seaweed farmers include:
general fatigue, musculoskeletal pains, hunger, eye soreness, asthma and other respiratory
related problems, injuries by sharp shells or hazardous organisms (e.g. sea urchins),
skin problems and allergies. These health problems could be caused by poor working
conditions such as intensive work for long hours, handling of heavy objects, and/or
exposure to sun, wind, seawater and/or toxic vapours (Frcklin et al. 2012, Table1).
Further studies should be conducted to verify whether similar health issues exist in
other seaweed farming countries.
4.2 Gender
One aspect that appears from the case studies is the role of women in seaweed
farming. In off-bottom cultivation in shallow water, women can tie and harvest the
crop by themselves. In deeper water, where boats are necessary for raft or floating line
techniques, women tend to have a smaller role, but do assist with harvesting.
A global synthesis
In India, women were the first and primary adopters of seaweed farming, which
offered them an income within a safe environment (Ramachandran, 2012; Krishnan
and Narayanakumar, 2013). Most SHGs are composed exclusively of women, and they
have been a major source of financing and training.
Another country where women have taken the initiative is the United Republic of
Tanzania. Women are leaders both in seaweed cultivation and in adding value (Msuya,
2013). A womens group in northern Zanzibar (the United Republic of Tanzania) has
started producing seaweed flour, doubling its net profits and adding new products
(Msuya, 2011).
Even where women are not the majority in seaweed farming, they play an important
role. One survey of seaweed farmers in Sulawesi (Indonesia) found that although all
the farmers were men, the help of wives and daughters in tying the seed was crucial
(Zamroni and Yamao, 2011).
In Solomon Islands, most of the work is done by men, but the role of women is
critical. Women are particularly active in planting and harvesting; they also usually
receive the cash. The men interviewed ranked womens involvement in the activity
among the most important benefits of seaweed farming. However, women seaweed
farmers often need to be away from family and hence had problems taking care of their
children (Kronen, 2013). The Solomon Islands case study also showed that children
were heavily involved in the seaweed family business. Childrens participation in
seaweed farming often resulted in their leaving school at an early stage, forgoing access
to secondary and perhaps tertiary education (Kronen, 2013).
In the Philippines, women as well as children played significant roles in seaweed
farming, especially in seeding and post-harvest treatments. Women accounted for
about 44percent of the regular seaweed farming labour force and were the main source
of casual labour. The involvement of women and children helped reduce the cost of
production. Although women were usually confined to lower-paid jobs because of
gender stereotyping, the survey in Flores and Zamboanga found no evidence of women
and children being exploited or abused (Hurtado, 2013).
Generally speaking, the participation of women in seaweed farming did not
result in conflicts in marital relationships. In the Philippines as well as Indonesia,
female seaweed farmers had equal power with their husbands in decision-making
on household matters. Their role in farming business decision-making was generally
consultative but with a spirit of cooperation (Hurtado, 2013; Neish, 2013).
In the study from the United Republic of Tanzania (Msuya, 2013), no serious
moneypower conflicts between female seaweed farmers and their husbands were
observed. Albeit detaching themselves from seaweed farming as a low-paid activity
unworthy of the effort required, husbands generally did not discourage their wives
from engaging in seaweed farming, except occasionally complaining about the smell
of dried seaweed. More supportive husbands helped with laborious tasks such as seed
tying, harvesting and transportation.
As discussed above, occupational health hazards have significantly impaired the
health conditions of women seaweed farmers in Zanzibar. Even though seaweed
farming is not a well-paid livelihood source, many female seaweed farmers in Zanzibar
kept working even when pregnant or ill in order to maintain the so-called livelihood
of the last resort (Frcklin et al., 2012).
4.3 Other social benefits
In addition to its direct contribution to livelihoods and employment, seaweed farming
offers poor coastal communities a number of other social benefits. In Solomon Islands,
many surveyed farmers thought that seaweed farming had increased community
cohesion through cooperation and improvement of social services such as school and
church. Almost 40 percent of the surveyed farmers thought that seaweed farming
43
44
had improved social networks among seaweed farming households sharing the same
interest. While jealousy and petty thefts were mentioned by a few respondents,
most surveyed farmers deemed competition among seaweed farmers and households
constructive (Kronen, 2013).
Seaweed farmers, like many coastal people, have little formal education, so knowledge
transfer is important. In Indonesia, positive social impacts of seaweed farming include
access to education and training and improvements in communication (Neish, 2013).
Linked to skills are entrepreneurship and business acumen. In India, many seaweed
farmers started out as being hired labour for other farmers first and then used
the experience to become members of an SHG. As their operations expand, these
seasoned farmers hire other people to help take care of their own plots (Krishnan and
Narayanakumar, 2013). In Indonesia and the Philippines, many seaweed collectors or
traders were nuclear family farmers first, then became lead farmers, and eventually
ventured into the trading business (Gan, 2003, cited in Neish, 2013). In the United
Republic of Tanzania, a woman seaweed farmer has succeeded in becoming a
wholesaler, selling seaweed to a buyer with a 20percent margin (Msuya, 2011).
Seaweed farming also benefits communities through multipliers. The direct
value chain is often local so that cash income from seaweed culture remains in the
community. Indirect and induced effects reflected in such activities as seaweed storage
or consumer sales generate incomes that may exceed those generated directly in
seaweed culture. The beneficial impact of spin-offs is indicated by new housing and
other material assets. If income is spent on tuition, as is often the case, the long-term
impacts could be significant.
4.4 Environmental externalities
Carrageenan seaweed farming can have positive effects on the environment because
seaweeds could improve the benthic ecosystem, and sequester carbon, thereby offering
the potential for carbon credits. Seaweed grown on rafts can also become an attractive
haven for fish.
Other positive environmental externalities of seaweed farming include an alleged
positive attitude towards conservation of local marine habitats, and anecdotal evidence
that overexploitation of the fisheries has been reduced in some countries, because
farmers have less time or inclination to fish. In Zanzibar, the United Republic of
Tanzania, where low-paying seaweed farming was unattractive to men, there has been
little net impact on the fishing effort; whereas the impact has been significant in India
(Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013), the Philippines (Hurtado, 2013), and Solomon
Islands (Kronen, 2013).
As mentioned above, carrageenan seaweeds tend to be an introduced species in
many countries. The risk of such introductions is that they can become invasive.
Introduced seaweed that do not become viable culture species could turn into an
environmental nuisance (Pickering, Skelton and Sulu, 2007). To preclude potential
risks in accidental or intentional introductions of alien species in carrageenan seaweed
farming, quarantine and protocols are essential. These have been tested in the Pacific,
where there has been only one report of cottonii becoming invasive (Sulu et al., 2003).
Other negative environmental impacts of carrageenan seaweed farming include
destruction of mangroves for materials (e.g. wooden stakes) used in seaweed farming,
and detrimental impacts on the benthic ecosystem by clearing up the sea floor and/
or the use of stakes or anchors, pollution and debris from abandoned equipment (e.g.
stakes, ropes and floats), among others (Neish, 2008b).
5.
GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONS
Governance and institutions are critical to sustainable aquaculture development
without irreversible environmental and social damage (Hishamunda et al., 2012).
A global synthesis
Poor governance and malfunctioning institutions tend to result in business disruption,

environmental destruction, social mistrust and little development of the sector, in spite
of positive demand and supply conditions.
5.1 The private sector
Market governance vs relationship governance
The market has become the main governance mechanism in the carrageenan seaweed
industry (Neish, 2008a, 2013). Under market governance, the profit-seeking activities
of self-interested stakeholders (farmers, trading agents and processors) are coordinated
by the price mechanism.
As discussed above, major carrageenan seaweed farming countries (especially
Indonesia and the Philippines) have recently experienced volatile market conditions.
Fluctuating prices have disrupted proper functioning of the market mechanism
and caused destabilizing behaviours such as harvesting crops prematurely, adding
impurities to seaweed, and speculating on prices. This may be a short-term disturbance
experienced by a rapidly expanding industry that could be corrected gradually through
market-driven consolidation and integration. However, it seems that the disorders have
induced an anti-market sentiment that favours the replacement of market governance
with relationship governance by consolidating farmers into farm enterprises (e.g.
cooperatives), promoting strategic alliances among them, and establishing direct links
between farm enterprises and processors (Neish, 2008a, 2008c).
It is true that the supply chain from farmers to collectors to consolidators to traders
to exporters then to processors means a mark-up at each stage and less traceability,
but it remains unclear whether the intermediary and other functions of trading agents
(discussed in Section 2.4) could be more efficiently internalized by farm enterprises
and/or processors. Related issues include the boundaries of seaweed enterprises,
the benefits, costs and sustainability of their ownership and governance structure,
the governance structure, flexibility and resilience of business alliances among farm
enterprises and direct business relationship between farm enterprises and processors.
Further study is needed. The development of industrial organization and value chain
governance in other aquaculture activities and terrestrial farming could shed light on
this subject.
Contract farming
Contract farming has been widely used in carrageenan seaweed farming. In India,
seaweed farming started with contract farming offered by a multinational corporation
(Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). In Indonesia, 45 percent of the surveyed
farmers in Neish (2013) reported that they had contracts with buyers. In the United
Republic of Tanzania, many seaweed farmers relied on formal or informal contractual
relationships with exporters to sell their seaweed produce (Msuya, 2013).
In a typical contract farming scheme, the contractor usually provides materials (e.g.
cultivars) and extension services to growers and commits to purchasing the harvest at
predetermined prices. Contracted seaweed farmers are liable to deliver their produce at
a satisfactory quality and avoid selling to other buyers.
In the United Republic of Tanzania, seaweed farmers often complained that
exporters did not properly compensate their efforts; whereas the exporters argued that
the low prices they offered were justified because they provided farming materials and
extension services to farmers. The farmers often had to stick to unappealing contracts
because they needed the aids provided by exporters, lacked other channels to sell their
produce and/or had no alternative livelihood sources. However, they were prone to
side-selling to other exporters that could offer higher prices. This caused conflicts
between exporters and disruption of farming activities. On the other hand, exporters
might also not honour their promises when the market was weak. In sum, it appeared
45
46
that contract farming did not perform very efficiently in the United Republic of
Tanzania; many farmers (especially those on the mainland) were gradually moving
away the system (Msuya, 2013).
In India, the contractor (Aquagri) was concerned about farmer satisfaction and
set the basic seaweed price based on their efforts. The contractor also used price
incentive schemes to keep loyal and high-volume producers from being enticed
away by competing companies. In addition, the contractor used other non-price
arrangements (e.g. assisting farmers to meet their family and/or social obligations) to
strengthen farmers trust and loyalty. Although the temptation to breach contracts
always exists when higher prices are offered, contract farming has become a generally
effective mechanism that has facilitated the rapid expansion of seaweed farming in India
(Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013).
While it is difficult to generalize, there are several factors that may help explain
Indias more positive experience in contract farming as compared with the United
Republic of Tanzania. First, compared with seaweed exporters in the United Republic
of Tanzania, the processor contractor in India may have more incentives to maintain
stable seaweed supplies in order to avoid disruption of its seaweed processing business.
Second, the successful SHG model in India makes contract farming easier to establish
and manage. Third, the participation of financial institutions as a credit provider and
contract facilitator (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013) provides incentives for
farmers to adopt contract farming and an assurance mechanism for the contract to be
sustained.
Community-based seaweed farming
The experience in India indicates that the daily-wage corporate model is difficult to
maintain for carrageenan seaweed farming because of its special characteristics such as
seasonality and uneven distribution of labour requirements within a production cycle
(Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). In addition, in most countries, policy-makers
are often reluctant to promote big business because of concerns over social equity.
As a result, carrageenan seaweed farming has been dominated by small-scale (family)
farmers.
Small-scale seaweed farming usually lacks economies of scale in both production
and marketing (see the analysis in Section 3 for some evidence). Farmers groups or
producer associations are a way of overcoming this disadvantage. Farmers groups allow
members to share labour, materials and assets. This has been a common practice among
nuclear family farms in Indonesia (Neish, 2013). In Solomon Islands, farmers hope to
reduce transportation cost through community-based motorized boats (Kronen, 2013).
Farmers groups could also perform the tasks of post-harvest treatments and play the
roles of trading agents. In the Philippines, many famers associations have attempted
to purchase fresh seaweed from member farmers, dry it and then sell it directly to a
processor (Hurtado, 2013). In the Indonesia case study (Neish, 2013), 32 percent of
the surveyed farmers in Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) sold their seaweed produce
to cooperatives; all the surveyed farmers in South Central Sulawesi sold theirs to a
farmer credit union. In India, one of the main advantages of the SHG model is to
foster entrepreneurialism in seaweed farming as an activity with great growth potential
The experiences of producer associations have not always been successful. In the
United Republic of Tanzania, particularly Zanzibar, most farmers were members
of cooperatives or other producer associations. Most of these associations were
not formed at the initiative of farmers but rather at the behest of donor-funded
programmes in order to facilitate training and implementation of aids. Interviews with
farmers indicated that cooperatives were more successful in helping farmers receive
aids than in enabling them to address various farming or marketing issues (e.g. die-
A global synthesis
offs from disease, and finding more reliable buyers). A lack of competent leadership
was deemed a factor behind the shortcoming (Msuya, 2013). In the Philippines, direct
sales arrangements through producer associations were supposed to increase farmers
profits. However, few associations have been able to accomplish their stated objectives,
which raises the question of whether community-based seaweed farming is more
efficient than individual farmers (Hurtado, 2013).
5.2 The public sector
Legal and policy framework
In the Philippines, under the guidance of the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998,17
the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) establishes seaweed-related
regulations and policies, while local government is responsible for issuing licences
for seaweed farming (Hurtado, 2013). A primary legal document on seaweed farming
is the Fisheries Administrative Order No. 146: Rules and Regulations Governing
the Gathering and Farming of Seaweeds (BFAR, 1983).18 The Administrative Order
specifies issues such as eligibility for and restrictions on seaweed farming, licensing
(fees, duration, procedure, etc.), and the rights and obligations of licensed seaweed
farmers. The BFAR has also established a National Seaweed Development Program to
gather information about the seaweed industry, to undertake research and development,
and to facilitate technology transfers to farmers and processors (Ferrer, 2002).
Unlike the Philippines, other case-study countries do not have specific regulations on
seaweed farming. In Indonesia, seaweed farming has been regulated as a type of fish
under the Fisheries Law No. 31/2004.19 However, seaweed farming in Indonesia has
been governed and assisted by multiple government agencies, including the Agency for
the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT), the Department of Oceans and
Fisheries (DKP), the National Ministry of Cooperatives and Small to Medium Enterprises
in Indonesia (KUKM), the Regional Body for Planning and Development (BAPPEDA),
and the Indonesia Institute of Sciences (LIPI) (Neish, 2013). Decentralized government
agencies have been able to manage seaweed farming closely at the village level.
In the United Republic of Tanzania, fisheries resource management has been
governed under the National Fisheries Sector Policy and Strategy Statement (1997)20
and the Fisheries Act (2003).21 The Act has clauses on the collection/gathering,
processing and marketing of aquatic flora (including seaweeds) on the mainland of
the United Republic of Tanzania, but none on seaweed cultivation. The Government
of the United Republic of Tanzania has been trying to update the Policy and the
Act to cover more specifically mariculture and seaweed farming (Msuya, 2013).
No licences are needed for seaweed farming in the United Republic of Tanzania.
The use of farming areas is comanaged by coastal villagers. Seaweed farming may
be conducted by outsiders under the permission of local farmers (Msuya, 2013).
Tanzanian government agencies, such as the Aquaculture Department under the
Ministry of Livestock Development and Fisheries in Mainland Tanzania and the
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources in Zanzibar, have been promoting
seaweed farming through the Seaweed Development Strategic Plan (SDSP) as well as
assistance programmers such as the Marine and Coastal Environment Management
Project (Msuya, 2013).
Availableat: www.fao.org/fishery/shared/faolextrans.jsp?xp_ISIS_MFN=014403&xp_faoLexLang=E&xp_lang=en
17
Available at: www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_philippines/en
18
Available at: www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_indonesia/en
19
Available at: www.tzonline.org/pdf/NationalFisheriesSectorPolicyandStrategyStatement.pdf
20
Available at: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/tan53024.pdf
21
47
48
In Solomon Islands, the Fisheries Act (1998)22 gives the minister responsible for
the administration of fisheries the power to make regulations related to seaweed
farming. The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) has been the
main government agency governing aquaculture in the country. In order to ensure
the reliability and financial viability of seaweed exporters, private trading companies
need to obtain seaweed commercialization licences from the Aquaculture Division
(established in 2000) under the MFMR (McHugh, 2006; Tinne, Preston and Tiroba,
2006; Kronen, 2013). The Solomon Islands Aquaculture Development Plan 20092014
(MFMR, 2009) established by the MFMR gives high priority to development of
seaweed farming in the country. Seaweed farming development is also supported
by other government agencies, such as Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of
Lands regarding issues related to land use, tenure and survey, and the Department of
Environment for environmental assessments (Kronen, 2013).
In India, coastal aquaculture activities in saline or brackish water are regulated
under the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act (2005).23 The Act focuses on shrimp
farming, with detailed technical guidelines on shrimp farming specified in the
corresponding Coastal Aquaculture Authority Rules (2005).24 Cultivation of aquatic
plants is not specifically referred to in the Act or the Rules. However, with the Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ) extended to include 12nautical miles of territorial waters in
the recently issued Coastal Regulation Zone Notification (6 January 2011),25 more
formal regulations over seaweed farming in India could be put in place in the future.
The National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB), which was chartered in 2006 for
supporting fisheries and aquaculture development in India, has developed a series of
guidelines on fisheries and aquaculture activities,26 among which the Guidelines on
Seaweed Cultivation27 specify a government assistance scheme for the seaweed industry
and its implementation procedures.
Licensing
In the Philippines, a licence is mandatory for seaweed farming in public waters. Only
citizens of the Philippines or a business entity controlled (with more than 60percent
of the capital stock) by citizens of the Philippines are eligible for a seaweed farming
licence. The duration of the licence is up to ten years and subject to renewal. The
licence fee is PHP50 (about USD1.2) per hectare. A family is only eligible for one
licence. In principle, the maximum farm size is one hectare for a family farm and 30ha
for a business entity (partnership, associations, cooperatives or corporations). These
general regulations specified in the Fisheries Administrative Order No.146 (BFAR,
1983) may be altered by local government according to special local conditions.
For example, in Calatagan, the local government has limited the maximum farm
area per household to 2000m2 in order to provide opportunities to more potential
farmers and at the same time maintain the quality of coastal waters (Espaldon et al.,
forthcoming).
Established by government for environmental sustainability and/or social equity,
regulations over seaweed farming such as those in the Philippines inevitably impose
Available at: www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_solomonislands/en
22
Available at: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ind66493.pdf
23
Available at: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ind66500.pdf
24
Available at: http://moef.nic.in/assets/so19e.pdf
25
Available at: www.coochbehar.gov.in/Fishery/PDFfiles/NFDB_Guidelines.pdf
26
Available at: http://nfdb.ap.nic.in/html/seaweed.htm
27
A global synthesis
constraints on seaweed farming development. Such constraints may result in economic

inefficiency. For example, more productive farmers may have difficulties in expanding
their operations because of the restrictions on farm size. Studies should be conducted
to evaluate the impacts of formal or informal government regulations on the economic
efficiency of seaweed farming; such studies would shed light on the way of achieving
optimal trade-offs among the economic, social and environmental dimensions of
seaweed farming.
In Indonesia, the government has tried but failed to establish a licensing scheme
to regulate seaweed farming; tenancy issues have been usually decided by community
members through a participatory approach28 (Neish, 2013). It appears that the lack
of formal regulations has not deterred the rapid expansion of seaweed farming in
Indonesia. However, this situation may change as competition over coastal natural
resources (e.g. from the tourism industry) intensifies.29
In Solomon Islands, private trading companies need to acquire a licence to export
raw seaweeds. Seaweed export licences were issued to six exporters in 2005, but only
two licence holders actually exported seaweed during the year; and only one exporter
renewed its licence in 2006 (Tinne, Preston and Tiroba, 2006). A main concern over
the licensing system is that the bureaucratic system may hinder the development of the
industry, especially when government lacks the capacity to manage it properly. However,
proponents argue that, as the volume of the countrys seaweed production is limited, the
licensing system could avoid unnecessary competition and give more reliable exporters
sufficient profit margins to survive and thrive (Tinne, Preston and Tiroba, 2006).
In the United Republic of Tanzania, licensing has not been a major barrier for
commercial seaweed exporters entering the business because the government has
generally wished that the existence of more buyers would give seaweed farmers more
options to sell their produce. However, as discussed above, it appears that the free
trade model did not help solve the problem of low seaweed prices. Indeed, instead
of paying higher prices, seaweed buyers in the United Republic of Tanzania often
competed for more seaweed by lowering their quality standards (MNRT, 2005). This
situation raises the question of whether regulations on seaweed exporters (e.g. a more
stringent licensing system similar to that of Solomon Islands) are warranted.
Quality standards
The low quality of seaweed is deemed a perennial problem in carrageenan seaweed
industry. Ideally, the market mechanism could motivate farmers to improve the
quality of their seaweed produce by rewarding such efforts with higher prices, but
this may not be the case in practice. For example, seaweed buyers in the United
Republic of Tanzania usually paid uniform prices for all seaweeds regardless of their
quality (MNRT, 2005). In the Philippines, traders or processors sometimes tolerate
malpractices such as adulterating seaweed with water, salt and/or other impurities,
especially when seaweed is in short supply (Hurtado, 2013).
The public sector could help to improve the quality of seaweed by establishing
quality standards. In the Philippines, standard-setting government agencies have
established quality standards for dried raw seaweed (Hurtado, 2013). In Solomon
Islands, one immediate action in its Aquaculture Development Plan 20092014 is
Participatory governance takes the form of self-regulation and comanagement with neighbouring
(and competing) farmers working together to coordinate environmental and production measures.
Compliance is enforced by peer pressure. The motivation may be altruistic, but also self-interested in
order to maintain a healthy husbandry environment (Hishamunda et al., 2012).
28
According to the news report Bali seaweed farmers under threat(http://beatmag.com/daily/baliseaweed-farmers-under-threat/), seaweed farmers in some areas of Bali, Indonesia, need enabling
regulations to help them cope with the increasing pressure from tourism and property development.
29
49
50
to establish seaweed quality standards (MFMR, 2009). In the United Republic of

Tanzania, the Seaweed Development Strategy Plan (SDSP) has suggested several
quality standards and encouraged seaweed farmers to obey and seaweed exporters (also
called developers) to enforce quality standards (MNRT, 2005).
Public assistance
The case studies have documented many cases of public assistance to seaweed farming
by government, development agencies, NGOs and/or research communities. Typically,
public assistance includes providing seaweed farmers with farm materials (cultivars,
ropes, tie-ties, etc.), training, extension, business development services, financial
services, and funding supports. In the Philippines, the BFBR has also supported
the establishment of seaweed nurseries to address the issue of inadequate cultivars
(Hurtado, 2013). In India, the NFDB has offered funding support to establish seaweed
processing plants (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). In Indonesia, 40 percent of
surveyed farmers had received grants or soft loans from government agencies (Neish,
2013). In Mexico, inhabitants of Dzilam de Bravo expected public funding to help
them engage in seaweed farming (Robledo, Gasca-Leyva and Fraga, 2013). In the
United Republic of Tanzania, government has provided planting materials to seaweed
farmers in order to reduce their dependence on exporters (Msuya, 2013). In India,
seaweed farmers in Tamil Nadu have been able to obtain a partial subsidy from a rural
development agency, which has subsidized up to half the cost of their investments
Liaison and mediation are another type of public assistance. In Zanzibar, the United
Republic of Tanzania, government has tried to facilitate farmers and exporters to sign
agreements on contract farming and mediate their conflicts and disputes, but it seems
that the efforts have not always been successful (Msuya, 2013). In Solomon Islands,
the MFMR has been asked to negotiate with shipping companies on behalf of seaweed
farmers for lower freight rates (Kronen, 2013).
Global carrageenan seaweed farming has also benefited from technical research and
dissemination undertaken by research communities (Msuya, 2009). The University of
the South Pacific has tested quarantine protocols for introduced seaweed and developed
training manuals for prospective farmers (Sulu et al., 2003; Pickering, 2006). Manuals
and monographs have been published by SEAPlant.Net based in Indonesia and these
are available on the Internet. In the Philippines, academic experiments have been
spearheaded by the University of the Philippines as a leading research institution, the
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department, and Cargill
Texturizing Solution SAS France, a multinational carrageenan company based in the
country (Hurtado, 2013). In Mexico, the pilot project was an academic experiment,
and the Center for Advanced Studies and Research (CINVESTAV) has emerged as
the leading research centre in that country (Robledo, Gasca-Leyva and Fraga, 2013).
The paper on Indonesia in this technical paper recognizes that much of the seaweed
research in the Coral Triangle has been done in the Philippines (Neish, 2013). The
India case study describes the activities of the Seaweed Research Association, the
Aquaculture Foundation and other NGOs. Not only have they undertaken research,
they have also assisted farmers with training, financing and collaborative development
Public assistances have not always been effective. For example, in the United
Republic of Tanzania, the SDSP has multiple objectives, including fostering a
conducive investment environment, reducing the dependence of seaweed farmers on
exporters through capacity building, expanding extension and research, increasing
productivity through best management practices, and increasing awareness of the
potential of seaweed farming as an income-generating business (MNRT, 2005).
However, the SDSP has been mostly ineffective because of a lack of implementation.
A global synthesis
The lack of extension officers has been one of the problems. Despite many efforts of
fisheries officers, conflicts between seaweed farmers and buyers have remained a major
issue, deterring the development of seaweed farming in many regions (Msuya, 2013).
Public assistance provided by development agencies and other donors is often
implemented through short-term projects and, hence, faces the issue of continuity. For
example, seaweed farming in Solomon Islands has relied significantly on projects funded
by the European Union (Member Organization) such as the Rural Fishing Enterprise
Project (RFEP) and the Commercialization of Seaweed Production in Solomon Islands
(CoSPSI) project (Kronen, 2013). As the CoSPSI project was finishing in 2009, one of
the immediate actions in the Solomon Islands Aquaculture Development Plan 2009
2014 was to explore ways to sustain seaweed farming development after the end of the
project (MFMR, 2009).
6.
LESSONS LEARNED AND THE WAY FORWARD
The above discussion attempts to provide a global review of the social and economic
dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming based on the existing literature, especially
the six case studies included in this technical paper. The review has synthesized data and
information on the status and trends of carrageenan seaweed farming and the seaweedcarrageenan value chain, assessed the economic and social performance of carrageenan
seaweed farming, and discussed the governance and institutional aspects of the industry.
The review indicates that carrageenan seaweed farming has great potential in
contributing to the socio-economic well-being of coastal communities, but it is not
automatic for that potential to become reality. Various challenges and issues from the
perspectives of different stakeholders were identified in the six case studies; some of
which were highlighted in Section2.4 of this synthesis paper.
The experiences of the six case-study countries indicate that commercial seaweed
farming could be jump-started by different impetuses. The start-up process in the
principal producing countries (i.e. Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Republic
of Tanzania) was mostly bottom-up. Individual farmers, encouraged by traders,
began seaweed farming because of potential cash income. In Solomon Islands, seaweed
farming started from development projects funded by donors that valued its livelihood
benefits. In India, commercial operations began because a large (multinational) firm
needed seaweed as raw material. In Mexico, seaweed cultivation was promoted by
government as a strategy for reducing carrageenan imports.
One key lesson to be learned for policy-makers interested in promoting carrageenan
seaweed farming is that ignoring the socio-economic aspects of seaweed farming can
lead to a lack of sustainability. Many seaweed development projects have ended in
failure because of overlooking the human factor that concerns not only seaweed
farmers but also other stakeholders (Ask, 2001, p. 13). Not only must seaweed
farming offer a comparable, even higher, income for the same effort and risk as
alternative activities, but it must conform to institutional and social structures. Other
coastal users, government officials, community leaders, banks, donors, NGOs and
carrageenan processors as well as potential farmers must have their legitimate wants
satisfied. Technical feasibility is not sufficient if farmers lack incentives, governance
penalizes entrepreneurship, or social structures preclude development.
Besides technical efficiency in cultivation, the economic performance of carrageenan
seaweed farming depends on various elements in seaweed-carrageenan value chains. For
example, despite the good reputation of its high-quality RDS, the seaweed industry in
the Pacific islands has been penalized by disadvantages such as low production scales,
isolation from processors and, hence, high shipping and intermediary costs, expensive
interisland transport, etc. (Luxton, 1999; McHugh, 2006).
Despite much information being provided by the existing literature, there are
still substantial information and knowledge gaps that hinder the forming of a clearer
51
52
vision of the future development of carrageenan seaweed farming and the formulation
of more concrete and evident-based policy recommendations. Some of the gaps are
highlighted as follows.
6.1 Carrageenan market
The demand for carrageenan seaweeds is derived from the carrageenan market. The
demand for carrageenan is expected to continue growing because of increasing demand
for processed food, driven primarily by population and economic growth in developing
countries. Scientific and technological advances could also tend to broaden the uses of
carrageenan as food additives and other ingredients. However, quantitatively, what will
the global demand for carrageenan be in the future?
Much information on the global carrageenan market has been provided by the
literature including McHugh (2003), Panlibuton, Porse and Nadela (2007), Neish
(2008a), and Bixler and Porse (2011). Although data from different sources may not
be completely consistent, there are some general ideas about how much carrageenan
has been produced by what countries and how much carrageenan has been used in
which products. However, in order to estimate the future demand for carrageenan, it
would be necessary to have more detailed information on how much of what kind of
carrageenan products is used by what countries in which products. Such information
has not been readily available.
Another related issue is the carrageenan's own-price elasticity of demand (i.e. the
sensitivity of carrageenan demand to a change in its price). A common perception is
that the food industry, with generally thin profit margins, tends to be very sensitive
to an increase in the price of carrageenan (McHugh, 2006; Bixler and Porse, 2011).
However, there is not much information to quantify how sensitive it is.
As carrageenan may only account for a small portion of the cost of an end product, a
change in its price may cause a relatively small change in the total cost and, hence, have a
limited impact on its demand, especially when carrageenan is an irreplaceable ingredient.
Indeed, as carrageenan may not only improve the texture of a pre-cooked meat product
but also increase its yield (Bixler and Porse, 2011), the real cost of carrageenan under this
situation would be the difference between its price and that of the product.
Further study should be conducted to provide more and improved information
on the status and trends of the carrageenan market, including the geographic
distribution of carrageenan production and production capacity, the market segments
of carrageenan products (i.e. the use of carrageenan in meat, dairy, water gel and other
products), and the geographic distribution of carrageenan demand across countries and
products. On the basis of such information, analyses should be conducted to provide
more reliable estimates of carrageenan demand and, hence, the derived demand for
carrageenan seaweeds in the future. The estimation would shed light on the potential
of carrageenan seaweed farming in the future, which is important information for both
policy decision-making and sector management.
6.2 Carrageenan processing industry and carrageenan seaweed market
Carrageenan (seaweed) processing used to be dominated by a few large companies
from developed countries. Now, carrageenan processors have become more numerous
and geographically diverse. Based on the information provided in Neish (2013), an
example of value addition in SRC processing in Indonesia is presented in Section2.4
(Table5). However, the situations in other countries (e.g. China and the Philippines)
remain less clear; as do the situations of value addition in RC processing.
The carrageenan seaweed crisis in 2008 was allegedly caused by a large increase
in the demand from carrageenan processors in China. What were the driving forces
behind the demand hike? What will its trend be in the future? Will there be a trend
of consolidation in the carrageenan processing industry in China? Will carrageenan
A global synthesis
processors from China attempt to gain more control over the sources of their raw
materials through vertical integration or business alliance?
Seaweed farming countries have always been eager to extend their seaweed value
chains to processing. Given time, profit-seeking entrepreneurs would make this
happen, as long as seaweed processing provided profitable business opportunities.
However, from a policy perspective, some issues need to be clarified in order to
develop appropriate industrial policies and create an enabling environment. Despite
the availability of raw materials, does a seaweed farming country necessarily have
comparative advantage in carrageenan processing; what about other factors such
as infrastructure, markets and human capital? What would be the minimum size
for a carrageenan processing industry to be economically viable? What about the
environmental impacts of carrageenan seaweed processing (e.g. nutrient-loaded
effluent)? What could be done to facilitate the industry to adopt multistream
processing (i.e. extracting not only carrageenan but also other nutrients [Figure 3 in
Neish, 2013])? Last but not least, what could be done to increase seaweed farming
countries competitive advantage in carrageenan processing?
In Indonesia, there has been a proposal to restrict the export of raw seaweeds in
order to support the development of the local processing industry.30 Compared with
other supporting policies (e.g. subsidizing the processing industry), this may incur
a smaller financial burden for government to implement. However, an export quota
system would distort the market and, hence, should be implemented with caution. For
example, limited and uncertain seaweed supply from Indonesia under the quota system
may force overseas processors to source raw materials from elsewhere, which would
essentially impair the competitiveness of seaweed farmers in the home country. While
the quota system may benefit the local processing industry with more abundant and
cheaper raw material supply in the short term, the artificial competitive advantage may
not be sustainable in the long run.
Based on the existing literature (e.g. McHugh, 2003; Panlibuton, Porse and Nadela,
2007; Neish, 2008a; Bixler and Porse, 2011), further study should be conducted to
provide broader, deeper and more systematic information on the economic, social
and environmental performance of the carrageenan seaweed processing industry.
Considering the special situation of China (i.e. a large carrageenan processing industry
depending mostly on imported raw seaweeds), further study should be conducted
to understand the status and trends of its carrageenan processing industry and their
implications for the global carrageenan seaweed market.
6.3 Carrageenan seaweed production
Farm sites
The availability of farming areas has not been a major constraint on carrageenan
seaweed farming, but it could eventually become so. Although the six case studies and
other literature (e.g. Neish, 2008b) provide some information on farming areas used in
carrageenan seaweed farming, further study should be conducted to examine the status
and potential of suitable farm sites in major carrageenan seaweed farming countries.
For stocktaking of existing farm sites, the information to be collected should
include not only geographical and environmental parameters (e.g. location, area,
temperature, depth and current) but also technical parameters (e.g. farming systems
and productivity) as well as socio-economic parameters (e.g. infrastructure, labour
force and economic conditions in surrounding areas). These parameters are essential
for identifying potential farming sites for future development (Kapetsky, AguilarManjarrez and Jenness, forthcoming).
See the news report Indonesia plans to limit seaweed exports from 2012, available at: www.
thejakartaglobe.com/business/indonesia-plans-to-limit-seaweed-exports-from-2012/366886.
30
53
54
Farming systems
Although there may be the temptation to compare technical and economic efficiency
across different farming systems, it should be noted that conclusions drawn from such
comparisons may not be rigorous and could be misleading. For example, without
controlling other factors, the performance difference of two farming systems located
in different areas may mainly reflect the different environmental conditions of their
farm sites. Therefore, it could be misleading to claim that systemA is more efficient or
profitable than systemB because systemA may actually perform poorer than systemB
in the location of the latter.
Based on information provided in the six case studies, Section 3 compared the
technical and economic performance (e.g. productivity, efficiency and profitability) of
carrageenan seaweed farming across different farming systems. The comparisons provide
useful benchmark information that indicates some patterns, e.g. floating line tends to be
more cost-effective than other farming systems (off-bottom and floating raft). However,
this generalized conclusion should be treated as indicative only for the reason explained
above, and also because of the limited number of cases included in the comparisons.
Although the cases included in the comparisons in Section3 contain some variations
(e.g. different scales of operation, different sizes of cultivars, or different numbers of
production cycles), most of them are representative cases under normal situations. These
representative cases do not capture the variations in the performance of different seaweed
farmers in the real world. Information on such variations is important to understanding
factors affecting farmers performance and for providing guidance on how to improve it.
Seed
Self-propagation of cultivars could be economically attractive because the value-added
in the seed production could be internalized by seaweed farmers. However, one issue
is the quality of self-propagated seed materials in terms of growth rate, carrageenan
content, disease resilience, etc. Another issue is whether specialized seed production
could be more economically efficient than self-propagation because of economies of
scale.
Seed production in fish or terrestrial farming has been increasingly conducted by
specialized seed producers; will seaweed farming follow a similar trend? Commercial
seaweed nurseries have already appeared in Indonesia (Neish, 2013) and the Philippines
(Hurtado, 2013). Most of them are part of the operations of large seaweed farms.
Further study should be conducted to compare the performance of self-propagation
with commercial nurseries and shed light on opportunities for and constraints on the
development of commercial seaweed nurseries.
Husbandry
Seaweed farmers can improve husbandry through learning-by-doing processes
facilitated by training and extension. Good agronomy practices in carrageenan seaweed
farming have been documented in the literature (e.g. Juanich, 1998; Neish, 2008b). Most
of the discussion focuses on the technical efficiency of seaweed farming. However,
because of different costs, practices that generate higher yields do not necessarily result
in greater profitability.
Further study should be conducted to evaluate the economic performance (e.g.
profitability and risks) of different farming practices. Such evaluations should also
consider the environmental impacts (e.g. cutting down mangroves) and social impacts
(e.g. occupational hazards) of seaweed farming.
Integrated multitrophic aquaculture
Integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) has been proposed as a promising
technology that could enhance seaweed farmers incomes and reduce their risks
A global synthesis
through diversification (Neish, 2009). The ecological advantages of seaweeds are their
ability to metabolize carbon dioxide and assimilate macronutrients and micronutrients.
Therefore, they can be used as bioremediation in finfish culture as part of the ecosystem
approach to aquaculture (Soto, Aguilar-Manjarrez and Hishamunda, 2008). Not only
are there environmental advantages from combining seaweed cultivation with finfish
and shellfish, but there can also be economic and social benefits (Ridler et al., 2007;
Barrington, Chopin and Robinson, 2009). Integrated multitrophic aquaculture has
already been practised in seaweed farming; examples include IMTA of seaweeds and
bivalves in China (Mao et al., 2009) and growing Gracilaria in fish or shrimp ponds in
Indonesia (Neish, 2009).
While the potential of carrageenan seaweeds in IMTA has been examined and
experimented (Hayashi et al., 2010), it seems that commercial IMTA of carrageenan
seaweeds has yet to become substantial. Further study should be conducted to
examine, especially from a socio-economic perspective, the potentials and constraints
of IMTA in carrageenan seaweeds.
Summary
Based on the six case studies as well as other existing literature (e.g. Ask, 2001; Namuda
and Pickering, 2006; Zamroni and Yamao, 2011; Zamroni, Laoubi and Yamao, 2011),
farm surveys or censuses should be conducted to collect detailed data on carrageenan
seaweed farming in each of the major carrageenan seaweed farming countries. With
more detailed data, the analysis in Sections3 and 4 could be broadened and deepened
to generate more information on, and knowledge of, the socio-economic performance
of carrageenan seaweed farming.
6.4 Industrial organization
Carrageenan seaweed farming has been dominated by small-scale (family) farmers.
There is little disagreement that more integration is needed in the industry to overcome
the disadvantages of small-scale farming (e.g. lack of economies of scale and poor
traceability in both production and marketing), but the question is how to bring this
about.
Large farms
Despite the benefits of economies of scale, large seaweed farms may be less favoured by
government and other pro-poor stakeholders because of concerns over social equity.
However, large seaweed farms can generate employment and incomes directly from own
operations or indirectly from induced economic growth in local communities. Although
it is neither likely nor appropriate, at least not in the near future, for carrageenan seaweed
farming to be dominated by large-scale, plantation type of operations, large farms are
expected to play more significant roles in seaweed farming development.
In Indonesia, large leader farmers have appeared and operated like farm enterprises
(Neish, 2013). Further study should be conducted to broaden and deepen understanding
of the socio-economic performance of large seaweed farms and their contributions to
the development of the sector.
Farmer organizations
Formal or informal farmer organizations could consolidate the efforts of small farmers
into collective actions for better economic performance. However, their success is not
automatic (see Section5.1 for some discussion). Past experiences indicate the importance
of strong leadership, be it from large farmers, traders, NGOs or development agencies,
to the success of farmer organizations (Vorley and Proctor, 2008). Lack of effective
leadership is deemed a factor behind less-successful seaweed farmer associations in the
Philippines (Hurtado, 2013) and the United Republic of Tanzania (Msuya, 2013). In
55
56
Mexico, lack of leadership that represents the interests of the community has resulted
in a lack of confidence and trust among community members (Robledo, Gasca-Leyva
and Fraga, 2013).
Based on the existing literature (e.g. Kassam, Subasinghe and Phillips, 2011),
further study should be conducted to examine the potential and limitations of farmers
organizations as a means to consolidate small-scale seaweed farmers. Special attention
should be focused on how organizational and governance structures of different
seaweed farming entities (farmers groups, producer associations, cooperatives, farm
enterprises, etc.) affect their socio-economic performance.
Trading intermediaries
It is often taken for granted that more direct value chains between farmers and
processors (i.e. less intermediation) tend to be in the interest of farmers as well as the
entire industry. However, it should be clarified that reducing intermediaries does not
eliminate the various services provided by trading agents (e.g. consolidation, quality
control, credit provision, risk-sharing, and information exchange) but rather transfer
them to the shoulders of farm enterprises, farmers organization, and/or processors.
Then, the question is under what situations such internalization would be more
efficient than independent commercial trading agents.
Further study should be conducted to enhance understanding of the socioeconomic performance of trading agents in the seaweed industry. A good place to start
could be a comparative analysis of countries different experiences (e.g. export licensing
in Solomon Islands, the free-entry policy in the United Republic of Tanzania, and the
highly specialized and multilayer trading system in the Philippines31).
6.5 Governance and policy
Although most major carrageenan seaweed farming countries, except the Philippines,
have no specific regulations on seaweed farming, detrimental environmental externalities
were not cited in the case studies as a major problem of seaweed farming, nor were
conflicts or disputes over natural resources among seaweed farmers or between
seaweed farming and other activities. However, with increasing competition over
coastal resources, it is important, especially for countries with advanced seaweed
farming (e.g. Indonesia), to establish formal legal frameworks and specific regulations
to ensure the sustainable development of the sector.
Notwithstanding a private-sector driven activity, the socio-economic performance
of seaweed farming is affected, to a great extent, by public policy and governance
structure. However, there is a general lack of information and knowledge on the
design and implementation of public policies and their impacts on the socio-economic
performance of seaweed farming. Further study in this regard is needed.
In the Philippines seaweed industry, the number of trading agents was about half that of the number of
seaweed farmers (Hurtado, 2013).
31
A global synthesis
References
Ask, E. 2001. Creating a sustainable commercial Eucheuma cultivation industry: the
importance and necessity of the human factor. In A. Chapman, R. Anderson, V.
Vreeland, & I. Davison, eds. 17th International Seaweed Symposium, pp.1318. Oxford
University Press.
Barrington, K., Chopin, T. & Robinson, S. 2009. Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture
(IMTA) in marine temperate waters. In D. Soto (ed.). Integrated mariculture: a global
review. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 529. Rome, FAO. pp. 746.
Bixler, H. & Porse, H. 2011. A decade of change in the seaweed hydrocolloids industry.
Journal of Applied Phycology, 23: 321335.
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). 1983. Rules and regulations
governing the gathering and farming of seaweeds. Fisheries Administrative Order
No. 146. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Ministry of Natural Resources,
Republic of the Philippines. (also available at www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/
nalo_philippines/en).
Buschmann, A., Varela, D., Cifuentes, M., Hernndez-Gonzlez, M., Henrquez, L.,
Westermeier, R. & Correa, J. 2004. Experimental indoor cultivation of the
carrageenophytic red alga Gigartina skottsbergii. Aquaculture, 241: 357370.
Espaldon, M.V., Sumalde, Z., Rebancos, C., Villanueva J. & Mercene-Mutia, M.
(forthcoming). Indicators for measuring the contribution of small-scale aquaculture to
sustainable rural development: Philippines pilot case studies. In M.G. Bondad-Reantaso,
P. Bueno & T. Pongthanapanich, eds. Indicator system for assessing the contribution
of small-scale aquaculture to sustainable rural development: selected case studies. FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No.545. Rome, FAO.
Ferrer, M.S.R. 2002. National seaweed program. In A.Q. Hurtado, N.G. Guanzon Jr, T.R.
de Castro-Mallare & M.R.J. Luhan, eds. Proceedings of the National Seaweed Planning
Workshop held on August 23, 2001, pp. 2733. Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC.
Tigbauan, the Philippines.
Frcklin, S., de la Torre-Castro, M., Lindstrm, L., Jiddawi, N.S., Msuya, F.E. 2012.
Seaweed mariculture as a development project in Zanzibar, East Africa: A price too high
to pay? Aquaculture, 356357: 3039.
Gan, K.T. 2003. Strategic alliances in the tropical Asian seaweed industry: implications for
development in Asia. Adelaide, Australia, University of South Australia. 89pp.
Hayashi, L., Hurtado, A.Q., Msuya, F.E., Bleicher-Lhonneur, G. & Critchley, A.T. 2010.
A review of Kappaphycus farming: prospects and constraints. In A. Israel, R. Einav & J.
Seckbach, eds. Seaweeds and their role in globally changing environments, pp. 255283.
Cellular Origin, Life in Extreme Habitats and Astrobiology.
Hishamunda, N., Ridler, N., Bueno, P., Satia, B., Kuemlangan, B., Percy, D., Gooley,
G., Brugere,C. & Sen, S. 2012. Improving aquaculture governance: what is the status
and options? In R.P.Subasinghe, J.R.Arthur, D.M.Bartley, S.S.De Silva, M.Halwart,
N. Hishamunda, C.V. Mohan & P. Sorgeloos, eds. Farming the waters for people and
food: Proceedings of the Global Conference on Aquaculture 2010, pp. 233264. Rome,
FAO, and Bangkok, NACA. 896pp.
Hurtado, A. Q. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming
in the Philippines. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda & N. Ridler, eds. Social
and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp. 91-113. Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper No.580. Rome, FAO. 204pp.
57
58
Juanich, G. L. 1998. Manual of running water fish culture 1. Eucheuma spp. ASEAN/
SF/88/Manual No. 2. ASEAN/UNDP/FAO Regional Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries
Development Project, 1988. 25pp.
Kapetsky, J.M., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. & Jenness, J. (forthcoming). A global assessment of
potential for offshore mariculture development from a spatial perspective. FAO Fisheries
Kassam, L., Subasinghe, R. & Phillips, M. 2011. Aquaculture farmer organizations and
cluster management: concepts and experiences. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical
Paper No.563. Rome, FAO. 90pp.
Krishnan, M. & Narayanakumar, R. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan
seaweed farming in India. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda and N. Ridler, eds.
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp.163-185. Fisheries
Kronen, M. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in the
Solomon Islands. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda and N. Ridler, eds. Social
Luxton, D. 1999. Potential for Eucheuma cottonii seaweed farming in Samoa. South
Pacific Aquaculture Development Project (Phase II), Field document 17, GCP/RAS/116/
JPN. Suva, Fiji, FAO. 33 pp.
Mao, Y., Yang, H., Zhou, Y, Ye, N, & Fang, J. 2009. Potential of the seaweed Gracilaria
lemaneiformis for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture with scallop Chlamys farreri in
North China. Journal of Applied Phycology, 21: 641656.
McHugh, D.J. 2003. A guide to the seaweed industry. Fisheries Technical Paper No.441.
Rome, FAO. 105pp.
McHugh, D.J. 2006. The seaweed industry in the Pacific islands. ACIAR Working Paper
No.61. Canberra, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. 55pp.
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). 2009. Solomon Islands aquaculture
development plan, 2009-2014. Noumea, New Caledonia, Ministry of Fisheries and
Marine Resources Solomon Islands and Secretariat of the Pacific Community. 54pp.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT). 2005. Seaweed development
strategic plan. Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania, University Printing Press.
47pp.
Msuya, F.E. 2009. Development of seaweed cultivation in Tanzania: the role of the
University of Dar es Salaam and other institutions. EC FP7 Project. SARNISSA. 25pp.
Msuya, F.E. 2011. The impact of seaweed farming on the socio-economic status of coastal
communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. World Aquaculture, 42(3): 4549.
Msuya, F.E. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in the
United Republic of Tanzania. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda and N. Ridler,
eds. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp. 115-146.
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No.580. Rome, FAO. 204pp.
Msuya, F.E., Shalli, M.S., Sullivan, K., Crawford, B., Tobey, J. & Mmochi, A.J. 2007.
A comparative economic analysis of two seaweed farming methods in Tanzania. The
Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystems Program. Coastal Resources Center,
University of Rhode Island and the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association.
27pp. (also available at www.wiomariculture.org/pubs/CompSeaweedEconReport.pdf).
Namuda, M. & Pickering, T. 2006. Rapid survey techniques using socio-economic
indicators to assess the suitability of Pacific Island rural communities for Kappaphycus
seaweed farming development. Journal of Applied Phycology, 18: 241249.
Neish, I.C. 2008a. Structure and development of tropical red seaweed value chains with
focus on the red algal galactan seaplants (RAGS). SEAPlant.net Monograph No.HB2A
1108 V2 VC. Makassar, Indonesia. 47pp.
A global synthesis
Neish, I.C. 2008b. Good agronomy practices for Kappaphycus and Euchema: including an
overview of basic biology. SEAPlant.net Monograph No.HB2F 1008 V3 GAP. Makassar,
Indonesia. 72pp.
Neish, I.C. 2008c. A ten-step functional framework for building ventures and alliances
among Seaplant enterprises. SEAPlant.net Monograph No. HB2C 0808 V1 VA.
Makassar, Indonesia. 28pp.
Neish, I.C. 2009. Tropical red seaweeds as a foundation for integrated multi-trophic
aquaculture (IMTA): four propositions and an action plan for this major opportunity in
the Coral Triangle. SEAPlant.net Monograph No. HB2E 1209 V3 IMTA. Makassar,
Indonesia. 43pp.
Neish, I.C. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming
in Indonesia. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda and N. Ridler, eds. Social
Panlibuton, H., Porse, H. & Nadela, E. 2007. Seaweed/carrageenan value chain assessment:
final report. Study conducted for Seaplant.net initiative of IFC Advisory Services and for
GTZ Philippines. 47 pp. (also available at: http://bimp.huniomedia.com/wp-content/
uploads/downloads/2012/02/SW_Carrageenan-VCA-Report-July-2007.pdf).
Pickering, T. 2006. Advances in seaweed aquaculture among Pacific island countries.
Journal of Applied Phycology, 18: 227234.
Pickering, T., Skelton, P. & Sulu, R. 2007. Intentional introductions of commercially
harvested alien seaweeds. Botanica Marina, 50: 338350.
Ramachandran, C. 2012. A sea of ones own! A perspective on gendered political
ecology in Indian mariculture. In Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries: Moving the
Agenda Forward. Asian Fisheries Science Special Issue, 25S: 1728.
Ridler, N., Wowchuk, M., Robinson, B., Barrington, K., Chopin, T., Robinson, S.,
Page, F., Reid, G., Szemerda, S., Sewuster, J. & Boyne-Travis, S. 2007. Integrated
multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA): a potential strategic choice for farmers. Aquaculture
Economics and Management, 11(1): 99110.
Robledo, D., Gasca-Leyva, E. & Fraga, J. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of
carrageenan seaweed farming in Mexico. In D.Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda and
N. Ridler, eds. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp.185204. Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No.580. Rome, FAO. 204pp.
Soto, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. & Hishamunda, N. eds. 2008. Building an ecosystem
approach to aquaculture. FAO/Universitat de les Illes Balears Expert Workshop,
711May 2007, Palma de Mallorca, Spain. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings
No.14. Rome, FAO. 221pp.
Sulu, R., Kumar, L., Hay, C. & Pickering, T. 2003. Kappaphycus seaweed in the Pacific:
review of introductions and field testing of proposed quarantine protocols. Noumea,
Institute of Marine Resources, University of the South Pacific, Secretariat of the Pacific
Community. 85pp. (also available at www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/Reports/
Sulu_04.pdf).
Tinne, M., Preston, G. & Tiroba, G. 2006. Development of seaweed marketing and licensing
arrangements. technical report 1. Project ST 98/009: Commercialisation of Seaweed
Production in the Solomon Islands. Gillett, Preston and Associates. (also available at http://
bluesquid.net/COSPSI/CoSPSI%20Market%20Licence%20Report.pdf).
Vorley, B. & Proctor, F. 2008. Inclusive business in agrifood markets: evidence and action.
A report based on proceedings of an international conference held in Beijing, 56 March
2008. (also available at: www.regoverningmarkets.org/en/filemanager/active?fid=1059).
Zamroni, A., Laoubi, K. & Yamao, M. 2011. The development of seaweed farming as a
sustainable coastal management method in Indonesia: an opportunities and constraints
assessment. In R. Anderson & E.Beriatos, eds. Development and planning. Essex, UK,
WIT Press.
Zamroni, A. & Yamao, M. 2011. Coastal resource management: fishermens perceptions of
seaweed farming in Indonesia. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,
60: 3238.
59
61

carrageenan seaweed farming in
Indonesia
Iain C. Neish
Technical Adviser
P.T. IMTA MUZE
Indonesia
Neish, I.C. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in
Indonesia. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda & N. Ridler, eds. Social and economic
dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp. 6189. Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper No. 580. Rome, FAO. 204 pp .
62
1.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is an assessment of the social and economic dimensions of seaweed
aquaculture in Indonesia. It focuses on the development of sustainable seaweed
farmer livelihoods in the context of regional and global value chains. The analysis
was carried out in conformity with the frameworks of Scoones (1998) and Scoones
et al. (2007). These frameworks were placed in a value chain context according to the
model of Gereffi, Humphrey and Sturgeon (2005). Data were analysed from farmer
surveys conducted by Seaplant.net in the period May 2007 January 2008 and again in
September 2009. In addition, several value chain players were informally interviewed.
From 1985 to 2009, Indonesian seaweed farm development was driven by farmers
and local traders/collectors in a reflexive, bottom-up manner. A market need was
made known to prospective seaweed farmers by value chain stakeholders on the
demand side; farmers were exposed to the simple technology that was involved in
growing seaweeds and, with facilitation from a variety of organizations, seaweed
farmers were able to build their businesses within the context of village norms, mores
and structures. Seaweed farming became integrated into the social fabric of farmer
villages to the point where it now appears to be a traditional economic activity even
though it did not begin until the mid-1980s or later.
Since 1985, seaweed farming has been generally expanding in Indonesia; by 2008,
it provided an average annual income of the order of USD5 000 to an estimated
20 000 farm families working on a part-time basis. The most diligent farmers have
been able to make from two to three times that amount by working full time or by
employing the leader model approach to farming. Such earnings are well above the
poverty level. Interviewed farmers generally asserted that seaweed farming was by far
their most lucrative economic activity.
Seaweed farming has also been complementary and compatible with other village
economic activities such as fishing and farming land crops. Ready cash from seaweed
farming has also had a noticeable multiplier effect. Shops, support services for seaweed
farming and village infrastructure have all benefited visibly from seaweed cash flowing
through local village economies.
2.
Indonesia is located in the Coral Triangle region of Southeast Asia, north of Australia
and south of East Asia (TNC, 2004). The country has a tropical marine climate.
Seashores are typified by fairly uniform air and sea temperatures averaging in the range
of 2530 C. There is high humidity and moderate to heavy rainfall. There are no
typhoons but seismic activity can produce tsunamis and earth tremors.
Most cultivated seaweeds from Indonesia are of the red algal galactan seaweeds
(RAGS) genera Kappaphycus (commonly known by its commercial name cottonii),
Eucheuma (commonly known as spinosum) and Gracilaria. Those genera are sources
of the hydrocolloids known respectively as kappa carrageenan, iota carrageenan and
agar.
National production of seaweed in Indonesia has increased dramatically. According
to FAO Statistics (FishStat), cultivated carrageenophyte seaweed production in
Indonesia was 197 277 tonnes (wet weight) and worth USD21.7 million in 2000; by
2010, production had approached 3.4milliontonnes, worth USD1.1billion. By 2010,
Indonesia accounted for more than two-thirds of world tonnage and value.
Seaweed farming in Indonesia first reached commercial production in Bali in the
mid-1980s but the technology rapidly spread to other parts of the country; since
then, Sulawesi has become the centre of seaweed production (Figure 1). Major
seaweed farming peoples included the Balinese, Madurese, Bajo, Bugis, Makassar,
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in Indonesia
63
FIGURE1
Estimated annual production of RAGS, 2009 (tonnes in dry weight)

Cottonii
Spinosum
Graciliria
Sulawesi Selatan
Location
20000
1500
40000
Sulawesi Tenggara
35000
1500
4000
0
0
Sulawesi Tengah
Sulawesi Utara
1000
Madura
10000
Bali + NTB
10000
6000
500
NTT
10000
5000
500
Maluku/Papua
Other RI
Total RI
5000
500
4500
100000
10000
45000
Sulawesi
Utara
Tengah
Tenggara
Selatan
Maluku/Papua
Madura
Bali + Nusa Tenggara Barat
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Sources: Seaplant.net; JaSuDa farmer network.
Luwuk, Banggai, Muna and Buton. Some of these peoples have lived in their ancestral
homelands for centuries. Sea peoples such as the Bugis, Buton and Bajo have also
migrated to establish seaweed farms in eastern regions such as Nusa Tenggara Timur
(NTT) and Maluku.
Large areas of Indonesia, especially in East Indonesia, were still available for
seaweed farm development as of late 2009. The less-developed regions included the
Java Sea, the Sulawesi Sea, Lesser Sundas (including NTT), Banda Sea, Halmahera
and Papua, but most other regions still had expansion potential as well. If all areas
were developed, at least a three-fold increase in Indonesian RAGS production could
probably be accomplished.
Indonesias export of RAGS has increased significantly since 2000, thanks primarily
to the increase in its cottonii and spinosum exports from about 40000tonnes (worth
USD20million) in early 2000 to 100000tonnes (worth more than USD110million) in
2008 (Figure2).1 Its exports of Gracilaria remained fairly constant at an annual average
of about 16000tonnes with a value of USD8million.
About 55percent of Indonesian exports have gone to China, where the market for
RAGS products has steadily grown in the past decade (Neish, 2009). The JLJ Group
1
The two species were generally not disaggregated in the trade data but their joint exports were estimated
to contain about 90percent cottonii.
64
FIGURE2
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Cotonii/spinosium(quantity)
Cotonii/spinosium(value)
2005
2006
2007
2008
(Million USD)
(Thousand tonnes)
Indonesian seaweed exports, tonnage (raw dried equivalent) and value, 200008
Gracilaria (value)
Gracilaria (quantity)
Source: Authors calculation based on data from Indonesian Customs and Excise Department.
(2006) estimated that about 95percent of the China market consisted of meat, jelly and
soft candy applications and that the market could grow at more than 10percent per
year.
Based on supply, demand and prices criteria, the situation for RAGS as of late 2009
was that the markets for spinosum, Gracilaria and their extracts were steady but the
markets for cottonii and kappa carrageenan made from cottonii were in an uncertain
state. The high cottonii farmgate prices led to unprecedented high carrageenan prices
and a reduction in the demand for kappa carrageenan. By November 2009, all processors
were reporting business down by as much as 50percent. The general consensus among
processors interviewed during the present study was that a free-on-board (f.o.b.) price
in the range of USD10001200/tonne for export-grade cottonii would lead to steadily
growing markets while still giving a good return to farmers.
Seasonal variability between regions, within years and between years was commonly
cited by farmers as a causative factor for variability in seaweed production;2 however,
comprehensive scientific studies of cause-and-effect relationships remain to be
undertaken. Interviewed farmers reported that, on average, worst yields were about
23.4percent of best yields (standard deviation = 17.5). Ten successful farmers in South
Sulawesi reported an average monthly harvest exceeding 1170kg in the best seasons,
425 kg overall, and 178 kg in the worst seasons. Exports of RAGS products from
Indonesia also showed a distinct seasonality pattern in the period 20002008. The first
quarter was usually the lowest season (19.7percent of the annual export), followed by
the second quarter (23.9percent), the third quarter (27.5percent) and the highest in the
fourth quarter (28.9percent).
Various actions were taken by seaweed farmers in response to seasonal changes. In
South Sulawesi and NTT, most farmers had more than one farming site and shifted
Weather changes in Indonesia are driven by the West Monsoon (generally from October to March) and
the East Monsoon (generally from April to September). Seasonal variations in wind patterns and rainfall
are a fact of life that has great impact on Indonesian seaweed farmers. Most farmers refer to good or
bad farming conditions with reference to rainfall. In some locations, production is best during the
rainy season and in others during the dry season. Some locations are good for seaweed farming all
year round although there may be seasonal variations in productivity. Many locations can only support
seaweed farming in a limited season of the year. Seasonality can vary even within nearby areas. In some
cases (e.g. Bulukumba), seasons are different even for farms located a few kilometres apart.
sites seasonally. In South Sulawesi, they also tended to change their cultivar mix by
growing more spinosum in times when cottonii did not grow well. Farming effort
remained constant throughout the year in Sulawesi Tenggara (South Central Sulawesi)
but effort was concentrated more towards the best seasons in other areas. Almost
all farmers reported that drying was not a major seasonal constraint although rainy
weather made crop drying more difficult. However, all farmers reported that seasonal
effects on growth were a major factor affecting farming effort.
2.2 Value chain
The history of the seaweed-to-carrageenan value chain has been reflected through
changes in value chain linkages. While Indonesia is the largest carrageenan seaweed
farming and exporting country, the history of its seaweed farming development was
intimately connected with development in other countries, especially the Philippines. A
brief discussion on the development of RAGS value chains from a global perspective is
provided below to facilitate the understanding of the seaweed value chain in Indonesia.
Development of RAGS value chains: a history of different governance models
The first phase of extensive tropical seaweed aquaculture was launched in 1974, when
commercial quantities of cottonii were first produced in the south of the Philippines.
Direct governance predominated as vertically integrated enterprises controlled value
chain functions. This resulted in an oligopsony (many small sellers and few major
buyers). Cultivation of tropical RAGS and the extraction of RAG gums rapidly went
from experimental trials to fully developed value chains owing to innovations in
process technology and seaweed farm development driven by the big three innovative
transnationals that dominated the carrageenan business (Marine Colloids, Auby and
CP). These firms collaborated with local entrepreneurs to develop farms through direct
investment. Substantial benefits were realized given the strong market position and
robust strategic alliances built by the transnationals. Standards systems were facilitated
by Marinalg, a trade association that included the big three. Farmer linkages were
directly to company representatives including trainers, extension workers and staff of
company-operated buying stations. Direct governance value chains did not prove to
be sustainable. They have evolved towards a relational mode in order to enhance
sustainability as depicted in Figure3.
The second phase of RAGS value chain development occurred from the mid-1980s
until the mid-1990s as modular governance substantially displaced direct governance.
Processors still determined product specifications and trade rules but they operated
through integrated suppliers. The availability of cultivated Kappaphycus made it
possible to introduce a novel technology by 1980 known as semi-refined carrageenan
(SRC). This low-cost, low-energy product was initially developed by collaboration
among established producers and end users in the petfood industry. The original
process technology was copied as new industry players entered the SRC business
and recruited former employees, consultants and equipment suppliers of previously
established manufacturers. As a result, innovation in the industry stagnated. Major
traders became processors while farm development became farmer- and traderfunded. The Philippines lost its effective monopoly because Indonesia and the United
Republic of Tanzania developed as significant RAGS sources. Standards systems were
still facilitated by Marinalg but they were weakening. Farmer linkages were through
integrated suppliers, i.e. farmers were substantially cut off from direct links with
processors.
The third phase of value chain development occurred by the mid-1990s as market
governance began to displace direct and modular governance. Arms length
transactions between buyers and sellers became common as large volumes of seaweed
were sold on short-term contracts or on the spot-market. As supply sources developed
65
66
FIGURE3
Governance models of tropical (carrageenan) seaweed value chains

Direct (captive)
Modular
Market
Relational
1974
1985
Direct (captive) governance

LEAD
FIRM
PROCESSOR
Has not been sustainable. Vertically

integrated enterprises control value
chain functions.
1995
Modular governance
PROCESSORS
Farmers link directly with company

representatives.
2005
2009
Evolving toward relational mode

for sustainability.
Controlled by firms that determine
product specifications and trade
rules.
Farmers link through integrated
supplierrs.
Substantially cut off from direct links
with processors.
INTEGRATED
SUPPLIERS
FARMERS
FARMERS
Relational governance
Market governance
PROCESSORS
LEAD FIRM
PROCESSOR
Developing as a means toward value
chain sustainibility.
Little or no provision for building

value chain sustainibility.
PRICE
Typified by development of tactical

and strategic alliances.
Arms length transactions between

buyers & sellers.
Enterprises with farmer equity or

control link directly to processors with
assistance from business development
and support services.
Farmers link mainly through two or

more layers of collectors & traders.
FARMER
ENTERPRISE
FARMERS
FARMERS
in less accessible island locations, multiple levels of trading proliferated. Although

they added little value, agents and officials were in a position to collect rents and gain
trading advantage through their possession of capital and information. Competition for
reliable Kappaphycus sources intensified greatly as market demand could not be met
by seaweed supplies. Market-driven value chains functioned poorly for performance
ingredients such as carrageenan. Systems that once enabled third-party buyers to trace
and control quality broke down. Farmers were substantially cut off from direct links
with processors and to some extent they were also isolated from integrated suppliers.
Most market links were through two or more layers of collectors and traders. Market
governance has tended to be of the moment and has not supported mechanisms
leading towards sustainability. At the time of writing, at least 88substantial processors
in at least 18 countries were capable of producing carrageenan and/or agar. Few of
these companies have built direct or modular value chain links. The disintegration of
exclusive value chain relationships caused side-selling to become a major problem both
for the original big three companies and for subsequent entrants as well. Investments
in process and farm development were curtailed by the mid-1990s because investments
could no longer be protected and internalized by private investors. By 2008, it became
clear to many in business, government and aid organizations that something was
broken in the seaweed-to-hydrocolloid value chains. Supply and demand disconnects
in the cottonii trade led to unprecedented instability and high prices for cottonii. Prior
to 2008, prices had been fairly stable. Prices fluctuated markedly in the period 200809.
Phase four of RAGS value chain development evolved as relational governance
showed promise for building value chain sustainability. Relational value chains are
typified by development of tactical and strategic alliances. Development has been
facilitated by aid agencies and business development services (BDSs) since about 2003
when the International Finance Corporation Program for Eastern Indonesia SME
Assistance (IFC-PENSA) programme began. Aggregation of farmers into enterprise
units such as cooperatives enabled them to acquire the critical mass necessary for
participating in regional and global value chains. Meanwhile, the processing sector
consolidated in China even as new processors began to move value addition towards
Indonesia. Market pressure towards sustainability and fair trade increased the need for
transparent links from source to solution and that, in turn, stimulated the development
of relational linkages. At the time of writing, farm development and processing were
beginning to move towards integrated systems. Transparent standards were developing
regionally and globally. Enterprises with farmer equity or control were beginning to
link directly to processors with assistance from BDSs.
Characteristics of seaweed value chains in Indonesia
Basic post-harvest treatment procedures for RAGS seaweed farmers are covered in Neish
et al. (2009). Cottonii and spinosum are dried before shipment to further-processing
facilities. Industry standard is about 38 percent moisture. Individual transactions may
involve specifications as low as 30percent or as high as the trading environment permits.
Attempts at finding better and more cost-effective all-season drying options are a
persistent industry preoccupation. Depending on weather conditions and plant density,
cottonii and spinosum can typically be dried in 23days under tropical conditions. Plants
must be turned over frequently. Wet-to-dry ratios vary between species and locations but
generally range from 6:1 to 9:1. Cottonii and spinosum are almost universally dried under
the sun before they are packed and shipped for further processing. The basic rules for
producing raw dried seaweed (RDS) of export quality are: clean the materials properly;
dry the material to below 38percent moisture; do not salt the crop; do not play trading
games such as adding water and contaminants.
During cleaning and re-drying there are some steps that are generally applicable and
others that are optional. Raffia, rope and other materials used during farming activities
can cause processing problems and product contamination, so they should be removed.
Seaweeds other than the desired crop (junk weed), debris and other contaminants or
adulterants should be removed as much as possible, especially if they can have critical
effects on quality (e.g. a spinosum + cottonii mix may be useless for processing). Sand
and stones cause equipment fouling, wear and tear, so they must be removed. Mud,
dirt and other particulate contaminants should also be removed. Seaweed salt removal
is optional. The natural potassium chloride in cottonii has a role in processing so it can
be left in the crop.
In Indonesia, almost all seaweed is dried under the sun. Four main types of drying
apparatus are employed and all are suitable provided that the seaweed is kept clean
during the drying process. The types of apparatus are: concrete slabs sloped so they
have good drainage; tarpaulins or plastic placed on flat ground; platforms or flakes
(para-para) made from wood or bamboo and covered with fine netting; and wooden
or bamboo racks that are used to hang lines with the cuttings still attached.
67
68
The functions of local trading and collecting are performed by local entrepreneurs,
farmers groups, farmers cooperatives or farmers credit unions. All farmers interviewed
during the present study sold their seaweed to buyers located in their village of
residence. Overall, 88 percent said that they usually sold to the same collector,
59percent sold to independent collectors, and 41percent sold to their cooperative or
credit union (Table1).
Price was cited by 52percent of farmers as a major factor in choosing buyers but
68 percent said that the buyer was a friend or relative and 45 percent said they had
contracts with buyers (Table1).
TABLE1
Selling practices of 66 farmers interviewed in 4 provinces of Indonesia in 200708

Sell to
Collector
Co-op
Credit
union
Buyer choice by
Exporter
Same
buyer
Price
No
QC
Friend
Contract
South Sulawesi (N = 8)
Sum
%
100
13
75
100
25
88
13
Bali (N = 8)
Sum
100
50
38
13
75
13
Sum
23
11
32
24
17
12
68
32
94
71
50
35
Sum
16
16
16
16
100
100
100
100
%
NTT (N = 34)
South Central Sulawesi

(N = 16)
Total (N = 66)
Sum
39
11
16
58
34
45
30
59
17
24
88
52
68
45
Note: QC = quality control.

Source: Seaplant.net survey.
The first link in seaweed-based value chains is usually from farmers to collectors.
As indicated in Table 1, all farmers in South Sulawesi and Bali sold their seaweed to
collectors. Most collectors were entrepreneurs from the villages where they bought
seaweed. Many were or had been active seaweed farmers. Most financed their
operations with their own capital although some had cash advances from seaweed
processors or traders.
Farmers responses indicated that trust and commitment were important components
of the link between farmers and collectors. In the survey, 66farmers were interviewed
using methods similar to those used in a study by Gan (2003) on farmer-to-collector
links in tropical seaweed aquaculture in Asia.3 The results indicate, in general, a high
degree of trust and commitment between farmers and collectors (Table2).
The Gan (2003) study showed that seaweed collectors in Indonesia (as well as the Philippines) tended to
deal with farmers from the same ethnic backgrounds and home villages that they came from. Many were
current or former seaweed farmers who developed as lead farmers, then as collectors. It appears that in
the seaweed industry of Indonesia, trustcommitment mechanisms have led to value chain development
within established local communities.
69
TABLE2
Overall farmer trust and commitment to the collector

Trust and commitment
SS
(N = 8)
Bali
(N = 8)
NTT
(N = 34)
SCS
(N = 16)
Overall
(N = 66)
Av.
SD
Av.
SD
Av.
SD
Av.
SD
Av.
SD
I can always trust the buyer
7.00
0.00
5.00
1.69
6.15
1.46
7.00
0.00
6.32
1.34
The buyer has high integrity
7.00
0.00
5.13
0.99
6.09
1.46
7.00
0.00
6.30
1.25
The buyer keeps promises
6.25
1.39
5.75
1.75
5.68
1.63
7.00
0.00
6.08
1.48
When making an important

decision, the buyer also considers
my interests
7.00
0.00
5.00
1.31
5.62
1.92
5.13
0.50
5.59
1.57
The buyer is always honest with us
6.25
1.39
5.50
1.77
5.68
1.65
7.00
0.00
6.05
1.50
High level of trust has been

developed between me and the
buyer
6.25
1.39
5.50
1.20
5.74
1.68
7.00
0.00
6.08
1.45
The buyer considers it important

that I am successful
6.63
1.06
4.88
1.73
5.82
1.49
7.00
0.00
6.09
1.42
There is no reason for me to be

suspicious of the buyer
5.88
1.55
3.75
2.05
5.56
1.56
7.00
0.00
5.73
1.69
I have a strong commitment to

this buyer
7.00
0.00
5.50
1.41
5.85
1.60
7.00
0.00
6.23
1.37
I intend to maintain and develop

this relationship
7.00
0.00
6.50
0.76
6.41
1.13
7.00
0.00
6.64
0.89
This relationship requires maximum

effort and involvement
7.00
0.00
6.13
0.99
6.76
0.70
7.00
0.00
6.77
0.65
I am fully open and honest in the

relationship with the buyer
7.00
0.00
6.38
1.41
5.97
1.38
7.00
0.00
6.39
1.19
The buyer spends enough energy

in our relationship
7.00
0.00
6.38
0.74
3.91
0.79
7.00
0.00
5.33
1.61
I often feel satisfied in the

cooperation with the buyer
7.00
0.00
4.75
2.31
6.59
1.02
7.00
0.00
6.52
1.26
Trust
Commitment
Notes: SS = South Sulawesi; NTT = Nusa Tenggara Timur; SCS = South Central Sulawesi; Av. = average; SD = standard
deviation. A seven-point Likert scale is used: 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = neither disagree nor agree; 7 = strongly agree.
Source: Seaplant.net survey.
Generally, several collectors fed into a central trading centre where seaweeds were
weighed, bagged and shipped. As an example, the operation of a major local trader in
Bulukumba, South Sulawesi, is summarized as follows and in Table3:
The volume of business for this trader averaged about 100 tonnes per month
(maximum 200tonnes and minimum 80tonnes).
Seaweed from farmers was received by 11collectors and also at the central trading
centre.
Cash advances totalling about USD25 000 were distributed by the trader to
66people (both collectors and farmers). The source of funds was the traders own
capital and also some cash advances from buyers.
Advances were repaid in the form of seaweed. At each delivery, about 10percent
was allocated to cash advance repayment. The same price was paid to farmers
whether or not they had a cash advance.
People were paid on a piecework basis to sort and stuff sacks (average capacity of
60kg) at a rate of USD0.50 per sack. The cost of each sack was about USD0.20,
thus the total cost of sorting and sacking was about USD12/tonne.
The cost of loading a truck and sending 5 tonnes of seaweed to Makassar was
about USD20/tonne.
Remuneration received by collectors and traders was variable but generally not
more than 5percent of seaweed price. At low, average and high price levels, trader
70
TABLE3
An example of monthly seaweed volume, capital requirement and added costs from farmgate
to market for a local trader in South Sulawesi
Scenarios
Low price
Medium price
High price
Trader volume and capital

Cottonii purchased per month (tonnes)
100
100
100
Seaweed farm gate price (USD/tonne)
500
850
1 200
Monthly cash to buy seaweed (USD)
50 000
85 000
120 000
Advances to farmers and collectors (USD)
25 000
25 000
25 000
Cost of sorting and sacking
12
12
12
Cost of transport to market
20
20
20
Collector and trader fees
25
43
60
Shrinkage from sorting and re-drying
50
85
120
Cost of baling
25
25
25
Costs per tonne marketed (USD/tonne)
Total added costs
132
185
237
All-in costs per tonne (USD/tonne)
632
1 035
1 437
21
18
16
Added costs as a percentage of total cost (%)
and collector fees would therefore have amounted to about USD25, USD43 and
USD60 per tonne, respectively.
Export prices or prices to processing plants generally specified a moisture content
averaging not more than 38percent. Seaweeds delivered with higher moisture levels
had to be re-dried by traders; typical shrinkage was of the order of 10 percent.
Shrinkage costs at low, average and high price ranges would therefore have been of
the order of USD50, USD85 and USD120/tonne, respectively.
Most export shipments were packaged in compressed bales averaging 100 kg in
weight at a cost of about USD25/tonne.
Based on this example, the added costs of bringing seaweeds from farm to market
at low, average and high price ranges was USD132, USD185 and USD237 per
tonne, or 21, 18and 16percent of the all-in production cost of cottonii.
Most Indonesian cottonii and spinosum are currently exported as sun-dried
seaweeds to be used as raw material for making refined or SRC.4 This means that most
of the value added in the seaweed processing has yet to be captured by the country.
Indeed, as no significant economies of scale occur until the final milling, blending and
laboratory testing steps of carrageenan production, a large portion of value addition
in the seaweed processing can be realized in places close to seaweed cultivation areas,
especially in locations where low-cost labour is available.
Keeping track of materials and energy balances is key to good carrageenan or agar
process control. This requires effective testing and quality assurance programmes.
Seaweed raw material is usually the major contributor to production costs, and
optimizing raw material use is an exercise in balancing process inputs and outputs. A
large shrinkage in weight and volume can occur as RAGS move along the value chain.
An overview of these processes is presented in Neish (2008b). In the past 30 years, a variety of trade
names has been used for the alkali-modified gel-mode products of RAGS. The term SRC (semirefined carrageenan) came into general use in the marketplace around 1978 and it is still commonly used
in the trade. The defining characteristic of SRC is that it is reduced to final product form without being
dissolved in water; hence, without having fibre removed. This type of process enables the product to be
recovered using low-cost water-removal methods. The SRC process is an attenuated version of processes
used in the manufacture of some kinds of clarified agar and carrageenan extracts. It is one of a family of
processes in which alkaline modification is done while the gum is in a gel (frozen) state rather than a sol
(melted) state. The two types of processes are referred to as gel-mode and sol-mode processes.
It has been estimated that about 23percent of cottonii is recovered as SRC, with the
balance lost during processing. Almost all waste from this process can be utilized as
agricultural nutrients and/or can be recycled to the SRC process. It is this phenomenon
that introduces complexities into trading dynamics and process economics and provides
an incentive for ongoing innovation and optimization of value-chain structure. An
examination of cost partitioning provides further insight into the drivers behind such
developments.
In Indonesia, SRC for pet food or human food usage is the most common form
of carrageenan manufactured. At the time of writing, the cost of SRC production
for a typical Indonesian factory was about USD1 500/tonne, excluding the cost of
seaweed. In the past five years, the price of RDS cottonii to local processors has
ranged from a low of about USD500/tonne to a high of about USD1 600/tonne.
Assuming a 25 percent yield from RDS to SRC,5 the cost of making SRC would be
about USD3500/tonne and USD7900/tonne with an RDS cost of USD500/tonne and
USD1600/tonne, respectively. Thus, cottonii represents 57percent of production cost
at the low RDS price and 81percent of production cost at the high RDS price.
Transportation costs and a proliferation of collecting or trading links can boost RDS
cost significantly. At the time of writing, shipping baled RDS (at 20tonnes per 20-foot
[6-m] container) cost in the order of USD30/tonne from Indonesia to the south of
China, and about twice that amount to Europe. Moreover, local shipping in Indonesia
can add substantially to RDS cost. Moving RDS from feeder hubs to major hubs can
cost more than shipping from major hubs to overseas destinations. In addition, with
each step in the chain, there is a high risk of losses, shrinkage and trading games. In
addition, some jurisdictions impose levies on RDS transported through their ports or
roads; unofficial rent-seeking activities can also add appreciably to RDS cost.
If effective technology and quality controls are in place, economics favour the
production of SRC near seaweed sources. The following comparative advantages can
amount to hundreds of US dollar per tonne. The advantages of source-based processing
are: shortening supply lines can save tens of US dollars per tonne on all-in RDS costs,
which can easily translate to several hundred US dollars per tonne in SRC chips or
powder cost, near-source processors can minimize trading games, seaweed sources are
usually in areas with low-cost labour and abundant sunlight that is useful for drying,
processing near sources minimizes handling and process steps associated with drying
and packing.
At the time of writing, at least 16 processing plants in Indonesia were capable of
making SRC or refined carrageenan (RC). It remained to be seen whether Indonesia
could follow the pattern of the Philippines and evolve towards exporting value-added
products rather than RDS. The major determinant will be the commercial connections
to China. China cannot grow substantial quantities of tropical RAGS such as cottonii.
As of 2009, China imported tropical RDS and extracted carrageenan from them in
China. Indonesian RAGS producers must find a way to sell carrageenan rather than
selling raw seaweed in China if they aspire to progress up the value chain.
The worldwide distribution of plant capacity is difficult to determine accurately
because most companies keep capacity information confidential. Based on McHugh
(2003) and data collected by Seaplant.net, the approximate distribution as of 2009 is
shown in Table 4. The data indicate substantial plant overcapacity for SRC, refined
kappa carrageenan and agar. Because the same process lines can be configured to
produce both agar and kappa carrageenan, agar factories represent latent kappa
carrageenan capacity.
Links between the supply and the demand ends of seaweed-to-hydrocolloid value
chains are being developed to increase resilience in the face of external value-chain
5
With good quality RDS, the yield could be as much as 35percent.
71
72
TABLE4
Estimated distribution of process plant capacity for agar and carrageenan as of 2009
Type
Europe
Africa
Americas
Indonesia
Philippines
China
Other
Asia
Total
(tonnes/year)
Agar
RC
SRC
780
1 050
3 000
4 000
200
4 000
1 500
14 350
13 100
8 050
750
2 700
10 000
1 000
35 600
500
1 100
11 080
19 600
3 000
2 000
37 280
Source: Adapted and updated from McHugh (2003).
shocks such as unstable price and quality related to supply and demand imbalances.
Such linkages are also being strengthened in order to make sure that seaweed products
remain competitive against competing products in the world marketplace in uncertain
economic times.
As of 2009, single-stream processing was the norm for cottonii, spinosum and
Gracilaria. Seaweeds were generally dried and shipped as a raw product; typical
gum yields ranged from as low as 8percent to as high as 30percent or more. About
7092 percent of seaweed weight shipped entered waste streams at the site of
processing. Multistream processing is an innovation that could have positive impacts
on the competitiveness of tropical seaweed products. Processing could involve the use
of small-scale facilities and appropriate technology in places near farms. This would
ensure that very little would go to waste. The nutrient component of seaweeds could be
extracted for local use or processed for export. The gum component could be shipped
as a high-yielding, low-waste concentrate or could be processed into finished form in
mini-factories (Figure4).
Seaweed-to-hydrocolloid value chains were opaque and farmers had little knowledge
of the value chains they sold to until the advent of cell phones and the Internet. In the
past decade, farmers have become connected to the world through cell phones and
computers so a wide range of knowledge, information, tools and solutions (KITS)
is available to them, including open price information online at www.jasuda.com.
Seaweed processors can now buy directly from farmer enterprises in a fully traceable
manner if they wish to do so.
FIGURE4
Evolution of processing
BUILDING
PRODUCT
FOUNDATION LINKS
END-USE LINKS
BLOCKS
SOLUTIONS
NUTRIENTS & GASES
fertilizers, animal feed,
human food, oxygen
production, CO2 fixation
SINGLE-STREAM PROCESSING
(usually with substantial effluent)
CULTIVATE
RED, BROWN
and GREEN
SEAWEEDS
(marine
macroalgae)
or
MULTI-STREAM PROCESSING
(with low or no effluent)
and/or
INTEGRATED AQUALCULTURE
Source: Neish (2008a).
DISTRIBUTION
and
MARKETING
and
SALES
HEALTH PRODUCTS
bioactive compounds,
nutraceuticals, soil conditioner,
well-being products
CHEMICALS & FEULS
lipids, alchohols, biogases,
biopolymers, inorganic
compounds
Since June 2008, the seaweed Web sites www.seaplant.net and www.jasuda.net
have been operated by Seaplant.net Foundation as Web-based BDS platforms. The
sites were able to undertake commercial transactions for sale of items such as e-books;
however, seaweed was never sold through the sites. Rather, contacts made through the
site were the means by which seaweed transactions took place.
Within Indonesia, logistics networks that connected farmers to market centres were
mainly sea-based and were well developed. Seaweeds were transported along centuriesold trade routes. Ethnic groups prominent in seaweed farming were also among those
with a historical role in sea transport, notably the Bugis, Makassar and Buton.
South Sulawesi and Bali are examples of regions where land transport brings
seaweeds to market. In both cases, roads were near to seaweed farms and trucking
services were readily available. In South Sulawesi, seaweed farms were visible from the
highway at many locations and seaweed could be seen drying beside the road.
Many value chain stakeholders complained that domestic freight was too expensive
along some trade routes, especially on short-haul local connections by sea. As a result,
some seaweed enterprises such as farmer cooperatives were undertaking transport
functions themselves.
3.
CARRAGEENAN SEAWEED FARMING: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
PERFORMANCE
Technology and productivity
Almost all cottonii and spinosum farm systems involve attaching cuttings to lines made
from ropes, strings or strappings, which can be suspended in the sea using habitats with
a variety of configurations and orientations. In the case of Gracilaria, it is common to
place cuttings loosely in terrestrial ponds (tambak).
In the areas of focus for the present study: (i) farmers in South Sulawesi and NTT
generally utilize rafts at or near sea surface suspended by bamboo frames or plastic
floats; (ii) farmers in Bali generally use off-bottom horizontal short-stake systems or
small bamboo rafts (about 5-m long); and (iii) farmers in South Central Sulawesi utilize
horizontal long-stake systems. The spacing of cuttings on lines is generally about
1020cm in all regions but varies substantially between regions. The norm is 20cm in
Bali and more than 1m in NTT.
The average production of farms under survey was about 6.3 tonnes per year and
1.1tonnes per kilometre of lines or 10.9tonnes/ha.6 The scale of operation varied across
regions from an average of 2.7 km of lines for the surveyed farms in South Central
Sulawesi to 10.8km in South Sulawesi, as did the productivity from average 0.55tonnes/
km of lines in South Sulawesi to 1.68tonnes/km in NTT. In terms of area, the average
farm size varies from about 0.11 ha in Bali to 0.99 ha in South Sulawesi; and the
productivity from 6tonnes/ha in South Sulawesi to almost 60tonnes/ha in Bali (Table5).
It has been proposed in theory and demonstrated in practice (Neish et al., 2009)
that large cuttings yield higher productivity per kilometre of line than small cuttings,
provided that plants are harvested before they become so large as to break up. The
use of large cuttings (about 150g) is widespread in the Philippines and some parts of
Indonesia (e.g. NTT and Bali) but other regions of Indonesia, notably South Sulawesi,
tend to use small cuttings, sometimes with an average size of less than 50 g. The
6
An average floating farm in South Sulawesi utilized 442lines with an average length of 24m and had
lines spaced 93cm apart. A farm such as this would occupy about almost 1ha of sea surface. In NTT, an
average farm had 101lines with an average length of 37m spaced 135cm apart. Such a farm would occupy
about 0.5ha of sea surface. In Bali, lines were short and spaced closely. The average Balinese farm had
1107lines with an average length of 5m spaced only 20cm apart and occupying about 0.1ha. In South
Central Sulawesi, an average farm had 62lines with an average length of 58m spaced 100cm apart. Such
a farm would occupy about 0.4ha of sea surface.
73
74
TABLE5
Productivity of surveyed cottonii farmers in Indonesia
Region
Farming system
Annual
farm
production
(tonnes/
year)
Average scale of
operation
Average productivity
Km of
line
ha
Tonnes/km
of lines
Tonnes/ha
South Sulawesi
Floating
5.9
10.8
0.99
0.55
6.0
Bali
Off-bottom (short-stake)
6.6
5.3
0.11
1.25
59.6
Nusa Tenggara
Timur (NTT)
Floating
5.7
3.4
0.50
1.68
11.3
South Central
Sulawesi
Off-bottom (Long-stake)
3.1
2.7
0.36
1.15
8.6
6.3
5.8
0.58
1.09
10.9
All
reason given by farmers in South Sulawesi was that they tended to pay workers on a
piecework basis computed against lines planted. When there is insufficient biomass to
enable the use of large cuttings, they use small ones in order to keep the pieceworkers
(usually close female relatives of the farmers) content.
There are several reports of RAGS productivity in the literature (Neish et al., 2009).
In regions with their best growth during the east monsoon, yields peaked in June
and July, and the inverse occurred with regions with the best growth during the west
monsoon; yields peaked in December and January.
Capital costs
Most Indonesian seaweed farms are shoestring operations that employ an absolute
minimum of capital. They borrow, share or rent the more expensive items required
for seaweed production. For Gracilaria, the predominant method is to place cultivar
biomass as a by-crop in ponds constructed for growing prawns or milkfish. The
following discussion therefore focuses on cottonii.
Lines, floats and anchors
Substrate is a major capital item for seaweed farms in Indonesia. Polypropylene (PP)
line is the predominant material used. The cost of PP line depends on its diameter, so
farmers tend to use the smallest diameter (usually 46mm). Because PP lines degrade
under direct sunlight, they are submerged or protected as much as possible (lasting
from one to three years depending on care of use). Plants are generally attached to the
main lines using loops made from 1mm PP strings (Table6).
Farm equipment and facilities
In Indonesia, most nearshore areas are public property not available for outright
ownership. The same applies to farm locations in the sea. Farm sites and foreshore work
areas are made available to local farmers by agreement among citizens of the village
claiming jurisdiction over the sites. In general, there is no formal system of leasing.
Most farms in Indonesia are in close proximity to the villages where farmers reside.
It is common practice for houses to be built on stilts with a work and storage area
underneath; it is in these areas where farm activities (e.g. attaching cuttings to lines) are
carried out. Such activities can also be carried out under a tented lean-to or a tarpaulin
or leaf-covered open-sided shelter. The cost of such shelters for a typical farm with
6km of lines is about USD200 (Table7).
Drying is done on net-covered platforms (also known as flakes or para-para),
on tarpaulins spread over the ground, or on bamboo racks about 2m high. The cost
of drying facilities per 6 km of planted lines (one average farm) is about USD150
(Table7).
75
TABLE6
Initial Investment for one kilometre of line for a floating habitat system
Item
USD/unit
Total cost
(USD)
Life span
(years)
km
34.00
34.00
km
136.00
27.20
0.2
km
114.00
22.80
km
1.00
1.00
500
pieces
0.03
15.00
50
pieces
0.15
7.50
800
kg
0.24
Number
Units
1km (13.6kg) of 5-mm PP line
0.2km (11kg) of 10-mm PP line
0.2
0.2km (9kg) of 8-mm PP line

1km of 1-mm PP line (for loops)
Plastic bottles as floats
Sandbag anchors
Total investment for 1km of line
Live cuttings as initial biomass
107.50
192.00
TABLE7
Farm equipment and facilities reported by farmers interviewed in South Sulawesi in

September 2009
Item
Total cost
(USD)
Life span
(years)
Number
Units
USD/unit
- 9-m canoe with 5.5-hp motor
unit
500.00
500
- Miscellaneous tools and equipment
set
150.00
150
A nuclear farm (6km of lines)

Vehicle and equipment
650
Shelter and post-harvest treatment

- Drying facilities
- Shelter for shade while working
- Sacks
366
1
1
200
set
150.00
150
set
200.00
200
0.08
16
pieces
Total
1 016
A leader farm (30km of lines)

1 600
- 9-m canoe with 5.5-hp motor
unit
500.00
1 000
- 6-m canoe with no motor
unit
150.00
300
- Miscellaneous tools and equipment
set
150.00
300

- Drying facility
- Shelter for shade while working
- Sacks
Total
2 264
4
2
800
set
150.00
600
set
800.00
1 600
0.08
64
pieces
3 864
It was observed that shelters and post-harvest treatment facilities were used not
only for seaweed farming but also for other economic activities, including drying fish
and land crops such as maize, rice, fruits, vegetables and coconuts (copra). It was also
observed that these facilities were shared among individuals within farmer groups
(Table7).
Seaweed farms in Indonesia rarely include vehicles as part of their capital equipment.
Some farmers own motorcycles for their personal use but seaweeds are transported
using hired vehicles. Seaweed buyers usually pick up the dried crop from farmers. Most
farmers own small boats or canoes (sampan). Boats are used for other activities in
addition to seaweed farming, notably for fishing and transport. The two most common
classes of boats are 69m unpowered canoes and 812m powered canoes. Generally,
the unpowered canoes cost less than USD300 while powered boats cost about USD500
(Table7).
76
Most family farms have little or no expenses on energy or handling equipment.

Electricity is available in many farm villages for at least part of each day but appliances,
equipment and tools powered by electricity play no direct role in seaweed farming.
Handling and weighing equipment is generally supplied by firms that perform the
collection, trading and processing functions. Farmers usually own simple tools with
which to perform maintenance functions and two or three jerry cans for storing fuel.
The total cost of such miscellaneous tools and equipment was about USD150 for an
average farm with 6km of lines (Table7).
TABLE8
Capital investments of two floating seaweed farms based on farmer interviews in South
Sulawesi in September 2009
Items of capital investments
Initial investment
Amortized annual
capital cost
Total
cost
(USD)
Annual
cost
(USD/
year)
Share of
total cost
(%)
Capital cost perkm
Share of
Annual
cost (%)
Total
(USD/
km)
Annual
(USD/
year/
km)
A nuclear farm (6km of lines)

Farming system (lines, floats and anchors)
645
39
323
61
108
54
650
39
130
24
108
22
366
22
78
15
61
13
1 661
100
531
100
277
89
Farming system (lines, floats and anchors)
3 225
45
1 613
67
108
54
1 600
23
320
13
53
11
2 264
32
472
20
75
16
Total
7 089
100
2 405
100
236
80
Total
A leader farm (30km of lines)
Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Source: Calculation and amortization based on Table6 and 7.
Summary
Based on Tables6 and7, the capital investments for a 6-km nuclear farm and a 30-km
leader farm under survey are summarized in Table 8. The results indicate that the
farming system (including lines, floats and anchors) costs about USD54 per kilometre.
They represent a main capital investment, accounting for 39percent and 45percent of
the total initial investments of the 6-km farm and 30-km farm, respectively. As the life
span of the farming system (2years) is shorter than other capital investments (generally
5 years), the share of farming system in the amortized annual capital cost (61 and
67percent for the 6-km and 30-km farms, respectively) is higher than its share in the
total initial investment.7
Variable costs
Material cost
Live seaweed cuttings that are planted on the farming system is the main variable cost
of a seaweed farm. For example, farmers in South Sulawesi reported that initial seaweed
biomass per kilometre of planted line was about 800kg at the cost of USD0.24/kg or
so. Thus, the cost of live seaweed cuttings of a newly planted line is about USD192/km,
which is more than two times of the annual capital cost per kilometre indicated in Table7
(USD89/km and USD80/km for the 6km and 30km farms, respectively).
The share of farming system in annual capital cost would be even higher considering the fact that
vehicles, shelters and drying facilities are also used for non-seaweed farming activities.
77
A typical farmer would usually purchase enough replanting biomass to stock about
1 km of line and propagate cuttings from that initial biomass. Under this situation,
the cost of seaweed cuttings would be the same (i.e. USD192) for seaweed farms
with different scales of operation. The problem with this approach is that insufficient
quantities of seaweed are available for sale at the time that biomass is being built up.
In fact, cultivar biomass was in chronic short supply for several years. Most farmers
have developed their farms to full size gradually over 23 years by starting with a
small quantity of cultivars. In several areas, it has been possible for farmers to maintain
sufficient cultivar biomass all year round so they have not had to buy cultivars
once their farms were up and running. Some of these farms have been able to act as
nurseries and sold cultivars to farmers from more seasonal locations.
Other notable material costs include costs for fuel and maintenance, which were about
USD134 for the 6km farm under survey (Table9) and USD450 for the 30km farm (Table10).
TABLE9
Initial cash costs for starting a 6km floating nuclear model seaweed farm based on interviews
of farmers in South Sulawesi in September 2009
Cost items
Number
Units
Unit cost
(USD/unit)
Cash costs for materials (1)

- Initial live cuttings
Initial costs
(USD)
Initial cost
per kilometre
(USD/km)
326.4
54.4
800
kg
0.24
192.0
- Fuel per boat
12
months
1.20
14.4
- Maintenance per boat
12
months
5.00
60.0
- Other farm maintenance
12
months
5.00
Cash costs for labour (2)

- Attaching cuttings to lines
Variable cash cost (3)
60.0
288.0
km
48.00
48.0
288.0
614.4
102.4
Fixed cash cost (4)
1 661.0
276.8
Total cash cost (5)
2 275.4
379.2
Notes: (3) = (1) + (2); (4) from Table8; (5) = (3) + (4). Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Labour cost
Labour is another main variable cost of farm operations. Because most farms in the
survey were nuclear family businesses, labour was usually compensated by a share in
farm proceeds. In some areas (e.g. Bali), it is normal practice for farmers to tend their
plots personally with help from nuclear family members or friends and to plant and
harvest small portions of the farm several times per month.
At the other extreme, notably in South Sulawesi, it is common practice for farmers
to plant their entire farm area or a large portion of it at one time, then to harvest the
entire amount at the end of the cropping cycle (usually reported to be 45days). In such
cases, it is common for farmers to hire people on a piecework basis for the attachment
of cuttings to the lines.8
The normal labour cost for attaching cuttings to the lines is USD0.15 per line,
which translates to USD6/km per cropping and USD48 per annum per kilometre over
8annual cropping cycles of 45days each. Therefore, the annual labour cost for a 6km
farm that hires people to attach cuttings to the lines is USD288/year (Table9).
In the case of leader model farms, all labour-intensive tasks (e.g. attaching cuttings
to lines, placing lines in sea, removing lines from sea, and drying the crop) were paid
for on a piecework basis (Table10).
In several cases, farmers in groups share labour rather than paying piecework wages.
78
TABLE10
Initial cash costs for starting a 30km floating nuclear model seaweed farm based on interviews
of farmers in South Sulawesi in September 2009
Initial costs
(USD)
Initial cost
per kilometre
(USD/km)
640.8
21.36
Number
Units
Unite(USD/
unit)
800
kg
0.24
- Fuel (2 boats)
12
months
2.40
28.8
- Maintenance (2 boats)
12
months
10.00
120.0
- Other farm maintenance
12
months
25.00
300.0
- Attaching cuttings to lines
30
km
48.00
1 440.0
- Placing lines in sea
30
km
32.00
960.0
- Removing lines from sea
30
km
32.00
960.0
- Drying the crop
30
km
32.00
Cost items
Cash cost for materials (1)

- Initial live cuttings
Cash cost for labour (2)
Variable cash cost (3)
192.0
4 320.0
144.00
960.0
4 960.8
165.36
Fixed cash cost (4)
7 089.0
236.30
Total cash cost (5)
12 049.8
401.66
Notes: (3) = (1) + (2); (4) from Table8; (5) = (3) + (4). Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Initial cash costs

Tables9 and 10 summarize the first-year cash costs for starting a 6km and 30km farm,
respectively. The results indicate that it would cost about USD2275 to finance the first
year operation of a 6 km nuclear farm (USD379/km on average) and USD12 050 to
finance a 30km leader farm (USD402/km on average).
Revenues and cash flows
The average productivity of the farms under survey is 6.3tonnes per year (Table5), which
could generate gross revenues of about USD3200, USD5400 and USD7600 for low price
USD500/tonne, medium price USD850/tonne and high price USD1200/tonne, respectively.
Annual revenues (gross receipts) calculated for the exemplary 6 km nuclear farm
and the 30km leader farm are shown in Table11. Based on these calculations, budgets
were developed and cash flow estimates were generated for year 1 and years 2 to n.
These examples assumed that a farmer built up biomass and that the farm reached full
production during the first year of operation, with the same production level being
maintained from the second year on.
Table 12 shows calculated cash flow summaries for six farm management cases.
Cases 15 assume a nuclear model farm with 6 km of planted lines and annual
production averaging 6.6 tonnes of raw dried cottonii. Case 6 is based on a leader
model farm with 30km of planted lines and annual production averaging 33tonnes of
raw dried cottonii. Differences among cases are explained below:
Case 1: All labour supplied by the family, and cuttings biomass self-generated
starting in year1.
Case 2. All labour supplied by the family, and cuttings biomass self-generated
after year1 (i.e. the farm buys start-up biomass).
after year 1. Cost of floating structures, equipment and facilities assumed to be
50percent higher than the budgeted examples in Tables5 and6.
after year 1. Cost of floating structures, equipment and facilities assumed to be
50percent lower than the budgeted example.
79
TABLE11
Annual sales of floating seaweed farms based on interviews conducted in South Sulawesi in
September 2009
Type of farm
Item
Nuclear
Leader
Total length of planted lines (km)
30
Number of 45-day cycles per year
Annual farm yield (tonnes)
6.6
8
33
If crop price was 500 USD/tonne, then annual total sales (USD) were
3 300
16 500
If crop price was 850 USD/tonne, then annual total sales (USD) were
5 610
28 050
If crop price was 1 200 USD/tonne, then annual total sales (USD) were
7 920
39 600
Note: Sales are shown for low (USD500/tonne), average (USD850/tonne) and high (USD1200/tonne) farm price levels
observed in 200709.
TABLE12
Annual cash balance for six farm management cases, assuming low, average and high price
levels as observed in 200709
Year 1
Year 2n
USD850/
tonne
USD1200/
tonne
USD500/
tonne
USD850/
tonne
USD1200/
tonne
Farm model
837
2 801
4 764
2 498
4 462
6 425
nuclear
Case2
-315
1 649
3 612
2 498
4 462
6 425
nuclear
Case3
-1 105
858
2 822
2 538
4 502
6 465
nuclear
Case4
476
2 440
4 403
2 459
4 422
6 386
nuclear
Case5
633
1 331
3 294
1 988
3 952
5 915
nuclear
Case6
-4 776
5 041
14 859
8 073
17 890
27 708
leader
USD500/
tonne
Case1
Case 5. Outside labour used to attach cuttings; biomass augmented by purchases

from nurseries each year.
Case 6. Outside labour used for attaching cuttings, placing lines, harvesting and
drying. Biomass self-generated after year1.
The cases highlight the following cash flow aspects of seaweed farms:
Case 1 represents the most common situation in Indonesia for a nuclear model
farm where all labour is supplied by the family and cuttings biomass is selfgenerated from cuttings provided by a third party such as relatives, friends,
government or aid agencies. The farm covers all costs during the first year of
operation and has a positive cash flow at all price levels.
In case 2, the farm buys start-up biomass, which causes negative cash flows at the
lowest prices in year1 but positive cash flow at average or high prices.
Cases 3 and 4 examine cash flow sensitivity to capital items. Conditions other
than capital costs are the same as in Case 2. The average used in the examples
was representative from floating systems in South Sulawesi, which are at the
high end of farm system costs in Indonesia. If the cost of capital items increased
by 50percent (case3), year1 would yield a negative cash balance of more than
USD1000 in year1 at the lowest price level. If capital costs were halved (Case4),
there would be a positive cash flow at all price levels in year1.
Case5 generates a negative cash balance for year1 at the low price but positive
cash flow for the other price levels. In general, cash flows are lower than those
observed under Case1.
Case 6 also assumes that the entire farm is initially stocked with purchased
biomass in year 1. The lowest-price scenario generates a negative cash flow in
year1; nevertheless, higher prices lead to positive cash flows.
80
In sum, the above cash flow analysis indicates that seaweed farming in Indonesia is
a highly profitable business.9 Provided farmers can obtain enough funding to start the
business, they can recover their initial investments in the second year in all the six cases
discussed above even in the situation of relatively low seaweed prices. In Cases1 and4,
they would be able to recover the initial investments in the first year. In the situation
of medium and high prices, farmers would be able to recover their initial investments
in the first year under all the six cases.
Financial resources
Sources of finance for 72 farmers interviewed for the present study are shown in
Table 13. Use of own funds is the primary means of financing for these farmers.
Government is another important funding source about 40percent of farmers had
received grants or soft-money loans from government agencies such as the Department
of Oceans and Fisheries (DKP). One-quarter of the interviewed farmers also obtained
funding from friends and relatives. Credit unions or cooperatives provided funding
to 19percent of the interviewed farmers, while only 1percent of the farmers received
bank loans despite the fact that many farmers have bank accounts and electronic
banking is readily available.
Some microfinance was made available to farmers by non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) such as CARE in NTT and by the Indonesian government
institution Permodalan Nasional Madani (PNM), which provides finance to micro,
small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). Important financial support also comes in the
form of grants and soft loans from the Indonesian government through DKP. Much of
that assistance supports biomass purchases; it may also consist of donations of cultivar
biomass.
One of the major obstacles for farmers seeking finance is their lack of collateral.
Seaweed farm assets and seaweed crops are not viewed as satisfactory collateral by
lending institutions; in addition, few farmers own real estate that can be used as
collateral.
Crop insurance for seaweed is hardly available in Indonesia. However, in some cases,
farmers have provided new biomass to other farmers that have lost their crops due to
flooding. The Seaplant.net initiative of IFC-PENSA has mediated in such situations.
Livelihoods
Average annual production of cottonii in farms surveyed in this study was 6.3tonnes.
If this number is taken as an average for all seaweed farms in Indonesia, then there are
almost 20000farm units contributing seaweed for exports. Generally, each farm unit
provided annual income to a family at an average level of about USD5500 (gross) and
TABLE13
Finance sources for 72 farmers interviewed during the present study

Self
Number
Percentage
Friends or
relatives
Coop or
credit union
Collector or
trader
Government
Bank
72
18
14
29
100
25
19
40
Cash flows do not exactly reflect profitability from an accounting perspective. However, for Indonesian
seaweed farming, profitability was most appropriately viewed in cash flow terms because capital
investments are relatively low; and floating structures as the main capital investment tend to have
relatively short life span. Hurtado et al. (2001) examined the economics of seaweed farming in the
Philippines and evaluated farm profitability in terms of return on investment.
USD4500 (net), for an average monthly net income of USD375. These are substantial
income earnings for part-time work by a rural farm family, equivalent to the wages of
a university-educated person working in a mid-level position in a government office.
Not only was average annual income of interviewed farmers USD5000, but the income
was stable. In the best cultivation regions, crop production can take place year round.
Harvesting and cash sales occur virtually every day.
The income from seaweed is accessible to marginalized segments of society. Many
seaweed farming activities require light labour that can be undertaken near the farmers
residences. This creates income opportunities for both women with care-giving
responsibilities, and old people. Seaweed farming and related value-adding activities
are inherently suitable for MSMEs.
For those households that chose to rise above the average and made seaweed
farming their dominant occupation, a monthly farm income of USD1 000 or higher
could be achieved at average prices. High prices prevalent in 200809 resulted in
substantial windfalls for many farmers but led to market uncertainty. For farmers
that expanded into a leader model of operation, annual net incomes of the order
of USD1500020000 were achievable for operations about five times larger than the
average nuclear farms. Such farms also tended to serve as nurseries to provide biomass
for planting to other farmers.
It is difficult to quantify the degree to which seaweed farming has affected the
socio-economic conditions of coastal communities because baseline studies pre-dating
seaweed farming were unavailable at the time of writing. Anecdotal accounts by farmers
indicate that seaweed culture was a major addition to their income. The presence of
new houses, new motorcycles and other material possessions gave tangible indications
of this added income. Other livelihood options available to these communities have
tended to remain static or have declined during the time when seaweed farming
developed. For example, nearshore fishing from small boats declined to the point
of being viewed as a subsistence activity with reduced potential for generating cash
income (Maarif and Jompa, 2007).
Economic returns from seaweed aquaculture compared with those of competing or
complementary economic activities were not quantified in the present study; however,
almost all farmers interviewed for the present study stated that seaweed provided most of
their cash income despite the fact that it only took half or even less than half of their time.
Women and children
Women generally play an important role in seaweed farming. As a result, they
sometimes become the main earner in the household, even if initially they had very
little income. This can potentially lead to marital tensions. However, studies on
impacts of seaweed farming indicate that such marital problems were few (Neish et al.,
2009). Another possible concern is the use of child labour. As in most agriculture, it is
common practice for children to participate in farming activities. One must ensure that
they are not exploited in this capacity.
Communication
The spread of cellular phone and Internet connectivity has virtually eliminated the
isolation of seaweed farmers from global communication. Even a decade ago, most
seaweed farmers had little connection to the outside world. As of 2009, seaweed
farming generated enough revenue that most farm families had access to mobile
phones. Cellular telephone connections were widespread throughout Indonesia and
were developing steadily.
Internet connectivity has followed the development of mobile telephone technology
so many seaweed farmers were able to connect either through their mobile phone
or through available computers. From 2004 until 2008, the IFC-PENSA Seaplant.
81
82
net initiative developed peer-to-peer connections among Indonesian farmers by

sponsoring workshops and by installing computer terminals at several locations in east
Indonesia. Other aid agencies and NGOs supported similar efforts. Seaplant.net made
KITS available globally through the English language Web site www.seaplant.net.
KITS and farmer peer-to-peer communication tools were made available through the
Bahasa Indonesia Web site www.jasuda.net. JaSuDa is an acronym of Jaringan Sumber
Daya, which means source net in English. Both of these Web sites were continuing
to serve seaweed farmers and other seaweed-based value chain stakeholders as of late
2009.
Education and training
Seaweed farming has provided access to education and training to poor coastal
inhabitants. In the interviews, 44 farmers stated their level of formal education.
Among that group, 1farmer had no formal education, 24had primary education, 9had
intermediate education and 10had graduated from high school. The younger farmers
tended to have more formal education than the older ones.
Since 2005, scientific and technical knowledge and information has been provided
to seaweed farmers through the www.seaplant.net and the www.jasuda.net Web sites.
Developed by the IFC-PENSA Seaplant.net Initiative, the Web sites have been operated
by the Seaplant.net Foundation since 2008. Science and technology information and
knowledge products have been available for downloading. The Web site content was
developed subsequent to a meeting sponsored by the IFC and AusAID in Bali in
May 2004. At that meeting, 138seaweed farmers from all over Indonesia received IT
training; the JaSuDa Web site has served since then to link Indonesian farmers together
in a virtual community.
The Government organizations including the BPPT and DKP and seaweedoriented NGOs such as APBIRLI, ASPERLI and the Indonesian Seaweed Society
Association have also promoted community development among seaweed farmers.
All of these entities joined together for the Seaweed International Business Forum
and Exhibition held in Bali in October 2007 and the Indonesia Seaweed Forum held
in Makassar, South Sulawesi, in October 2008. The Makassar forum attracted seaweed
buyers from all over the world and also included special sessions for seaweed farmers.
The Seaplant.net training tools have been complemented with materials developed
by other agencies, including INI RADEF, LIPI, DKP and BPPT. These materials have
been used in farmer training programmes supported by several agencies, including
AusAID, CARE, the CIPSED project of the Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA), the AMARTA project of USAID, GTZ, JICA, DKP, BPPT and
PNM. Support for farmer training was also provided by the private sector. The
GTZ promoted the development of research and development (R&D) linkages in
the BIMP-EAGA region and also promoted the development of coordinated quality
infrastructure systems in the region. These initiatives were mediated through the
Seaplant.net Web site.
During industry gatherings and interviews for the present study, the need for
ongoing technical training for farmers and peer-to-peer networking among farmers
was recognized by stakeholders at all levels of seaweed-to-hydrocolloid value chains.
Several governmental organizations, NGOs and private businesses continue to seek
means for continuing education.
4.
Farming of RAGS in Indonesia is an example of livelihoods being developed largely
by seaweed farmer groups on their own initiative. Farms were built in response to
strong market pull from biopolymer manufacturers who sought the cultivated raw
seaweed sources essential to supplement limited wild-harvest sources. A reflexive,
iterative approach to seaweed farm development occurred in Indonesia in concert with

decentralization policies of the Government of Indonesia and traditional adat10 forms
of village government. Iterative cycling of information combined with reflexive action
at the level of farmer groups brought about strong market linkages. These linkages, in
turn, catalyzed rapid value chain initiation and extensive farm development.
Seaweed farms are planted along seashores in locations that are common property
of all Indonesians. With respect to property issues, the government has attempted to
regulate allocation of farm sites and to issue permits or titles; however, communities of
farmers have generally sorted out tenancy issues among themselves at the village level.
4.1 Government, regulations and standards
Indonesia is divided into administrative entities in accordance with the provisions
of Article 18 of the countrys constitution. These entities are a manifestation of
the decentralization principle, which has led to a transfer of responsibilities from
the central government to regional governments. Decentralization policies support
subnational entities as they regulate and manage their own affairs. The decentralization
policy is complemented by a deconcentration policy that delegates responsibilities
from the central government, governors, mayors and local offices of ministries to their
officers at subnational levels.
The government organizations that deal most directly with seaweed farmers are the
BPPT, DKP and KUKM. Others include BAPPEDA and LIPI. For seaweed farmers
at the village level, decentralization and deconcentration policies have enabled them
to interact with government units close to their homes. With due oversight from
the responsible government agencies, village-level governing bodies have been able
to implement substantial management over the seashores adjacent to their villages.
In most villages where seaweed farming is undertaken, it has evolved into a major
economic activity. The management of seaweed farming rights and operations is
therefore integrated into the fabric of village life.
RAGS value chains in Indonesia are subject to two categories of regulations and
standards that affect seaweed farmers, one on aquaculture in general and the other
on carrageenan/agar processing specifically (Neish and Julianto, 2008).11 Although
standard protocols on aquaculture are at their inceptive stages, there are already
some initiatives for RAGS value chain stakeholders, including: (i) EUREPGAP
Euro Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP) on standards and procedures for
the development of good aquaculture practices (GAPs) in conventional agriculture
(general regulations, control points and compliance criteria for integrated aquaculture
assurance); (ii) FAO Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification (under development at
the time of writing); and (iii) quarantine protocols for tropical seaweeds such as those
proposed by Sulu et al. (2004).
For RAGS products, legally defined product standards must be met; failure to
comply means that products cannot be sold to customers or jurisdictions where the
standards apply. Important regulatory documents include:
European Union (Member Organization): European Union standards for E407a
(Processed Eucheuma Seaweed) and E407 (Carrageenan);
JECFA FAO/World Health Organization: standards for Processed Eucheuma
Seaweed and Carrageenan;
Codex FAO;
USFDA;
HACCP Hazard Analytical Control Points requirements;
The term adat is roughly translated as custom or tradition.
10
The online version of the document provides links to current documents and sources.
11
83
84
ISO 9001: 2000, Quality Management System;

ISO 14001: 2004, Environmental Management System;
ISO 22000: 2005, Food Safety Management;
OHSAS 18001.
It is recognized that many RAGS standards are commercial standards that are
best left to definition between buyers and sellers. In such cases, standards should not
be imposed but guidelines can be of use. Examples include:
PNCS Philippine National Carrageenan Standard (under development), which
is proposed as the basis for a BIMP-EAGA harmonized standard;
CAC/GL 60-2006: Principle for Traceability/ Product Tracing as a Tool within a
Food Inspection and Certification System;
CAC/GL 38-2001 Rev.1-2005: Guidelines for Generic Official Certificates
Formats and the Production and Issuance of Certificate;
Basic manufacturing practices for raw-dried seaweed and semi-refined carrageenan
from Eucheuma and Kappaphycus (Seaplant.net Monograph no.HB2G 1008 V2
BMP).
This is a starting point towards developing good manufacturing practice guidelines,
especially for process steps that occur near seaweed sources and fall into the category
of post-harvest treatment (Neish, 2008b).
4.2 Business alliances
With a supply that is globally dispersed and a demand that is globally diffuse, there
are compelling reasons for the formation of business alliances among seaweedrelated enterprises. Strategic alliances are trusting relationships that are often the only
feasible option for MSMEs building long-term competitive advantages while retaining
independence. Business alliances are essential for the profitable operation of seaweed
farms and other functioning MSMEs within seaweed-to-hydrocolloid value chains.
Although the formation of alliances can be costly and risky, such relationships can
become important unique resources for MSMEs. A guide to alliance formation was
available as a free download from Seaplant.net (Neish, 2008c). During farmer training
programmes, it was the policy of Seaplant.net and IFC-PENSA to foster alliances
between farmer groups and seaweed processors. That trend is ongoing as some kind of
relational governance in seaweed value chains.
Seaweed MSMEs tend to be owned and operated by close associates and family
members who build long-term business relationships. Thus, bonds of personal trust,
once established, can be smoothly transferred through managerial generations. The
formation of trust in alliances is a function of person-to-person relationships, which
entail a great deal of time, effort and expense to foster. As time and effort are among
the most limited and valuable assets of MSME managers, the cost of forming trust
relationships can be a major investment. In the present study, it was found that trust/
commitment relationships were the norm among farmers and buyers.
4.3 Research institutes and NGOs
Universities in Indonesia that have undertaken work with RAGS include UNHAS,
UNSRAT and Udayana University. Government departments such as the BPPT, DKP
and LIPI have provided research and education services to seaweed farmers. Much of
the seaweed research in the BIMP-EAGA region has taken place in the Philippines.
Business development services (BDSs) and financial services have been provided
to seaweed farmers by several private and international organizations (Seaplant.net,
Swiss Contact, IFC-PENSA, GTZ, AusAID, USAID, JICA, CARE and ADB) in
tandem with Indonesian government organizations (BPPT and DKP) and governmentsupported associations such as APBIRLI, ASPERLI and ISSA. Similar organizations
have emerged from time to time during the years of seaweed farming development.
Several aid agencies have provided microfinance or other forms of financial support
to farmers either directly or through Indonesian government agencies. For example, the
PNM is a state-owned investment firm that has funded farmer training and provided
finance products to seaweed farmers.
4.4 Farm structures
In Indonesia, seaweed farming was found to be primarily a village-based family
business.12 Two distinct approaches to farm management were encountered in the
present study. The most common one was a nuclear family model, where spouses
share work and income among themselves, their children, their parents and other
first-degree blood relations. The other approach was the lead farmer model, where
one person or a small team of people own the enterprise, are actively involved in
the day-to-day operations, assume responsibility for managing the farm enterprise,
and undertake marketing and selling of the crops produced. Farm labour generally
consists of extended family members and neighbours who provide labour on a
piecework basis.
The most common real property structure of Indonesian seaweed farming
enterprises is a proprietary model where the farm enterprise directly owns
physical farm assets and holds the rights to farm in the locations where it operates.
The nuclear family model predominated among farmers surveyed during the
present study; however, sharing of labour and assets among farmers was a common
occurrence. In Indonesia, this practice is known as gotong royong or kerja bakti.
Usually, kerja bakti takes place among farmers that belong to the same farmer group
(kelompok). Labour sharing generally occurs during periodic instances of intense
activity such as farm construction, harvesting, drying and attaching of cuttings to
lines. Shared physical assets generally include drying platforms, boats and work
shelters.
An uncommon structure was the tenant model, where the farm enterprise pays
fees for the right to use physical farm assets and/or to farm in the locations where it
operated. Also uncommon was the sharecropper model, where the farm enterprise
pays rent as a percentage of crop yields for the right to use physical farm assets and/or
to farm in the locations where it operated. One approach that has been tried and failed
several times is the estate farm model, whereby the farm is owned by individuals
not active in day-to-day operations while actual management and operation are
undertaken by people on salary. Substantial village-level control of seashore utilization
has certainly been an impediment for any estate farming approach because aquaculture
sites are generally sought after by many village members.
5.
CHALLENGES AND THE WAY FORWARD
Indonesia has made great strides in the past decades in developing essential infrastructure,
goods and services that have had a positive impact on seaweed farmers. There are still
remote regions in east Indonesia that have not caught up with areas near urban centres,
but the gap is closing. Education, health care, social services, communication and
transport systems have undergone steady improvement in Indonesia since the 1970s
and the law-and-order situation has been calm in most seaweed farming regions since
the industry began. Generally, all value chain stakeholders can travel to the farming
regions without fear of kidnapping or violence.
Whether they operate near their ancestral home base or whether they have migrated, seaweed farmers in
Indonesia have tended to cluster into village units that retain their native languages and customs. Within
villages, farmers tend to cluster into work groups (kelompok) built around family ties.
12
85
86
5.1 Issues perceived by farmers

The major sustainability issues perceived by farmers revolve around seasonality
impacts on crop productivity of cottonii and the price instability that accompanied
seasonal variations in seaweed supply. Specific issues are:
the need for robust cottonii cultivars that have similar growth characteristics to
spinosum cultivars, especially with respect to growth during all seasons of the
year;
the need for cottonii cultivar biomass in sufficient quantities for seasonal
replanting;
the need for finance to cover the purchases of biomass for replanting;
means for prevention or control of ice-ice malaise, Neosiphonia infestation and
other seasonal maladies;
access to fair trade and market links;
access to knowledge and information on technologies appropriate to the different
seaweed farming regions.
5.2 Issues perceived by processors
Processors have been exposed for several years to cottonii supplies that fell short
of demand. The problem became especially critical in 200809 when short supplies
resulted in high and unstable prices that resulted in the loss of carrageenan market share
to other food ingredients. As of late 2009, the carrageenan market remained weak.
Processors were uncertain as to whether that was caused by price instability or was a
reflection of the global economic recession. There was a general consensus that stable,
affordable cottonii supplies were essential to sustainable carrageenan markets.
Marinalg International is a worldwide association that promotes the image and use
of seaweed-derived hydrocolloids in food, pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries.
Many of the worlds largest processors of RAGS belong to Marinalg. Specific issues
of interest to the industry have been addressed by Marinalg in position papers posted
on its Web site (www.marinalg.org). One persistent issue addressed by Marinalg deals
with recent attempts to have carrageenan banned as a food additive (Tobacman et al.,
2008). Another problem is connected with reports describing how introduced RAGS
have established alien and invasive populations in coral reef habitats in Hawaii (Parsons
et al., 2008), Kiribati (Pala, 2008) and Tamil Nadu in India (Tobacman et al., 2008;
Chandrasekaran et al., 2008). Marinalg responded to these reports with a position
paper and a protocol for introducing non-indigenous seaweeds.
5.3 Issues perceived by governments
The multilayered, decentralized structure of government agencies in Indonesia has
led to integration and coordination concerns by officials in the several government
agencies that deal with seaweed farmers. They are aware of the concerns of farmers and
processors and also of the need to balance uses of the marine foreshore. Government
officials have also complained about inadequate budgets and diffusion of funds through
layers of government and agencies. As a result, information such as crop production
statistics cannot be collected and disseminated comprehensively.
Government organizations at the provincial and regency level have viewed seaweed
farms and processing plants as sustainable development options for much of coastal
Indonesia. Efforts are under way in many regions to develop financial support
programmes for seaweed farmers. The training of human resources and the need for
BDSs are perceived as necessary conditions for sustainable development.
5.4 Issues perceived by development agencies and NGOs
Numerous aid agencies, international financial institutions and NGOs have become
involved directly or indirectly with seaweed farmers in Indonesia since the mid-
1980s. Generally, such agencies have worked either through government agencies
or in coordination with them. The perceived needs of farmers and processors
have been addressed with training and farmer finance initiatives tied to generally
rigorous monitoring and evaluation efforts to ensure the proper use, disbursement
and management of funds and the prompt submission of reports. Initiatives by
IFC-PENSA, Swiss Contact, AusAID, CIDA and USAID have emphasized the
development of BDS providers. Seaplant.net Foundation is one example of a BDS
provider that has received support from all of those agencies.
5.5 Concluding remarks
Seaweed farming has been expanding in Indonesia since 1985; by 2008, it provided
an average annual income on the order of USD5 000 to an estimated 20 000 farm
households working on a part-time basis. The most diligent farmers were able to
make 23times that amount by working full time or by employing the leader model
approach to farming. Such earnings were well above the poverty level. Interviewed
farmers generally asserted that seaweed farming was by far their most lucrative
economic activity.
Seaweed farming is also complementary and compatible with other village economic
activities such as fishing and farming land crops. Ready cash from seaweed farming has
also had a noticeable multiplier effect. Shops, support services and local infrastructure
have benefited visibly from seaweed cash flowing through local village economies.
The spread of mobile communication technology, Internet connectivity and satellite
television has been facilitated by the earnings from seaweed farming. Communication
links, in turn, have facilitated the acquisition of knowledge, information, tools and
solutions by seaweed farmers even in the more remote regions of Indonesia. The
reflexive approach to Indonesian seaweed farm development has been driven by
farmers and local traders/collectors in a bottom-up manner. A market need was
revealed to them by value chain stakeholders on the demand side; farmers were
exposed to the simple grow-out technologies; and with facilitation from a variety of
organizations, seaweed farmers were able to build their businesses within the context
of village norms, mores and structures.
Seaweed farming has never been imposed on farmers using a top-down approach;
in addition, the simplicity of farming techniques has meant that technology transfer
has been readily accomplished. Seaweed farming has rapidly become integrated into
the social fabric of farmer villages to the point where it now appears to be a traditional
economic activity even though it did not exist until the mid-1980s or later.
Opportunities for seaweed aquaculture intensification and integrated multitrophic
aquaculture are considerable.
87
88
References
Chandrasekaran, S., Nagendran, N.A., Pandiaraja, D., Krishnankutty, N. &
Kamalakannan, B. 2008. Bioinvasion of Kappaphycus alvarezii on corals in the Gulf of
Mannar, India. Current Science, 94(9): 11671172 (also available at www.ias.ac.in/currsci/
may102008/1167.pdf).
Gan, K.T. 2003. Strategic alliances in the tropical Asian seaweed industry: implications for
development in Asia. Adelaide, University of South Australia. 89pp.
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J. & Sturgeon, T. 2005. The governance of global value chains.
Review of International Political Economy, 12(1): 78104 (also available at www.globalproduction.com/scoreboard/resources/sturgeon_2005_governance-of-value-chains.pdf).
Hurtado, A.Q., Agbayani, R.F., Sanares, R. & de Castro-Mallare, M.T. 2001. The
seasonality and economic feasibility of cultivating Kappaphycus alvarezii in Panagatan
Cays, Caluya, Antique, Philippines. Aquaculture, 199: 295310.
JLJ Group. 2006. Preliminary study Chinese market for seaweed and carrageenan
industry. Shanghai, China.
Maarif, S. & Jompa, J. 2007. The Coral Triangle and coastal community development
through sustainable integrated aquaculture. Sustainable Integrated Mariculture Meeting
and Workshop. Makassar, Indonesia, Seaplant.net. (also available at http://seaplant.net/
index_mbr.php?page=sea_publications).
McHugh, D.J. 2003. A guide to the seaweed industry. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper
No.441. Rome, FAO. 105pp. (also available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y4765e/
y4765e00.pdf).
Neish, I.C. 2008a. Tropical red seaweeds as a foundation for integrated multi-trophic
aquaculture (IMTA): four propositions and an action plan for this major opportunity
in the Coral Triangle. Seaplant.net Monograph no. HB2E 1008 V1 IMTA. Makassar,
Indonesia. (also available at http://seaplant.net/bimpeaga/page_12.php).
Neish, I.C. 2008b. Basic manufacturing practices for raw-dried seaweed and semi-refined
carrageenan from Eucheuma and Kappaphycus. Seaplant.net Monograph no.HB2G 1008
V2 BMP. Makassar, Indonesia. (also available at http://seaplant.net/bimpeaga/page_10.
php).
Neish, I.C. 2008c. A ten-step functional framework for building ventures and alliances
among seaplant enterprises. Seaplant.net Monograph no.HB2C 0808 V1 VA. Makassar,
Indonesia. (also available at http://seaplant.net/bimpeaga/page_12.php).
Neish, I.C. 2009. An analysis of world production and trade in tropical red seaweeds; with
focus on the Philippines and Indonesia. Makassar, Indonesia, Seaplant.net.
Neish, I.C. & Julianto, B.S. 2008. A practical guide to quality assurance, governance
systems and good practices for tropical seaweed-to-carrageenan value chains: with focus
on developing harmonization and transparency in the BIMP-EAGA region of ASEAN
in the Coral Triangle. Seaplant.net Monograph no. HB2D 1108 V1 GTZ. Makassar,
Indonesia. (also available at http://seaplant.net/bimpeaga/download_gtz.php).
Neish, I.C., Hurtado, A.Q., Julianto, B. & Saragih, D. 2009. Good aquaculture practices
for Kappaphycus and Eucheuma. A compilation of nine training modules for seaweed
farmers. Seaplant.net Monograph no.HB2F 0909 V4 GAP. Makassar, Indonesia.
Parsons, M.L., Walsh, W.J., Settlemier, C.J., White, D.J., Ballauer, J.M., Ayotte, P.M.,
Osada, K.M. & Carman, B. 2008. A multivariate assessment of the coral ecosystem
health of two embayments on the lee of the island of Hawaii. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
56(6): 11381149.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working
Paper no. 72. Brighton, UK, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
22pp. (also available at www.ids.ac.uk/files/Wp72.pdf).
Scoones, I., Leach, M., Smith, A., Stagl, S., Stirling, A. & Thompson, J. 2007. Dynamic
systems and the challenge of sustainability. STEPS Working Paper 1. Brighton, UK, STEPS
Centre. 68pp. (also available at www.stepscentre.org/PDFs/final_steps_dynamics).
review of introductions and field testing proposed quarantine protocols. Noumea,
Secretariat of the Pacific Community. 85pp. (also available at wwwx.spc.int/coastfish/
sections/reef/Library/Reports/Sulu_04.pdf).
Tobacman, J.K., Bhattacharyya, S., Borthakur, A. & Dudeja, P.K.2008. The carrageenan
diet: not recommended. Science, 321(5892): 10401041.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2004. Delineating the Coral Triangle, its ecoregions and
functional seascapes: report on an expert workshop, held at the Southeast Asia Center
for Marine Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia (April 30May 2, 2003). Bali, Indonesia, The
Nature Conservancy, Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas. 26 pp. (also
available at www.southchinasea.org/docs/Nature%20Conservancy-Coral%20Triangle.
pdf).
89
91

the Philippines
Anicia Q. Hurtado
Chair
Integrated Services for the Development of Aquaculture and Fisheries
McArthur Highway, Tabuc Suba,
Jaro 5000 Iloilo City, Philippines
Hurtado, A.Q. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming
in the Philippines. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda & N. Ridler, eds. Social
and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp. 91113. Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 580. Rome, FAO. 204 pp.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study would not have been completed without the warm support of several people
in the industry who shared their time, effort and information. I am truly grateful to the
seaweed farmers I interviewed in Marupo and Marcilla, Coron Palawan; Guindacpan
Island, Tubigon, Bohol; Panyam Look, Layag-Layag and Arena Blanco, Zamboanga
City; Pondohan (Sipangkot, Sapagamat 1 & 2, Baligtang) Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi. I thank
Ms Jacqueline Corrosco, Hadji Adam Omar, Hadja Saada Omar, Munib Joe, Arnel
Kalugdan, Richard Radier, Benson Dakay, Antonio Yuri Yap, Farley Baricuatro, Dinah
Sayam, Philip Parado, Jos Arturo Evalle, and Dr Jumelita Romero for invaluable
information given.
92
1.
INTRODUCTION
Philippine seaweed aquaculture is currently dominated by the cultivation of red
algal galactan seaweeds (RAGS) that serve as raw materials for the biopolymers
known as agar and carrageenan. This study considers three RAGS genera
that comprise most crop production, namely the genera Eucheuma (known
commercially as spinosum), Gracilaria and Kappaphycus (known commercially
as cottonii). Hurtado et al. (2001) stated that Kappaphycus farming in the
Philippines is nearly synonymous with the seaweed industry of the country since
8590percent is dominated by farming, processing and marketing of this seaweed.
Thus, the present study focuses primarily on cottonii farming that links to kappacarrageenan value chains. Nevertheless, the author proposes that sustainability
for seaweed-based value chains requires development far beyond synonymy with
Kappaphycus farming.
The long history of seaweed farming (Kappaphycus in particular) in the Philippines
is a manifestation of the strength of this industry. The activity has generated
employment to, and uplifted the socio-economic status of, tens of thousands of
coastal families in the country. The roles played by government and non-government
agencies, academia, business partners, and national and international institutions
have been instrumental to the development of the industry. However, there is still a
need to link strongly the institutional research and development (R&D) programmes
to meet the problems and concerns of seaweed farmers, especially on production and
productivity. Similarly, a direct link to and transparent transactions in the market are
much needed.
This chapter assesses the social and economic dimensions of seaweed aquaculture
in the Philippines by focusing on the development of sustainable livelihoods in the
context of regional and global value chains. A comprehensive evaluation of the socioeconomic dimensions of seaweed farming in the Philippines was carried out to assess
the sustainability of seaweed farming as a livelihood strategy. Data gathering and
analysis were conducted for the four major production areas in the country: ARMM
(Sitangkai), Region IV-B (Palawan), Region IX (Zamboanga City) and Region VII
(Bohol).
2.
2.1 Physical conditions
Geographic location and climate
The Philippines is an archipelago comprising 7 107 islands with a total area of
300 000 km2 and a coastline area of 36 289 km. The Philippines has a tropical wet
climate with alternating rainy and dry seasons. The summer (southwest) monsoon
brings heavy rains to most of the archipelago from May to October, whereas the
winter (northeast) monsoon brings cooler and drier air from December to February.
Monsoon rains, although hard and drenching, are not normally associated with high
winds and waves. However, because the Philippines sits astride in the typhoon belt,
it suffers an annual onslaught of dangerous storms from July to October. These
are especially hazardous for northern and eastern Luzon and the Bicol and Eastern
Visayas regions. The Philippines is prone to about 1821typhoons per year; however,
western Mindanao the Sulu archipelago in particular is not known for typhoons.
Seasonality
Seasonal variability between regions, within years and between years is commonly
cited as a causative factor for variability in seaweed production, but comprehensive
scientific cause-and-effect studies remain to be undertaken. Varieties and farming
techniques may also vary according to seasons (Table 1). The difficulty of drying
during the southwest monsoon also explains the lower production volumes.
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in the Philippines
TABLE1
Seasonality of Kappaphycus varieties and farming techniques adopted in Tawi-Tawi, ARMM

Season
Farming technique
Variety
Southwest monsoon
(JuneOctober)
Spring and free-swing
K. alvarezii var. tambalang
Northeast monsoon
(NovemberMay)
Fixed-off-bottom
Spring and free-swing
K. striatum var. sacol

Cultivation areas
It is difficult to gather information on the total cultivation area and production of each
municipality or province as government agencies do not maintain substantial records
for these purposes. Nevertheless, approximate estimates can be obtained from the four
key production areas in the country: ARMM, RegionIV-B, RegionIX, and RegionVII
(Figure1).
FIGURE 1
Major seaweed farming areas in the Philippines
N
Philippine Sea
South China
Sea
Region VII
Sulu Sea
Region IV-B
Region IX
ARMM
Celebes Sea
Source: Seaweed Industry Association of the Philippines (2009).
It is estimated that ARMM, consisting mostly of Maguindanao, Lanao del Norte,

Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, has about 24 000 ha under production. Using current farming
techniques such as fixed off-bottom, hanging long-line and swing at 44.5 m depth,
there are about 20750ha available for expansion in Tawi-Tawi. However, geographic
information system (GIS) studies have revealed that, if seaweed faming were expanded
to a depth of 15m in Sitangkai1, about 102 885ha would be available for expansion.
These estimates are indicative of the large potential for further industry growth in the
area.
Sitangkai in Tawi-Tawi was the single largest seaweed producing area in the Philippines in 2009, but
Palawan is the now the largest single seaweed producing province (as of 2011).
93
94

Production
Total cultured seaweed production in the Philippines was 1.7milliontonnes in 2009;
about 85percent of which came from ARMM (39percent), RegionIV-B (26percent),
RegionIX (13percent), and RegionVII (7percent) (Table2).
TABLE2
Seaweed farming production in the Philippines

Region
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
(1000tonnes, fresh weight)

ARMM
473
510
561
618
657
683
IV-B
329
359
401
365
447
451
IX
155
177
211
202
222
225
VII
83
107
94
108
111
121
165
186
203
212
229
260
1 205
1 339
1 470
1 505
1 666
1 740
Other regions
Total
Source: BAS (2010).
Cultured seaweed production in the Philippines grew stably at about 8 percent

annually in the period 200407. However, production doubled from 1.5milliontonnes
(wet weight) in 2007 to 3.3milliontonnes in 2008, driven primarily by strong demand
from China, which drove the price of dry cottonii in the Philippines from USD900/
tonne in 2007 to almost USD3000/tonne in 2008 (Figure2). The seaweed rush lasted
only one year the price dropped to USD1300/tonne in 2009.
This incident exemplifies the cyclic nature of seaweed farming in the Philippines
owing to the instability of prices. Generally, when strong demand for dry seaweeds
drives up the price, seaweed farmers tend to increase their planting efforts and/or
harvest immature crops. However, if the price is low, seaweed farmers tend to reduce
production, which creates sourcing difficulties for the local processors. Indeed, the
shortage of local supplies has forced local processors to source dry seaweeds abroad
FIGURE2
Representative cottonii seaweed export prices (f.o.b. Cebu City, the Philippines),
annual average
3000
2 750
(USD per tonne)
2500
2000
1 600
1500
1000
700
800
1 300
900
700
750
2005
2006
500
0
Source: Dakay (2010).
2003
2004
2007
YEAR
2008
2009
2010
95
(e.g. from Indonesia). It is estimated that a total of 4340tonnes was imported in 2007
(Dakay, 2008).
Trade
Exports of seaweed and seaweed products from the Philippines reached almost
45000tonnes, worth more than USD120million in 2004, but the export volume has
been on a downward trend since 2005. Despite the decline in the export volume, the
export value has been on an upward trend since 2006 (Figure3).
FIGURE3
Export of Philippine seaweed and seaweed products in volume and value (f.o.b.)
Value
50
140
Volume
120
40
35
100
30
80
25
20
60
15
10
Value (Million USD)
Volume (Thousand tonnes)
45
40
5
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
20
Source: NSO (2010).
Exports of dry seaweed from the Philippines have been concentrated on three major
markets: China (including China, Hong Kong SAR), France and the United States of
America. However, imports by the United States of America declined significantly in
2009. The Republic of Korea and Spain were major markets in 2004 but drastically
reduced their purchases afterwards. Thailand seems to have been consistently
importing dry seaweeds from the Philippines in recent years. Brazil increased its
import substantially in 2009 (Figure4).
Compared with the situation of dry seaweeds, export markets of carrageenan and
other colloid products from the Philippines are more diversified; the major markets
are in North America (the United States of America and Canada) and Europe (France,
Germany, Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
and Denmark) (Figure5).
Local seaweed processors in the Philippines also import dry seaweeds from abroad
(primarily Indonesia) as raw materials (Figure6).
2.3 Value chain
Marketing of seaweed in the Philippines starts at the shoreline. Generally speaking,
there are two marketing channels connecting farmers to processors. Both channels
are important; and the role of every stakeholder in the value chain is significant and
symbiotic.
One channel is through consolidators and traders. A local consolidator who usually
works for a small trader buys the seaweed in either fresh or dried form. At the time
of writing, the price of fresh K. striatum var. sacol is USD0.120.13/kg. Normally,
the local consolidator dries the seaweed for 23days to a moisture content (MC) of
96
FIGURE4
Major export markets of dry seaweed from the Philippines

Japan
35
Denmark
Chile
30
(Thousand tonnes)
Belgium
25
Thailand
United Kingdom
20
Canada
Argentina
15
United Sates of America
10
Spain
Republic of Korea
Brazil
France
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
China + China,
Hong Kong SAR
YEAR
Source: NSO (2010).
FIGURE5
Major export markets of carrageenan and other colloid products from the Philippines
12
Italy
Chile
10
Brazil
Australia
(Thousand tonnes)
Russian Federation
Canada
Mexico
Denmark
United Kingdom
Spain
2
0
Belgium
Germany
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
France
2009
United States of America
YEAR
Source: NSO (2010).
FIGURE6
Philippine imports of seaweed

16
Australia
14
Singapore
Chile
(Thousand tonnes)
12
Indonesia
10
8
6
4
2
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
YEAR
Source: NSO (2010).
2008
2009
5055percent and later sells it to a small trader in the community, who in turn sells it to
a larger trader, owner of a warehouse. The consolidator usually earns USD0.010.02/
kg while the small trader earns USD0.020.03/kg. Generally, the larger trader further
sun dries the seaweed to 4245percent MC, then packs it in sacks or in 100120kg
bales. Under this channel, seaweed prices are negotiated between processors and
farmers through larger traders. Prices change daily or weekly.
Another channel is through farmers associations. Seaweed farmers, especially
those in island communities or in the "pondohans" of Tawi-Tawi, are organized into
associations, e.g. the Sipangkot Seaweed Planters Association in Sipangkot, Sitangkai,
Tawi-Tawi.2 Members sell their products directly to their own associations, which
dry and then sell them directly to a processor through the assistance of a business
development service (BDS) or a non-governmental organization (NGO). This scheme
eliminates one or two layers of trading/marketing and hence increases profit margins
for the growers.3 As an association can hoard large volumes (e.g. 375415tonnes/week
in peak months [January to March] or 225300 tonnes/week in lean months [April
December]), it is in a position to demand a premium price, provided the moisture
content, percentage of impurities and seaweed age are within the specifications of
the processor. Despite the obvious benefits of operating through associations, some
farmers do not follow consistent marketing strategies, selling instead to local traders in
small volumes; hence, they cannot negotiate good prices.
The lack of high-quality dry seaweed is a perennial problem in the industry.
Although there are government standards prepared in cooperation with the
processors and academia they are not implemented and adhered to consistently.
Some adverse factors are: (i) farmers harvest prematurely (i.e. prior to 45 days of
culture); (ii) a high percentage of impurities (presence of soft tie-ties and undesirable
seaweeds); (iii) high MC; and (iv) sandsalt adulteration. Farmers harvest their seaweed
prematurely mostly for economic reasons because they need cash daily to meet basic
needs, extending the culture cycle beyond 30days entails a long waiting period.
The above-mentioned malpractices are sometimes tolerated by larger traders and
processors, especially when there is a scarcity of raw dried seaweed (RDS). However,
traders and processors are advised by the government to enforce the standards strictly.
Processors could reject RDS that do not meet their standards and specifications and
purchase only good-quality seaweed at a premium price. In times of scarcity, if the
delivered RDS is not within their standards and specifications, processors could simply
deduct 1520percent of the current price.
There were 19 semi-refined carrageenan (SRC) and 3 refined carrageenan (RC)
processors in the Philippines in 2005 (Hurtado, 2005). By 2008, the number of SRC
processors had declined to 12 (Dakay, 2008). Large transnational SRC companies are
still active in the Philippines, whereas a number of smaller companies have succumbed
to international competition and insufficient supplies of RDS. Very few national
companies in the Philippines are involved in the marketing of dried seaweed.4
A pondohan is a group of families (2030families) residing in the middle of the sea in stilt houses as a
cluster. They are primarily engaged in seaweed farming.
This scheme is being practised in a small island community whose association (Pangapuyan Seaweed
Planters Association, Pangapuyan Island, Zamboanga City) is directly involved in the purchase of fresh
seaweed.
An exception is Marcel Carrageenan, which supplies RDS to its partner Cargill Texturizing Solutions in
Canlubang, Laguna.
97
98
3.
PERFORMANCE
3.1 Business structure and farming system
Business structure
The management and operation of seaweed farms in the Philippines follow a villagebased family business model. Two distinct approaches to farm management are
encountered: (i) the nuclear family (mom and pop) model, where spouses share
the farm work and income among themselves, their children, their parents and/or
other first-degree blood relations; and (ii) the lead farmer model, where one person
or a small team of people own the enterprise, are actively involved in day-to-day
operations, assume responsibility for managing the farm enterprise, and undertake the
marketing of the crops produced. Much farm labour is undertaken by extended family
members and neighbours who provide labour on a piece-work basis.
The most common real property structure in the Philippines is a proprietary model,
in which physical farm assets such as farmhouses and motorized and non-motorized
boats are owned directly by the farm enterprise. The seaweed farmer holds the rights
to farm and operate the area. Although the Philippine Fisheries Code 1998 (known as
Republic Act8550) requires licences for farming seaweed, unlicensed farming is currently
taking place in a number of island communities and in some areas in the "pondohans".
An uncommon structure is the tenant model, in which the farm enterprise pays
cash rent for the right to use physical farm assets and/or to farm in the locations
where it operates. This model applies only if the farm area is legally acquired. Another
uncommon arrangement is the sharecropper model, in which the farm enterprise
pays a percentage of the harvest as rent for the right to use physical farm assets and/or
to farm in the location where it operates.
One approach that has been tried but has failed several times is the estate or
corporate farm model, whereby the farm is owned by individuals or a group of
individuals not active in the day-to-day operations and farm management is undertaken
by agents on salary. Substantial village-level control of seashore utilization is an
impediment for any estate farming approach because aquaculture sites are generally
sought after by village members.
Farming system
Different farming techniques are employed throughout the country. These vary from
simple long lines such as fixed-off-bottom (FOB) and hanging long line (HLL) to
complex structures such as the multiple raft long line (MRLL) and the spider web
(SW). Generally, techniques are chosen according to the depth of water at the lowest
tide: FOB is chosen in shallow water ranges (0.250.50m); HLL is used in intermediate
water ranges (15m); whereas MRLL and SW are selected in deep water ranges (>5m).
The FOB technique of culturing Kappaphycus is the simplest and most traditional
since seaweed farming was introduced in the Philippines in the early 1970s. Farmers
use flat binders or polyethylene ropes as cultivation lines, plastic soft strips to tie the
propagules, and wooden stakes to peg both ends of the cultivation line. As the FOB
technique is normally used in shallow waters, a non-motorized boat is needed for
planting, monitoring and harvesting.
The MRLL and SW techniques are innovative approaches to seaweed farming in
deeper waters and are being implemented in Zamboanga City. These two techniques
usually require much higher capital investment than the FOB method.
The economic performance of six farms that adopt the four commonly used seaweed
farming systems in the Philippines is examined below. The basic information of these
farms is summarized in Table3.
TABLE3
Basic information on the six farms under study

Farm
Farming system
Species
Location
Operation scale
FOB
Zamboanga City, Tigtabon

Island
FOB
Tawi-Tawi, Sitangkai,
Baligtang pondohan
90 Lines; 18 m/line
HLL
Palawan, Marcilla Coron
90 lines; 30 m/line
HLL
Tawi-Tawi, Sitangkai,
Sipangkot Island
100 lines; 30 m/line
MRLL
Zamboanga City, LayagLayag,
10 m 50 m
SW
Zamboanga City, Arena

Blanco
30 m 90 m
100 lines; 18 m/line
Note: FOB = fixed-off-bottom; HLL = hanging long line; MRLL = multiple raft long line; SW = spider web.
Capital costs
The initial capital investment as well as corresponding amortized annual capital costs
(i.e. depreciation) of the six farms are summarized in Table4. The results indicate that:
Investments in farming system and vehicle (boat) are two primary items of capital
cost.
The farming systems (stakes, lines, floats, weights, etc.) of FOB and HLL had
relatively low requirement of initial investments. The costs of the farming systems
of Farm 2 (FOB), Farm 3 (HLL) and Farm 4 (HLL) were USD28/km of lines,
USD34/km and USD53/km, respectively. However, the FOB system of Farm1
was more expensive (USD115/km) because of the money it paid for wooden
stakes, which cost virtually nothing for the other three farms.
The farming systems of MRLL and SW were more expensive in terms of total
capital costs. The farming systems of Farm5 (MRLL) and Farm6 (SW) accounted
for 47and 81percent of their total capital costs, respectively. It should be noted
that the capital costs of MRLL and SW in Table4 are not directly comparable with
those of FOB and HLL because the former were measured by area they occupied
while the later by the length of lines they used. However, a rough estimation can
be used to show that MRLL and SW are more expensive. As mentioned above,
Farm1 (FOB) had the most expensive farming system among the four farms using
FOB or HLL. Assuming 20cm line space for Farm1 (FOB),5 then its area would
be about 20m 18m = 360m2. Thus, its capital cost on the farming system would
be USD5750/ha, which is much lower than Farm5 (USD11440/ha) and Farm6
(USD9 956/ha).
Capital cost per kilometre of lines or per hectare of area was calculated to
facilitate comparisons across the specific farms under study. However, the unit
cost so calculated should not be used to extrapolate investment requirements for
operations at different scales. For example, the 0.05-ha Farm5 (MRLL) invested
USD646 in a boat, which means a capital cost of USD12920/ha. However, this
does not mean that a 1-ha MRLL farm would need to invest USD12920 in boats;
the amount is the value of 20boats.
Variable costs
The cash operating costs for the first production cycle of the six farms are summarized
in Table5. The results indicate that:
Generally speaking, the cost of seeds is the main expense in the first cycle for all
the farms under examination. Farmers usually purchase a small quantity of seeds
5
Line space is 20cm for the off-bottom system used in Bali, Indonesia.
99
100
TABLE4
Initial capital investment and amortized annual capital costs of various seaweed farming
systems in the Philippines
Items of capital
investment
Initial investment
Amortized annual capital

cost
Capital cost*
Total cost
Share of
total cost
Annual
cost
Share of
annual cost
Total
Annual
(USD)
(%)
(USD/year)
(%)
(USD/km
or ha)
(USD/km
or ha)
Farm1: FOB (Zamboanga, 100 lines; 18 m/line)

Farming system
207
63
94
70
115
52
Vehicle (boat)
120
37
40
30
67
22
Total
327
100
134
100
182
74
Farm2: FOB (Tawi-Tawi, 90 lines; 18 m/line)

Farming system
46
28
15
27
28
Vehicle (boat)
120
72
40
73
74
25
Total
166
100
55
100
102
34
Farm3: HLL (Palawan, 90 lines; 30 m/line)

Farming system
92
15
31
23
34
11
Vehicle (boat)
526
85
105
77
195
39
Total
619
100
136
100
229
50
23
70
40
88
39
Farm4: HLL (Tawi-Tawi, 100 lines; 18 m/line)

Farming system
159
Vehicle (boat)
526
77
105
60
292
58
Total
686
100
175
100
381
97
Farm5: MRLL (Zamboanga, 10m 50m)

Farming system
572
47
204
58
11 440
4 080
Vehicle (boat)
646
53
145
42
12 920
2 900
1 218
100
349
100
24 360
6 980
3 496
Total
Farm6: SW (Zamboanga, 30m 90m)

Farming system
Total
2 688
81
944
87
9 956
646
19
145
13
2 393
537
3 335
100
1 089
100
12 352
4 033
* Measured by per kilometre for FOB and HLL, by per hectare for MRLL and SW.
Notes: USD1 = PHP47.50 (September 2009). Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
FOB = fixed-off-bottom; HLL = hanging long line; MRLL = multiple raft long line; SW = spider web.
in the first cycle; then a portion of the harvest in one cycle is separated and used
as seeding materials for the ensuing cycle. Therefore, the initial expense on seeds
can vary among different farmers. For example, expenditure by Farm2 expense
on seed (USD21) was much lower than that by Farm1 (USD442) although their
farming systems were very similar. Under such self-propagation schemes, seed
expenses would tend to be less after the first cycle.
Fuel and maintenance of engine are a minor expense, but fuel costs are higher for
farm sites located far away from the coastline, such as deep-sea farms in the area
of Zamboanga peninsula (e.g. Farm5 and Farm6).
Labour expenses depend on how much family or other non-cash labour is used.
Generally speaking, family labour is often used for relatively simple works such
as seeding, harvesting and drying. However, workers may need to be hired for
relatively large-scale operation (e.g. Farms1, 5 and 6). More sophisticated tasks
such as the construction or installation of the farming system tend to entail hired
labour, especially for more sophisticated systems such as MRLL (Farm 5) and
SW (Farm 6). However, bayanihan-style6 of wooden-post staking and culture
Bayanihan is a Philippine term referring to a spirit of communal unity or effort to achieve a particular
objective without the benefit of monetary compensation.
101
TABLE5
Cash operating costs in the first production cycle for various seaweed farming systems in the
Philippines
Farm1
(FOB)
Farm2
(FOB)
Farm3
(HLL)
Farm4
(HLL)
Farm5
(MRLL)
Farm6
(SW)
Zamboanga
Tawi-Tawi
Palawan
Tawi-Tawi
Zamboanga
Zamboanga
Material costs (USD)
455
31
671
350
517
1 367
- Seed
442
21
568
263
421
1 263
- Plastic strip (soft tie-tie)
13
10
20
11
30
38
- Fuel and engine

maintenance
83
76
66
66
126
16
25
152
630
- Seeding
42
16
14
35
115
- Harvesting & drying
28
84
- Construction/installation
of farming system
84
11
89
431
581
46
671
375
669
1 998
Farms
Location
Labour costs (USD)
Variable cost (USD)
line installation were available in some places, which helps farmers to save on
installation expenses. Some farmers (e.g. Farm 3) did not use hired labour but
relied on family labour to install lines.
Revenue, cost and profit
The revenues, costs and profits of the six farms are summarized in Table6. The results
indicate that:
All six farms have positive profits. Their profit margins vary from 22 percent
(Farm5 MRLL) to 82percent (Farm3 HLL).
The break-even prices (i.e. costs per unit of production) vary from USD171/tonne
(Farm3 HLL) to USD834 (Farm5 HLL).
The returns on investment (ROI) vary from 1 075 percent (Farm 3 HLL) to
56percent (Farm5 MRLL).
Almost all of the six farms can recover their initial capital investments in less
than one year. Farm5 MRLL, as the only exception, can recover its initial capital
investment in about 1.2years.
For Farm 1, the FOB technique used requires relatively low capital investment
compared with the other three farming systems. However, the farm used more
hired labour than Farm 2, which used a similar system and hence had higher
variable costs. The use by Farm 1 of a slow-growing species, K. striatum var.
sacol, resulted in relatively low production volumes. The operation may not be
economically viable if affected by severe episodes of ice-ice and/or Neosiphonia
infestation during extreme weather conditions (low and high temperature
salinity readings).
Farm2 also used the FOB system and was a typical family farm that entailed very
low initial capital investment as well as low initial seed expense. The farm relied
mostly on family labour and hence had relatively low variable costs. The low capital
and variable costs gave Farm2 a relatively high profit margin, which made it more
resilient to unfavourable conditions. One shortcoming of this low-input-low-cost
operation is the prolonged waiting period associated with the splitting of propagules
following the harvest (usually 1521days). In addition, the net profit of Farm2 was
lower than that of Farm1 although they had a similar total length of lines.
Farm 3 used the HLL system and appeared to be the most profitable among
the six farms studied. The use of family labour and bayanihan lowered its
102
TABLE6
Profitability analysis for four seaweed farming systems in different locations in the Philippines
Farms
Location
Farming species
Farm1
(FOB)
Farm2
(FOB)
Zamboanga
Tawi-Tawi
K.striatum
var. sacol
K. striatum
var. sacol
Farm3
(HLL)
Farm4
(HLL)
Farm5
(MRLL)
Farm6
(SW)
Palawan
Tawi-Tawi
Zamboanga
Zamboanga
K. alvarezii
var.
tambalang
K. alvarezii
var.
tambalang
K. striatum
var. sacol
K. alvarezii
var.
tambalang
Scale of operation
- Total length of lines (km)
1.8
1.62
2.7
1.8
500
2 700
Capital investment (USD)
- Farmarea (m )
327
166
619
686
1 218
3 335
Initial seed expenses (USD)
442
21
568
263
421
1 263
- Unit seed expense (USD/km)
246
13
210
146
8 420
4 678
- Unit seed expense (USD/ha)

Dry seaweed produced (kg)
- 1st crop (kg)
- 2nd5th crops (kg)
Productivity (tonne/km of lines)
2 143
900
8570
2 750
2 850
8 500
429
180
1714
550
570
1 700
1 714
720
6 856
2 200
2 280
6 800
57
31
1.19
0.56
3.17
1.53
Productivity (tonne/ha)
Revenue (USD)
2 346
966
8 119
2 953
3 060
9 126
- 1st crop (USD)
469
193
1 624
591
612
1825
- 2nd5th crops (USD)
1 877
773
6 495
2 362
2 448
7 301
Price of dry seaweed (USD/tonne)
1 093
1 072
947
1 075
1 074
1 074
Cost (USD)
1 422
324
1 465
996
2 376
6 024
- Fixed cost (depreciation) (USD)

- Variable cost (USD)
134
55
136
175
349
1 089
1 288
268
1 329
821
2 027
4 936
1st crop (USD)
581
46
672
375
669
1 998
2nd5th crops (USD)
707
222
657
446
1 358
2 938
Cost per unit of production, i.e.

break-even price (USD/tonne)
664
360
171
362
834
709
Net profit
923
643
6654
1957
684
3102
39
67
82
66
22
34
513
397
2 464
1 087
Profit margin (%)

Profit perkm of lines (USD/km)
Profit perha of area (USD/ha)
Return on investment (%)
Pay-back period
282
0.31
387
0.24
1 075
0.09
13 680
11 489
56
93
285
0.32
1.18
0.80
production costs of the HLL technique. In addition, the use of the fast-growing
species, K.alvarezii var. tambalang, led to high production volumes. The farm had
the highest net profit (in terms of both magnitude and profit margin), the highest
ROI, and the shortest payback period.
Farm 4 had an operation similar to Farm 3, which used the HLL system and
had a relatively high profit margin. However, the use of hired labour increased
its variable costs and reduced its profitability. Nevertheless, with a profit margin
as high as 66percent, the operation tends to be economically viable even under
unfavourable conditions.
Farm 5 (MRLL) and Farm 6 (SW) used farming systems for deeper water. The
topography of the Zamboanga peninsula requires deep-sea farming techniques
because of the scarcity of shallow intertidal areas as compared with Sitangkai,
Tawi-Tawi.7 Both techniques are capital- and labour-intensive as propagules

need to be tied to the structure. The use by Farm5 of the slow-growing species,
K.striatum var. sacol, led to a relatively low production volume and hence resulted
in a relatively low net profit and long payback period. The relatively low profit
margins of these two operations suggest that they may not be economically
viable under unfavourable conditions such as severe episodes of ice-ice and/or
Neosiphonia infestation.
Seaweed farming has contributed to improving the socio-economic status of coastal
communities in the Philippines through: (i) generating employment and hence
steady incomes for tens of thousands of coastal families; (ii) providing diversified
livelihoods to meet basic family needs such as food, shelter, education of children, and
health care, among others; (iii) enhancing community cohesion through cooperation
among farmers; (iv) strengthening stewardship of marine environment and resources;
(v)promoting development of and enhancing viability of small and medium enterprises;
and (vi) contributing to the local and national economies.
However, seaweed farming in the country has been subject to various limitations
and shortcomings, such as: (i) lack of capital investment for many farmers (especially
for small-scale farmers) to benefit from the economies of scale of more intensified
seaweed farming; (ii) low incomes for some farmers because of seasonal and unstable
production and low productivity; (iii) poor market linkages that deprive seaweed
farmers of benefits of the seaweed value chain; (iv) community development hindered
by lack of good leadership; and (v) farming environment threatened by indiscriminate
discharge of domestic effluents.
Employment
Seaweed farming is a labour-intensive activity entailing a large workforce and, hence,
it provides a good source of employment in the coastal communities and at the
pondohans. Figure 7 illustrates the estimated number of workers and companies
involved in the seaweed farming value chain in the Philippines.
Although no specific figures are given in Figure 7, a large force of supporting or
auxiliary workers is involved in sorting, cleaning, re-drying, baling, transporting,
tracking, and many other activities along the trading and processing stages. In addition,
the seaweed carrageenan industry employs a large number of staffs in its laboratories
and offices.
Livelihoods
The contribution of the seaweed industry to improving living conditions has been
recognized in the literature (Jain, 2006). Although seaweed farming is a demanding
physical activity, the economic returns make the hard labour worthwhile. With
production cycles spanning only 45days (6066days if the initial 1521days of the
nursery phase are included), harvests are produced rapidly compared with other
aquaculture activities such as finfish cage culture (78 months), abalone culture
(810 months), lobster cage culture (68 months) or agricultural crops such as rice,
corn and cassava (90120 days).
Experiences in the Philippines indicate that seaweed farming can be the primary
source of livelihoods in some places such as Sitangkai (Tawi-Tawi), where 9095percent
of farmers time is spent in the preparation of propagules (selection and tying), harvesting
and dryingpacking. It can also be part of diversified livelihood sources. For example,
seaweed farmers in Marupo, Coron, Palawan, who had diversified sources of livelihoods
7
MRLL was practised in Layag-Layag while SW was more common in Arena Blanco.
103
104
FIGURE7
Number of persons or organizations involved with the seaweed farming industry in the
Philippines
Off-shore processor
MARKET FLOW
Local processor (14)
Bigger trader and/or

exporter (10)
BDS
Small trader
(>20 thousand)
Local consolidator
(3050 thousand)
Seaweed farmer association
Seaweed farmer
(100150 thousand)
Note: BDS = Business Development Service.
such as planting of vegetables, cassava, rice and fishing, claimed that life would be
much more difficult without seaweed farming, which increased their annual income by
USD6321895 and helped them meet basic family needs, including childrens education.
The motorized boats of seaweed farmers were sometimes used to transport passengers.
Education
Generally, older seaweed farmers (> 40 years old) in the Philippines reached the
elementary level but were not able to finish Grade6. On the other hand, the younger
generations (1540 years old) either reached or finished the secondary level, or even
go to college (up to the third year). The Sipangkot seaweed farmers have an important
advantage over the other pondohans in Sitangkai in that their youths have been able
to finish their secondary education in a national high school located in the island. Some
families have had remarkable success with the education of their offspring. A family in
Baligtang with seven children has been able to see five of them through college, who are
now all employed in the Philippines or abroad. The two younger children still attend
elementary school on Sipangkot Island. This family is also known for home-schooling
their children through Grades1 and 2. When the pupils reach Grade3, they travel to
the main island of Sipangkot, which is one hour away by motorized boat.
According to an earlier survey of the pondohans of Sitangkai (Hurtado, unpublished
data), school-age children whose houses are close to the main island of Sitangkai attend
elementary and secondary school. One of the pondohans runs a day-care centre for
25-year-olds. Some families can afford to send their children to colleges in Bongao,
Tawi-Tawi or Zamboanga City.
Women and children

In order to comprehend fully the inner workings of seaweed farming in the Philippines,
which is basically a family-based enterprise, gender issues are explored based on the
results from earlier reports (Aming, 2004; Hurtado, 2005). Social impacts of seaweed
farming were reviewed in Module1 of Neish et al. (2009). A gender analysis for seaweed
farming small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) was undertaken by the author and
others in Indonesia and the Philippines in connection with the East ASEAN Initiative
Business Development Services (EAI-BDS) Project of AusAID in 2008. The Philippine
study focused on the seaweed farming regions of the Zamboanga peninsula.
The studies revealed that, in the seaweed farming communities of Flores and
Zamboanga, women and children were neither exploited nor abused in so far as their
rights as members of the family and community were concerned. Women farmers
were equally involved with their husbands in the decision-making process on matters
pertaining to household and seaweed farming activities. However, their involvement in
decision-making pertaining to farming activities was generally consultative in nature.
Men and women were generally found in scenes of cooperation and coproduction
rather than in competition and conflict.
The studies also revealed that both men and women were active among
accommodation providers with ecotourism potential. These activities are also run as
family businesses. It was estimated that women represented about 44 percent of the
regular labour force and were more prominent than men as casual labour; however,
gender stereotyping was confining them to the lower-paid jobs.
The family-oriented cultivation of Kappaphycus involves the father, mother and all
children over 67 years old. Generally, all unmarried adult offspring in a family are
participants in this endeavour (Barraca and Neish, 1978). Preparations for planting
such as the knotting of nylon cords, insertion of tie-ties to the cultivation line,
and seaweed cluster tying are usually performed by wives and women (Hurtado
and Agbayani, 2002). Children join their mothers in these tasks. As the head of the
family, the father usually carries out the toughest tasks such as installation of stakes,
deployment of anchors and preparation of rafts. Wives generally accompany their
husbands in these activities, helping to load and unload the materials their husbands
will use in the field. If in a family the father has died, his widow will usually take
charge of all tasks, from preparation of seedlings and support materials to planting and
hauling.
Women and children are involved in seaweed cluster tying in Tictauan Island,
Pangapuyan, Panyam, Layag-Layag, and Arena Blanco, Zamboanga City, where
deep-sea farming is practised. Women usually assist men in the harvesting of seaweeds
grown in deeper areas an activity normally conducted by men by collecting the
untied cultivation lines and placing them in the boat. However, women can harvest the
crop by themselves if seaweeds have been planted in shallow areas. Widows are always
assisted in these tasks by their unmarried male children.
One of the most critical stages in seaweed production is post-harvest management.
The market price of seaweed is determined after this process is completed. Sun-drying
(including turning over) of the harvested seaweed over fishnets on a platform or on the
ground is normally undertaken by women with the assistance of children. Aggregating,
packing and storing the dried seaweed are carried out jointly by women and men.
However, some farmers have recently opted to sell their harvested crops immediately
to traders in fresh form or in semi-dried form (5560 percent MC) so that they can
attend immediately to their next farming activities. These farmers claim that sun-drying
of seaweed is laborious and time-consuming (34days for an MC of 4045percent).
Seaweed for export and for SRC and RC processing must ideally be free from
unwanted seaweed (epiphytes), dirt, tie-ties, shells and other impurities. Women
provide the workforce at this stage on a daily wage basis (USD3.004.25/day) while
105
106
schoolchildren are hired on weekends, holidays or summer vacations on a per-basket

wage basis.
Seaweed farming is a labour-intensive endeavour. The inclusion of women and
children in the workforce, especially for the preparation of seedlings and planting
materials and cleaning and sorting of dried seaweed, plays a significant role. This is
mainly done in order to save on labour costs. It is widely perceived that the labour
output will increase with the number of children in the family.
Stewardship of marine resources
Seaweed farming has contributed to reduce overexploitation of fishery resources.
Although claims made by Sievanen et al. (2005) in the sense that increased income
provided by seaweed farming may even be invested in capital improvement of fisheries
business may hold true in Bohol and Bais Bay, Negros Oriental, the introduction
of seaweed farming in Sitangkai in the early 1970s did result in reduced fishing
effort, including destructive fishing practices. Seaweed aquaculture in this area has
emerged as the major livelihood activity, leaving farmers with little time to engage in
overexploitation of marine resources. Moreover, the income derived from seaweed
farming is sufficient for them to meet their daily needs.
Community development
As mentioned above, seaweed farming in the Philippines is approached as a family
endeavour; hence, benefits (food, shelter, education, health services, etc.) are shared
among all family members. The strong family ties of the Filipinos (the Tausug ethnic
group in particular) are exemplified by the fact that homes are normally inhabited
by grandparents, uncles, aunts, grandchildren, etc., in addition to the nuclear family
members.
Migratory flows have played an important factor in the development of the seaweed
farming industry. Increased production in Sitangkai has been made possible by the
migration of tens of thousands of Joloanons who originally came from Sulu. This
migration started in the 1970s and has continued to the present time. In search of better
opportunities, Filipino seaweed farmers have migrated to nearby Sabah (Malaysia),
where they currently account for 9095percent of the seaweed industry workforce.
Success stories
A number of interviews were conducted in several seaweed farming sites to document
the socio-economic impacts of seaweed farming in the Philippines. The results of these
interviews are exemplified in the three case studies presented below.
Case1
Gorgonio Pulilan from Marcilla, Coron, Palawan, married with a five-year-old child,
re-initiated seaweed farming in the Mataya Reef in 2006, following the closure of a
nearby pearl farm. He understood that seaweed farming in the area could not be made
profitable as long as the pearl farm operated because its effluents negatively affected
the growth of seaweeds.
In 2005, the Shell Foundation conducted a three-day training course on seaweed farming
as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programme. Upon completion of the
course, Mr Pulilan and 89other trainees were given planting materials such as ropes, soft
straws, and propagules. These materials gave Mr Pulilan the opportunity to farm once
again K.alvarezii var. tambalang. Mr Pulilan has succeeded despite problems such as the
occurrence of ice-ice from January to March and grazing by herbivorous fish from June
to August. Initially, he owned 42 30-m lines and had an income of USD145 (JuneJuly)
resulting from the production of 800kg of dry seaweed. At present, he operates 68HLLs
and 42 nursery lines. His income from seaweed farming has allowed him to acquire a
modest house on the mainland, a farmhouse with a drying platform worth USD135, a
motorized boat and a dugout boat. Mr Pulilan confidently claims that seaweed farming
has dramatically improved the living conditions of his family.
Case2
Ibrahim Ibno migrated from Jolo, Sulu, to Sipangkot Island, Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi, at
the age of ten years in 1985. His father and relatives had migrated to Sipangkot ten
years earlier to begin a seaweed farming business. Today, Ibrahim is not only a seaweed
farmer but also one of the largest traders in the area. He currently owns 153 8.75-m lines
planted with K.striatum (kab-kab). Mr Ibno plants K.striatum during the southwest
monsoon and K.alvarezii during the northwest monsoon, which is common practice
in Sitangkai. The grow-out cycle normally lasts 45days, generating about USD947 and
USD459 in gross and net revenue, respectively. Mr Ibno owns two motorized boats
and a semi-permanent modest house; in addition, his family owns a 10-hp generator
and one of the largest television sets in the village (including a parabolic antenna and
DVD player). He is the president of the Sipangkot Seaweed Planters Association; in
this role, he oversees the harvesting and drying schedules for all members. He is also
responsible for taking the entire harvest of RDS to the processing centres in Bongao
or Zamboanga.
Case3
In 2007, the Philippine Development Assistance Program (PDAP), an NGO supported
by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), sponsored the Sitangkai
Seaweed Productivity Enhancement through Education and Extension (SPE3)
programme in three pondohans in Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi: Sipangkot, Tinambak and
Sikulan. The author of this chapter shared her expertise as a lecturer-trainer on all
aspects of Kappaphycus farming, including: (i) taxonomy, distribution and biology
physiologyecology; (ii) farming; (iii) crop management (diseases and epiphytism);
(iv) post-harvest management; (v) marketing; and (vi) product applications. At the end
of the training course, an experimental farm was established to demonstrate sciencebased farming of Kappaphycus. The experience of Ummik Sabun, one of the successful
seaweed youth farmers coming out from SPE3, is presented below.
Ummik Sabun was able to implement carefully the science-based knowledge
imparted in the training programme. Mr Sabun successfully harvested a crop worth
USD2105 from an initial capital of only USD21. Because of seaweed farming, he was
able to acquire two small motorized boats, a 10-hp generator, a television set, a sari-sari
store,8 and is now the primary income earner in his family. Mr Sabun explained that he
was hardly able to obtain good harvests prior to the SPE3 training because the iceice malaise and Neosiphonia infestations would spoil his crops. The SPE3 training
programme gave him the opportunity to improve his seaweed farming skills through
proper crop management (selection of cultivar and farming technique according to the
season) and post-harvest management (drying facilities and moisture content). Prior
to the SPE3 training, he used to plant 600lines that ultimately would be plagued with
diseases. Currently, he is able to avoid the occurrence of these diseases, which allows
him to manage an additional 100. Nowadays, Mr Sabun is considered one of the
wealthiest seaweed farmers on his island and has become a provider of good-quality
cultivars and propagules to other seaweed farmers.
Many graduates of the SPE3 training programme are providing extension advice to
farmers in other pondohans.
A sari-sari store is a type of convenience store found in the Philippines. Most sari-sari stores are privately
owned shops and are operated inside the shopkeepers house.
107
108
4.
4.1 Government and international agencies
Seaweed farming is perceived by the Philippine government, especially the local
government units, as a means to generate employment and alleviate poverty in coastal
communities. Seaweed is a multimillion-dollar export commodity that generates high
revenues to the national economy.
The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under the Department of
Agriculture (DA) has provided various supports to the seaweed industry, including:
(i) giving farmers cultivars, ropes and soft ties; (ii) supporting the establishment of
nurseries in order to overcome the seed constraint; and (iii) coordinating extension
services to farmers.
The Government has also established policy and regulations to promote sustainable
development of the sector. For example, in a recent policy (formulated as of
14 September 2009), standards and guidelines were established to ensure the quality
and safety of seaweed products (Table7).
TABLE7
Quality standards for farmed seaweed in the Philippines
Class
Moisture content
Clean anhydrous
seaweed*
Impurities
Sand and salt
Colour
(%)
Kappaphycus
Class A
35
52
10
Class B
3639
4851
10
Class C
40
47
10
Class A
30
57
10
Class B
3134
5356
10
Class C
35
52
10
Definitely not
black
Eucheuma
Definitely not
black
* Clean anhydrous seaweed refers to seaweeds that have been removed of moisture, salt, sand and other impurities.
Source: PNS/BAFPS (2009).
Using a top-to-bottom approach, the Government of the Philippines has formulated

a National Seaweed Development Program to look into the priority concerns, issues
and problems of the seaweed industry in the country. Only the province of Bohol
has developed a local policy for its seaweed industry, but all local governments are
responsible for issuing licences and permits to seaweed farmers within their respective
areas.
International agencies have also played active roles in seaweed farming development
in the Philippines by financing projects, providing technical assistance, and conducting
training or other capacity-building activities, among others. For example:
The IFC-ADB established two seaweed nurseries in Zamboanga City (Arena
Blanco and Manicahan) in JuneSeptember 2007.
The Seaplant.net-AusAID-EAI project established a BDS for the seaweed farmers
of Zamboanga City.
The GTZ/Seaplant.net/AusAID-EAI project delivered training courses on good
aquaculture practices (GAPs) to LGUs, MAOs and state colleges and universities
in Mindanao and Palawan;
USAID and the International Youth Foundation (IYF) have become collaborators
in the SPE3 programme promoted by the PDAP.
4.2 Civil societies and research communities

A number of local and international NGOs have played a vital role in the development
of seaweed farming in the Philippines.9 The constant delivery of training courses and
workshops by these NGOs has exposed seaweed farmers to an entire range of concepts
related to GAPs and empowered them to become more capable and responsible
members of their communities. For example, in collaboration with the CIDA and the
Consuelo Foundation,10 the PDAP harnesses the capabilities of out-of-school youth
to help them become active players in the improvement of the seaweed industry of
Sitangkai. On-site training courses on the basic biology, ecology and physiology
of Kappaphycus as well as farming, crop management, post-harvest management,
marketing and product applications, have been hosted as part of the programme.
Producers normally organize themselves in associations for the purpose of sourcing
financial and technical assistance from both government organizations and NGOs. As
noted above, farmers associations buy fresh seaweed, then dry it and sell it directly to
a processor through the assistance of a BDS11 or an NGO. This scheme eliminates one
or two layers of trading/marketing, thereby increasing profit margins for the growers.
However, it is noted that few associations are successful in attaining their stated
objectives. As a result, some industry observers have concluded that individual farmers
may obtain better results than groups of farmers working communally.
Education plays a significant role towards improving the production capabilities
of seaweed farmers. The Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and
Development Department of Science and Technology has been responsible for
conducting and funding seaweed R&D through different state colleges and universities.
Within this context, the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute has
emerged as the lead centre for seaweed R&D in the country, being supported in this
role by the regional state colleges and universities. A number of local and international
NGOs also support the various seaweed R&D programmes in the country.
Cross-visits of farmers to other production areas and research institutions are
additional avenues to increase and improve farmers capabilities. The exposure
and interaction with scientists and experts achieved through collaborative research
projects have also generated very positive feedback. For example, the association
between the Kasanyangan Nursery Seaweed Enterprise and the Manicahan Pearl
Diving Multi-Purpose Cooperative in Zamboanga City under the ADB-IFC
seaweed nursery project in 2007 was fruitful not only in terms of the acquisition
of new technologies, but also in terms of the learning of entrepreneurial skills. The
experimental farm jointly run by the youths of the Sipangkot Seaweed Planters
Association and the Tinambak Seaweed Planters Association in Sitangkai (with
the support of PDAP-SEAFDEC-ISDA) demonstrates also the significance of
implementing science-based technologies to enhance productivity. The experience
and knowledge acquired by youths in these two "pondohans" has allowed them to
act as extension leaders in other "pondohans".
The local NGOs include the PDAP, KFI, ISDA, LGSP and PBSP; the international NGOs include GTZ,
CIDA, ASL, Seaplant.net, and Cargill Texturizing Solutions.
The Consuelo Foundation is a philanthropic organization focused on relieving the suffering of neglected
and abused children and women in the Philippines and Hawai (the Unites States of America).
10
The concept of BDS in the seaweed industry is relatively new; hence, only two BDS are known to date.
The BDS link farmers directly to the market. Support from BDS providers is best mediated through
producer organizations, networks and alliances.
11
109
110
5.
Sustainable development of seaweed farming in the Philippines entails efforts from
various stakeholders to overcome a number of constraints on the economic, social,
environmental and governance aspects of the seaweed value chain. Some major issues
and requirements identified by different stakeholders are summarized below.
Important issues and requirements in terms of production include:
expansion of farming areas to deeper waters;
appropriate site selection and zoning arrangement;
development and access to farming technologies suitable to the farming location;
development of, access to, and proper use of high-quality cultivars (e.g. fastgrowing and disease-resistant);
prevention or control of ice-ice malaise and Neosiphonia infestation;
establishment of nurseries in strategic areas nationwide.
Important issues and requirements in terms of seaweed processing, marketing and
trade include:
access to good-quality dry seaweeds by local processors;
access to fair trade and market links by seaweed farmers and processors;
more efficient value chain through minimizing layers of trading and eliminating
illegal traders;
establishment of well-functioned BDSs to link farmers associations directly to
processors;
further development of markets for carrageenan products.
Important issues and requirements in terms of R&D and financial services include:
close interaction and collaboration between seaweed farmers and research
communities;
access to local bank loans by farmers, especially small-scale farmers.
5.1 Trade and marketing
A number of trade and marketing issues must be addressed to ensure continued growth
of the industry:
Brand management: Each segment in the value chain has to develop and protect
its own brand to maintain and increase its market share. Awareness of culture
practices that relate to product quality and food safety must be enhanced and
linked with market requirements.
Adding value near crop sources: This practice would provide a higher income and
diversify sources of livelihood to the seaweed farmer.
Secure electronic transaction systems: Appropriate in places where information
and communication technology is accessible.
Traceable transactions and product flows: Ecolabelling could play an important
role as it would provide valuable information about the product.
Testing, verification and certification: A duly certified laboratory could
examine the RDS and provide certification for a number of attributes, MC in
particular.
Market knowledge and information: producers need to be linked with proper
agencies that could provide accurate price information.
Product innovation and development: Processors need to engage in continuous
R&D in order to meet the changing needs of the end users.
Marketing and sales tools and services: Aggressive and effective marketing
strategies, along with excellent customer service, need to be undertaken by
processors.
Electronic buysell systems: The fastest and simplest means of buying and selling
carrageenan is via electronic mails. Business transactions are performed in a few
minutes and can be closed in a day. Among farmers, the Short Message Service
(SMS) and Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) are powerful tools for the
buying and selling of RDS. A farmer or trader can e-mail a picture of the RDS to
larger traders, exporters or processors for preliminary assessment.
Education and training systems: Continuing education on GAPs for seaweed
farmers and training on quality control for workers and managers in processing
plants are essential.
Regional collection and distribution hubs: The establishment of these networks is
essential to carrageenan processors for efficient sourcing of RDS and for local and
offshore marketing of the final product.
5.2 Education and R&D
Further advancement of seaweed farming in the Philippines will require scientific and
technological support. Farmers need to receive continuous education to keep them
abreast of the latest technology and to update their knowledge of seaweed biology,
physiology and ecology to understand better how seaweeds interact with their
environment.
The R&D programmes in a country must be designed with the needs of its various
industries in mind. Although basic research is important, applied research must be
given greater weight. In the case of the seaweed industry, only a limited number of
academic and non-academic institutions in the Philippines have been involved in R&D,
which has resulted in the lack of human resources available to assist the industry with
emerging production, technological and marketing challenges.
Most R&D in the Philippines and the BIMP-EAGA region has been focused on
Kappaphycus and Eucheuma simply because of the commercial importance and the
flagship status of Kappaphycus. However, it is also important to take advantage of
the Philippines rich endowment in different seaweed species to explore and develop
the potential of other economically important seaweeds such as Gracilaria as a source
of agar and agarose, Sargassum as a source of alginates, and Caulerpa as a sea vegetable.
Similarly, it is advisable to conduct research on rare species that could potentially yield
new pharmaceuticals.
Except for SRC and RC, the seaweed industry in the Philippines has failed to
develop significant product applications in the last 40 years. Additional uses for
seaweed need to be identified. For example, research conducted in other countries
has shown that seaweed fertilizer could be derived from the sap of Kappaphycus. This
application could potentially be developed in the Philippines.
5.3 Expansion, intensification and diversification
Expansion of seaweed farming areas is feasible in some locations. For example, GISgenerated maps have revealed plenty of areas suitable for seaweed farming in Sitangkai
(up to 15 m deep). Intensification of activities can be achieved in certain locations,
particularly in areas where production is seasonal. However, intensification carries
the risk of bringing imbalances for farming areas that have reached the limits of their
carrying capacity.
Polyculture, i.e. the farming of two or more different commodities within the
same culture environment, has distinct advantages over monoculture, including the
potential for earning higher revenues. In particular, the integration of finfish, molluscs,
crustaceans and seaweed, commonly known as integrated multitrophic aquaculture
(IMTA), provides an environmentally friendly farming system with the potential to
increase profitability in aquaculture by enabling the production of additional marine
crops.
As it is currently practised, the potential contribution of seaweed farming to
diversified livelihoods in coastal communities has yet to be fully exploited. In the
majority of places visited during this study, seaweed farming was undertaken as the
111
112
primary source of livelihoods, which was particularly true for the larger farmers.
Seaweed farming is a labour-intensive endeavour that requires great dedication and
focused efforts from producers, leaving them little time for other activities. Farmers
slow down occasionally only during planting owing to the unavailability of propagules.
It is the authors opinion that seaweed farmers could benefit from the diversification
of marine aquaculture in order to generate additional sources of income. This is
particularly important in view of the problems that occasionally beset seaweed culture.
The richness of the marine resources of Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga Peninsula and
Palawan could bring greater opportunities to the coastal inhabitants. However, these
opportunities need to take advantage of the new technologies developed at the research
institutions. In this regard, the expertise of SEAFDEC/AQD in Tigbauan, Iloilo,
could be tapped to introduce marine aquaculture technologies to the seaweed coastal
communities. In Sitangkai, pen culture of abalone could be introduced, while cage
culture of grouper, Napoleon wrasse and lobster could be promoted in Pangapuyan
Island, Zamboanga. In general, sound IMTA systems could be introduced in the culture
areas, which would have Kappaphycus or Gracilaria as one of the major components.
Seaweed farmers currently engage in the gleaning of sea urchins (Arena Blanco and
Look Panyam, Zamboanga City), gathering of abalones (Sitangkai), and gathering
of wild juveniles of groupers and Napoleon wrasse (Pangapuyan Island, Zamboanga
City; Tandu Banak, Sibutu, Tawi-Tawi). These activities are only seasonal and
conducted on a very small scale, but they acquire greater importance in times of low
seaweed prices. International buyers (Chinese from both China, Hong Kong SAR and
mainland China) have begun to purchase live grouper and Napoleon wrasse in Tandu
Banak, Sibutu. This trade has not emerged as a result of an introduced science-based
technology; instead, it is a product of the seaweed farmers own ingenuity. However,
production could be increased provided farmers are given the opportunity to adopt
technologies developed from research.
5.4 Infrastructure and services
Frequent and reliable connection to the different elements of the value chain and
stakeholders in the industry play a significant role in upgrading and improving the
marketability of crops. Internet connectivity is the key factor to facilitate timely
communication and information exchanges among stakeholders.
Periodic workshops and meetings are important in order to keep stakeholders
(especially farmers) abreast of the latest information on market conditions (prices) and
farming technologies and management.
Transportation systems (especially in remote islands) must be improved to allow
convenient and fast access to the markets. A fast-craft service from Sitangkai to Bongao,
Tawi-Tawi, or operating in other places such as Agutaya, Palawan and Cagayancillo,
Palawan, would increase farm productivity.
Access to financial services has been one of the weakest links that needs improvement.
Seaweed farmers in the Philippines usually rely on own funds for investment and
operation, which not only hinders their development but also makes them less resilient
to negative shocks. Farmers must have access to the financial institutions to avail
themselves of capital as well as financial services such as crop insurance and electronic
banking.12
Traditionally, seaweed farmers trust their cash to relatives who are traders. Whenever they need cash,
farmers just go back and obtain it from their relatives. Farmers repeatedly state that having cash at the
pondohan is not a safe practice; therefore, they need to be taught how to use bank services.
12
References
Aming, N. 2004. Participation of Filipino Muslim women in seaweed farming in Sitangkai,
Tawi-Tawi, Philippines. University of the Philippines in Los Baos. (PhD dissertation)
Barraca, R.T. & Neish, I.C. 1978. A survey of Eucheuma farming practices in Tawi-Tawi.
I. The Sitangkai, Sibutu, Tumindao Region. Report submitted to Marine Colloids, Inc.
65pp.
Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS). 2010. Bureau of Agricultural Statistics [online].
Quezon City, Philippines, Department of Agriculture. [Cited 9January 2013]. www.bas.
gov.ph/.
Dakay, B.U. 2008. Developing a partnership between the Philippines and Indonesia in the
seaweed industry. Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. First Indonesia Seaweed Forum.
Dakay, B.U. 2010. The Future of the Carrageenan Industry. Paper presented at SEABFEX
III, Surabaya, Indonesia. 1417 July 2010.
Hurtado, A.Q. 2005. The role of women and children in seaweed farming in the Philippines
and environmental impacts of seaweed farming. Final report submitted to IFC. 24pp.
Hurtado, A.Q. & Agbayani, R.F. 2002. Deep sea farming of Kappaphycus using multiple
raft long-line method. Botanica Marina, 45: 438444.
Hurtado, A.Q., Agbayani, R.F., Sanares, R. & de Castro-Mallare, M.T. 2001. The
Jain, S. 2006. The seaweed industry: exploring an alternative to poverty. Manila, Department
of Trade and Industry. 124pp.
National Statistics Office (NSO). 2010. National Statistics Office [online]. Manila. [Cited
9January 2013]. www.census.gov.ph/
Neish, I.C., Hurtado, A.Q., Julianto, B. & Saragih, D. 2009. Good aquaculture practices
for Kappaphycus and Eucheuma. A compilation of nine training modules for seaweed
farmers. Seaplant.net Monograph no. HB2F 0909 V4 GAP. Makassar, Sulawesi Selatan,
Indonesia.
Philippine National Standards/Bureau of Agricultural and Fisheries Products Standards
(PNS/BAFPS). 2009. Dried raw seaweed specifications. 11pp.
Seaweed Industry Association of the Philippines. 2009. Seaweed Statistics. Cebu City,
Philippines.
Sievanen, L., Crawford, B., Pollnac, R. & Lowe, C. 2005. Weeding through assumptions
of livelihood approaches in ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 48: 297313.
113
115

the United Republic of Tanzania
Flower E. Msuya
Facilitator
Seaweed Cluster Initiative, Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Dar es Salaam
Zanzibar, the United Republic of Tanzania
Msuya, F.E. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in the
United Republic of Tanzania. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda & N. Ridler, eds.
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp. 115146 . Fisheries
and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 580. Rome, FAO. 204 pp.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are expressed to the people from Zanzibar, Pemba, Mtwara, Lindi, Kilwa,
Tanga, Bagamoyo and Dar es Salaam who participated in the interviews and filled in
questionnaires. The author is also grateful to Dr Amelia Buriyo and I. Sware Semesi
for providing literature. Thanks are also given to Mr Hamad Said Khatib who provided
export statistics of marine products from Zanzibar.
116
1.
INTRODUCTION
Although the farming of red seaweeds in Tanzania began more than 20 years ago,
exploitation of the natural stocks of seaweeds has a longer history in the country.
Seaweed exports from Tanzania to Europe trace back to the 1930s (Mshigeni, 1998).
Seaweeds were then exported under the species name of Eucheuma, which included the
currently farmed Eucheuma denticulatum and Kappaphycus alvarezii.
From the two seaweed species farmed in Tanzania, a gel called carrageenan is
extracted and used in a number of industries, including food, pharmaceutical, cosmetic,
and textile. Seaweed is thus valued on the quality of the carrageenan. The gel extracted
from E. denticulatum is called iota carrageenan while that from K. alvarezii is called
kappa carrageenan. Generally, the stronger (or thicker) the carrageenan is, the higher
its quality is. Kappa carrageenan is normally thicker than iota carrageenan.
This study takes a look at the entire spectrum of seaweed farming in Tanzania,
from farming to exportation, with a special focus on the socio-economic impacts of
the activity. It updates the findings from earlier studies, in particular Shechambo et al.
(1996) and Semesi (2002).
The information for this study was collected through literature and questionnaire
surveys, focus group discussions and interviews with key informants, including on-farm
discussions and observations. Questionnaires were developed for seaweed farmers,
government departments, exporters and NGOs. In some cases, the questionnaires
elicited information directly from the respondents; in some other cases, respondents
filled out the questionnaires following discussions with the author. Key informants
were selected from government departments, NGOs, and groups of seaweed buyers
and experienced farmers. The questionnaire for farmers was translated into Kiswahili
to facilitate interviews. Field visits covered four areas in Zanzibar (Unguja Island1),
three areas in Pemba (the sister island of Zanzibar), Kigamboni in Dar es Salaam,
Bagamoyo in Pwani, Tanga; Mtwara; and Lindi (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
Map of Tanzania illustrating the seaweed farming areas
Ras Kigomasha
Micheweni
Konde
Fundo
Island
Kiuyu
Wete
Mzambarauni
Chake
Chake
Wesha
Tanvga
Pemba
Mikoani
Pemba
Limani
Kengeja
Bagamoyo
Zanzibar
D ar-es-salaam
Banda Kuu
Kidoti
Tambatu
Island
Mkokotoni
Mafia
Songo Songo
Kilwa
Makoda
Kilindi
Ngava
Mahonda
Uroa
Bububu
Zanzibar
Kisanu
Fumba
Lindi
Mtwara
Unguja is the biggest island within the Zanzibar archipelago.
Bweleo
Uzi
Zanzibar
Ras Michamvi
Chwaka
Bwejuu
Paje
Jambiani
Mtegani
Makunduchi
Mkunguni
Ras Kizimkazi
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in the United Republic of Tanzania
2.
2.1 History
Documentation of Tanzania seaweed resources began in the late years of the nineteenth
century with Sonder (1879) who reported around 40 seaweed taxa and Schmitz
(1895), who recorded 68 taxa including the commercial genus Eucheuma. These initial
surveys were followed by the comprehensive work of Jaasund (1976), which in turn
stimulated interest on the economic potential of seaweed farming. It has also been
demonstrated that the Tanzanian coastal inhabitants have traditionally used seaweeds
for medical purposes (e.g. wound treatment) and as fish bait (Mshigeni, 1983a). During
the late 1960s and early 1970s, coastal villagers in Zanzibar (Unguja), Pemba, and Mafia
Islands were harvesting and exporting the red seaweed Eucheuma (Mshigeni, 1998).
Reportedly, this trade had been taking place since as early as 1935 in Zanzibar and
Mafia Islands. According to Shechambo et al. (1996), about 387 tonnes of seaweed were
exported in 1951. The main export destinations were Denmark, France and the United
Kingdom (Mshigeni, 1973; 1976). However, this trade collapsed between 1973 and 1975
as Tanzanian exports based on natural crops (and containing a considerable amount of
admixtures) were outcompeted by the copious, clean and semi-processed farmed crop
products from the Philippines and other Southeast Asian suppliers (Mshigeni, 1992).
It became apparent that the seaweed trade could only be maintained if a controlled
production process through farming was put in place.
The farming concept was implemented in Tanzania at different stages. Initially, a
couple of papers on the potential of seaweed farming were published in the Tanzania
Notes and Records journal (Mshigeni, 1973; 1976). These articles were followed by
a book written in Kiswahili, also by Mshigeni (Mshigeni, 1983b). In 1985, Mshigeni
conducted the first farming experiments in three localities in Tanzania: Tanga (northern
Tanzania), Fumba in Unguja (Zanzibar) Island, and Fundo Island in Pemba (Figure 1).
Only until 1989 did commercial farming develop as a result from these experiments
(Eklund and Petterson, 1992; Msuya et al., 1996; Shechambo et al., 1996; Msuya, 2005).
FIGURE 2
Species of cultured seaweed in Tanzania
Eucheuma denticulatum
Kappaphycus alvarezii
Kappaphycus striatum locally

known as kikarafuu
A variety of K. alvarezii locally

known as Bulabula
117
118
Experimental commercial farms were established in two villages on the east coast of
Zanzibar (Paje and Jambiani).
From Zanzibar, commercial seaweed farming expanded to the mainland in
19921996 in the Tanga (Zuberi et al., 2007) and Bagamoyo areas, followed by Mafia
Island (Msuya, 2009a). In southern Tanzania, farming expanded to Mtwara, Lindi and
Kilwa Districts (Msuya, 1995; 1996).
The first documented production and export activity took place in 1990, when
808 tonnes were exported. Production increased over the years, reaching nearly
11thousand tonnes by 2008 (Msuya 2006a; 2009a). Most production is from Zanzibar
while mainland Tanzanias output is less than 1 000 tonnes, consisting mostly of
K.alvarezii (MNRT, 2005). The Aquaculture Department of the Ministry of Livestock
and Fisheries recently reported a total production of 887 tonnes for the mainland in
2008/2009.
As mentioned above, the idea of farming seaweed in Tanzania was introduced in
the early 1970s by Professor Keto Mshigeni of the University of Dar es Salaam
(Mshigeni, 1973; 1976), who also conducted the first culture trials (Mshigeni, 1985).
These experiments encouraged private entrepreneurs in the late 1980s to engage in
commercial seaweed farming. By the early 1990s seaweed was commercially exported
from Tanzania. The industry grew significantly in the Zanzibar islands, where it is
the second most important industry after tourism. Seaweeds also represent the largest
marine export product from Zanzibar, contributing over 97 percent in most years2.
Species
Several cultured seaweed species in Tanzania are illustrated in Figure 2. Eucheuma
denticulatum and K. alvarezii continue to be the most widely farmed species. Recently,
serious problems have been caused by widespread die-offs of K. alvarezii experienced
in many areas in Tanzania. This situation has created negative impacts for farmers,
exporters, and the country at large. Unfortunately, the world market has a preference
for K. alvarezii over E. denticulatum because of its thicker carrageenan. Farmers
FIGURE 3
Seaweed production and value in Zanzibar, 19902008

12
2.0
Production
Value
1.0
4
0.5
Value (billions TZS)
1.5
8
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Production (thousand tonnes)
10
0.0
Source: DFMR, Zanzibar (2009).
Other export products include lobsters, fish fins, squids, anchovies, oysters, octopus, crabs and fish offal.
have tried to grow K. alvarezii for a number of years in the hope of achieving greater
incomes, but these attempts have failed repeatedly. Many farmers have thus resorted to
the lower priced species. These problems have discouraged some farmers, particularly
men, who have returned to low-paying activities and to fishing, in some cases using
environmentally unfriendly gear such as beach seines.
Alternatives to K. alvarezii e.g. K. striatumn, locally known as kikarafuu, and a
variety of K. alvarezii known as kikorosho, have been tried but did not perform well in
culture trials and are not farmed anymore.
Recently a variety of K. alvarezii known as Bulabula has been introduced in Tanga
since 2007. Commercial culture of this species is still at experimental stages as only a
few risk-tolerant farmers are planting it. It must be noted that all these species and
varieties have been introduced in compliance with the regulations stipulated by the
government.
The potential for farming two agarophyte3 species, Gracilaria salicornia and
G.Edulis, is also being evaluated by scientists at the UDSM (Kivaisi and Buriyo, 2005).
Both species occur naturally in Tanzanian waters. Methods for farming Gracilaria
include the traditional off-bottom technique and the cage farming technology employed
in South Africa. Market outlets in Tanzania would include universities, hospitals (for
microbiological purposes), and food processing industries (Msuya, 2009c).
Commercial seaweed production in Zanzibar grew rapidly throughout the 1990s
(Figure 3). Output fell drastically between 2002 and 2004 from 11.2 to 7.2 thousand
tonnes but increased again from 2005 onwards, reaching nearly 11 thousand tonnes
in 2008. Seaweed produced in Zanzibar is mostly exported. Seaweed exports from
Zanzibar reached 11 thousand tonnes worth TZS 1.7 billion in 2008 (Figure 4).
In terms of species, while the production of E. denticulatum in Zanzibar has been on
an upward trend since 2004, the production of K. alvarezii has been decreasing over the
years, from 1 048 tonnes in 2001 to 16.5 tonnes in 2008 (Figure 5). The decline is mostly
FIGURE 4
Seaweed exports from Zanzibar, 1990 2008

12
2.0
Value
Export
1.0
4
0.5
Value (billions TZS)
1.5
8
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Volume (thousand tonnes)
10
An agarophyte is seaweed producing the hydrocolloid agar as part of the makeup of their cell wall. This
agar can be harvested commercially for use in biological experiments, among other applications.
119
120
FIGURE 5
Seaweed production per species in Zanzibar, 2001 2008

12
E.denticulatum
K. alvarezii
(Thousand tonnes)
10
8
6
4
2
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
due to the die-off episodes4 caused by diseases (e.g. ice-ice). Production of K. alvarezii
has also decreased in the mainland Tanzania in recent years, from 1222 tonnes in 2002
to 887 tonnes in 2008/2009.
The value chain
Post-harvest processing
Seaweed is harvested after 4 to 6 weeks depending on the growth rates at the farming
site. Harvesting involves untying the lines from the anchorage pegs and then removing
the seaweed. This is followed by selecting new branches from the harvest as re-planting
material, and tying the lines back to the pegs. The tying-in of new branches can be
performed at the farming site by sitting in the shallow water (Figure 6) or at home
following daytime activities at sea. The remaining portion of the harvest is taken home
for drying and selling.
Farmers dry the seaweed by spreading it on mats, coconut branches, grass or sand.
Seaweed takes from two to three days to dry on sunny weather, but drying may
take up to seven days on rainy seasons. Upon drying, seaweed is sorted and shaken
to remove dirt and sand. It is then stored at home or sold directly depending on the
harvest volume.
Sales are negotiated in the farming villages. Buyers usually have storage rooms in
the villages and employ a local agent to buy the seaweed from the farmers. Seaweed
is collected and stored and then transported by trucks to warehouses for baling and
shipping. If for any reason funds are not sent to the village on time, farmers routine
selling may be delayed for up to three months. Buyers usually make efforts to avoid
this situation.
Exportation
Seaweed is purchased from the farmers and stored in the village until sufficient
quantities have been accumulated to make a truck trip to Zanzibar Town worthwhile.
From Zanzibar Town seaweed is exported by local companies to multinational sister
Interviews with farmers have also revealed that continuous production for two consecutive years is
normally followed by die-off episodes, which can last for more than a year.
FIGURE 6
Seaweed farmers tying seed at sea in Uroa, Zanzibar
companies abroad. Besides major export companies5, anecdotic evidence indicates that
local entrepreneurs have started joining seaweed collecting and exporting businesses
and hence provide alternative market channels.
Main export markets of seaweed from Tanzania used to be the United States of
America, France, Denmark and Spain. Chile and China have also started importing
seaweed from Tanzania because of a worldwide shortage of carageenan seaweed
raw materials. Such emerging markets tend to provide more opportunities for local
entrepreneurs to thrive.
Value-added products
During 198384, researchers used extracts from Gracilaria as a fertilizer for bean
plants6. These initial trials paved the way for further examination of the fertilizing
properties of seaweeds (e.g. the Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives [ZERI]).7
Under the guidance of the Zanzibar Seaweed Cluster Initiative (ZaSCI), value-added
products such as seaweed-based soaps, body creams, and puddings were developed
and manufactured in Zanzibar (Msuya, 2005; 2006b). ZaSCI produced four types of
seaweed soaps in Kidoti and Bweleo during 2008 and 2009: regular soaps and soaps
containing cinnamon, lemon grass, and lime (Msuya, 2008; Msuya and Kyewalyanga,
2008; Msuya, 2009c; 2009d). Farmers have also been trained in Jambiani (Zanzibar)
and Wete (Pemba). ZaSCI has also produced a variety of seaweed-based body creams
containing cinnamon, clove, lemon grass and eucalyptus (Msuya, 2009c; 2009d). Other
value-added products such as crackers, candies, biscuits, juice, cakes and salad could
potentially be commercialized in the future (Msuya, 2006b; 2009c; 2009d).
Major companies exporting seaweed from Tanzania include C-weed Co., Zanzibar Agro-Seaweed
Company Limited (ZASCOL), Zanzibar East African Seaweed Company (ZANEA), Birr, Mwani
Mariculture, ZanQue and Zanzibar Shell.
Mshigeni and Msuya were among the first scientists undertaking efforts to develop value-added seaweed
products.
ZERI is a global network of scientists and entrepreneurs working on a range of projects and case studies
that emphasize the use of waste as raw materials for the development of new production systems.
121
122
Carrageenan gel has been extracted at experimental levels by CoET/UDSM in

association with MUCHS/UDSM and also by the Sokoine University of Agriculture
(SUA), mostly for medical purposes, including its potential use in HIV/AIDS control
programmes. The gel is also being extracted by TIRDO to establish the potential of a
semi-processing industry in the country.
3.
PERFORMANCE
3.1 Farming techniques
Seaweeds in Tanzania are farmed using primarily the peg and line (off-bottom) method,
which is the most common farming method worldwide. Some farmers use 4-m long
lines with one peg at each end (Figure 7) while other farmers use from 10- to 20-m long
lines with buoys and one peg at each end as well (Figure 8).
Nylon ropes with seaweed are tied between two wooden pegs obtained from
mangroves or land-based plants. The seed, typically from the same stock initially
imported from the Philippines, is sourced from other farmers or from a buyer. In
addition to seed, buyers also provide materials (ropes and tie-ties8) to the growers,
FIGURE 7
Off-bottom method: 4-m long lines with two pegs at each end. Uroa, Zanzibar
FIGURE 8
Off-bottom method: 10-20-m long lines. Mwambani, Tanga
A tie-tie is a type of thin nylon rope.
who then must sell the seaweed product to the buyer if materials were provided free
of charge.
Seeds are usually obtained from older plants although farmers are sometimes forced
to use younger branches if seeds are scarce. Branches of about 100 g are tied in the
4-mm-diameter nylon ropes. The branches (usually from 11 to 15 in a 4-m line) are tied
at 20-cm intervals (using tie ties); the line is then tied to the wooden pegs (about 60 cm
long) that have been rooted into the sediment (Figure 7).
A farm (or plot) consists of 50 lines approximately, but this number may vary
depending on the farmers preferences. Some farmers maintain between 100 and 300
lines and some reportedly manage up to 1000 lines.
Low tides occur two times a month and each low tide takes seven days, thus farmers
work on their farms for 14 days during each month. The time between ebbing and
flooding during low tides is 4 hours; this is the time interval used by farmers to tend
their plots. Farm management primarily consists of removing sand and debris from
the lines (including wild seaweeds), tying new branches to replace those broken by
the action of the winds or grazed upon by sea urchins, and re-attaching the loose and
uprooted pegs.
Trials have also been conducted on deep-water farming with bamboo rafts
(Zuberi, 2000; Msuya and Kyewalyanga, 2006; Msuya and Salum, 2006). However,
this technique has not been adopted primarily because of the limited availability of
bamboos along the coast and the fact that bamboo rafts are not durable.
In a recent initiative, a new technique based on deep-water floating lines (Figure 9)
has been tried and adopted in about five villages in Zanzibar (Msuya, 2006b; Msuya
et al., 2007a; Msuya, 2009a). The new technique has been shown to yield greater
harvests per unit area (Msuya et al., 2007a) than the off-bottom method. In addition,
the floating systems consist of recycled plastic water bottles and oil cans as opposed
to wooden pegs, which reduce reliance on forest resources. For this reason, some have
dubbed the technique as forest friendly.
Other innovative seaweed farming methods being tested or considered in Tanzania
include 1) the cast method which involves tying seed in stones with a rubber band
FIGURE 9
The deep-water floating lines method

Floaters-large
buoys or cooking oil
cans
12
Seaweed
Floaters-plastic
water bottles
20 m
Frame
- 12 mm
Anchor line
(12 or 10 mm)
Hooks for attaching

seaweed lines
Source: Msuya (2006b).
Sinker-sand bags
123
124
and letting the seaweed attach itself to the rock and grow and 2) the broadcast
method which involves placing seaweed in fences made of netting materials.
The economic performance of two seaweed (K. alvarezii) farming methods used in
Tanzania are examined below. One is the traditional off-bottom method; the other is
deep-water floating lines method. Comparison of costs was achieved using data from
Zuberi (2000), Msuya et al. (2007a), Msuya (2006b), Msuya (2009b), and the current
study through interviews with seaweed buying companies and a number of NGOs.
Capital cost
The traditional off-bottom method remains the most widely used technique in
Tanzania. This method uses 4-mm diameter lines with varying lengths between 4 and
20 m, depending on the characteristics of the site and the ability of farmers. In Zanzibar
and in some mainland areas, farmers only use 4- or 5-m lines. However, in areas such
as Bagamoyo, Tanga, Mtwara and Lindi, farmers use long lines (1020 m, see Figure 7)
to which buoys are sometimes attached.
Table 1 summarizes the investment requirements and the corresponding amortized
annual capital costs (i.e., depreciation) of an off-bottom farm. The farming system
comprises ropes, tie-tie, floaters and stakes. Thirty pieces of 10-m ropes are needed.
One roll of tie-tie is required for every three lines of 10-m rope. Floaters are made of
recycled plastic water bottles. Two floaters per line are required for a total of 60 floaters
(one floater per 5-m length of line). Floaters normally need to be replaced after three
months; hence totally 180 floaters are needed for one year of operation. Two stakes per
line are required, which normally need to be replaced after 6 months; hence 120 stakes
in total are needed for one year of operation.
TABLE 1
Initial investment and amortized annual capital costs for an off-bottom farm
Items
Tie-tie (roll)
Lifespan
(years)
Unit cost (TZS)
300
27.8
8 340
Farming system
Ropes (m)
Total
investment
cost (TZS)
Quantity
19 490
Annual
amortized
capital
cost(TZS)
19 490
8 340
10
275.0
2 750
2 750
Floaters
180
30
5 400
5 400
Stakes (pegs)
120
25
3 000
3 000
Boat and equipment

Boat construction
20 500
1
7 413.8
7 328
7 414
10
741
Boat maintenance
86.2
86
86
Diving masks
10 000.0
10 000
5 000
Knife
1 000.0
1 000
500
Machete
2 000.0
2 000
1 000
Post-harvest facilities
Drying rack frame
20 000
6 900
7 000.0
7 000
1 400
Palm fronds for rack
30
50.0
1 500
1 500
Tarps (m)
10
1 000.0
10 000
2 500
Plastic bags
10
150.0
1 500
Total
Source: Modified from Msuya et al. (2007).
54 890
1 500
33 718
Non-motorized boats are routinely used by farmers; the cost of constructing

one boat is TZS 430 000. In the case of the 58-member cooperative, each farmer
would contribute TZS7413.80. The useful life of the boat is about 10 years and boat
maintenance is performed once a year at a cost of TZS 5000 (each cooperative member
contributes TZS 86.21 per year).
Equipment and tools include knives and machetes for cutting and sharpening the
stakes, snorkelling masks for inspecting the plots during high tide, and gloves and
rubber shoes to prevent scratches in hands and legs.
Traditionally, seaweeds are dried on palm fronds and cloth materials placed directly
on the ground (Figure 10). To improve quality, drying racks made of wooden stakes
and palm fronds that elevate the drying surface off the ground are recommended
(Ask, 1999; MNRT, 2005; Msuya, 2006b). Farmers have begun constructing racks as
they learn the importance of thorough drying. Thus the cost of constructing a drying
rack is included in this analysis. A drying rack frame is built using two bundles of
wooden stakes, each costing TZS2000, 15 palm fronds at a cost of TZS50 per frond
(the palm fronds are normally changed every three harvests, thus a total of 30 palm
fronds are required), and two rolls of rope, each costing TZS500. The labour cost for
the construction of one rack is approximately TZS2000. In the rainy season, plastic
materials (i.e., tarps) are needed to cover the seaweed while it is drying. Plastic bags
(10pieces) are used for transporting the wet seaweed from the farm to the drying area
and for storage of the dry seaweed.
FIGURE 10
Drying seaweed in Kiuyu (Pemba Island), with storage sheds shown at the background
Table 2 summaries the investment requirements and the corresponding amortized

annual capital costs of a deep-water floating-lines farm with 30 pieces of 12-meter lines.
The raft frames require one roll of 12-mm lines for the frame, one roll of 10-mm anchor
lines, one roll of 8-mm lines for tying anchors, and three rolls of 4-mm lines for tying
seaweed. Anchors consist of fertilizer bags filled with sand or stones depending on
the availability of sand and the nature of the tidal flat environment (muddy bottoms
would demand more frequent replacement of the sand bags). Recycled oil cans are used
both as large buoys and markers while the plastic water bottles are used as floaters. A
commercially profitable floating system should be at least 2010m.
The boat, equipment and post-harvest facilities used in the floating-lines system are
assumed to be the same as the off-bottom farm.
125
126
TABLE 2
Initial investment and amortized annual capital costs for a floating-lines farm
Items
Total
investment
cost (TZS)
Unit cost
(TZS)
Quantity
Farming system
Annual
amortized
capital cost (TZS)
Lifespan
(years)
58 925
21 565
Ropes for raft (2712 m):

- 12 mm (frame line)
18 500
18 500
3 700
- 10 mm (anchor line)
14 000
14 000
2 800
- 8 mm (for tying anchor bags)
8 000
8 000
1 600
- 4 mm (seaweed lines)
2 500
7 500
7 500
11
275
3 025
3 025
Anchors (stones)
16
200
3 200
800
Floaters (empty plastic bottles)
50
30
1 500
1 500
3 200
3 200
Tie-tie (roll)
Frame construction
Boat and equipment
640
20 500
Boat construction
7 414
7 328
7 414
10.0
741
Boat maintenance
86
86
1.0
86
Knife
1 000
1 000
2.0
500
Machete
2 000
2 000
2.0
1 000
Diving masks
10 000
10 000
2.0
5 000
Post-harvest facilities
20 000
Drying rack frame
6 900
7 000
7 000
5.0
1 400
30
50
1 500
1.0
1 500
Tarps (m)
10
1 000
10 000
4.0
2 500
Storage containers
10
150
1 500
1.0
1 500
Palm fronds for rack
Total
99 425
35 793
Source: Modified from Msuya et al. (2007).
TABLE 3
Initial investments and amortized annual capital costs: off-bottom vs. floating lines
Total investment cost
Items of capital
investments
Total cost
(USD)
Share of total
cost (%)
Amortized annual
capital cost
Annual cost
(USD/year)
Share of
Annual cost
(%)
Capital cost
per km
Total
(USD/km)
Annual
(USD/year/
km)
Off-bottom (3010 m)
- Farming system
15.5
32
15.5
58
51.8
51.8
- Vehicle and equipment
16.3
34
5.8
22
54.4
19.5
- Post-harvest facilities
15.9
33
5.5
20
53.1
18.3
Total
47.8
100
26.9
100
159.3
89.6
Floating lines (2712 m)

- Farming system
47.0
59
17.2
60
144.9
53.0
- Vehicle and equipment
16.3
21
5.8
20
50.4
18.0
- Post-harvest facilities
15.9
20
5.5
19
49.2
17.0
Total
79.2
100
28.5
100
244.5
88.0
USD 1 = TZS 1255 (2007) Numbers may not add up due to rounding
Based on Tables 1 and 2, Table 3 compares the investment and annual capital costs
of the off-bottom and floating-lines systems. The unit is converted from TZS to USD
based on the exchange rate in 2007, USD 1 = TZS 1255.9 The results indicate that
although the floating-lines system (USD 144.9/km) is much more expensive to build
initially than the off-bottom system (USD 51.8/km), its amortized annual capital
cost (USD 53.0/per km) is almost the same as the off-bottom system (USD 51.8/km)
because of the durability of the materials it uses10.
Variable cost
After initial periods, the variable cost of seaweed farming primarily comprises the
cost of labour; the cost of seed is negligible because farmers usually propagate seeds
from previous harvests. Labour requirements per production cycle are assumed to
be the same for the off-bottom and floating-lines farms, which include seed tying,
planting, farm management, tie-tie/rope separation, harvesting, drying, packaging, and
transportation.
Most of these works (except transportation) are done by family labours who are
not paid directly but do incur an opportunity cost, which in this case is the hourly
wage paid to hired seed-tying labour, i.e. TZS 37.5 per hour. Transportations of fresh
seaweed to the drying sites and dried seaweed to the market are accomplished by hired
labours. The details are summarized in Table 4 and briefly explained as follows:
Four family members spend eight hours each to complete the tying process.
It is estimated that two family members participate in the planting process and
spend half an hour each in planting a total of 15 lines. Planting is completed over
two days in each production cycle; therefore, each of the two family members
devotes one hour per production cycle to plant a total of 30 lines.
One family member devotes half an hour per day for management tasks during
six days in each production cycle, leading to a total of three man-hours per
production cycle.
Four family members assist in the harvesting process. It takes one hour for four
people to harvest 10 lines of 10 meters each. Both farms harvest up to 10 lines per
TABLE 4
Labour costs per cycle for the off-bottom and floating-lines farm
Labour requirement
per production cycle
No. of
workers
Hours per
worker
Family labour
- Typing seed
Labour
(hours)
Wage
(TZS/hr)
Annual cost
(TZS/cycle)
37.5
1 200
64.25
4
2 409
32
- Planting
37.5
75
- Farm management
37.5
113
- Tie-tie separation
3.75
15
37.5
563
- Harvesting
12
37.5
450
- Packing
0.25
37.5
- Transportation to drying place
- Transportation to market
0.5
0.5
Hired labour
0.25
2.5
2 150
1 000
Total labour
300
2 000
150
4 559
Source: Modified from Msuya et al. (2007)

9
Source: The United States Central Intelligence Agency: World Fact Book.
Msuya (2006b) explained that the useful life of frames in the floating systems could reach 10 years
because under more stable conditions in deep waters, abrasion of the lines is less prevalent and thus lines
need to be replaced less frequently. However, to be conservative and consistent with the experience in
other countries, the depreciation period of the frame is assumed to be 5 years.
10
127
128
day, thus the 30 lines in each production cycle are harvested in three days. This
gives a total of 12 man-hours per cycle.
Farmers routinely work to separate tie-ties and ropes that are entangled together
at sea. It is estimated that four family members perform this task. It takes one hour
to disentangle eight 10-m lines, thus 3.75 hours will be required for the 3010-m
lines.
A hired cart is used to carry the fresh seaweed to the drying place. The cost of
hiring a device such as a cart is the same as that of hiring one person: in most cases
the hired person will bring his own cart. Therefore, the cost of carrying seaweed
is included in the labour costs in this analysis. It takes about two hours to carry
30 lines of 10 m; the cost is TZS 1000 per hour.
After drying, one family member packs the dried seaweed into sacks. It takes
15minutes to pack one sack of 100 kg.
A person or a carrying device is hired to carry the dry seaweed from storage to
the market. The cost of hiring a device (or one person) to carry one sack of 100 kg
to the market is TZS 300 per hour. One sack is required in each production cycle
and the process of carrying it to the market takes about half an hour.
On both off-bottom and floating lines farms, three seaweed lines are not harvested at
the end of the cycle; instead, they are used to generate seed for the ensuing cycle. This
means that 27 and 24 lines are harvested per production cycle on the off-bottom (270m
in total) and floating lines farms (288 m in total), respectively.
Assuming 0.35-kg/m/cycle productivity (Msuya et al., 2007), the off-bottom farm
would generate 94.5 kg of dry seaweed per cycle for sales; the floating-lines farm
100.8kg per cycle. Because of the die-offs caused by diseases, seven production cycles
per year are completed in off-bottom farms instead of the usual eight. Die-offs are
averted in the floating lines method (Msuya et al., 2007a). Therefore, the total dry
TABLE 5
Annual revenue, cost and profit of seaweed farming in Tanzania

Item No.
Items
Off-bottom
Floating-lines
47.8
79.2
(0)
Initial investment (USD)
(1)
Total length of lines (m)
300
324
(2)
Dried seaweed produced (kg)
662
806
(3)
- Productivity (tonne/km of lines)
(4)
Price of dried seaweed (USD/tonne)
207
207
(5)
Revenue (USD)
137
167
(6)
- Productivity (USD/km of lines)
457
516
(7)
Cost (USD)
54
58
(8)
- Fixed cost (USD)
27
29
(9)
27
29
Operational cost (USD)
15
15
Transportation cost (USD)
(10)
(11)
2.2
2.5
12
14
(12)
Net profit (USD)
83
109
(13)
- Profit margin (%)
61
66
(14)
- Break-even price (USD/tonne)
81
71
(15)
- Pay-back period (year)
0.43
0.57
Notes: USD 1= TZS 1255 (2009). (3)=(2)/(1). (5)=(2)*(4)/1000. (6)=(5)/(1)*1000. (7)=(8)+(9). (9)=(10)+(11). (10): Imputed
family labour cost detailed in Table 4. Harvesting and packing are 7 cycles for off-bottom; others are 8 cycles for both
farms. (11): 7 cycles for off-bottom; 8 cycles for floating-line. (12)=(5)-(7). (13)=(12)/(5)*100. (14)=(7)/(2)*1000. (15)=(0)/
[(12)+(8)]. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
seaweed production is 661.5 kg per year (7 cycles) for the off-bottom farm and 806.4
kg per year (8 cycles) for the floating-lines farm11.
The revenues, costs and net profits of the two farms are summarized in Table 5. The
results indicate that:
Both farms are profitable with high profit margins, 61 and 66 percent for the offbottom and floating-line systems, respectively.
Because of the loss of one crop due to die-offs, the off-bottom farm has lower
profit than the floating-line farm, even though its cost is slightly lower.
The off-bottom farm would have positive net profit as long as the price of dried
seaweed is above USD 81/tonne. The break-even price for the floating-lines
system is USD 71/tonne.
It would take 0.43 year to recover the initial investment of the off-bottom farm.
The pay-back period for the floating-line farm is 0.57 year.
The higher productivity of the floating lines system (Table 5, item 3) reflects the
extra one crop it harvests because of avoidance of die-offs, while the productivity per
cycle is assumed to be identical for both systems (i.e. 0.35kg/m/cycle).
However, evidence indicates that the floating-lines system may tend to have higher
yield than the off-bottom system12. In addition, the deep-water farming sites of
floating-lines system allows it to have relatively less environmental impacts and greater
potential to be integrated with the farming of other species (e.g. molluscs and finfish).
However, the deep-water farming site would also be less accessible, more difficult to
manage (e.g. requiring swimming skill), and may cause conflicts with other activities
such as fisheries and navigation (Msuya et al., 2007b).
Livelihoods
In most areas in Tanzania, seaweed farming is still perceived by farming communities,
exporting companies and government officials as an economic activity that yields great
benefits to the nation. Some people, however, complain that seaweed is not contributing
to economic welfare as much as they had expected or as it used to do in the past. Most
of these feelings are being voiced in Zanzibar (Unguja). Whether this is linked to how
much effort a farmer needs to put into seaweed farming or not will be discussed under
this section. Generally, a number of studies (Eklund and Pettersson, 1992; Mshigeni,
1998; Shechambo et al., 1996; Semesi, 2002) suggest that seaweed farming is indeed
helpful to coastal people in Tanzania.
There are two important aspects to seaweed farming in Tanzania that greatly
influence perceptions of the activity. One aspect deals with the price differences
between E. denticulatum and K. alvarezii whereas the second issue revolves around the
differences in the intensity of work and the availability of buyers between mainland
Tanzania and Zanzibar islands. In most areas where the higher priced K. alvarezii is
cultured, farmers perceived seaweed farming as a beneficial activity whereas growers
tend to complain more in areas where the lower priced E. denticulatum species
is cultured. However, farmers generally deemed seaweed aquaculture a beneficial
economic activity for the following reasons:
Harvests from the floating lines farms could potentially be much higher as demonstrated in previous tests
of floating systems (Hurtado and Agbayani, 2002; Zuberi, 2000)
11
12
Field evaluations have showed that the floating-line method achieves higher growth rates (615 percent
per day) than those attained with the traditional off-bottom method (35 percent per day). In Pemba, a
company currently farming both K. alvarezii and E. denticulatum in 42 floating rafts reported that the
wet weight of both species increased nearly ten times in 45 days, from 2.5 kg to 20-22 kg for K. alvarezii
and 22-28 kg for E. denticulatum (Msuya, 2009b).
129
130
Incomes from seaweed farming have enhanced the food security of people who
have been relying on food aids from government (e.g. Shuka village in Lindi
district).
Seaweed farming provides farmers with a means to tackle a range of problems that
could not be solved without seaweed money, such as improving household diets,
sending children to school, buying clothing and books, opening bank accounts,
improving houses (e.g. cement for wall, iron sheets for roof, toilet, kerosene
lamps, etc.), buying assets (e.g., beds, cupboards, bicycles, radios, mobile phones,
etc.), among others.
Seaweed aquaculture yields positive returns to able and hard-working farmers.
As a part-time activity with a relatively short cycle, seaweed farming provided
great economic opportunities in areas without much arable land and has become
a diversified livelihood source for fishing households in coastal villages. Seaweed
farming yields returns greater than the wages normally paid to field (land
cultivation labourers) workers. Farmers also felt that seaweed farming compares
in favourable terms to traditional agriculture. A villager in Shuka explained that
he had been a fisherman for many years but decided to engage in seaweed farming
because fish prices are low; and the fishing area is remote. Seaweed farming has
given housewives a source of extra household incomes. A senior villager who was
over 80 years old stated that although he was unable to farm seaweed anymore,
he could still help transport the seaweed from the sea to the drying places or put
seaweed in sacks and get paid.
Seaweed farming not only enabled farmers to satisfy day-to-day needs but also
allowed them to borrow money or items from a shop knowing that they could
pay back upon selling the seaweed harvest.
Seaweed farming has become more pivotal livelihood sources for farmers whose
land-based farming space has been threatened by urban development (e.g. villagers
in Mwambani and Mchukuuni).
Employment
Farmers hire other villagers for performing tasks such as tying seed, harvesting,
carrying seaweed to the drying and selling locations, etc. Given that tasks need to
be carried out at every low tide, this type of employment is more or less permanent.
It is estimated that seaweed is farmed in Zanzibar Islands and mainland Tanzania in
around 60 villages (personal communication from exporters). Assuming that at least
five villagers are employed in each village during low tides, employment is created for
more than 300 people at each low tide and thus 600 people each month.
In addition, export companies employ local individuals who buy seaweed and
provide extension services on behalf of the companies13. These agents operate in buying
stations operating in every district on the mainland and in almost every other village
in Zanzibar.
Age and education
An analysis of the ages of the interviewed farmers (n=43) in Zanzibar showed that
only two farmers were younger than 20 and only one farmer was older than 60.
Most farmers were within the 4050 year-old bracket (24 farmers) or within 5160
(9farmers). A similar situation was observed in mainland Tanzania. Very young people
are not getting involved with seaweed farming, in part because educational levels are
rising in the country and youngsters are looking to get employed in other sectors of
the economy upon graduation.
All agents employed by export companies are nationals, with the exception of the Mwani Mariculture
Company, which has hired an individual from the Philippines.
13
More than half of the interviewed farmers in Zanzibar (25 out of 43) had secondary
school education. This is in contrast to Shechambo et al. (1996), who had reported
that most farmers in 1996 only had primary-school education. This trend may reflect
the current inability of secondary-school graders to find employment with the central
government system. During the 1990s, most individuals with a secondary-grade
education could potentially aspire to positions with the government.
Gender
Seaweed farming in Tanzania is more a female-oriented activity because men were
often discouraged by the labour-intensiveness and relatively low profitability of
seaweed farming14 and hence prefer other activities such as fishing, tourism, shell
polishing trade, etc. Women, on the other hand, had limited alternatives and thus put
more effort into farming.
In contrast to Eklund and Pettersson (1992) and Shechambo et al. (1996), who found
that money-power conflicts sometimes emerged between women seaweed farmers and
their husbands, no such situations were observed in this study. On the contrary, men
were supportive of their wives and even provided some help during harvesting. Women
explained that husbands are content because they see that some of the family needs can
be covered by their wives, even though they often remark that returns from the activity
do not fully compensate for the amount of work invested.
In Zanzibar most men do not engage in seaweed aquaculture but they do not
prevent women from farming. In Kidoti, women explained that pro-seaweed husbands
provide assistance with seaweed line tying and transportation tasks. Children also help
with minor chores during the evenings, weekends and school holidays. Kidoti women
also explained that men sometimes complain about the smell of dry seaweed that is
stored at home.
Zanzibar is an Islamic society and as such men are polygamous, marrying up to four
wives. A few women explained during the interviews that, because they can provide
for some of the basic household needs, men are able to save more money but instead
of helping at home they use the money as dowry to marry yet more wives. With all its
negativities to the first household, general household income will increase if the new
wives also engage in a revenue earning activity such as seaweed farming. Similar results
were reported by Eklund and Pettersson (1992).
The interviews also revealed that most children needs, especially school expenses,
are covered by women using seaweed income. In Tanga, a female villager mentioned
that when a child asks for books or even a pen for school, the father tells him/her to
go to the mother.
Msuya (2009a) mentions the case of a woman in Bweleo, Zanzibar, who has
been in the seaweed trade business for a number of years. The woman explained
that her aim is not only to gain a profit but also to help her fellow farmers increase
their income. She also explained that she buys seaweed from needy farmers when
the export companies fail to do so. She then re-sells the seaweed to the exporters in
Zanzibar Town.
4.
4.1 Legal and institutional framework
Seaweed farming in mainland Tanzania is governed under the Fisheries Act, Fisheries
Policy and other fisheries regulations. At the time of this writing, the government is
implementing modifications to the Fisheries Act and Fisheries Policy to clearly outline
the sections on mariculture and seaweed farming.
In Tanga, one young male farmer ceased operating his farm of 700 lines allegedly because the price of
seaweed is a female price, meaning that it can be tolerated by women but not by men like him.
14
131
132
Entry to seaweed farming is unrestricted. Any inhabitant from a coastal village

can establish a farming location wherever space is available. As long as this person
continues to farm its selected space, the area will belong to him. Protection of property
is based purely on rural modesty (Msuya, 1996; 2009a), whereby farmers protect
each others farming areas against any external intruder. People usually farm in the
same areas where they live and a villager can grant a farming space to a fellow villager
from the same village/area. For villagers from other areas, entry is achieved simply by
requesting space from local farmers. No licenses or purchase of land are involved in
seaweed farming.
4.2 Contract farming scheme
The system for purchasing and exporting seaweed from Tanzania can be characterized
as a monopsony (MNRT, 2005) whereby farmers are provided with the farming
materials (i.e. ropes) by the buying companies; in turn, they are obliged to sell the
seaweed product to the company. Under this contract farming scheme, companies
may also provide extension services. Each company has a buying office in each village
operated by a native or foreign agent (depending on the company and location).
If more than one exporter is operating in a village and no agreements with farmers
have been signed, conflicts between companies are likely to arise. An example of
this situation occurred in Mtwara where one company routinely provided farming
materials but then a new company visited the area offering to buy the seaweed. The
first company reacted by interrupting the supply of farming materials while the
second company turned out to have no means of supplying these materials. The end
result was that farmers were left without farming materials and without production
to sell.
Conflicts between companies can also emerge when they operate in areas with
limited farming sites. This was observed in Pemba, where two companies conflicted
over access to the farming area of Fundo Island. In this case, one company moved away
from the area because of die-offs of K. alvarezii; later on, a new company arrived as the
die-off situation improved, just to find out that the first company was returning to the
same area. Under such situations, government departments normally intervene and the
farming sites are divided between the companies.
Growers who are provided farming materials and extension services by the export
companies normally settle for relatively low prices. For example, independent farmers
in Lindi receive TZS 400/kg of dried K. alvarezii while dependent farmers under
contracts get only TZS 300/kg. Whether such price discounts are worthwhile for
dependent farmers depends on many factors such as the value of farming materials,
extension services and credits provided by the contractor, the reliability of the
contractor honoring the contract15, restrictive terms in the contract on the quantity and
quality of seaweed acceptable by the contractor, among others. It should be noted that
independent farmers do not always get a price premium. For example, some farmers
who procured their own culture materials have discovered that they were offered the
same prices received by dependent farmers, as has been reported in Bweleo (Zanzibar).
A few farming villages have managed to become independent, procuring their own
materials and selling to buyers of their choice, e.g. Bagamoyo since the early 2000s.
Msuya et al. (2007a) explains that Bagamoyo farmers were assisted in this process
by organizations such as FINCA, WIOMSA and the Tanzania Coastal Management
Partnership (TCMP). Although they are still independent, production has declined in
recent years because of a lack of buyers. However, it was learnt during a recent visit
It was also learnt from the interviews that when market demands are weak and prices low, the exporter
who had promised to provide extension services and purchase the seaweed was doing little for the
farmers; the purchase of seaweed eventually became slow and unpredictable.
15
that the problem had to do less with the availability of buyers than with leadership
issues in the community of farmers.
Some younger members of the group have started farming independently from the
large group in the hope of increasing seaweed production. The young farmers have
recently approached ZaSCI for assistance in the farming and marketing of seaweed.
ZaSCI and this group of farmers are currently planning to carry out exports possibly
via Calmax Exporters and other companies under ZaSCI, bypassing the major export
companies. Tanga is the only other area where farmers in most villages procure their
own materials through credit systems or other mechanisms; in addition, they only
sell to companies that purchase seaweed in a manner that they consider consistent.
Thus, the general observation is that whereas most farmers in Zanzibar are still deeply
involved in the monopsony system, those on the mainland are gradually moving away
from this system.
4.3 Government
The governments of mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar have played a significant role
in the development of seaweed farming through their departments in the ministries
of natural resources and trade and industry. The governments provide a link between
farmers and exporters.16 Their role is to negotiate prices with buyers and to control
taxes, revenue, and the importation of seaweed strains for cultivation. They also assist
farmers with procurement of farming materials, marketing of the harvest, etc. The
government of mainland Tanzania has produced a Seaweed Development Strategic Plan
(SDSP) (MNRT, 2005) which provides information on aspects such as the minimum
production levels considered to be commercially profitable.17 The aim of the SDSP is
to promote the production of K. alvarezii in order to increase farmers income as well
as government revenue from the seaweed industry.
In addition to the SDSP, the governments of Tanzania and Zanzibar are implementing
efforts to promote free trade in order to release farmers from the monopsony system
(MNRT, 2005; Msuya, 2006b; Msuya et al., 2007a; ACDI/VOCA, 2005). Efforts have
been made to provide farmers with seed money for the purchase of farming materials.
These initiatives, however, should be implemented strategically through negotiations
with the buyers who will eventually purchase and export the seaweed. Because seaweed
is not consumed within the country and there are no industrial processing facilities,
farmers still rely on the exporting companies for the purchase and export of seaweeds.
In other words, the country cannot afford to lose the buyers and therefore free trade
must be approached as a process rather than an action. The governments efforts have
been implemented through programmes such as the Marine and Coastal Environment
Management Project (MACEMP) and the establishment of small credit systems such
as Savings and Credit Cooperative Societies (SACCOS) and Village Corporative Banks
(VICOBA).
The Aquaculture Department under the Ministry of Livestock Development and
Fisheries has been promoting the farming of K. alvarezii through the SDSP. The
plan was developed in 2005 but has been mostly ineffective as little has been done to
implement its recommendations. In the Mtwara and Lindi regions (southern Tanzania),
fisheries officers are using the SDSP to encourage farmers to produce more seaweed.
Development has been thwarted in these regions because of the conflicts between
farmers and buyers. The SDSP was translated into the local language and distributed
to farmers by dedicated fisheries officers in order to let famers and buyers/exporters
The word exporters is used here as a synonym to the terms developers and buyers used in
other studies; exporters are also called developers because they provide extension services and farming
materials.
16
According to the SDSP, each farmer needs to produce 500 kg of dry seaweed per month to stay profitable.
17
133
134
understand their rights and responsibilities in the seaweed business; e.g., farmers
should produce at least 500 kg per month; and buyers should obtain a signed agreement
from the farmers before purchasing seaweed.
According to officials in the department, field visits funded through MACEMP
have been conducted to a number of areas to oversee the status of the industry
and outline strategies to support future development. Farming materials have been
provided by government to farmers as a result of these visits. However, the lack of
extension officers in mariculture is a problem that the Department is attempting to
solve by training new officers. In addition to the funds allocated through MACEMP,
the Department also has access to a Development Fund from the government. Both
funds will be used by the Department to make seed banks available to farmers and to
promote the adoption of the deep-water farming method.
Through the TCMP (which is supervised by the National Environment Management
Council [NEMC]), the government has assisted villagers in Bagamoyo in becoming
independent from buyers by helping them procure their own farming materials. The
TCMP has also helped to bring in credit organizations such as FINCA to provide
support to farmers.18
Through its Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources (ZDFMR), the
government of Zanzibar advises farmers to work jointly with the companies and agree
on the mode of conducting business prior to engaging in production. Farmers must
sign agreements to confirm that the seaweed will be purchased by the exporters. The
ZDFMR can provide guidance to farmers for the signing of agreements. Fisheries
officers at the ZDFMR cited the example of Kidoti village, where farmers have
developed agreements with an exporting company which stipulate the selling price at
TZS 160 per kg, regardless of the fact that the company also procured farming materials
(normally, the company would have applied a discount of TZS 20). The ZDFMR
provided essential advice to farmers in Kidoti during the negotiation process.
Through MACEMP, the government of Zanzibar is also assisting villagers with
the testing of new methods of farming, the acquisition of boats for the transport of
seaweed, and the construction of a warehouse in Chwaka village. Through PADEP,
the government has contributed to the renovation of seaweed storage rooms and the
opening of shops for seaweed farming materials (Bweleo village).
4.4 International organizations and NGOs
Support to seaweed farmers is also being provided by various development agencies
and NGOs, including:
ACDI/VOCA (Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers
in Overseas Cooperative Assistance) under programmes such as Smallholder
Empowerment and Economic Growth through Agribusiness and Association
Development (SEEGAAD) and Sustainable Environmental Management through
Mariculture Activities (SEMMA). These programs provide farmers with seed
money to purchase farming materials with the ultimate goal of making them
independent from buyers. Not only is ACDI/VOCA involved in eliminating the
monopsony system but it is also helping farmers to increase yields and income
levels.
The Seaweed Cluster Initiative (ZaSCI) established in 2006 is also involved in
efforts to increase seaweed production and add value to the process (Msuya,
2006b). The ZaSCI is one of about 30 innovative clusters in Tanzania created
under the Innovation Systems and Cluster Programmes (ISCP) coordinated
by the College of Engineering and Technology of the University of Dar es
Seaweed production in Bagamoyo has nevertheless decreased because of the problems described in
Section 5.4.
18
Salaam (CoET/UDSM) and funded by the Swedish International Development

Cooperation Agency (Sida). The aim of ZaSCI is catalyzing innovation within
the seaweed industry through modification of farming techniques and valueadding processes. Under the vision of becoming the best producers and sellers of
quality seaweed and seaweed value-added products by 2015, ZaSCI has adopted
the deep-water floating system technique and has made progress towards the
manufacturing of value-added products. ZaSCI has also plans for the construction
of drying racks in a number of villages to prevent impurities from attaching to the
seaweed during the drying process.
The Tanzania Industrial Research and Development Organization (TIRDO),
established in 1979 as an NGO under the Ministry of Industry and Trade, has
the main task of conducting applied research and providing technical services to a
number of industries in the country. In cooperation with Taurus, a South African
processor and exporter of seaweed, and the Muhimbili College of Health Sciences
of UDSM (MUCHS/UDSM), TIRDO has begun to engage in seaweed value
addition by conducting experiments on extracting the gel from seaweed and using
seaweed for mushroom cultivation (Mamiro and Mnege, 2001).
As a way of implementing the recommendations outlined in the SDSP, the U.S.
Ambassador in Tanzania provided funding to seaweed farmers in Bagamoyo
in 2005. The funds were routed through a local NGO (Kiromo Development
Foundation) based in Bagamoyo using the Self Help Programme of the
Ambassadors office. The funds were used to construct boats and purchase
farming materials.
A recent initiative is being led by the Regional Programme for the Sustainable
Management of the Coastal Zones of Indian Ocean Countries (ReCoMaP). The
ReCoMaP released funds to the Department of Environment in Zanzibar (ZDoE)
to explore new, more productive methods of farming seaweed such as the cast
method being tested in Uzi village, Zanzibar 19.
The Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA) under its
programme Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystems (SUCCESS)
and working jointly with the Institute of Marine Sciences of the University of
Dar es Salaam (IMS/UDSM), developed the deep-water floating lines technique
mentioned previously in Bagamoyo. This programme received funding from
USAID through the Coastal Resources Centre of the University of Rhode Island
(CRC-URI). During 20052007, SUCCESS managed to develop the system, test
for its efficiency and demonstrate that the technique is more productive than
the off-bottom method, yielding an additional 0.35 kg per meter of line per year
(Msuya et al., 2007a).
International micro-credit organizations such as the Foundation for International
Community Assistance (FINCA) have provided seaweed farmers with micro
loans for the acquisition of farming materials (Msuya et al., 2007a).
The Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship (Sweden) has joined efforts with
ZaSCI to assist producers in Paje village with the construction of a Seaweed
Centre where farmers can dry seaweed (especially during the rainy season) and
develop value-added products. By 2009, land had been acquired, drawings of the
centre had been developed, and soap-making machines were being constructed.
The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) has
recently provided assistance to increase production in seaweed farms and to
establish value-added processes. Along with ZDFMR, three Tanzanian ministries
are involved in this cooperative effort: the Ministry of Labour, Youth, Women
The cast method involves tying seed in stones with a rubber band and letting the seaweed attach itself to
the rock and grow.
19
135
136
and Children Development (MLYWCD); the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock,

and Environment (MALE); and the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Investment
(MTTI). Whereas MLYWCD is involved in promoting farming cooperatives,
MTTI is partnering with ZaSCI to advance the value-added technologies (initial
trials were conducted in November 2009, which will be followed by training
programs for farmers).
4.5 Producer associations
Most farmers especially in Zanzibar have organized themselves into associations.
These usually congregate a large number of farmers under the label Seaweed Farmers
Association with the name of the respective village attached to it, e.g. Jambiani
Seaweed Farmers Association. These large associations act as umbrella organizations
for all farmers in an area or village. In addition, there may be smaller associations
(which may be registered or not) with members ranging from as few as five to as many
as 35. The same situation was observed in the mainland; the major difference is that
large associations are more common in Zanzibar.
This study revealed that most of these associations were formed around 2005
under special programmes such as MACEMP and PADEP (Participatory Agricultural
Development Empowerment Project) rather than by the farmers themselves. These
programmes instructed farmers to form cooperatives to facilitate assistance with
training and the purchase of farming materials and boats. Under MACEMP, farmers
were instructed to set up communal banking accounts to receive funds for seaweed
aquaculture. In some cases (e.g. Rufiji), cooperatives were formed but funding from
MACEMP was protracted, which discouraged farmers. However, the formation of
cooperatives has greatly assisted farmers in other areas, e.g. in Bweleo, Zanzibar,
where MACEMP provided farmers with a fibre boat, a storage building and a farming
materials shop. Farmers in Chwaka village, Zanzibar, also received a fibre boat from
MACEMP.
In Bagamoyo, a group of farmers known as Msichoke20 has received assistance
from the Tanzania Association of Women Leaders in Agriculture and Environment
(TAWLAE), the TCMP and SUCCESS-WIOMSA. Formed in 1998 with 58 members,
this is an example of a group that has held on for many years; unfortunately not much
seaweed production has been achieved during this time. Some members complain of
inefficient leadership (and thus lack of a reliable buyer);21 in addition, they have to deal
with the problem of die-offs. A similar but more functional cooperative called Tusife
Moyo22 was formed in 1992 in Kidoti, Zanzibar. The group is now an active member
of ZaSCI.
Cooperatives are not common in the mainland southern areas of Mtwara, Lindi
and Kilwa, probably because farming has not been consolidated yet. This situation
is likely to change in the near future, especially if credit organizations extend their
services to farmers. Interviewed fisheries officers (Ms Rita Maly, Mr Seleman Ngaweje
and Mr Oga Dadi in "Dar-es-Salaam", Lindi, and Mtwara, respectively) explained that
formation of cooperatives will be encouraged in the area.
In Tanzania, small (and even large) scale businesses are moving towards the formation
of SACCOS, which are usually established through the voluntary contributions of
their own members. SACCOS systems for seaweed farming have been established
throughout the country, in Zanzibar Islands as well as on the mainland.
Translates as Do not tire.
20
This is the group whose younger members are planning to break up to form their own association as
explained previously.
21
Translates as We should not lose heart.
22
Interviews with farmers have revealed that cooperatives are helpful as a mechanism
to receive assistance from different organizations. For example, Tusife Moyo in Kidoti
Zanzibar has received help from the British Embassy, the First Lady of Zanzibar,
and the ZaSCI, under which new ideas and products have been released. Msichoke
of Bagamoyo has benefited in similar ways. SACCOS has provided assistance with
the procurement of farming materials. The SACCOS members in Mwambani, Tanga
receive TZS 200thousand per month, which is more than sufficient to cover the cost
of farming materials. Farmers have reported that SACCOS can even cover the election
costs of leaders within the cooperative.
4.6 Seaweed exporters
The key role of exporters is to buy the seaweed produced by farmers and provide
farming materials and extension services where applicable. In addition to importing the
first seeds from the Philippines (in collaboration with the government), exporters have
recently imported new strains of Kappaphycus (e.g., K. striatum) as a way of tackling
the die-off problems of K. alvarezii.
Usually, exporters allocate a share of their business funds to community development
or to provide direct services. As an example, the C-Weed Company and farmers in
Kidoti village have an agreement whereby 5 percent of the value of the seaweed harvest
is contributed towards a Farmers Committee Fund for community development.
The funds can be used for constructing school buildings, dispensaries, etc. It has also
been learnt that two seaweed exporters working in Songosongo Island in southern
Tanzania were contributing TZS 400 000 per month for community development.
Contributions, however, were interrupted in 2009 because of seaweed die-offs, which
brought production down from 424 tonnes in 2003 to only 26 MT in 2008 (Msuya and
Porter, 2009).
5.
5.1 Issues and challenges
The problems associated with seaweed farming as perceived by farmers, exporters,
government, organizations and other stakeholders have been indicated in previous
research. A more recent problem is that associated with free trade marketing. Under
this scheme, farmers purchase their own farming materials and sell their harvest to any
buyer of their choice. While this idea is very important in promoting entrepreneurship
and increasing farmers income, it has to be implemented as a process, involving
discussions and agreements between the farmers/government/scientists on one hand
and buyers on the other hand. However, the Zanzibar government has embarked
on this idea without implementing proper negotiations, providing producers with
farming materials that are not purchased after the seaweed has been sold. As a result,
some companies and individuals have procured seaweed in areas where they have not
invested (e.g. Nyamwese as mentioned above). With such buyers, some farmers sell
seaweed before it is fully grown or dry enough, thus lowering the quality of Tanzanian
seaweed and threatening the financial position of other exporters. This has also led to
farmers being abandoned by the new buyers while breaching the agreements with the
original buyers.
Other problems that have direct impact on farmers and were identified through
interview respondents and personal observations are discussed in the following.
Husbandry
The most commonly reported on-farm problems were the breakage of seaweed by the
action of strong winds23, eye soreness caused by the combined action of sun and sand,
Strong winds also tangle seaweed lines, which must be untangled by farmers.
23
137
138
and grazing by intertidal organisms. These same problems had already been reported in
previous research, e.g. Eklund and Pettersson (1992); Shechambo et al. (1996); Semesi
(2002); Msuya and Kyewalyanga (2006); Msuya and Salum (2006; 2007). Farmers also
mentioned that high temperatures lower seaweed growth and that harvesting and
drying seaweed may become complicated tasks during the rainy seasons: rain water
may bleach seaweed and make it slimy, which makes drying difficult.
An additional problem is caused by the stings from sea urchins, box fish and
other organisms, which may take more than a week to heal. Farmers have requested
assistance to procure appropriate shoes (e.g. gum boots, canvas shoes or plastic sandals)
through loans from export companies.
Transport
A problem mentioned by most farmers had to do with the task of carrying wet
seaweed from the farm sites to the drying sites on shore, especially when harvests are
large. Farmers strongly request assistance with the procurement of carrying devices
such as canoes. Currently, farmers need to hire people to carry the seaweed for them.
In Zanzibar they mentioned the hiring cost as TZS 100120 per bag of wet seaweed
(holding between 10 and 20 kg). In Kidoti, farmers pay TZS 150160 per bag. In
Jambiani the cost is TZS 200 per bag; this cost increases to TZS 1 000 per bag if the
seaweed is placed in sacks after drying. Given these costs, farmers in Jambiani state that
prices of dry seaweed must be raised to TZS 200300 per kg for seaweed farming to be
considered worthwhile. The situation is similar in the mainland, with transportation
costs hovering around TZS 150200 per bag. If a farmer in Kidoti or Jambiani needs
to carry from 50 to 60 bags, she/he must spend around TZS9000 to TZD10000 in
transportation costs alone.
ZASCOL has designed a floating device (Figure 11) to tackle the transportation
problem. To use the device, farmers need to place 20-litre plastic oil cans (which have
been emptied) below it. The device has been designed for use in the Mwambani and
Mchukuuni villages in Tanga. However, field trials conducted by ZASCOL extension
officers have revealed that placing 50 bags of seaweed on the floater makes it too heavy
to pull it to the shore. Similar but lighter devices could prove to be much useful to
farmers.
FIGURE 11
A floating device for carrying seaweed designed by ZASCOL in Mwambani, Tanga
Diseases
Tanzania has been experiencing die-offs of K. alvarezii in many farming areas. The
plants are being affected by ice-ice disease (i.e. whitish thalli), which leads the
seaweed to disintegrate and die. According to Mmochi et al. (2005), die-offs have
spread almost throughout the country with areas such as Tanga in northern Tanzania
being the most affected.
Die-offs have been a major factor hindering seaweed aquaculture in Tanzania. For
example, primarily because of die-offs, a village in Songosongo used to produce nearly
one thousand tonnes of seaweed per year reduced the production to less than 500
tonnes; the number of farmers has also gone down from about 1500 to 50024.
Msuya (1996) recommended that farmers be allowed to grow E. denticulatum
whenever the crops of K. alvarezii fail in order to guarantee a steady supply to the
market. However, because of the low price of the former and the fact that there was
already high production of the latter, K. alvarezii is preferred in the mainland. The
problem of die-offs has emerged as the major cause of low production in the mainland
as compared to Zanzibar, which produces mostly E. denticulatum. In some areas,
seaweed production has decreased by more than 70 percent: in the small island of
Songosongo (with a population of 5600) in southern Tanzania, production fell from
84 tonnes in 2003 to only 26 tonnes in 2008 (Msuya and Porter, 2009). Ice-ice disease
has reportedly wiped out entire farms in other countries (e.g. the Philippines in 1974
[Largo et al., 1995]).
Apparently, seaweed die-offs are caused by stress induced by variations in salinity
and temperature, fouling, predation, epiphytes, pollution, siltation, etc. Stress may also
be caused by farming in the same areas for excessively long periods of time (Mmochi
et al., 2005; Hurtado et al., 2006; Hurtado and Critchley, 2006a; Vairappan, 2006;
Carlsson et al., 2007; Muoz and Sahoo, 2007; Vairappan et al., 2008; Msuya and
Porter, 2009).
To minimize die-off problems, it has been recommended to use uninfected, clean,
and healthy seed, select a farming site with clean and moderate to fast water movement,
harvest the entire crop of cultured seaweed, rotate farming sites, implement quarantine
procedures, and resort to deep-water farming methods in some cases (Paula et al., 1999;
Mmochi et al., 2005; Hurtado and Critchley, 2006a, 2006b; Msuya, 2006b; Sulu et al.,
2006).
Many farmers in the areas where K. alvarezii no longer grows have expressed their
disappointment for not being able to farm this species. Some of them argue that if no
solution is found they may abandon seaweed farming altogether, as higher seaweed
prices are necessary for them to stay in business.
Seaweed prices
Seaweed prices in Tanzania during 19891992 (at the beginning of seaweed farming)
were around TZS 2030 per kg of dry seaweed; prices increased since then to reach
the current levels. However, although seaweed farming has undoubtedly improved
livelihood conditions of farmers, it is also apparent that prices are low relative to the
amount of work demanded by the activity. In addition, the price gap between the two
major species has continued to widen. While the price per kg of E. denticulatum has
changed only slightly from TZS 100 to TZS 140160, the price of K. alvarezii has
increased steadily and can currently fetch TZS 300400, depending on the farming area
and the farmers ability to negotiate prices.
In general farmers felt that the price of seaweed does not fully compensate for the
amount of work that needs to be invested in its culture. The minimum price farmers
Gas-extracting activities during the die-offs may be another contributing factor to the decline of seaweed
farming in the area.
24
139
140
would like to see for E. denticulatum ranges from TZS 200 to TZS 500 per kg25. Some
farmers mentioned that while the prices of day to day items have drastically increased,
the price of seaweed has barely moved up.26 In Chwaka village, farmers compared the
price of one kilo of rice and salt with the price of seaweed. In 1986, the prices per kg
of seaweed, rice and salt were TZS 60, 90, and 20, respectively. Nowadays, the price of
one kg of rice is TZS 1500 and that of salt is TZS 500.
The statement that the price does not match the work you put in was echoed
by all interviewed farmers and a number of government officials. In Kidoti, village
farmers remarked that much noise is made even by the government, but exporters
do not listen. Although exporters explain that the price declines are caused by
conditions in the world market, the farmers feelings are summarized by the local
term kutudhalilisha, i.e. exporters are putting us down by buying at such low
prices. Farmers also revealed that they frequently thought about striking to demand
higher prices but could not actually do so because they had daily needs to attend to.
In another village in Zanzibar, farmers pointed out that each time they requested
intervention from the government, the response they got was that exporters should
provide a solution. But when farmers turned to exporters, the response they got was
that government needs to take actions.
Buyers argue that they pay low prices because they are also providing farming
materials and offering extension services to the farmers. However, the recent shortage
of seaweed coupled with the rising prices for K. alvarezii in the world market have
led many people to wonder whether prices are in fact controlled by the provision of
farming materials. During the field visits it was noticed that many coastal dwellers
(fishermen) on the mainland have turned back to farming because of the high prices
for K. alvarezii.
The problem of low prices affects farmers throughout Tanzania (Eklund and
Pettersson, 1992; Shechambo et al., 1996; and Msuya, 2006a). Probably the only
solution to this problem is to continue with the process of making farmers independent
from exporters, which could give them some price bargaining power. However, care
should be taken to ensure that alternative marketing opportunities are available to
farmers. This problem was observed in Bagamoyo, where members of the Msichoke
cooperative were unable to sell seaweed for two years because their leaders were not
proactive in looking for alternative buyers.
Marketing
As discussed above, seaweed farmers depend on exporters to purchase their products
under agreed farming schemes. In many places (Mtwara, Lindi, and Kilwa districts)
there used to be only one exporter; hence production was hampered when the exporter
delayed the purchase of seaweed and supply of farming materials. The coming of
new exporters provided seaweed farmers with more marketing channels, but various
confusions (e.g. companies not supplying enough farming materials or not able to
honouring the promised prices, etc.) occurred during the process of establishing
new business relationships between farmers and new companies. Conflicts between
exporters, which have been discussed above, have further complicated the business.
Low prices were reportedly the most acute problem in the seaweed industry of Tanzania. One
interviewed farmer stated that when we compared the work with the selling price of TZS 100 paid in
2005, we found out that they did not match. When they were asked about the prospects for going back
to farming, a leader of 30 farmers operating in 2005 said that farming would be possible if they could sell
at TZS 260-300.
25
It is noted here that while prices in the local currency (TZS) have increased, the corresponding prices in
USD have declined (Brycesson, 2002). Between 1989 and 2008, prices per kg declined from USD 0.30 to
USD 0.10 and from USD 0.30 to USD 0.20 for E. denticulatum and K. alvarezii, respectively (Brycesson,
2009).
26
Interviewees explained that problems with the marketing of seaweeds occurred in

the past, but nowadays they are always able to sell their harvest. Currently, an exporter
would refuse to buy seaweed only in the case of seaweed that contains impurities or
is not dry enough. If the farmer can address these problems, then the seaweed will
be purchased. The selling problems reported in Bagamoyo were more related to the
internal dynamics of the cooperative than a lack of cooperation from buyers.
Buyers on the other hand point out that some villages (e.g. Tanga) are very remote,
making it difficult to buy seaweed from these locations. Some of these villages have also
low production levels. Buyers stated that the only way to make purchases from these
areas viable is by having farmers produce greater amounts. Whereas many farmers still
produce less than 500 kg of dry seaweed per month regardless of the species, the SDSP
goal of 500 kg of dried K. alvarezii per farmer per month is far from being met.
5.2 The way forward
This investigation reveals that seaweed farming has significantly contributed to improve
the living standards of coastal people in Tanzania. In particular, it has conferred
economic power to coastal women, whose livelihoods would otherwise depend solely
on their husbands. Nevertheless, given the world preference of K. alvarezii over
E.denticulatum, farmers men in particular are getting discouraged by the fact that
most of them cannot successfully farm the higher priced K. alvarezii. Thus, the future
of seaweed farming in Tanzania will depend on finding ways to increase the production
of K. alvarezii and add value to seaweeds.
Nearly all farming sites suitable for off-bottom production are being used in
Zanzibar while only limited sites are available on the mainland. Therefore, a sound
strategy to increase seaweed production is simply to go into deeper waters using the
floating lines method. Seaweeds can be farmed in monoculture (Hurtado-Ponce, 1992;
Msuya, 2006b) or integrated with other organisms to provide additional products
to farmers (Lombardi et al., 2001; 2006; Rodrigueza and Montano, 2007; Hayashi
et al., 2008). However, the floating lines method requires the use of boats/canoes,
which may not be immediately accessible to farmers. To solve this problem, the
different stakeholders in the industry need to coordinate efforts to provide technical
and financial assistance to the producers. Obtaining resistant varieties of K. alvarezii
through genetic improvement programmes could hold the key for further development
of the industry.
Besides adopting innovative farming techniques, productivity of seaweed farming
can also be improved through more efficient plot or farm arrangements. For example,
standardization, which arranges plots in such ways as to ensure that all seaweed lines
face the same direction, would help maximize farming area and reduce seaweed breakage
caused by strong winds. The block farming concept could improve the productivity of
the traditional off-bottom systems through increase of the scale of operation.
Value addition provides another means to enhance the economic returns of the
activity. Farmers need to receive training on value-added processes and technologies as
well as financial assistance. Markets for such products both domestic and overseas
also need be identified. The development of semi-processing capabilities aimed at the
extraction of carrageenan and agar is also essential for generating added value.
Some viewpoints on way forward of different stakeholders are summarized as
follows:
Perceptions of farmers and NGOs
Devices for carrying seaweed from the farming to the drying sites should be
provided directly to farmers or financed through low-interest loans.
The availability of farming materials should be increased, if farmers are still
dependent.
141
142
The price of seaweed should be increased.

The government, NGOs, and other stakeholders should facilitate meetings
between farmers, the government and exporters to discuss seaweed farming issues,
including prices paid to farmers.
Expanded media coverage to demonstrate how difficult the farm work is and why
higher prices are fair.
Basic research is needed to formulate solutions to the die-off problems of the
higher-priced K. alvarezii.
The government should expand efforts to explore alternative markets for seaweed.
Perceptions of exporters
Farmers should increase production levels so that costs incurred by exporters are
reduced and prices can be increased.
Shift cultivation. This was mentioned by a Birr Companys employee. The idea
is that if farmers practice shift cultivation (i.e. rotate the farming grounds), it is
possible to farm K. alvarezii in areas where it is failing.
Perceptions of governments
Ensure that farmers and the exporters develop signed agreements.
Farmers need to end their dependency from exporters. Efforts can be implemented
to help farmers procure their own farming materials, e.g. via loans provided
by the exporters, with payments made by deducting funds from the farmers
sales. Another strategy could be based on initial seed grants provided by the
government, along with training on how to use this money to buy more materials.
This should increase the price of seaweed paid to farmers. The shops for selling
farming materials promoted by ZaSCI (Msuya, 2009c; 2009d) are a way of
realizing this goal.
Exporters should buy seaweed in remote areas, even if production is low.
Means that minimize the costs that hinder such buying should be identified and
implemented.
New export companies should enter the industry; this will increase competition,
which will be advantageous to farmers.
Devise strategies to raise seaweed prices.
References
ACDI/VOCA. 2005. Smallholder empowerment & economic growth through agribusiness
& association development (SEEGAAD) final project report. Cooperative Agreement
No. 623-A-00-03-00005-00. 42 pp.
Ask, E.I. 1999. Cottonii and spinosum cultivation handbook. Philadelphia, USA, FMC
Food Ingredients Division. 32 pp.
Bryceson, I. 2002. Coastal aquaculture developments in Tanzania: sustainable and nonsustainable experience. Western Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci., 1(1): 110.
Brycesson, I. 2009. Mariculture in the WIO region challenges and prospects, main
challenges for coastal aquaculture development in WIO region: who are the winners and
losers? Presented at the IFS/WIOMSA Workshop on Coastal Aquaculture Development
in East Africa: challenges and prospects. Zanzibar, Tanzania.
Carlsson, A.S., van Beilen, J.B., Mller, R. & Clayton, D. 2007. Micro- and macro-algae:
utility for industrial applications. In D. Bowles, ed., Outputs from the EPOBIO Project.
United Kingdom, CPL Press.
Conand, C., Muthiga, N., Aumeeruddy, R., De La Torre Castro, M., Frouin, P.,
Mgaya, Y., Mirault E., Chiewo, J. & Rasolofonirina, R. 2006. A three-year project on
sea cucumbers in the south-western Indian Ocean: National and regional analyses to
improve management. SPC Beche-de-mer information Bulletin, 23: 1115.
Eklf, J.S., de la Torre Castro, M., Adelskoild, L., Jiddawi, N.S. & Kautsky, N. 2005.
Differences in macrofaunal and seagrass assemblages in seagrass beds with and without
seaweed farms. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 63: 385396.
Eklund, S. & Pettersson, P. 1992. Mwani is money: the development of seaweed farming
and its socio-economic effects in the village of Paje. Report from a Minor Field Study,
No.24, Department of Social Anthropology, Stockholm University. Stockholm.
Hayashi, L., Yokoya, N.S., Ostini, S., Pereira, R.T.L., Braga, E.S. & Oliveira, E.C. 2008.
Nutrients removed by Kappaphycus alvarezii (Rhodophyta, Solieriaceae) in integrated
cultivation with fishes in re-circulating water. Aquaculture, 277:185191.
Hurtado, A.Q. 1992. Cage culture of Kappaphycus alvarezii var. tambalang (Gigartinales,
Rhodophyceae). J. Appl. Phycol., 4: 311313.
Hurtado, A.Q. & Agbayani, R.F. 2002. Deep-sea farming of Kappaphycus using multiple
raft long-line method. Botanica Marina, 45: 438444.
Hurtado, A.Q. & Critchley, A.T. 2006a. Epiphytes. In A.T. Critchley, M. Ohno & D.B.
Largo, eds. World seaweed resources: an authoritative reference system. Amsterdam, ETI
BioInformatics.
Hurtado, A.Q. & Critchley, A.T. 2006b. Seaweed industry of the Philippines and the
problem of epiphytism in Kappaphycus farming. In P. Siew-Moi, A.T. Critchley & P.O.
Ang, Jr, eds. Advances on seaweed cultivation and utilization in Asia. Kuala Lumpur,
University of Malaya Maritime Research Centre.
Hurtado, A.Q., Critchley, A.T., Trespoey, A. & Bleicher-Lhonneur, G. 2006. Occurrence
of Polysiphonia epiphytes in Kappaphycus farms at Calaguas Is., Camarines Norte,
Philippines. J. Appl. Phycol., 18: 301306.
Jaasund, E. 1976. Intertidal seaweeds in Tanzania: a field guide. Troms, Norway,
University of Troms. 160 pp.
Kivaisi, A.K. & Buriyo, A.S. 2005. Assessment of native gar extracted from Gracilaria
cornea and Gracilaria salicornia harvested along the Tanzanian coast for culturing
microorganisms. Presented at the Fourth Western Indian Ocean Marine Science
Association (WIOMSA) Scientific Symposium. Grand Baie, Mauritius.
143
144
Largo, DB., Fukami, K. & Nishijima, T. 1995. Occasional pathogenic bacteria promoting
ice-ice disease in the carrageenan-producing red algae Kappaphycus alvarezii and
Eucheuma denticulatum (Solieriaceae, Gigartinales, Rhodophyta). J. Appl. Phycol., 7:
545554.
Lombardi, J.V., Marques, H.A., Barreto, O.J.S. 2001. Floating cages in open sea water:
an alternative for promoting integrated aquaculture in Brazil. World Aquaculture, 32(3):
47,4950.
Lombardi, J.V., Marques, H.L.A., Pereira, R.T.L., Barreto, O.J.S. & Paula, E.J. 2006.
Cage polyculture of the Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei and the Philippine
seaweed Kappaphycus alvarezii. Aquaculture, 258: 412415.
Lyimo, T.J., Mvungi, E.F., Lugomela, C. & Bjork, M. 2006. Seagrass biomass and
productivity in seaweed and non-seaweed farming areas in the east coast of Zanzibar.
Western Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci., 5:141152.
Mamiro, G.B. & Manege, L. 2001. Implementation of a mushroom farming and other
ZERI visions in Tanzania: seaweed value addition. A paper presented at the consultative
workshop on the ZERI regional project (RAF-99-201). Windhoek.
Mmochi, A.J., Shaghude, Y.W. & Msuya, F.E. 2005. Comparative study of seaweed farms
in Tanga, Tanzania. Submitted to SEEGAAD Project. 37 pp.
MNRT. 2005. Seaweed development strategic plan. Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism, Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, University Printing Press. 47 pp.
Mshigeni, K.E. 1973. Exploitation of seaweeds in Tanzania: the Genus Eucheuma and other
algae. Tanzania Notes and Records, 72: 1936.
Mshigeni, K.E. 1976. Seaweed farming: a possibility for Tanzanias coastal Ujamaa villages.
Tanzania Notes and Records, 7980: 99105.
Mshigeni, K.E. 1983a. Algae resources, exploitation and use in East Africa. In F.E. Round
& D.J. Chapman, eds., Progress in phycological research, Vol. 2, pp. 387419. Amsterdam,
Elsevier Science.
Mshigeni, K.E. 1983b. Mwani: ukulima wake baharini na manufaa yake kwetu. Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania Publishing House. 43 pp.
Mshigeni, K.E. 1985. Pilot seaweed farming in Tanzania: progress report and future trends.
Dar es Salaam, University of Dar es Salaam. 22pp.
Mshigeni, K.E. 1992. Seaweed farming in Tanzania: a success story. In Mshigeni K.E., J.
Bolton, A. Critchley and G. Kiangi, eds. Proceedings of the first international workshop
on sustainable seaweed resource development in sub-Saharan Africa, pp. 221240.
Windhoek, Namibia.
Mshigeni, K.E. 1998. The seaweed resources of Tanzania. In A.T. Critchley & M. Ohno,
eds. Seaweed resources of the world, pp. 389397. Tokyo, Japanese International
Cooperation Agency.
Msuya, F.E. 1995. Feasibility study for starting seaweed farming in Lindi and Mtwara
Regions, Tanzania. Regional Integrated Project Support (RIPS) Programme (Phase I),
Mtwara, Tanzania. Zanzibar, Tanzania, Institute of Marine Sciences. 49 pp.
Msuya, F.E. 1996. Seaweed farming in Lindi and Mtwara regions. Regional Integrated
Project Support (RIPS) Programme (Phase II: Implementation and Expansion). IMS
1997/01. Zanzibar, Tanzania, Institute of Marine Sciences. 71 pp.
Msuya, F.E. 2000. Seaweed farming in Tanzania. In T.R. McClanahan, C.R.C. Sheppard &
D.O. Obura, eds. Coral reefs of the Indian Ocean: their ecology and conservation, pp.
186188. New York, Oxford University Press.
Msuya, F.E. 2005. Seaweed farming in Tanzania: farming processes and interactions between
farmers and other stakeholders. In B.L.M. Mwamila & A.K. Temu, eds. Proceedings of
the National Stakeholders Workshop on Establishment of an Innovation Systems and
Clusters Programme in Tanzania, pp. 195206. Bagamoyo, Tanzania, University of Dar
es Salaam and Sida/SAREC.
Msuya, F.E. 2006a. The impact of seaweed farming on the social and economic structure
of seaweed farming communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. In A.T. Critchley, M. Ohno &
D.B. Largo, eds. World seaweed resources: an authoritative reference system. Amsterdam,
ETI BioInformatics.
Msuya F.E. 2006b. Seaweed farming as a potential cluster. In B.L.M. Mwamila & A.K.
Temu, eds. Proceedings of the Innovation Systems and Clusters Programme in Tanzania:
Cluster Initiative Launching Workshop, pp. 102113. Dar es Salaam.
Msuya, F.E. 2007. Combating Kappaphycus die-offs in Tanzania. Forum Phycologicum, 66:
24.
Msuya, F.E. 2008. Technology transfer for seaweed soap production: machines installation,
training, and official launching. Report submitted to Small and Medium Enterprises
(SMEs) Competitiveness Facility. Kidoti, Zanzibar. 15 pp.
Msuya, F.E. 2009a. Development of seaweed cultivation in Tanzania: the role of the
University of Dar es Salaam and other institutions. EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA. 25 pp.
Msuya, F.E. 2009b. Progress on the farming of seaweed in rafts in Fundo, Wete, Pemba.
Report Submitted to Birr Sea Weed Company. Dar es Salaam. 9 pp.
Msuya, F.E. 2009c. Innovation of the seaweed farming industry for community development:
the case of the Zanzibar Islands, Tanzania. Presented at the Annual Agricultural Review
Workshop. Zanzibar, Tanzania.
Msuya, F.E. 2009d. Seaweed farming innovation through the Zanzibar Seaweed Cluster
Initiative. Presented at the 6th Regional Conference on Innovation Systems and
Innovative Clusters in Africa, and 1st PACF-EA Chapter Conference. Dar es Salaam.
Msuya, F.E. & Kyewalyanga, M.S. 2006. Quality and quantity of the phycocolloid
carrageenan in the seaweeds Kappaphycus alvarezii and Eucheuma denticulatum as
affected by grow out period, seasonality, and nutrient concentration in Zanzibar, Tanzania.
Report submitted to Degussa Texturant Systems/Cargill Texturizing Solutions, France.
29 pp.
Msuya, F.E. & Porter, M. 2009. Impacts of environmental changes on the farmed seaweed
and seaweed farmers in Songosongo Island, Tanzania. Report submitted under a
Collaborative Project on Sustaining Coastal Fishing Communities, Memorial University
of Newfoundland-University of Dar es Salaam. 26 pp.
Msuya, F.E. & Mmochi, A.J. 2008. Deep water floating lines technique could solve
the problem of seaweed die-off in Tanzania. Presented at the 23rd Congress of the
Phycological Society of Southern Africa. Rocky Bay, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Msuya, F.E. & Kyewalyanga, M.S. 2008. Quality control and assurance of the seaweed
soap. Report submitted to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Competitiveness
Facility. 19 pp.
Msuya, F.E. & Salum, D. 2006. The effect of cultivation, duration, seasonality, and nutrient
concentration on the growth rate and biomass yield of the seaweeds Kappaphycus
alvarezii and Eucheuma denticulatum in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Technical Report No.
WIOMSA/MARG-1/2006-7. 23 pp. (also available at http://www.wiomariculture.org/
pubs/MsuyaF-MARG%20I%20Final%20Technical%20Report-Modified.pdf).
Msuya, F.E. & Salum, D. 2007. Effect of cultivation duration, seasonality, nutrients, air
temperature and rainfall on carrageenan properties and substrata studies of the seaweeds
Kappaphycus alvarezii and Eucheuma denticulatum in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Technical
Report WIOMSA-MARG I No. 200706. 36 pp. (also available at http://wiomsa.net/index.
php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=53&task=view.download&catid=30&cid=273).
Msuya, F.E., Dickinson, T. & Whittick, A. 1994. Community in transition: the impact of
seaweed farming on the women of Paje, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Video production, Institute
of Marine Sciences, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Msuya, F.E., Ngoile, M.A.K. & Shunula J.P. 1996. The impact of seaweed farming on the
macrophytes and macrobenthos of the East Coast of Unguja Island, Zanzibar, Tanzania.
IMS 1997/05. Dar es Salaam, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 68 pp.
145
146
Msuya, F. E., Mmochi, A. J. & Muhando, C. 2007b. Ripoti ya mikutano ya kutenga

maeneo ya matumizi ya bahari katika ghuba ya Mlingotini Wilaya ya Bagamoyo, Tarehe
17 27 Januari 2007. Taasisi ya Sayansi za Bahari, Chuo Kikuu cha Dar Es Salaam, S.L.P.
668, Zanzibar, Tanzania, Mpango wa Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystem
(SUCCESS), Wafadhili. USAID. 19 pp.
Msuya, F.E., Shalli, M.S., Sullivan, K., Crawford, B., Tobey, J. & Mmochi, A.J. 2007a. A
comparative economic analysis of two seaweed farming methods in Tanzania. The Sustainable
Coastal Communities and Ecosystems Program. Coastal Resources Center, University
of Rhode Island and the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association. 27 pp. (also
available at http://www.wiomariculture.org/pubs/CompSeaweedEconReport.pdf).
Munoz, J. & Sahoo, D. 2007. Impact of large scale Kappaphycus alvarezii cultivation in coastal
waters of India. XIXth International Seaweed Symposium: Program and Abstracts. Kobe, Japan.
Paula, E.J., Pereira, R.T.L. & Ohno, M. 1999. Strain selection in Kappaphycus alvarezii var.
alvarezii (Solieriaceae, Rhodophyta) using tetraspore progeny. J. Appl. Phycol., 11: 111121.
Rodrigueza, M.R.C. & Montano, M.N.E. 2007. Bioremediation potential of three
carreegenophytes in tanks with seawater from fish farms. J. Appl. Phycol., 19: 755762.
Samoilys, M.A. & Kanyange, N.W. 2008. Natural resource dependence, livelihoods and
development: perceptions from Tanga, Tanzania. Nairobi, IUCN ESARO. (also available
at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/081118_tanga_report_low_res.pdf).
Schmitz, F. 1895. Marine Florideen vo Deutsch Ost-Afrika. Bot. Jahrb., 2:137177.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working
Paper no. 72. Brighton, UK, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Semesi, S. 2002. Ecological and socio-economic impacts from Eucheuma seaweeds in Zanzibar,
Tanzania. M.Sc. Thesis. .Sc. ThesisNoragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
Shechambo, F., Ngazy, Z. & Msuya, F.E. 1996. Socio-economic impacts of seaweed farming
in the east coast of Zanzibar, Tanzania. IMS 1997/06, Institute of Marine Sciences,
University of Dar es Salaam. Dar es Salaam. 81 pp.
Sonder, W. 1879. Algae. In Baron Carl Claus von den Deckens, ed. Reisen in Ost-Afrika in
den Jahren 18591865, Vol. 3 (3: Botanik), pp. 79-95. Leipzig, Germany, Akademische
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.
review of introductions and field testing proposed quarantine protocols. In A.T.
Critchley, M. Ohno & D.B. Largo, eds. World seaweed resources: an authoritative
reference system. Amsterdam, ETI BioInformatics.
Vairappan, C.S. 2006. Seasonal occurrences of epiphytic algae on the commercially
cultivated red alga Kappaphycus alvarezii (Solieriaceae, Gigartinales, Rhodophyta). J.
Appl. Phycol., 18: 611617.
Vairappan, C.S., Chung, C.S., Hurtado, A.Q., Soya, F.E., Bleicher-Lhonneur, G.
& Critchley, A. 2008. Distribution and symptoms of epiphyte infection in major
carrageenophyte-producing farms. J. Appl. Phycol., 20: 477483.
Wells, S., Samoilys, M. & Makoloweka, S. 2007. Conclusions and lessons learnt. In S.
Wells, S. Makoloweka & M. Samoilys, eds. Putting Adaptive Management into Practice:
Collaborative Coastal Management in Tanga, Northern Tanzania, pp. 170185. Nairobi,
IUCN-EARO. 197 pp.
Zuberi, L. 2000. Final Report on Seaweed Farming Raft Method of Cultivation. Tanga,
Tanzania, Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation and Development Programme.
Zuberi L., Urio, F., van Ingen, T. & Wells, S. 2007. Enhancing livelihoods. In S. Wells,
S. Makoloweka & M. Samoilys, eds. Putting Adaptive Management into Practice:
Collaborative Coastal Management in Tanga, Northern Tanzania, pp. 103123. Nairobi,
IUCN-EARO. 197 pp.
147

Solomon Islands
Mechthild Kronen
Programme Manager, Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific

Office for the Pacific Overseas Countries and Territories
Noumea, New Caledonia
in cooperation with
Ben Ponia, Aquaculture Adviser

Tim Pickering, Aquaculture Officer
Antoine Teitelbaum, Aquaculture Officer
Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Aquaculture, Noumea, New Caledonia
and
Alex Meloti, Chief Fisheries Officer

Jesse Kama, Fisheries Officer
Peter Kenilolerie, Fisheries Officer
Sylvester Diake, Fisheries Officer
James Ngwaerobo, Fisheries Officer
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Aquaculture Division, Honiara, Solomon

Islands
Kronen, M. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in

Solomon Islands. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda & N. Ridler, eds. Social
and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp. 147161. Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 580. Rome, FAO. 204 pp .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the funding, technical, logistic and other supports
provided by various organisations to this study, including the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Secretariat of the Pacific Community
(SPC), the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Marine Ecology Division of New Caledonia,
and the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) of Solomon Islands. The
author also thanks the people in Wagina for their knowledge and experiences shared
in the study.
148
1.
INTRODUCTION
The major objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the
socio-economic dimensions of seaweed farming in Solomon Islands. To this end, the
Wagina seaweed farming community, one of the four major seaweed production areas
in the archipelago, was selected for carrying out an in-depth field survey. The selection
was made in close cooperation with the Aquaculture Division of the Ministry of
Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) of Solomon Islands.
Field survey data collected in Wagina Island, Choiseul Province, were complemented
with key informant interviews, including staff from relevant governmental and
non-governmental institutions, agents and exporters, regarding perceptions on the
potential of seaweed production, problems affecting the sector and possible solutions.
Secondary information was researched and relevant information summarized to
provide a sound historic background on seaweed farming in Solomon Islands, in view
of the governmental and non-governmental support provided for the establishment,
dissemination and commercialization of seaweed farming activities and produce,
marketing channels, production and farmgate price development.
2.
2.1 History
Seaweed farming in Solomon Islands started with initial experimental trials in 1988. An
overview of seaweed production sites established between 1988 and 2009 and potential
sites in the future is provided in Figure1. The main events in the development process
can be briefly chronicled as follows:
1988: First trials were undertaken by the Overseas Development Agency (ODA)
of the United Kingdom at Vona Vona Lagoon and Rarumana village in the Western
Province in cooperation with the MFMR. The one-year project demonstrated
good growth for the Kappaphycus alvarezii samples imported from Fiji (Tiroba
and McHugh, 2006). However, most trials were affected by fish grazing.
2000: The Aquaculture Division of the MFMR was established and started
collecting seed stocks remaining from the 1988 growth trials in Vona Vona Lagoon.
2001: The Aquaculture Division carried out growth trials in Rarumana.
2002: More than 600kg of dried seaweed was produced in Rarumana. The Rural
Fishing Enterprise Project (RFEP) funded by the European Union (Member
Organization) became involved in seaweed farming. In cooperation with the
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and MFMR, the RFEP conducted a
seaweed training workshop in November, targeting 30fisheries officers. Successful
growth trials under the RFEP at Rarumana were completed in 2003.
2003: The remaining funds (SBD1.5million, EU STABEX1 funds) from the RFEP
project were allocated to provide further support in the framework of a one-year
seaweed farm development project. The project provided farm materials, outboard
motors, and a warehouse in Rarumana; and the first PFnet (broadband, e-mail)
system was set up to ensure communication between producers and buyers.
2004: In July, a warehouse was built in Wagina where the second PFnet was set
up. A feasibility study for further support from the European Union (Member
Organization) was carried out.
2005: By early 2005, there were about 130farmers in Rarumana and the Shortland
Islands (Western Province) plus 300 farmers in Wagina, Choiseul Province;
seaweed farming had also expanded to Malaita and Makira-Ulawa. About seven
The STABEX (from the French: Systme de Stabilisation des Recettes dExportation) is the acronym
for a European Commission compensatory finance scheme to stabilize export earnings of the African,
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. It was introduced with the purpose of remedying the harmful
effects of the instability of export revenue from agricultural products.
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in the Solomon Islands
149
FIGURE1
Overview of established and future possible seaweed production sites in Solomon Islands
Ontong Java atoll
Papua New Guinea
North
Choiseul
Wagina
Kia
North Malaita
Sandfly
Solomon Islands
Langalanga
West Areare
Shortland
Islands
Walande
Honiara
Gizo
Nupani
Reef Islands
Three Sisters
Mangkiki
Rarumana
Vonavona lagoon
Star Harbor
Nukapo
Marovo
Marau
Ugi
Potential seaweed production sites in the Solomon Islands

Introduction and dissemination of seaweed production sites between 1988-2009
export licences were approved; however, only one exporter (Solomon Seaweed)
renewed its licence in 2006. Agents were paid a commission based on production.
Export of seaweeds was tax-free.
2005: In July 2005, a three-year, SBD15 million seaweed commercialization
project (CoSPSI) funded by the European Union (Member Organization)
(STABEX funds) began, which was extended until January 2009, with a focus
on sites in Ontong Java Atoll, Reef Islands, Malaita. The project also supported
continued seaweed farming development at Wagina and Rarumana.
2005: With assistance from CoSPSI, the International Waters Project (IWP)
(Global Environmental facility, SPREP) established within the framework of its
community development approach a seaweed farming operation in the eastern
Marovo Lagoon, which has remained one of the major producers.
2006: In May, the farmgate price for seaweed dropped from SBD2.00/kg to
SBD1.50/kg2 owing to increasing fuel prices, which in turn increased national and
international freight costs.
2007: A severe earthquake and associated tsunami on 2April resulted in the loss
of some of the best seaweed farming areas in the Western Province (Rarumana),
and an estimated total loss of 2030percent of the CoSPSI projects production.
2008: In July, the farmgate price for seaweed increased to SBD3.10/kg.
2009: The remaining CoSPSI funds were used to support a seaweed farming
adviser based at the MFMR for one year (April 2009 March 2010).
Production
National production of dried seaweed in Solomon Islands fluctuated substantially
2
USD1 = SBD7.21 (June 2011).
150
between 2003 and 2009 from a minimum of 40 tonnes in 2003 to a maximum of

460tonnes in 2009 (Figure2 and Table1).
Problems encountered in the earlier days were related to fish grazing, which can be
seasonal and may be avoided by moving stocks to areas where fish grazing is minimal.
Farmers at Rarumana and Shortlands suffered severe losses because of an outbreak of
the filamenteous epiphyte Polysophonia. This problem can be solved (particularly in the
Rarumana area) by moving seaweed to locations with better water temperature and flow
conditions, where the epiphyte disappears. However, at the time of writing, Rarumana is
no longer a viable seaweed production site owing to the filling of the lagoon as a result of
the 2008 tsunami. Moreover, some production has been lost due to outbreaks of ice-ice
which causes seaweed to lose its pigment, turning white as a result. This condition results
from the stress induced by low salinities and/or high water temperatures.
Trade
Seaweed cultivated in Solomon Islands is dried and exported as raw material for
processing carrageenan. Initially, seaweed was regarded as a high-value commodity
FIGURE2
Quantity and price of seaweed production in Solomon Islands, 200309

500
Beach price (USD/tonne)
500
Quantity (tonnes)
400
(Tonnes)
300
300
200
200
100
(USD/tonne )
400
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
100
Note: Production in 2009 is based on estimates of local seaweed agents in Wagina.

Source: MFMR Aquaculture Development Plan (20092014).
TABLE1
Production and beach prices of dry seaweed in Solomon Islands

Year
Quantity
Beach price
Local currency
US dollars
Exchange rate
(tonnes)
(SBD/kg)
(USD/tonne)
(SBD/USD)
2002
2.0
296
6.75
2003
40
2.0
266
7.51
2004
214
2.0
267
7.48
2005
326
2.0
266
7.53
2006
169
1.5
197
7.61
2007
108
1.5
196
7.65
2008
144
3.1
404
7.67
2009
~460
3.1
391
7.92
Note: Production in 2009 is based on estimates of local seaweed agents in Wagina.

Source: MFMR Aquaculture Development Plan (20092014).
and, thus, the freight charges applied by the interisland cargo transporters were
equalled to those of bche-de-mer (i.e. sea cucumbers). However, freight costs were
corrected after it was recognized that seaweed, a low-value, high-volume commodity
is the exact opposite of bche-de-mer, a high-value, low-volume product. In addition,
the government recognized that seaweed is a commodity similar to copra and, hence,
exempted it from export taxes.
Price
The beach (farmgate) price for seaweed was initially established under the diversification
programme of the RFEP. A beach price of SBD2.00/kg was set based on market
intelligence and using copra production as a benchmark to attract growers. Fluctuations
in local seaweed prices result from the international market balance of demand and
supply, fuel prices (which determine national and international freight costs), as well
as export taxes.
According to Pickering (2005), seaweed farmers of the Solomon Islands received a
beach price of USD0.26/kg (35percent water content) in 2005, which was comparable
with that received by producers in Fiji (USD0.27/kg, 30 percent water content) but
slightly lower than the unsubsidized prices paid to farmers of Kiribati (USD0.32/
kg, 35 percent water content). However, comparison of export prices of the three
countries is difficult as the Fiji export price to FMC Biopolymer has been recorded
as USD0.55 free on board (f.o.b.), while export prices for Solomon Islands (selling to
Degussa) and Kiribati (selling to CP Kelco) are believed to range between USD0.68
and USD0.73cost, insurance and freight (c.i.f.).
Accounting for only about 0.2 percent of world seaweed production, seaweed
farmers in Solomon Islands are generally price-takers and easily affected by price
fluctuations in the international markets. Such fluctuations in conjunction with
increased fuel prices resulted in a decline in the seaweed price from SBD2.00/kg to
SBD1.50/kg in the country in May 2006.3
Increases in fuel prices have a double effect on seaweed prices in Solomon Island,
as they increase not only export freight costs but also inland shipping costs from the
mostly remote rural areas to Honiara (the capital city of Solomon Islands). An SPC
mission in December 2006 observed that the unregulated domestic shipping levied a
commodity-based freight rate for seaweed that was higher than for other cargoes.
The decline in price made some farmers disillusioned and seek alternative livelihoods
such as fishing for lobster tails. Consequently, seaweed cultivation almost halved in
2006 (Table1).
The fall in seaweed prices coincided with the opening of the sea cucumber fishery.
Many seaweed farmers also fish sea cucumbers, a resource considered to be one of the
most important sources of cash income for rural coastal communities, provided that
stocks are not overexploited. The beach price of dried sea cucumber varies, depending
on the species and quantity fished, and has been reported to range between SBD5.5/
kg and SBD86.8/kg. The close association and competition between the sea cucumber
fishery and farmed seaweed production in Solomon Islands is revealed by the peak in
seaweed production achieved in 2005, which coincided with closures in the national
sea cucumber fishery (200406). Conversely, the decline in seaweed production in
2007 was connected with the opening of the sea cucumber fishery harvest from the
fishery peaked at 279tonnes (dry weight) in 2007 (Figure3) at an average beach price
of SBD37.4/kg of dried sea cucumber.
In 2008, the beach price of dried seaweed was raised to SBD3.10/kg. Seaweed
production increased noticeably as a result (Table1 and Figure2). This increase in prices
3
The lowest price of SBD1.50/kg was never observed in Wagina, where agents maintained a minimum
price of SBD2.00/kg.
151
152
FIGURE3
Seaweed production vs sea cucumber exports in Solomon Islands

500
Seaweed production
Sea cucumber exports
400
(Tonnes)
300
200
100
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
coincided with limited income opportunities in the heavily depleted sea cucumber
fishery. Rising prices were made possible by the combined effects of increased demand
in the international seaweed market and the adoption of a flat rate for inland freight
costs, which replaced the higher commodity cargo freight rate.
2.3 Value chain
Seaweed production in Solomon Islands is still a primary farming activity with no
involvement of transnational companies, wholesalers or regional traders. Through the
Aquaculture Division of the MFMR and upon request, the Government of Solomon
Islands provides seaweed commercialization licences to private seaweed trading
companies. Each licence requires a minimum trading volume of 200tonnes. Licences
are provided based on the proper documentation of the companys facilities, export
links and information on costs for export freight and overseas market prices.
Initial processing is mainly carried out by individual farmers. Agents based at
production sites control only the quality (dryness) of the product delivered by farmers
and ship the packed bags to Honiara. Inland marine freight and transport is organized
between seaweed companies and interisland cargo operators. The cargo operators have
accepted to apply to seaweed the same freight prices charged for copra, i.e. SBD0.50/
kg. These operators also organize and cover the costs of the small-boat transfer of dried
seaweed bags from warehouses to the cargo boat. However, at the time of writing,
agents of seaweed purchasing companies organize and cover the latter costs.
Additional drying and quality control of dried seaweed landed in Honiara may
be undertaken by trading companies prior to shipment overseas. To date, Solomon
Seaweed is the only trading company that has invested in appropriate warehouse
facilities where seaweed quality is checked, and further dried, if necessary, before
good-quality seaweed materials are baled and exported in containers to Europe.
Proper drying at the farm is crucial because it can reduce shipping costs, avoid
the need for re-drying and the weight loss thus incurred, and ensure a high gel
content of seaweeds when they reach their destination. Solar tent dryers (transparent
plastic sheets) were introduced in 2007/08 to improve drying and mitigate quality
deterioration due to rainfall (freshwater contact). A price premium was once
introduced by one buyer to encourage farmers to deliver clean, properly dried,
grade-A seaweed. However, during the recent field survey, no such grading systems
were reported, nor thought necessary.
Incentive schemes have also been developed to encourage large deliveries from
seaweed farmers. For example, a farmer selling one tonne of dried seaweed in a month
to Solomon Seaweed would be able to receive a bonus of SBD250 from the company.
Hon Lin, another trading company operating since June 2009, offers an even greater
bonus of SBD320 per tonne of dried seaweed sold to it. However, there are only
57farmers in Wagina who could reach the one-tonne delivery benchmark.
It is believed that it would be feasible to install a local plant at Honiara to carry out
primary processing to produce alkali-treated carrageenan chips if the national seaweed
production were increased to 10002000tonnes per year. This activity would result in
additional employment and a reduction in international freight costs (Preston, Tiroba
and Robertson, 2009).
3.
PERFORMANCE
A socio-economic survey was carried out at the end of 2009 to evaluate the socioeconomic dimensions of seaweed farming in Solomon Islands. A focus was placed on
one of the four seaweed farming regions: Wagina in Choiseul Province.
During the field survey, data were collected to carry out an estimation of net
revenues per hour of labour for current cash-earning activities in Wagina, which
include seaweed farming, finfisheries, lobster tail fishery and mat weaving. Net profit
per hour of family labour is used to make comparisons across various activities for
income generation. A general economic approach is difficult to implement fully
because of the following factors:
Labour is generally not viewed as a cost factor by rural people. In Honiara,
unskilled labour is remunerated with about SBD30/day, i.e. an hourly wage of
SBD3.75/hour. In Wagina and other rural areas, such labour may not be paid in
cash (or only partially, at the rate of SBD1020/day); instead, labourers need to
be provided with food items for which costs may or may not accrue, depending
on whether food and beverage items are sourced from subsistence production or
purchased in local shops.
Mat weaving materials are free of charge, i.e. Pandanus leaves grow in the wild and
are subject to harvest as requested.
No farm rent or lease is paid for any seaweed growing area as sites are allocated
on a community-governed system at no charge.
To date, seaweed farms have been set up for farmers with either governmental or
project support, which covered all costs that accrued. This included free provision
of farming materials; however, this practice was discontinued in early 2009.
Any secondary housing for seaweed farmers on small islands is not paid for but
built using free material and unaccounted labour. The same observation applies
for drying tables and any other sheds or shelters built.
Transportation by boat is only considered a cost if a fibreglass boat and an
outboard engine are purchased. Dug-out canoes are built by villagers at an
unaccounted cost as materials are free and labour input is not recognized.
Operational tools including dug-out canoes, knifes, hammers, axes or boiling pots
(the latter in the case of mat weaving) are items that are present in almost every
household serving various, non-income-generating uses.
Fishing gear such as masks, snorkels, fins, torches and spear guns may be used to
engage in both lobster and finfishing. However, net present value (NPV) and costs
have been accounted for each activity individually in the scenarios considered here.
The financial analysis of three cases of seaweed farming in Solomon Islands is
summarized in Table2. The analysis is based on data provided by respondents from the
153
154
TABLE2
Annual revenue, cost and profit of seaweed farming in Solomon Islands

Item no.
Item
CaseI
(1)
Total length of lines (km)
4.0
4.0
2.4
(2)
Dried seaweed produced (tonne)
17.4
21.7
9.2
(3)
- Productivity (tonne/km of lines)
(4)
Price of dried seaweed (USD/tonne)
(5)
Revenue (USD)
4.35
391.4
6 818
CaseII
5.43
391.4
CaseIII
3.84
391.4
8 494
3 611
(6)
- Productivity (USD/km of lines)
1 705
2 123
1 505
(7)
Cost (USD)
1 052
6 014
922
(8)
- Fixed cost (USD)
531
1 096
531
(9)
521
4 919
391
332
3 782
164
(10)
(11)
(12)
Operational cost (USD)

Transportation cost (USD)
Net profit (USD)
189
1 136
227
5 766
2 480
2 689
(13)
- Net profit per hour of family labour (USD/hour)
(14)
- Profit margin (%)
(15)
Family labour used (hours)
(16)
- Average wage of unskilled labour as shadow price of family labour

(USD/hour)
(17)
- Imputed value of family labour (USD)
2 398
1 736
2 191
3 368
744
497
49
14
198
357
337
(18)
Net profit excluding family labour (USD)
(19)
- Profit margin (%)
(20)
- Break-even price (USD/tonne)
1.14
0.68
0.58
85
29
74
5 064
3 666
4 628
0.47
0.47
0.47
Notes: USD1 = SBD7.92 (2009). (3) = (2)/(1). (5) = (2) (4). (6) = (5)/(1). (7) = (8) + (9). (9) = (10) + (11). (12) = (5) (7). (13)
= (12)/(15). (14) = (12)/(5)*100. (17) = (15) (16). (18) = (12) (17). (19) = (18)/(5)*100. (20) = [(7) + (17)]/(2). Numbers
may not add up due to rounding.
field survey, and collection of information on the range of local prices for the various
items. The exchange rate of USD1 = SBD7.92 in 2009 (Table1) is used to convert the
local currency to the US dollar.
Investment and capital cost
The total length of lines used in seaweed farming is 4.0km in both CaseI and CaseII
and 2.4km in CaseIII. Because of the various factors explained above, costs and labour
for setting up any of the existing farms are not included.
For Case I and Case III, one drying table and one paddle canoe are used in each
case. It is assumed that the table and canoe are purchased in the Wagina community;
the amortized annual capital cost (i.e. fixed cost) is USD531 (Table2, item8).
For CaseII, one fibreglass boat (21ft [6.4m]), one outboard engine (15hp), and one
drying table are used. Assuming that these items are purchased, then the fixed cost is
USD1096 per year (Table2, item8).
Operational and variable cost
While no major changes concerning alternative production methods have been made
since the start of seaweed production in 2002, technical improvements include the
substitution of simple black plastic sheets (intended to protect seaweed from rain while
drying) with transparent solar plastic sheets or tents that no longer require removal
during the drying process regardless of the weather conditions. However, the use of
solar plastic sheets is much more expensive; and they can be torn by strong wind. In
addition, netting to cover drying tables has been improved by importing a betterquality product. Experimentation has also resulted in the selection of better-quality
ropes that last longer.
For Case I and Case III, where relatively more family labour is used in daily
operation, the annual operational expense is USD332 and USD164, respectively,
which is mainly for ropes, solar plastic (CaseI) or black plastic (CaseIII), netting, etc.
For CaseII, where daily operation is conducted entirely by hired labour, the annual
operational expense is USD3782 (Table2, item10).
The opportunity cost of family labour is unknown and has to be imputed. As
mentioned above, the average hourly wage of unskilled labour in Honiara is about
SBD3.75/hour, amounting to USD0.47/hour at the exchange rate in 2009. This wage
rate can used as a shadow price of family labour (Table 2, item 16) to calculate the
imputed value of family labour (Table2, item17).
For CaseI and CaseIII, where non-motorized paddle canoes are normally used, the
expense on transportation is USD189 and USD227, respectively, which is mainly for
purchasing fuel for motorized boats borrowed during the harvest season. For CaseII,
where a motorized boat is used for daily operation, the expense for transportation is
USD1136 (Table2, item11).
Revenue, cost and net profit
Dried seaweed production under Cases I, II and III is 17.4, 21.7 and 9.2 tonnes,
respectively (Table 2, item 2). With the beach price being USD391/tonne, these
production levels generate, respectively, USD6818, 8494 and 3611in sales revenues
for the three cases (Table2, item5). The total cost (Table2, item7) is equal to the sum
of the fixed cost (Table2, item8) and the variable cost (Table2, item9).
A net profit (Table 2, item 12) can be calculated by deducting the cost (Table 2,
item 7) from the revenue (Table 2, item 5). It should be noted that this net profit
includes the value of family labour and hence may not be directly comparable across
the different cases that use different amount of family labour. However, this indicator
provides a useful indication of the economic viability of seaweed farming operations.
A net profit excluding family labour (Table 2, item 18) can be calculated by
deducting the imputed value of family labour (Table 2, item 17) from the net profit
(Table2, item12). This indicator provides a cleaner measure of profitability, which
is more comparable between different operations.
The results in Table2 indicate that:
Seaweed farming is economically viable and profitable under all three cases.
There is evidence that the use of family labour increases the economic viability
of seaweed farming in Solomon Islands. With the same scale of operation, CaseI
(which uses more family labour) has a higher profit margin than CaseII (Table2,
item14), although CaseII has higher productivity (Table2, item3). The higher
profit margin would allow CaseI to be more resilient to negative shocks.
In terms of the net profit without family labour (Table 2, item 18), the profit
margin of CaseI (49percent) is still higher than that of CaseII (9percent). As
indicated in Table2 (item13), the net profit per hour of family labour in CaseI
is USD1.14, which is much higher than the average wage rate of unskilled labour
(item 16: USD0.47). Thus, the higher profitability of Case I reflects, to some
extent, the internalization of better-paying jobs.
The higher fixed cost due to the use of a motorized fibreglass boat is another
factor negatively affecting the net profit in CaseII. However, motorized transport
is required in order to transport dried produce to the selling points. Given the
average farm size in Wagina (and elsewhere in Solomon Islands), it can be assumed
that individual investment in such motorized fibreglass boats is not viable. A
community-owned motorized boat may be the best alternative.
CaseI has a larger scale of operations (4km of lines) than CaseIII (only 2.4km)
and a higher profit margin than the latter in terms of both the net profit (Table2,
item14) and net profit without family labour (Table2, item19). This reflects, to
155
156
some extent, the higher productivity (Table2, item3) of CaseI (4.35tonne/km

of lines) compared with CaseIII (3.84tonne/km). However, even if productivity
in CaseIII were as high as that of CaseI (i.e. 4.35tonne/km), its profit margin,
which would be 77percent for the net profit (Table2, item14) and 24percent for
the net profit without family labour (Table2, item19) would still be lower than
CaseI. These results provide evidence supporting the existence of economies of
scale in seaweed farming in Solomon Islands.4
In sum, the experiences in Wagina demonstrate that seaweed farming may become
an important source of income for rural coastal people in Solomon Islands, in particular
in remote areas, given that a certain farm size is reached (4000m of lines). Extension
efforts should continue to promote the 46-week production cycle to ensure regular
cash flow and income to farmers.
Seaweed farming vs other economic activities
Besides seaweed farming, other economic activities in Wagina (i.e. the area under
survey) include finfisheries, lobster tail fishery and mat weaving. The profitability of
these activities is summarized in Table3. The results indicate that:
The net profits per hour of family labour of the four activities are all higher than
the average wage of unskilled labour in Honiara (USD0.47/hour).
Seaweed farming is less profitable (per hour of family labour) than finfishery and
lobster tail fishery but more profitable than mat weaving. Finfishery and lobster
tail fishery are more lucrative activities than seaweed farming; the prices of their
products are USD0.9/kg and USD5.0/kg, respectively, as compared with USD0.4/
kg for dried seaweed. Mat weaving is not a regular economic activity in Wagina
and contributes to household incomes occasionally.
The fixed cost of seaweed farming is lower than finfishery and lobster tail fishery
but higher than mat weaving. Fishing gear such as masks, snorkels, fins, torches
and spear guns may need to be used for lobster fishing and finfishing. This
equipment is usually specific for fishing, while the drying table and boats used in
seaweed farming can also be used for other functions.
The profit margin of mat weaving is the highest, reflecting its minimal need for
capital investment (only a large boiling pan and cutting knifes are needed) and
material inputs. The profit margin of seaweed farming tends to be higher or lower
than finfishery and lobster tail fishery, depending on whether its daily operation
is conducted by family labour or hired labour.
A total of 58households in the 3communities of Wagina (Arariki, Tengangea/Kukutin
and Nikumaroro) were surveyed. These households accounted for about 28percent of
the population in the region. About 70percent of the households under survey engaged
in seaweed farming.
Livelihoods
Increased incomes, improved living standards, and enhanced food security are the
most important changes brought about by seaweed farming as perceived and reported
by the survey respondents. Many costal inhabitants in Solomon Islands view seaweed
farming as a risk avoidance mechanism that helps diversify sources of income for the
community. The survey data indicate that seaweed farming households are much more
This survey investigated average (about 1tonne/month) and small-scale farms (new starters may produce
only 100kg/month) as large-scale production (about 3tonnes/month) is represented by only 57farms
in Wagina. Net revenues for average farms handling about 4000m of production line yield a much
more favourable return relative to the smaller sized farms.
157
TABLE3
Profitability of seaweed farming vs other economic activities in coastal communities of

Solomon Islands
Cost
Activities
Revenue
Total
Fixed
Profitability
Variable
Profit
margin
Net profit
USD per hour of family labour
Maximum
6.44
1.56
0.49
1.06
4.89
76
Minimum
2.85
1.56
0.49
1.06
1.30
45
Lobster tail
Maximum
5.45
1.38
0.44
0.94
4.07
75
fishery
Minimum
2.42
1.38
0.44
0.94
1.04
43
Large mat
0.39
0.01
0.01
0.38
96
Small mat
0.50
0.02
0.02
0.47
95
CaseI
1.35
0.21
0.10
0.10
1.14
85
CaseII
2.32
1.64
0.30
1.34
0.68
29
CaseIIII
0.78
0.20
0.11
0.08
0.58
74
Finfishery
Mat weaving
Seaweed
farming
Notes: USD1 = SBD7.92 (2009). Revenue, cost and net profit measured by US dollar per hour of family labour used in
the activities.
diversified than other households half of all non-seaweed households have fewer
than two income sources while 92.5percent of seaweed households have at least two
income sources.
The survey data also revealed that seaweed farming households in Wagina earn on
average about SBD26258 (USD3315) per year, which is 67percent higher than other
households. On average, seaweed farming accounts for 42.4 percent of total annual
income in seaweed households.
Fisheries of finfish, lobster and sea cucumber are more lucrative activities than
seaweed farming, but the fishing seasons are relatively short; as a consequence, seaweed
farming provides greater livelihood opportunities for households in Wagina because of
its higher annual revenue potential. In addition, the fact that fisheries are vulnerable to
a number of natural and administrative factors makes them less dependable means of
livelihood for most people in Wagina.
In summary, most seaweed farming households (65 percent) were convinced that
seaweed aquaculture was a viable livelihood alternative that increased their incomes
and helped them meet living costs, school fees and other financial obligations. Seaweed
farming also provided better and regular cash flows to some households as compared
with other options. It is also considered a relatively easy technology to learn, providing
good prospects for the future well-being of households.
Women and children
The Wagina field survey revealed that
seaweed aquaculture is normally a family
enterprise that involves all household
members. Although men account for
68 percent of the labour input, women
actively participate in all stages of seaweed
farming (Table4). Womens contributions
to farming activities (33 and 34 percent
for harvesting and for replanting and
maintenance, respectively) are greater
than their contributions to post-harvest
activities (32, 24and 24percent for drying,
packaging and selling, respectively). This
TABLE4
Contribution of female labour to seaweed

aquaculture business
Activities in seaweed
aquaculture
Contribution of
female labour
(%)
Harvesting
33
Replanting and maintenance
34
Drying
32
Packaging
24
Selling
24
All
32
158
is different from the stereotype role of women in aquaculture, i.e. specializing in postharvest activities.
As farm sites are often too far away from seaweed farmers homes to allow them to
commute on a daily basis, family members may be either separated for extended periods
or children may fail to attend school as they accompany their parents to the farming sites.
Families may decide that children should participate in the seaweed farming venture,
meaning that they have to leave school at an early stage, forgoing access to secondary
and perhaps tertiary education.
Community development
The survey shows that seaweed farming has contributed to increased cooperation and
unity within the community. Many respondents see seaweed farming as a key activity
for the future economic development of the community. Even respondents who were
not engaged in seaweed farming noted that most changes brought upon the community
by seaweed farming were positive. These changes include increased and more regular
income and the equipment of households with diesel-fuelled generators or small
photovoltaic lighting. Respondents also considered that the purchasing power to buy
food in local stores had improved.
These changes may not always be beneficial. As people substituted seaweed farming
for other activities such as fisheries and gardening, the supplies of garden produce and
fresh seafood declined and were substituted by less nutritious but more expensive
processed food (e.g. canned tuna and luncheon meat). Tobacco and betelnut were also
highly consumed by men and women.
Responses with regard to the impact of seaweed farming on social structures and
institutions varied among the survey participants. More than half (57percent) of the
people interviewed believed that there were no major impacts; and social networking
and tight family structures are considered as traditional values that have persisted since
seaweed has been grown in Wagina.
However, 38 percent of respondents think that seaweed farming has improved
social networks in the sense that it has contributed to form stronger groups of families
sharing the same interest. Improvement of social services (e.g. school and church) in
the community was frequently quoted.
While most respondents believed that seaweed farming had triggered positive
competition among farmers and families, some respondents (17percent) reported an
increase in jealousy and complained about people stealing ropes, seaweed and other
materials. However, such negative impacts were not considered major issues.
Environmentally, the establishment of seaweed farms involves the felling of local
mangroves to obtain the necessary pegs. Farmers also cut down a considerable number
of native trees for poles for the construction of drying tables, which are not built very
effectively and tend to have a short life span as a result.
4.
Within the framework of the MFMRs 20092014 Solomon Islands Aquaculture
Development Plan, seaweed (Kappaphycus alvarezii) was given the highest priority as an
export commodity. In 2008, the Government allocated a budget of SBD300000for seaweed
farming, which became effective in 2009, with the hope that a commercial seaweed sector
could be established by 2010, reaching a sustainable annual production of 500600tonnes.
The Aquaculture Division within the MFMR was established in 2000. At present,
the Aquaculture Division has five full-time staff members, all of whom are involved in
seaweed dissemination and strengthening. Priority has been given to the consolidation
of existing seaweed production areas rather than to the expansion to new locations.
Besides providing supports to seaweed farmers, the Aquaculture Division is also
responsible for issuing seaweed commercialization licences to private trading companies.
Cooperation with other ministries and governmental departments is laid down

in the development strategy plan. In supporting the agrarian sector, the Ministry
of Agriculture and the Ministry of Lands recognize aquaculture as an alternative
land use. The Ministry of Lands is associated with seaweed farming in land tenure
and land survey matters. The Department of Environment within the Ministry
of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology is committed to providing the
environmental assessments that may accrue from seaweed farming activities and
expansion of the sector.
Through its aquaculture programme, the SPC continues to not only provide support
to the seaweed industry of the Solomon Islands in its role as the intergovernmental
focal point for the aquaculture sector, but also providing specific technical advice and
advocacy to the seaweed industry.
No laws and regulations concerning seaweed farming and commercialization are in
place, other than the fact that no export taxes are being charged.
The CoSPSI project has contributed to seaweed farming in the country. The
results of the Wagina survey indicated that most assistance in setting up the farms,
training, and maintenance, harvesting and drying activities was provided by this
project.
5.
Past experiences of seaweed farming in Solomon Islands have revealed a considerable
degree of production risk. Natural risk factors including earthquakes, geologic
instabilities, active volcanism and tsunamis may lead to dramatic production losses.
Climatic conditions such as seawater temperature rises resulting in high mortality rates,
prolonged rainy periods as well as strong currents and heavy seas contributing to seed
losses and reduced harvests will not be eliminated in the future.
Some locations are chronically affected by grazing of herbivorous fish; losses can be
too high to justify seaweed production. Such problems may seriously reduce potential
production levels. In addition, logging and other coastal development activities are
likely to continue if not increase and cause further sedimentation in coastal areas,
which may also reduce production.
Increases in fuel prices crucially affect the viability of the sector. Increases
in production costs, inland and export freight prices may make farm operations
economically less attractive and perhaps no longer viable. Fluctuating world market
prices for seaweed may have the same effect.
Furthermore, alternative income opportunities may appear more attractive to local
farmers and may trigger loss of interest in producing seaweed. This is particularly
true for copra production. Although current copra prices are not very high, future
price increases may elicit interest from farmers. In addition, political instability and
insufficient governmental and external-aid-funded support for the sector are further
risk factors for the industrys development potential.
However, there is great potential for the development of seaweed farming in
Solomon Islands. The country has a number of unutilized areas suitable for seaweed
farming and a large proportion of rural coastal communities that are highly dependent
on diminishing marine and other natural resources. According to the Aquaculture
Division of the MFMR, if 60percent of households in the promising sites participated
in seaweed farming, dried seaweed production in Solomon Islands would reach
12528tonnes/year; the production would be16704 tonnes/year if the participation
rate were 80percent.5
5
Whether the estimations are realistic are open to debate. The final report of the CoSPSI project specifies
a potential of 2 000 tonnes/year, assuming farmers are provided with further technical and financial
assistance (Preston, Tiroba and Robertson, 2009).
159
160
It would require concentrated efforts, time, and substantial funding and support
to realize the potential of seaweed farming in Solomon Islands. Local land tenure and
governance systems allow members of coastal rural communities to utilize suitable sites
for producing seaweed; skills are relatively easy to attain; and basic farming materials
are freely available. However, given the lifestyle and the low financial capabilities of
rural coastal people, covering investment, maintenance and operational costs to ensure
a continuous seaweed farming operation represents a major bottleneck for maintenance
and further expansion of current operations.
Governmental or externally funded projects could assist farmers in acquiring and
adopting financial management skills. Financing schemes made available to local agents
in order to retain a feasible amount of cash for each harvest sale may be a way to help
farmers meet operation and maintenance costs. Technical and financial training of
farmers should include information on economies of scale, cash flows needed to cover
operation costs, and achievable net returns.
The establishment of community-owned motorized boat transport, or alternatively
transport provided by local agents, could reduce the investment requirement for
farmers to buy a motorized boat and assist them to ensure the transfer of their harvests
to the selling points. However, in order to be sustainable and avoid unnecessary
distortion, such transportation services should not be free of charge but should be
placed under the market mechanism.
To encourage continuous production, the government may need to establish a
minimum price guarantee to subsidize local farmgate prices when world market prices
drop below a certain threshold. The costs to re-establish seaweed farms after a major
drop-out may involve much higher costs than the occasional subsidies and will ensure
continuation of national agent and exporter networks.
The government may also assist in increasing reliability of interisland cargo freight
services by negotiating with the existing operators a guaranteed freight volume for
seaweed harvested. Thus, frustrations shared between farmers and local agents for not
being able to purchase harvest or to export regularly may be reduced or eradicated.
Given the projected future growth in national seaweed production, the establishment
of specialized interisland seaweed cargo freight may be assessed, at least on certain
routes.
In cooperation with private seaweed trading companies, the government should
evaluate the purchase of high-quality/low-price materials internationally and their
regular provision at all farming sites. Local agents purchasing seaweed harvested
should be used to build up a national distribution network, as is already being done.
From an environmental viewpoint, impact assessments need to be undertaken with
regard to the disposal of plastic sheets, ropes and wood material from sheds, drying
tables and other buildings erected on farm sites. The current drying tables in Wagina
are not effectively built, requiring a considerable amount of indigenous trees for their
construction. The development and dissemination of effectively built drying tables
will help reduce the felling of local native trees. However, for large-scale farms, the
introduction of permanent drying tables made of aluminium or plastic materials that
are more resistant to weather conditions, thus having a much longer life span than
locally built tables, is an option worth exploring.
The same argument applies to local mangrove resources that are used to produce
pegs for erecting ropes and lines in shallow seawater. The impact of their disposal into
near-shore areas, particularly given the future increase in farm areas, also needs to be
assessed.
References
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). 2009. Solomon Islands aquaculture
development plan, 20092014. Noumea, New Caledonia, Ministry of Fisheries and
Marine Resources Solomon Islands and Secretariat of the Pacific Community. 54pp.
(also available at www.spc.int/aquaculture/ index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_
details&gid=36&Itemid=3).
Pickering, T. 2005. Advances in seaweed aquaculture among Pacific Islands countries.
Presentation to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Sub-regional Seaweed
Meeting. Nadi, Fiji.
Preston, G.L., Tiroba, G. & Robertson, M. 2009. Commercialisation of seaweed
production in the Solomon Islands. Project ST 98/009. Completion Report. Solomon
Island Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources and European Commission.
Tiroba, G. & McHugh, D.J. 2006. Solomon Islands country report. In D.J.McHugh.
The seaweed industry in the Pacific islands, pp.4753. Canberra, Australian Government,
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. (also available at http://aciar.
gov.au/publication/WP61).
161
163

India
M. Krishnan
Head
Social Sciences Division, Central Institute of Fisheries Education
Mumbai, India
R. Narayanakumar
Head
Socio-economic Evaluation and Technology Transfer Division
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute
Kochi, India
Krishnan, M. & Narayanakumar, R. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan

seaweed farming in India. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda & N. Ridler, eds. Social
and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp. 163184 . Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 580. Rome, FAO. 204 pp .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their sincere thanks to Dr S. Ayyappan for his constant
encouragement and support during the course of this work. The authors also
acknowledge the support of Dr A.G. Ponniah and Dr G. Syda Rao. The authors also
express their gratitude to Mr Abhiram Seth, Dr M. Sakthivel, Dr G. Gopakumar, Dr K.
Palanisamy, DrN. Kaliaperumal, Dr P. Kaladharan, and Mr Vinod Nehimiah for their
personal cooperation and technical inputs.
164
1.
INTRODUCTION
India possesses 434 species of red seaweeds, 194 species of brown seaweeds and
216species of green seaweeds. Traditionally, seaweeds have been collected from natural
stocks. However, these resources have been depleted by overharvesting and hence the
need for their cultivation has arisen over time. Today, seaweed cultivation techniques
have been standardized, improved and made economically viable. In addition, the
industry has developed a preference for greater stability through a sustained supply
in terms of quantity and quality of farmed, raw materials. Nevertheless, collection of
seaweed production statistics is not systematic in India; official time series of seaweed
production are not readily available at the time of writing.
Despite the various native seaweed species in India, it was not until the beginning
of the twenty-first century that the country made concrete progress towards
organized seaweed farming. The delay in progress was caused by a number of factors
including locational disadvantages, inconsistent performance of species for commercial
exploitation, absence of a complete package of farming practices, and insufficient
industry and policy support.
Although the commercial potential of Kappaphycus alvarezii had been previously
recognized and its culture technology had been perfected by the Central Salt and
Marine Chemicals Research Institute (CSMCRI), culture at a commercial scale only
began when PepsiCo India Holdings Ltd (PepsiCo) made its entry into the venture
with a pilot-scale investment in the early 2000s. The entry of PepsiCo turned out to be
decisive, as it acted as a catalyst to rejuvenate the industryinstitutional linkages. The
concept of self-help groups (SHGs) spearheaded by the National Bank for Agricultural
and Rural Development (NABARD) also led to rapid development in the Mandapam
area of Ramanathapuram, which soon became the hub of seaweed farming in the
country.
Self-help groups in the fishing villages of Vedalai, Thonithurai, Ariyankkundu and
R.Vadakadu operate more than 1000 rafts at the time of writing. Many of the SHGs
have been able to obtain a yield of more than 50 kg per raft per cycle (dry weight).
Based on the findings from this study, seaweed farming offered 161and 144days per
farmer per year of annual employment in the Rameshwaram and Mandapam areas,
respectively. With current development projections targeting 5000families in the near
future, the seaweed sector could generate about 765000person-days of employment
in Ramanathapuram District. It has been estimated that India can produce one
million tonnes of dried seaweed and provide employment to 200 000 families with
annual earnings of about INR100000per family.1 The annual turnover of Kappaphycus
seaweed farming alone is estimated to be INR2.0billion.
Spearheaded by private investments, the institutional and financial support of the
Government of India through development agencies and research institutes has been
fundamental for the development of the sector. The distinct possibility of expansion of
operations based on successful commercial trials in potential sites will give a significant
boost to the sector. Seaweed farming has all the potential to rise from a low-income
livelihood activity into a reasonably profitable commercial enterprise in coastal India.
2.
2.1 History
The first organized attempt to culture seaweed at an industrial scale in India was
initiated by PepsiCo in 2000. After experiments, substantial activities began in 2002
Exchange rate as of April 2010: USD1.00 = INR44.422.
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in India
with the leasing of an area of 10ha on the Palk Bay side towards Mandapam;2 about
100 kg of planting material (K. alvarezii) received from the CSMCRI were seeded.
Early challenges included heavy grazing by fish and the need for modifications in the
culture technology to enable adoption by local growers. Monoline cultivation gave
way to raft culture with net bottoms to prevent grazing by fish.
After having demonstrated the economic feasibility of the proposed venture,
the company decided to modify its business model in 2003. Instead of hiring daily
wageworkers, PepsiCo encouraged workers to engage in contract farming by making
available the culture infrastructure on a staggered payment basis. Although contract
farming offered a greater potential for increased income, the proposed contractual
arrangement did not gain immediate acceptance among fishing villagers.
In August 2008, PepsiCo sold its eight-year-old seaweed cultivation business in India
to a group of entrepreneurs led by a former PepsiCo executive. PepsiCo transferred
the assets of the seaweed venture at book value to a newly formed company, Aquagri.
Through Aquagri, PepsiCo continues to honour its buyback commitment made to the
SHGs.
Aquagri has placed its focus on the agricultural by-produce, ensuring marketing
through strategic associations with agro-based businesses. At the time of writing,
the company was planning to extend operations on the Gujarat coast and set up the
first seaweed processing plant in Tamil Nadu. Aquagri has also provided buyback
guarantees for the new cultivation projects launched by the CSMCRI in the states of
Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh; in addition, Aquagri has indicated its intent to set up
manufacturing facilities at these centres once activities scale up.
Ramanathapuram District in Tamil Nadu (Figure 1) was identified as the target
location for studying the structure, conduct and performance of seaweed farming in
India in view of its historical background, locational advantages, industry interactions,
socio-economic institutional framework and opportunities for expansion and growth.
For these reasons, Ramanathapuram District has long been recognized as the centre of
seaweed farming in India. Table1 provides a timeline of the major events marking the
development of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu since 2000.
2.2 Production
Seaweed farming production in India increased from 21tonnes in 2001 to more than
714tonnes (dry weight) in 2009 (Table2).
Kappaphycus seaweeds grow profusely in areas with sandy or rocky bottoms,
salinity in the range of 2833ppt, temperature about 30C 3C, depth about 1.5m,
moderate light intensity and wave action. A seed plant of 150g grows to more than
600 g in 45 days in calm waters such as those found in the Palk Bay area. Seaweeds
only require sunlight and transparent seawater with mild wave action for replenishing
bottom nutrients. However, Kappaphycus can grow even faster in the open sea where
wave action is fairly high (AFI, 2008).
Seaweed farming can be affected by many problems. Grazing fish such as siganids
(rabbitfish) and puffers can damage the crops. Siganids are the most destructive,
especially if the plants have not grown much. Entire crops can be devoured and
even dense beds can be severely damaged. There is no simple solution except to
move the farming location to another site where predators are less prevalent. Turtles
pose a special problem besides grazing, they also crawl through the farms, causing
2
PepsiCo had initially requested permission to operate along a 35-km stretch along the Gulf of Mannar
and Palk Bay, equivalent to an area of about 350 ha. The company had a preference for the Gulf of
Mannar because of its calmer seas, conducive to faster growth rates (average daily growth rate [ADGR]
of 68percent). However, because the selected area fell within the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park,
cultivation was restricted to the Palk Bay side, where growth rates are lower (ADGR of 2.53.5percent).
165
166
FIGURE1
Map of Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu, India
INDIA
Thondi
TN
SIVAGANGA
Madural
Devipatinam
Ramanathapuram
PALK BAY
Rameswaram
Kilarai
Tir
un
elv
eli
Pamban
Mandapam
GULF OF MANAR
devastating physical damage. Long-spined sea urchins are also a pest and can cause
injury to farmers who try to remove them.
The most common symptom of poor health is ice-ice, a disease so named because
of the white segments that appear on the plants, causing them to break at that point.
There is disagreement about its causes. Some people argue that the segments are
indicative of a bacterial or viral infection while others attribute the disease to physical
stress caused by changes in the farming environment.
Storms lead to strong water movements that can cause plants to break apart and
even cause physical damage to the rafts and lines. Locations that are subject to cyclical
cyclones should be avoided; if this is not possible, precautions should be taken during
the period of storms (McHugh, 2003). The period from October to December in Tamil
Nadu is one of seasonal rains and cyclones.
In spite of these challenges, it has been estimated that seaweed can be farmed in
about 200 000 ha or 0.001 percent of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of India
(Krishnamurthy, 2005). The rocky beaches, mudflats, estuaries and lagoons on the
Indian coasts offer ideal habitats for seaweed farming.
2.3 Value chain
Harvested seaweeds are sun-dried on the beach and then bundled into bales. Although
the institutions and companies involved in the development of seaweed farming have
constructed drying platforms, most drying is still conducted by farmers on the sandy
beaches. Apparently, this problem has not yet been corrected owing to Aquagris
willingness to source the dried weed irrespective of its impurities.
The marketing channels for seaweed are illustrated in Figure 2. Basic prices are
arranged to the satisfaction of farmers taking into account the effort invested. In
2009, Aquagri was offering INR16/kg of dried weed. Although it has been argued
that Aquagri currently holds a monopsony advantage, competing companies have
167
TABLE1
A timeline of the development of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu

2000
Agreement with the Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (CSMCRI) on Kappaphycus
cultivation and genesis of the undertaking.
2001
The project seaweed cultivation was commenced in February 2001. The net-bag technique was the
method formulated by the CSMCRI, but was not found suitable for commercial scale. The Tamil Nadu
Government granted PepsiCo access to 1km of waterfront (10ha) for pilot-scale cultivation at Palk Bay.
Farming began in Munaikkadu (Mandapam area) by adapting the monoline method.
2002
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) officials visited the PepsiCo site to monitor the 10-ha farming area and
certified the project. Monoline cultivation was in place until April 2002. Owing to severe grazing, the
entire seeded area (10ha) was lost in May. Thereafter, trials were conducted to establish a commercially
viable method. The sum of INR200000 was paid to the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board (TNMB) for the
leasing of the 1-km waterfront area. A full-fledged quality control laboratory to check the quality of dry
weeds was also established.
2003
Based on the results of more than 120trials, the bamboo raft technique emerged as the most suitable,
commercially viable method. The daily-wage model was withdrawn and the contract faming method
was successfully implemented in March 2003.
2004
About 3500rafts were harvested, delivering 126tonnes. Another 5000rafts were seeded for further
expansion. Trial cultivation was also carried out in Prakasam District (Andhra Pradesh).
2005
PepsiCo expanded farming to Tuticorin District (southern tip of Tamil Nadu). For the first time, three selfhelp groups (SHGs) received subsidies from the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) to engage
in seaweed cultivation. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) sanctioned INR9million to rehabilitate
tsunami-affected areas, which led to the floating of 5500rafts. The company entered into an
agreement with the State Bank of India (SBI) for establishing a buyback guarantee; both infrastructure
and cultivators were placed under insurance coverage.
2006
Expansion of farming to Tanjore District. A total of 8100rafts were harvested, delivering 244tonnes of
dry weed. The sap extracted from Kappaphycus was found to be an excellent biofertilizer.
2007
Expansion of farming to Pudukkottai. The DBT activated a project in Tanjore but, owing to poor growth/
whitening, it was moved to Mandapam. Monoline method was restarted again in Mandapam as it was
found to provide better returns. Trial cultivation was carried out in Krishna District (Andhra Pradesh);
however, salinity drop in back waters and rough waves in open seas led to poor plant growth.
2008
Aquagri took over the PepsiCo project. Commercialization of AquaSAP started.
2009
Construction of a semi-refined carrageenan (SRC) unit at SIPCOT was initiated.
TABLE2
Area production and exports of Kappaphycus in Tamil Nadu, India, 200109

Year
Cultivation
method
Growth
rate
(%)
Business model
Procurement cost,
INR/kg
(dry weight)*
2001
ML
1.56.0
Company owned
Daily wage system
2002
ML
2.22.4
Company owned
Daily wage system
2003
BR: 75%
ML: 25%
2.02.5
Company owned
and contract
farming
2004
BR
2.6
2005
BR
2006
BR
2007
Production
dry weight
(tonnes)
Exports
(FCL of dry
seaweed)
Test plots
21
ML: 5275
82
Daily wage system

& 4.50
ML: 3567
BR: 1962
147
Contract farming
4.50 & 7.50
BR: 3469
126
3.25
Company owned
7.50 & 8.50
BR: 3450
135
2.53.0
Company owned
8.50 & 10.00
BR: 8100
244
12
BR: 95%
ML: 5%
2.53.0
Contract farming
and private
cultivators
10.00 & 12.00
BR: 10464
315
15
2008
BR: 90%
ML: 10%
2.53.0
Company owned
12.00 & 14.00
BR: 16000+
588
28
2009
BR: 90%
ML: 10%
2.53.0
Company owned
14.00/kg (dry)
1.75/kg (fresh)
BR: 18000+
714**
34**
Total
Number of
ML/BR
2372
113
* The column includes two values to indicate that prices offered to self-help group (SHG) members were revised in
the same year.
** Data incomplete for 2009.
Note: BR = bamboo rafts; ML = monoline; FCL = full container load (1container = 21tonnes).
168
FIGURE2
Marketing channels of seaweed farmers in Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu
Seaweed
Farmers
Ouput
Payouts
Banks
Unorganized
Trade
M/s Aquagri
processing (p) ltd.
Payment for
Ouput
Baling Facility
Aquagri,
Manamadurai
Sap Production
Unit, Aquagri,
Manamadurai
Exports
Indian
Agriculture
Conversion Plants
of Mars,
Indonesia
routinely induced the farmers to break the contracts by offering a marginally higher
price. However, Aquagri has developed its own price-incentive schemes for loyal and
high-volume producers. In addition, non-price arrangements such as assisting farmers
to meet their family and social obligations have contributed to build bonds of mutual
trust and loyalty.
SAP3 is a major product extracted from the dried weed in India. The partnership
established between PepsiCo and the CSMCRI to explore more water- and energyefficient processing technologies led to the development of a fresh-weed processing
system that yielded SAP, an organic fertilizer rich in micronutrients, aminoacids
and growth hormones. Since then, SAP has been applied to a range of crops (brinjal,
onion, corn, black gram, paddy, sugar cane) and has consistently increased yields
by 1240 percent. According to the CSMCRI, Kappaphycus SAP also contains
considerable quantities of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, organic matter, sodium
calcium, magnesium, manganese, iron, copper, zinc, cobalt, molybdenum, sulphate and
chloride. Incidentally, applying SAP at the germination stage of seaweed cultivation
has also shown impressive results in terms of increase in growth of roots and shoots.
At the time of writing, efforts were under way to build a plant in Manamadurai
for the extraction of carrageenan; with the plant scheduled to be commissioned in
January 2010. Dried seaweed is exported by PepsiCo to carrageenan conversion plants
in Indonesia. International price fluctuations, which have disrupted the development
of seaweed farming in other locations in the world, have had relatively little impact in
India owing to the large demand from the domestic market.
Aquagri has recently completed the construction of two facilities for processing
seaweeds in Tamil Nadu (Mandapam and Manamadurai). These facilities are capable
In this context, SAP is not a generic term but indicates the liquid biofertilizer developed by Aquagri and
branded as AQUASAP.
169
of handling 150 tonnes/day of fresh seaweed; most of the input material is being
converted to SAP; the residual content after extraction of SAP is used for the extraction
of carrageenan. These are state-of-the-art facilities using solar power and biofuels as
energy sources. Aquagri has sourced the technology for extracting SAP from wet
seaweeds and acquired exclusive marketing rights for three years from the CSMCRI.
Other firms such as SNAP are also developing Sargassum-based value-added
products, including organic manure, foliar sprays, and liquid and gel fertilizers. SNAP
is certified by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development
Authority (APEDA) under the National Program for Organic Produce Certification.
Other government departments have also certified SNAP products.
Competitive pricing arrangements were extended to farmers by PepsiCo. Price
incentives were also offered to growers who produced more than the targeted quantity,
so as to prevent breaching of contracts. With the opening of the new SAP plant,
Aquagri would increase its purchases of wet Kappaphycus, enabling growers to devote
a greater portion of their time to farming rather than drying. Wet seaweed was being
purchased from the SHG members at the rate of INR1.50/kg at the time of writing.
3.
PERFORMANCE
3.1 Techniques
Two different culture techniques are practised in Mandapam: raft culture (also called
floating) and monoline culture (also called off-bottom). The raft method is suitable in
areas where water currents are weak, e.g. Palk Bay. A floating frame made of bamboo
(normally of dimensions 3m 3m) is used to suspend the seaweed about 50cm below
the surface. Three-millimetre polypropylene ropes are stretched in parallel between
the two sides of the raft, at intervals of 1015cm. The seedlings are tied to the ropes
and the raft is anchored to the bottom. Anchor ropes may be needed to hold the raft
below the surface at the beginning, but as the plants grow and add weight to the raft,
extra support (such as polystyrene foam boxes tied to the corners of the raft4) may
be required to prevent it from sinking too low in the water. Specific details of this
technique are provided in Figure3.
FIGURE3
Top view of a 3m 3m bamboo raft with 4ft (1.22m) diagonals

4 diagonal
15 cm gap is maintained
between the ropes
3 MM PP rope bit of
4.5m lengths with 20
plants of 150gm each
12 hallow bamboo piece

with 9-10 dia.
10 mm or 12 mm rope to
tie the cluster of rafts
with iron anchor or
stones
All the corners and

diagonals are tied with
6mm rope bits - there are
12 ties in a raft
Anchor stones of 50-60 kg
of weight each to hold a
cluster of 10-15 rafts
In Palk Bay, both thermocol pieces and empty plastic bottles are used for flotation. Plastic bottles are
now being phased out as an environmental safety measure.
170
With a 15cm interval between 2lines, 20lines can be attached to a 3m 3m raft,

which would provide a total of 60m of lines for planting seaweed.
A cluster of 10rafts in the normal season (46rafts in the monsoon season) can be
anchored with a 15kg, 5-toothed iron anchor. Alternatively, holed stones can be linked
with chains and then tied to the cluster. The major advantage of floating rafts is that
they can be easily moved to another location if necessary, and removed from the water
during bad weather. Rafts can also be used as drying racks by providing appropriate
support when placed onshore.
In typical monoline culture, a seaweed farmer is given 45ropes of 60m. These are
tied in two sections to avoid sags in the line caused by the weight. Thus, the lines are
arranged in two 45m 30m plots, with each line straddling the two plots. A total of
300seaweed cuttings are inserted in each rope, leaving a spacing of 20cm. The initial
weight of seedlings is 200 g and, thus, a total of 60 kg of seed material is required
per 60m rope. Normally, the seaweed plants are simply tied up to the nylon ropes.
However, in the summer months of MayJune (the fish breeding season), the plants
are covered with net bags to avoid grazing by fishes, which increases production costs.
The seeds are always covered with net bags in Tuticorin and Kanyakumari.
Productivity and profitability: raft vs monoline
According to the information provided by Tamil Nadu Department of Fisheries
(TNDoF, 2009), a subsidized raft aquaculture operation (Kappaphycus) by an SHG
farmer trainee goes as follows:
It costs about INR738 to construct and seed a 3 m 3 m raft. Most of the
investment (INR568) is needed for building the farming system; INR 130 is
needed for seeding; and INR40 is needed for miscellaneous tools (Table3).
Assuming that on average a farmer trainee manages 45rafts,5 then the operation
would require an initial investment of INR 33 230. Half of the investment is
subsidized by the TNDoF; the other half is financed with a commercial bank loan.
Operation normally runs for only 270days per year because seaweed culture is
usually not practised during the northeast monsoon (about 95days). Therefore,
there are 6 operation cycles per year (45 days per cycle). Then, the amortized
capital cost is INR123 per cycle (Table3).
With 60kg of initial seeds planted on lines of a total of 60m in length, a 3m3m
raft would be able to generate about 280kg of fresh seaweed in a 45-day cycle;
out of which, 60kg would be used as seed materials for the ensuing cycle; the rest
processed into 20kg of dried seaweed (10:1ratio; 2kg removed as impurities).
At the price of INR16/kg, the 20 kg of dried seaweed would yield INR320 of
revenue per raft per cycle.
As part of the harvest is used as seed materials, the initial seed materials should
not be counted as an expense.
The operation is usually conducted by family labour and requires little cash
expenses. However, there is on average a financial expense of INR8.2 per raft per
cycle, including expenses of INR6.8 in interest and INR1.4 for insurance.
A typical 60-m monoline operation in Ramanathapuram District goes as follows:
It costs about INR38 to set up a 60-m monoline system, which is much cheaper
than a 3m 3m raft system. The cost of the nylon ropes accounts for 33percent
of total investment; however, labour charges for installation account for the
highest share (38.5percent).
If a farmer can seed and harvest one raft per day, then on average a farmer would be able to manage
45rafts for a 45-day production cycle. However, many farmers are able to handle as many as three rafts
a day, greatly enhancing their economic returns.
171
TABLE3
Investment requirement for one raft (3 m 3 m) in Tamil Nadu

Items
Investment
(INR)
Amortized capital
cost for 6cycles/year
operation (INR/cycle)
Farming system (3 m 3 m raft; 60-m lines for growing)
568
94.7
- 1 bamboo raft (64-ft)
211
35.2
10.5
- 5 cornered anchors
63
- Floats
25
4.2
- 3-mm nylon rope (1.25 mm thickness/4.5 m length/20 lengths)
52
8.7
- 20 ropes for seeding
21
3.5
- 6-mm thickness nylon rope (for raft construction, 36 m)
75
12.5
- 3.5 m 3.5 m nets for reducing grazing
89
14.8
- 2-mm thickness ropes for tying the nets to raft bottoms (28 m)
10
1.7
- Nylon rope for tying rafts together (5.4 m)
12
1.9
- 10-mm anchor ropes (17 m)
10
1.7
Initial seed
130
21.7
- Seed materials (Kappaphycus, 60 kg)
105
17.5
25
4.2
- Expense for transporting seed materials

Tools
40
6.7
- Mats, ladders, baskets, knives, etc.
40
6.7
738
123.1
Total
Similar to the raft system, the 60 kg of initial seed materials is worth INR105,
which is not counted as an expense because the materials will be replenished by
part of the harvest.
Harvest is normally conducted after 45 days in Ramanathapuram District.6 A
60-m rope may yield 400 kg of fresh seaweed;7 100 kg of which is separated as
planting material for the subsequent cycle; the rest become 28kg of dried seaweed
(10:1ratio; 2kg impurities removed).
At the price of INR16/kg, the 28 kg of dried seaweed production generate
INR448 of sales revenue per cycle per rope.
If the wage for family labour is not included, the operating cost per rope is
INR120, including INR50 for harvesting.
The operation and financial situations of the two systems highlighted above are
summarized and compared in Table4. The results indicate that:
The monoline operation appears to have higher yield than the raft operation. For
the same length of rope (60 m) and same amount of seed materials (60 kg), the
production of monoline operation (400kg of fresh seaweed) is higher than the raft
operation (280 kg). Consequently, the sales revenue of the former is 40 percent
higher than the latter.
The cost of the monoline operation (INR158) is a little higher than the raft
operation (INR106), which mainly reflects the operation and harvest cost under
the monoline operation. As mentioned above, the amortized cost of the monoline
farming system is much lower than that of the raft.
The net profit per cycle for the monoline operation is INR290 (USD6.0), higher
than the INR206 (USD4.3) for the raft system. This result implies that, on average,
Because growth rates are higher, the production cycle is shortened to only 30 days in the southern
districts of Tuticorin and Kanyakumari.
The expected yield ranges from 350to 400kg of fresh seaweed.
172
TABLE4
Financial analysis of raft culture vs monoline culture in India

Item no.
Item
(1)
Production
(2)
- Initial seed materials (kg)
A 3 m 3 m raft
(60 m lines for growing)1
60
Monoline
(60 m lines for growing)
60
(3)
- Fresh seaweed per 45-day cycle (kg)
280
400
(4)
- Fresh seaweed reserved as seeds (kg)
60
100
(5)
- Dried seaweed product (kg)
20
28
(6)
Price of dried seaweed (INR/kg)
(7)
- Price of dried seaweed (USD/tonne)
16
16
331
331
(8)
Revenue (INR/cycle)
320
448
(9)
Cost (INR/cycle)
114
158
(10)
- Operational expense (including depreciation)
106
158
95
38
(11)
Farming system
(12)
Initial seeding
4.2
(13)
Tools
6.7
(14)
Operation
70
(15)
Cost of harvesting
50
(16)
(17)
(18)
- Financial expenses
Interest
Insurance
(19)
Net profit (INR/cycle)
(20)
Net profit (USD/cycle)
8.2
6.8
1.4
206
4.3
290
6.0
1
Data for the raft system adapted from Seaweed Culture, Golden Jubilee Village Self Employment Opportunities,
Government of Tamil Nadu (2008-09).
Notes: USD1 = INR48.405 (2009). (8) = (5) (6). (9) = (10) + (16). (12) Including only the cost of seed transportation.
(19) = (8) (9). Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
the raft farmer could earn about USD4.3 per day, amounting to USD1 150 per
year for 270days of production.
Although monoline culture appears to be more profitable than raft culture, the
operational difficulties may be greater (there is a higher threat of grazing by fish; ropes
could break, leading to crop loss; and plot maintenance is labour-intensive).
The above analysis is based on the assumption of 400kg/cycle for monoline culture.
If the yield is only 350kg/cycle, then the net profit will be only INR210, similar to
the raft culture.
The non-monetary advantages of raft culture make it a preferred system choice in
Ramanathapuram District. Therefore, this study concentrates on the socio-economics
of the raft culture system.
Profitability and viability of raft culture
Consider the 3-year operation of a 1-ha seaweed farm with 900rafts with the following
specifications:
Each raft contains 60m lines for growing. With 900rafts, the farm has 54km of
lines for growing.
After three years of operation, a new set of investments needs to be made.
One production cycle lasts 45days. There are 4production cycles in the first year
and 6cycles in the second and third years.
In a production cycle, each raft is planted with 60kg of seed material and produces
20kg of dried seaweed after part of the harvest is set aside as seed materials for
the next cycle.
173
The initial investment requirements for the seaweed farm are summarized in Table5.
The annual revenue, cost and net profit of the farm are summarized in Table6. The
The farm is profitable with USD9460/ha (USD175/km of line) for the first year
(4cycles) and USD16228/ha (USD301/km of line) for the second and third years
(6cycles per year).
The profit margins are 40percent for the first year (4cycles) and 45percent for
the second and third years (6cycles per year).
The break-even prices (USD199/tonne for the first year and USD180/tonne for
the second and third years) are much lower than the actual price (USD331/tonne).
The cash flow situation of the three-year operation is summarized in Table7. The
The farms net cash inflow is USD190 for the first year and USD19293 for each
of the second and third years.
The positive cash inflow in the first year implies that the farm can recover its
investment within the first year. Specifically, the pay-back period for the operation
is about 0.98year.
The internal rate of return (IRR) of the 3-year operation is 110percent.
TABLE5
Initial investment for a 1-ha seaweed farm with 900rafts (54km of growing lines)
Item no.
Item
Unit
Annual amount
(1)
Initial investment
USD/ha
(2)
- Seedlings (54tonnes)
USD/ha
12 336
1 952
(3)
- Farming system (900rafts)
USD/ha
10 383
(4)
Initial investment per kilometre of lines
USD/km
228
Notes: USD1 = INR48.405 (2009). (1) = (2) + (3). (4) = (1)/54. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
TABLE6
Annual revenue, cost and net profit of a 1-ha seaweed farm with 900 rafts
Item no.
Item
Unit
1st year
(4cycles per year)
2nd and 3rd years

(6cycles per year)
(1)
Annual dried seaweed production

(per cycle: 20kg/raft)
tonnes/ha
72
108
(2)
Price of dried seaweed
USD/tonne
331
331
(3)
Annual revenue
USD/ha
23 799
35 699
(4)
Annual costs
USD/ha
14 339
19 471
(5)
Fixed cost
USD/ha
4 076
4 076
(6)
- Depreciation
USD/ha
3 066
3 066
(7)
- Interest on investment (7%)
USD/ha
864
864
(8)
- Insurance (1.2%)
USD/ha
147
147
(9)
Operating cost
USD/ha
10 263
15 395
(10)
- Braider twining charges
USD/ha
2 231
3 347
(11)
- Transportation
USD/ha
1 934
2 901
(12)
- Raft maintenance
USD/ha
5 875
8 813
(13)
- Miscellaneous
USD/ha
223
335
(14)
Annual net profit
USD/ha
9 460
16 228
175
301
(15)
Annual net profit per kilometre of line
USD/km
(16)
Profit margin
(17)
Break-even price
USD/tonne
40
45
199
180
Notes: USD1 = INR48.405 (2009). (3) = (1) (2). (4) = (5) + (9). (5) = (6) + (7) + (8). (9) = (10) + (11) + (12) + (13). (14) =
(3) (4). (15) = (14)/54. (16) = (14)/(3)*100. (17) = (4)/(1). Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
174
TABLE7
Financial feasibility of a 1-ha farm over 3 years

Item no.
(1)
Items
Cash outflow
Unit
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
USD
23 609
16 405
16 405
(2)
- Investment
USD
12 336
(3)
- Interest & insurance
USD
1 010
1 010
1 010
(4)
- Operation
USD
10 263
15 395
15 395
(5)
Cash inflow (operation)
USD
23 799
35 699
35 699
(6)
Net cash inflow
USD
190
19 293
19 293
(7)
Pay-back period
Year
0.98
(8)
Internal rate of return
110
Notes: USD1 = INR48.405. (1) = (2) + (3) + (4). (6) = (5) (1) Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Summary
In sum, the above analyses provide strong evidence of the economic and financial
profitability and viability of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu. The estimated high rate
of return on investment is consistent with the findings of Padilla and Lampe (1989),
who calculated an IRR of 78 percent for seaweed farming in the Philippines; Shang
(1976), who estimated an IRR of 56 percent for Gracilaria cultivation; and Firdausy
and Tisdell (1991), who reported an IRR of 123 percent in Bali. Seaweed farming
has thus emerged as one of the most profitable livelihood options for coastal fishing
communities in various locations of the Asian continent.
The socio-economic status of seaweed farmers was assessed through personal interviews
using a pre-tested schedule. Details on socio-economic parameters associated with
seaweed farming were collected from 437sample respondents,8 226from Mandapam
and 211 from Rameshwaram.9 The two regions represent the mainland and island
ecosystems, respectively (Figure1).
The SHGs surveyed were predominantly formed by women, although a few SHGs
consisted exclusively of men while some SHGs were mixed. Agencies that actively
support the SHGs include the DBT, Ramanathapuram Rural Development Agency
(RDDA) and TNDoF. The Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI) has provided
seedlings and other materials to farmers in the region.
At the time of writing, a number of SHGs in Vedalai, Thonithurai, Ariyankkundu and
R.Vadakadu were handling more than 1000 rafts each. These SHGs have been exposed
to Kappaphycus culture longer than other groups; because of this experience, they are
able to obtain annual yields exceeding 50kg per raft (dry weight). The performance of
the most recent SHGs is expected to improve over time. Overall, farmers report that they
have been able to obtain good returns from the activity. Seaweed farming is expanding to
other districts within Tamil Nadu such as Pudukottai and Thanjavur.
Family characteristics
The characteristics of seaweed farming households under survey are summarized
in Table 8. The results indicate that the average family size of the surveyed seaweed
The population of organized SHG seaweed farmers at the time of the survey was estimated at 1000. The
sample was drawn based on purposive sampling proportionate to size.
Farmers in the Mandapam region included in the sample were specifically located in Vedalai,
Umilyalpuram, Munaikadu, T. Nagar, Meenavar colony and Thonithurai. The locations covered in
Rameshwaram were Pamban, Akkalmadam, Nallupanai, Ariyankudu, A.Vadakadu, Parvatham, Sambai,
Mangadu and Olaikuda.
175
TABLE8
Family characteristics of surveyed seaweed farmers

Indicators
Mandapam (N = 226)
Average family size (no.)
Rameshwaram (N = 211)
4.5
Share of nuclear family (%)
5.5
97
77
23
Share of family with male household head (%)
64
66
Share of family with female household head (%)
36
34
Share of joint family (%)
farming households was 4.5in Mandapam and 5.5in Rameshwaram. This is consistent
with the national average of 4.5 for fisher families reported by the Marine Fishery
Census (CMFRI, 2005).
Most of the sample respondents families belong to the nuclear family type.10
However, Rameshwaram has a relatively greater number of joint families11 involved in
seaweed farming. The social development programmes promoted by the Government
of Tamil Nadu have led to a general improvement in the socio-economic conditions of
the overall population. These programmes have also altered the structure of families,
with joint families giving way to nuclear families. This phenomenon is also occurring
in coastal villages.
As in most other states of India, household heads in Tamil Nadu are usually the
most senior male in the family. Recently, widows have also represented as household
heads if they are income-earners. However, the survey results indicate that a substantial
proportion of seaweed farming households under survey (36and 34percent for Mandapam
and Rameshwaram, respectively) were led by female household heads. The concept of
the SHG was founded on the basic premise that women are more responsible and have
a better disposition to work towards achieving social and economic independence. In
the case of seaweed farming, rather than assuming a leadership role, males in fishing
households have followed their women. TABLE9
The initial success of women in seaweed Age and education of surveyed seaweed
farming motivated men to enter the farmers
activity as well.
Age and education
The age and education characteristics
of surveyed farmers are summarized
in Table 9. The results indicate that
about 60 percent of the surveyed
farmers in both regions were middleaged individuals (3150years old). This
age bracket corresponds to a productive
group of individuals that is usually
receptive to new ideas and is capable
of implementing them, even if doing so
involves some risk.
Age &
education
Share of surveyed households (%)

Mandapam
(N = 226)
Rameshwaram
(N = 211)
Age
31
31
25
3150
61
59
16
> 50
Education
Illiterate
Elementary
43
Lower primary
21
18
Upper primary
22
43
Secondary
11
18
Higher secondary
A nuclear family is a family group consisting of only a father and mother and their children, who share
living quarters.
10
A Hindu joint family or Hindu undivided family or a joint family is an extended family arrangement
prevalent among Hindus and consisting of many generations living under the same roof. All the male
members are blood relatives and all the women are either mothers, wives, unmarried daughters or
widowed relatives.
11
176
The estimated 52.8percent of average literacy rate in the district was lower than the
national average (65percent), reflecting relatively poor educational facilities in the area.
However, the surveyed seaweed farmers appeared to have higher literacy rate than the
national average. Indeed, about 13 and 24 percent of respondents in Mandapam and
Rameshwaram, respectively, have reached a secondary level of schooling or higher.
On average, the surveyed farmers in Rameshwaram appeared to have a higher
education level than those in Mandapam.
Employment
Fishing and seaweed farming are the two most important occupations in the two areas
under survey. The occupation and professional experience of surveyed farmers are
summarized in Table 10. The results indicate that almost half of the respondents in
Mandapam practised fishing as their primary occupation, while only 13percent chose
fishing as the primary occupation in Rameshwaram. Seaweed farming has become the
primary livelihood activity of fishers in Rameshwaram, which has helped reduce pressure
on the fish stocks of the area. The emergence of seaweed farming has also helped reduce
political tension with neighbouring Sri Lanka over access to common fishing grounds.
Most of the respondents (92 and 72 percent in Mandapam and Rameshwaram,
respectively) have 1125 years of experience in fishing. Most of these individuals
belonged to the middle-aged group and could successfully adapt to innovations in
seaweed farming techniques.
As the concept of seaweed farming was introduced only after 2001, most of the
respondents had only up to 5years of experience in seaweed farming. Although most
farmers had fewer years of experience in seaweed farming than in fishing, many of
them have chosen the latter as their primary occupation (Table10). This indicates the
level of commitment of stakeholders, as fishers perceive seaweed farming to be a less
risky and more sustainable activity compared with traditional fishing practices.
The employment patterns of surveyed seaweed farming households are summarized
in Table11. The results indicate that:
On average, one member per family is involved in active fishing in both areas.
On average, one member per family is involved in post-harvest activities (i.e.
peeling, drying, freezing, processing, value addition) in the Mandapam area, while
two members are involved in the Rameshwaram area.
For seaweed farming, on average, two members per family are involved in the
activity in both Mandapam and Rameshwaram.
TABLE10
Occupation and professional experience of surveyed seaweed farmers

Occupation & professional experience
Mandapam
(N = 226)
Rameshwaram
(N = 211)
Occupation
- Respondents taking fishing as primary occupation
48
13
- Respondents taking seaweed farming as primary occupation
52
87
Fishing experience
10 years
1125 years
> 25 years
23
92
72
Seaweed farming experience

5 years
87
84
67 years
13
> 7 years
177
TABLE11
Employment patterns of surveyed seaweed farming households

Mandapam (N = 226)
Name of the occupation
Average no. of
members per
family
No. of days
employed per
person per year
Average no. of
members per
family
No. of days
employed per
person per year
179
181
Active fishing
Post-harvest activities
96
100
Seaweed culture/harvest
144
161
The average annual working days per person in fishing and post-harvest activities
is marginally higher in Rameshwaram (181 and 100 days) than in Mandapam
(179 and 96 days). A similar trend was also observed for seaweed farming
(161days in Rameshwaram as opposed to 144days in Mandapam).
As indicated in Table11, on average, a seaweed farming household in Mandapam
and Rameshwaram has two family members engaged in seaweed farming; the
average annual total of working days is 144 days per person in Mandapam and
161days per person in Rameshwaram. It is estimated that there were about 517and
483 seaweed farming households in Mandapam and Rameshwaram, respectively.
Therefore, seaweed farming would be able to provide 148896and 155526persondays of employment per year in the two areas, respectively. The various development
programmes in the region are currently planning for a total of 5 000 families to
become involved in seaweed farming, which would translate into 765 000 days of
employment in the district (assuming 153days of employment per person per year).
More generally, it has been argued that seaweed farming could provide employment
to 200 000 families in the country, with annual earnings of about INR100 000 per
family (AFI, 2008).
Wealth and indebtedness
Housing is an important indicator of the socio-economic status of an individual,
particularly in small villages. All respondents in both areas were living in their own
houses. With regard to the housing type, the proportion of kutcha12 houses was
high in Mandapam (75 percent). The proportion of kutcha and pucca houses was
about the same (49 percent) in Rameshwaram (Table 12). Only four respondents in
Rameshwaram (twopercent of the surveyed households in the regions) were found to
reside in reinforced cement concrete houses.
Livestock husbandry is an important source of supplementary income for the
fisher households. Maintaining livestock is often seen as a symbol of prestige among
rural households. About 55 percent of respondents in Mandapam and 59 percent in
Rameshwaram maintain livestock to supplement their income and domestic needs
(Table12). The most common livestock type is poultry.
Table13 presents the average amounts of loans taken out, repaid and outstanding
for Mandapam and Rameshwaram. Households take out loans for different purposes,
including domestic activities and social obligations. Although the institutional loan
procedures are slightly more cumbersome, respondents tend to prefer institutional
loans to those provided by commercial moneylenders because the repayment process
A pucca house is one that has walls made of any of the following materials: burnt bricks, stones (packed
with lime or cement), cement concrete, timber, ekra, etc. In addition, the roof is made of tiles, galvanized
corrugated iron sheets, asbestos cement sheets, reinforced brick concrete, reinforced cement concrete,
timber, etc. In a kutcha house, the walls and/or roof are made of materials other than those mentioned
above, such as un-burnt bricks, bamboo, mud, grass, reeds, thatch, loosely packed stones.
12
178
TABLE12
Wealth status of surveyed seaweed farming households

Share of surveyed household (%)
Housing and livestock ownership
Mandapam
(N = 226)
Rameshwaram
(N = 211)
- Kutcha
75
49
- Pucca
25
49
18
Type of house
- Reinforced cement concrete

Livestock owners
- Cattle owners
- Buffalo owners
- Poultry owners
30
55
TABLE13
Level of indebtedness in the surveyed regions

Average loan taken out
per household (INR)
Average loan repaid per

household (INR)
Outstanding loan per

household (INR)
Mandapam
Institutional
Moneylenders
4350
1505
3050
1292
1300
213
Rameshwaram
Institutional
Moneylenders
8071
5089
7607
4763
464
324
is regarded as more transparent; this trend has accentuated since the advent of seaweed
farming in the region.
Income and livelihood
The income status of surveyed seaweed farmers is summarized in Table14. The results
highlight the clear potential of seaweed farming for improving the socio-economic
status of communities in both regions.
Seaweed farming appeared to provide higher income than fishing. In both regions,
most respondents income from fishing was within the range of INR10 00120 000,
while most respondents income from seaweed farming was more than INR20000.
In Rameshwaram, the income from seaweed farming was more than INR30000 for
almost half of the respondents, more than INR40000 for more than 32percent of the
respondents, and more than INR50000 for 10percent of the respondents.
As indicated in Table 15, food items accounted for more than 60 percent of the
consumption expenditure of an average household in Mandapam and Rameshwaram;
medical expenses and clothing were the other two relatively large expenditure items.
Such consumption patterns reflect the characteristic of households with relatively low
incomes.
Seaweed farming has enabled households to raise their economic status significantly,
with members of SHG families contributing substantially to total household income.
In the last five years, the surveyed households have been able to acquire electronic
appliances such as TVs, DVD players and mobile phones in addition to household
appliances such as mixers and grinders. A total of 135 respondents (60 percent)
and 141 persons (67 percent) have purchased mobile phones in Mandapam and
Rameshwaran, respectively, in the last five years.
The surveyed seaweed farmers were asked how income from seaweed farming
affected their livelihood; the answers are summarized in Table16. The results indicate
that:
179
TABLE14
Income status of surveyed seaweed farmers (N = 437)

Income levels
(INR per year)
Mandapam (N = 226)
Fishing
Seaweed farming
Fishing
Seaweed farming
Less than 10000
28
13
1000120000
69
33
57
25
2000130000
57
19
24
3000140000
17
4000150000
22
5000180000
80001100000
More than 100000
TABLE15
Consumption expenditure patterns in Mandapam and Rameshwaram

Mandapam
Rameshwaram
Item
Expenditure
(INR/year)
Food
18 525
65.19
- Fish
8030
- Meat
2568
- Oils
Expenditure
(INR/year)
Percentage of total
expenses (%)
19 819
62.79
28.26
9448
30.00
9.04
2205
6.97
2358
8.30
2704
8.55
- Other food
5569
19.60
5462
17.27
Clothing expenses
2027
7.13
3407
10.77
Children education
1210
4.26
1749
5.53
Medical expenses
4284
15.08
3668
11.60
836
2.94
851
2.69
Electricity
Fuel charges
1193
4.20
807
2.55
0.00
583
1.85
342
1.20
701
2.22
0.00
0.00
28417
100.00
31625
100.00
Recreation
Social function
Others
Total
Percentage of total
expenses (%)
TABLE16
Impacts of seaweed farming on household expenditure

Share of surveyed household (%)
Expenditure supported by income from seaweed farming
Mandapam
(N = 226)
Rameshwaram
(N = 211)
- purchase quality clothing
99
89
- engage in social and religious travelling outside the district/state
Consumption expenditure
37
25
- celebrate a marriage in the family
46
- transfer to a better educational institution
- purchase cattle/poultry
74
84
- purchase consumer durables (e.g. modern electronic appliances)
69
66
- purchase or renovate current home
68
48
Capital expenditures
- purchase agricultural land
180
Income from seaweed farming has helped most respondents improve their
clothing and enabled many of them to engage more frequently in social functions
such as social and religious travelling. Seaweed money has helped almost half of
the respondents in Rameshwaram celebrate a marriage in the family.
Income from seaweed farming has also helped most respondents purchase
household assets such as livestock and consumer durables. Most respondents have
used seaweed farming income for home purchase or renovation. About 4percent
of respondents in Rameshwaram have been able to purchase agricultural land with
their seaweed income.
Summary
The results of the survey reveal that seaweed farming has emerged as a new,
sustainable livelihood option for the fishing communities in the surveyed district.
Encouragement of seaweed aquaculture with appropriate policy, financial, technical
and institutional support can also serve to relieve pressure on overexploited fish
stocks. Dramatic structural changes in the socio-economic status of many fishers
have taken place the last ten years a number of seaweed farmers actually started as
hired labour for other farmers; however, many of them used this initial experience
to become members of an SHG. After a few production cycles, SHG members can
aspire to operate their own set of rafts and become a farmer capable of hiring labour
to look after their own plots.
Seaweed farming has major strengths but also some weaknesses. Although Tamil
Nadu is the second-most literate state in India (second only to Kerala), the expected
social transformation resulting from higher levels of education (e.g. reduction in
drinking and gambling) has yet to be reinforced, although the advent of seaweed
farming seems to have made a positive contribution in this regard. A problematic
feature of organized seaweed farming in India is that farmers are tempted to renege on
their contracts if they are offered higher prices by competing agents, possibly leading
to a chain reaction among neighbouring farmers. The established procurers have taken
steps to address this situation by offering higher prices to farmers who attain high
levels of production and ensure proper stock management.
4.
4.1 Government agencies
Government agencies have actively supported seaweed cultivation through financial
assistance and training. One of the agencies is the National Fisheries Development
Board (NFDB). The NFDB is a government agency chartered in 2006 with the specific
aim of supporting the development of the fisheries sector in India. Considering the
vast potential of seaweed cultivation and processing in India, the NFDB has developed
supporting schemes for the promotion of these activities. This support includes:
(i) training and demonstration programmes; and (ii) the establishment of seaweed
processing units. The NFDB also considers the provision of financial assistance for the
construction of seaweed processing plants.
At the state level, the TNDoF supports seaweed farming as an alternative livelihood
strategy for small-scale fishers (R.Dinakaran, personal communication, 2009). From
2007 to 2009, the TNDoF trained 1300fishers (13batches of 100members each) in
the farming of Kappaphycus. This included 200members of 40SHGs who received a
government subsidy under the Joint Liability Group scheme of the TNDoF.
4.2 Financial institutions
The State Bank of India (SBI) began to promote seaweed cultivation projects in
collaboration with the Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI) in 2006. It is estimated
that each member of participating SHGs earned more than INR5 000 a month after
repaying the monthly loan instalment to the SBI. This model represented a new
approach for funding livelihood restoration projects following the destruction caused
by the tsunami in December 2004. Almost 80percent of those involved in these SHGs
were women.
To ensure smooth implementation, farming contracts were arranged between the
SBI and PepsiCo, enabling the bank to provide credit support to the SHGs interested
in seaweed cultivation while PepsiCo agreed to procure the harvested seaweed.
The experience with SHGs has proved a major success in entrepreneurship
development and loan recovery. By 2006, the SBI had granted a total of about
INR22.6billion to more than 540000groups, 64662of which were located in Tamil
Nadu. This approach was also implemented in the livelihood restoration project
in Mandapam and extended to Tuticorin and Kanyakumari in the southern tip of
Tamil Nadu. The SBI had plans to extend the project to other states and other coastal
districts in Tamil Nadu. By March 2007, the SBI was planning to release more than
INR1.0billion in credit to support the livelihoods of more than 10000families.
Encouraged by the success of these SHGs, the District Rural Development Agency
(DRDA) began providing subsidies to selected SHGs under the Swarnjayanti Gram
Swarozgar Yojana programme, which covered 50percent of the project cost, provided
the subsidy did not exceed INR10000 per person or INR125000 per SHG, whichever
was less. Under this scheme, the Bank of Baroda financed 40 SHGs (covering
200 members) in 200809. Sporadic financing has also been provided in Thanjavur,
Tuticorin and Kanyakumari districts of Tamil Nadu by the Indian Overseas Bank and
the SBI.
Another financial institution that has provided assistance to seaweed farming is the
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). It is a refinancing
development bank with a mandate for facilitating credit flow for promotion and
development of agriculture and small-scale industries in rural areas of India. The
funds available to commercial banks, including the SBI, for lending to the agriculture
sector are normally routed through NABARD. Under this scheme, financing of SHGs
is collateral-free. Because many SHGs in the Mandapam area already had savings
accounts with their local banks, the channelling of collateral-free microcredit was
facilitated. The involvement of the banks has also assisted the SHGs with mobilization,
capacity building, training and extension of technology. Marketing arrangements were
assured through contract-farming mechanisms wherein PepsiCo agreed to procure the
harvested seaweed at a predetermined minimum price and remit the cash through the
bank accounts.
An Aquaclinic Centre (Meenvalamaiyyam) in Mandapam has been promoted
by NABARD and the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, an Indian NGO
that implements training programmes on various livelihood opportunities in fisheries
(including seaweed culture), in association with the TNDoF. Seaweed culture has been
singled out by the Government of India as one of the rural technologies deserving of
promotion (Kunnumkal and Sant, 2002).
4.3 Self-help Groups (SHGs)
An SHG is an association of rural poor who have volunteered to organize themselves
into a working group. The members of an SHG agree to save regularly and pool their
savings into a common fund (known as the group corpus) and utilize the common fund
through a common management arrangement.
At the time of writing, there were more than 110SHGs involved in seaweed farming
in Ramanathapuram District. Each group usually comprised five persons. In 200203,
the daily-wage corporate model was the prevailing production arrangement in the
region, which came to be replaced by the more successful SHG/Kudumbam (family)
model of cultivation (KMC) model.
181
182
The KMC is a farming system initially introduced by PepsiCo and then

widely adopted for Kappaphycus culture in Tamil Nadu. All seaweed farming in
Ramanathapuram District is under the KMC. Cultivation is organized by members
of an SHG who normally belong to the same family but may include other members
from the same community. Collectively, the group prepares the rafts, seeds the lines,
provides maintenance and harvests on the due date. Basic infrastructure is facilitated by
the company, the harvest is purchased on a buyback basis and payments are affected by
the company through the bank accounts of the SHG. A major advantage of the SHG/
KMC model is that fishers are given an opportunity to become entrepreneurs in an
activity with growth potential.
4.4 Research institutes and NGOs
A number of research institutes and NGOs have made substantial contributions to the
seaweed farming movement in India. Some examples are:
The Seaweed Research and Utilization Association (Mandapam), which was
established in 1970, has been engaged in seaweed-related research activities such
as organizing an annual symposium on algae-related topics, and it publishes a
journal, Seaweed Research and Utilization.
The Krishnamurthy Institute of Algology, which was established by a group
of Indian researchers who felt the need for an institution devoted to research
and development on algal studies, conducts studies on morphology, taxonomy,
life history and basic algae chemistry. It also conducts periodical seminars and
symposia on algal-related subjects and has been publishing a journal, Indian
Hydrobiology.
The Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI), an NGO based in Chennai, Tamil
Nadu, plays an active role in the promotion of seaweed farming in the southern
districts of Tamil Nadu. The AFI identifies the most suitable SHGs for further
involvement with government agencies and financial institutes. With support
from Aquagri and the government departments, the AFI also imparts training and
provides support to SHG participants for obtaining government subsidies and
financing from financial institutes. It also works in collaboration with colleges and
universities to increase the scale of seaweed farming.
5.
The adoption of the SHG model introduced by PepsiCo in 2003 has allowed Indian
farmers to circumvent many socio-economic problems that hinder development of
the seaweed sector in other developing countries. A participatory approach to culture
and management via contract farming has facilitated rapid expansion of seaweed
farming in India. Seaweed farming, an activity that began as a livelihood option,
has now led to an institutionalized socio-economic transformation of the farming
villages. The insights gained from seaweed farming development in India can be
summarized as follows.
The adequate implementation of the SHG model of production largely explains
the success of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu.
The commercial cultivation of Kappaphycus culture is perhaps the first enterprise
of its type initiated by a corporate entity in Indian agriculture.
One of the factors explaining the success of the SHG model is the consistent
support provided by the banking sector led by NABARD and other commercial
banks such as the SBI, Indian Overseas Bank, and Bank of Baroda.
The clear policy and financial support provided by the Government of India
through development agencies and research establishments has given a substantial
fillip to the sector.
The potential for expansion of operations in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat will
help consolidate the seaweed farming sector in India.
The sector has been affected by poaching; however, the extent of the practice has
been limited by the organizational structure of the SHGs.
Industrial and urban runoff is reportedly having an adverse impact on the water
quality of the grow-out sites. Improper garbage disposal in the region needs to
be halted.
Occurrence of seaweed diseases such as ice-ice and epiphytism prevalent
during the summer months needs to be studied. Preventive and/or ameliorative
measures need to be implemented.
Corporate commitment has been essential to translating the concept of seaweed
farming into tangible benefits to the farming community.
The establishment of offshore seed jetties will enable farmers to increase yields
by reducing the need to divert part of their output as cuttings for the next crop.
Better coordination between the Tamil Nadu Department of Fisheries and the
Department of Environment and Forests will allow stakeholders to conduct
activities with a greater degree of confidence and trust.
The seaweed sector in coastal India has all the potential to rise from the lowincome conditions normally associated with basic livelihood activities to higher
levels of employment, income and consumption.
Looking forward, there is an urgent need for establishing routine procedures for
the collection, compilation and publication of data on standing stocks and landings
from natural seaweed beds in India, by district and state. Entry into the Kappaphycus
farming sector in India is restricted by knowledge. Corporations need to be educated
on the immense scope in terms of returns to investment associated with seaweed
farming, considering the low levels of initial investment and the fast turnover that
can be expected given efficient human resource management. As envisaged in NAAS
(2003), a mechanism (i.e. nodal cell) for rapid clearance of new projects and discussion
of issues related to seaweed culture should be established to facilitate development
seaweed farming in India. The nodal cell could also serve as an authoritative forum for
the discussion of government orders and interdepartmental conflicts regarding seaweed
farming development in India. Finally, any ambiguities arising from the tax regime on
seaweed products in terms of excise and customs duties need to be clarified.
183
184
References
Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI). 2008. Final report of the DBT project: seaweed
farming to rehabilitate tsunami affected coastal communities in Tamil Nadu. New Delhi,
Department of Bio-technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of
India. 41pp.
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI). 2005. Marine Fisheries Census
2005. Cochin, India.
Firdausy, C. & Tisdell, C. 1991. Economic returns from seaweed (Eucheuma cottonii)
farming in Bali, Indonesia. Asian Fisheries Science, 4: 61-73.
Krishnamurthy, V., ed. 2005. Seaweeds: wonder plants of the sea. Chennai, India,
Aquaculture Foundation of India.
Kunnumkal, M.C. & Sant, B.R., eds. 2002. Directory of rural technologies: part IV.
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, India, National Institute of Rural Development. 398pp.
McHugh, D.J. 2003. A guide to the seaweed industry. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper
No.441. Rome, FAO. 105pp. (also available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y4765e/
y4765e00.pdf).
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS). 2003. Seaweed cultivation and
utilization. Policy Paper 22. New Delhi. 5 pp. (also available at www.naasindia.org/
Policy%20Papers/pp22.pdf).
Padilla, J.E. & Lampe, H.C. 1989. The economics of seaweed farming in the Philippines.
Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly, 12(3): 3-5.
Shang, Y.C. 1976. Economic aspects of Gracilaria culture in Taiwan. Aquaculture, 8: 1-7.
Tamil Nadu Department of Fisheries (TNDoF). 2009. Swarna Grammeena Rozgar
Yojana: seaweed cultivation. Chennai, India, Department of Fisheries, Government of
Tamil Nadu. 19pp.
185

Mexico
Daniel Robledo
Research Professor, Marine Resources Department

Centro de Investigacin y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politcnico Nacional
(CINVESTAV)
Mrida, Mexico
Eucario Gasca-Leyva
Research Professor, Marine Resources Department

(CINVESTAV)
Mrida, Mexico
Julia Fraga
Research Professor, Human Ecology Department

(CINVESTAV)
Mrida, Mexico
Robledo, D., Gasca-Leyva, E. & Fraga, J. 2013. Social and economic dimensions of
carrageenan seaweed farming in Mexico. In D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda & N.
Ridler, eds. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming, pp.185204.
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 580. Rome, FAO. 204 pp.
186
1.
INTRODUCTION
This paper focuses on the socio-economic analysis of the Dzilam de Bravo experience
in seaweed farming, which is, at the time of writing, the only known case in Mexico in
which coastal communities have been involved in this activity. Regarding the history
of seaweed aquaculture in Mexico, only scientific and technical information deriving
from academia is reported, as no related commercial activity has been established so
far. While seaweeds have been continuously exploited in Mexico since the 1960s, this
activity has been entirely based on the harvest of natural populations. Information
on the marine algae industry in Mexico was obtained primarily through consultation
of the grey literature and interviews with academics, consultants and government
officials.
The economic feasibility of seaweed farming was evaluated using assumptions and
data from the pilot cultivation carried out in Dzilam, taking into account selling prices
in the international market. One of the major conclusions of the study is that any
integration of seaweed growing and industrialization in Mexico would require interest
from industry and local investors, as well as government authorities, in order to boost
development of the activity.
Based on the experience in Dzilam de Bravo, various social and institutional factors
on seaweed farming in Mexico were discussed, which indicate great potential of
seaweed farming to become an integrated part of livelihood strategies for community
development.
2.
The commercial exploitation of phycocolloid-producing algae has occurred
continuously for about 50years in Mexico. However, this activity had not expanded
significantly until very recently. In the Pacific Ocean, off the coasts of Baja California,
commercial harvesting of natural populations of seaweed includes one species of
Phaeophyta, Macrocystis pyrifera, and three species of Rhodophyta: Gelidium robustum,
Chondracanthus canaliculatus and, more recently, Gracilariopsis lemaneiformis
(Robledo, 2006). A high percentage of the seaweed biomass is exported, although
efforts have focused in recent years on the use of seaweed meal or its transformation for
other markets. Therefore, seaweed exports decreased from 50000tonnes in 199293
to about 17400tonnes in 200203. Currently, only 300400tonnes of dry seaweed are
exported. This has resulted partly from a reduction in the demand for M.pyrifera as a
source for alginate, and partly from the use of the harvested biomass in the production
of fertilizers and seaweed meal in Mexico. At a global level, the M.pyrifera harvest has
fallen from 35000to 5000tonnes in the last ten years. Similarly, a reduction in the
processing of raw material from an average of 3600tonnes in the period 199196 to
an average of 750tonnes in the period 19972007 has been noted in Mexico (Figure1).
Mexico exported 439tonnes of seaweed in 2009 while imports of seaweed derivatives,
primarily phycocolloids, have been increasing. Mexico currently lacks an industry for
the extraction of phycocolloids, except for agar. This situation is reflected in the trade
statistics for carrageenan, imports of which rose three and a half times between 1990
and 2009 (Figure2). Agar imports were stable during the same period, probably owing
to the annual production of 4075tonnes of agar by Agarmex, a company based in the
Baja California peninsula that produces bacteriological and food-grade agar from an
annual harvest of 800tonnes of Gelidium robustum. With regard to carrageenan, while
Chondracanthus canaliculatus is seasonally exploited in Baja California for export
as a raw material to the United States of America and France, production volumes
are low compared with other carrageenophytes in Latin America. Although tropical
species report insufficient volumes for commercial extraction, Eucheuma isiforme has
been sporadically exploited in the Yucatan peninsula. Based on these trends and the
estimated domestic demand for carrageenan, Zertuche-Gonzlez (1996) concluded that
Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in Mexico
FIGURE1
Industrialization of seaweed in Mexico, 19912007

8
Products
(Thousands tonnes)
Raw material
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Source: INAPESCA (2010)
a carrageenan plant with a production capacity of about 400tonnes could be set up in

Mexico. The demand for carrageenan in Mexico rose steadily in the 1990s and 2000s;
by 2009, imports had reached USD33.7 million. This trade deficit has created new
opportunities for expanding the cultivation of carrageenophyte species in the country.
FAO has promoted phycocolloid production projects through the installation of
two pilot plants in Baja California, one for carrageenan production and the other for
alginate production. The latter currently extracts agar and conducts important applied
research (along with the carrageenan plant). More recently, the Mexican Secretary
of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food has supported
the installation of a pilot plant in Yucatan for the extraction of tropical-seaweed
phycocolloids. This enterprise has enabled more accurate knowledge about the farming
potential of seaweed in the region.
The significant growth of phycocolloid consumption in Mexico, especially
carrageenan, opens up an opportunity for investment projects in the country, which will
nevertheless require a thorough analysis of the economic and social aspects associated
with the farming of the species and the formulation of proposals for fulfilment of this
potential in the medium term.
Gracilaria farming has particularly thrived in Chile; some species of this seaweed
have been studied in Mexico with a view towards commercial exploitation. ZertucheGonzlez (1993) describes efforts and initiatives to grow this genus in Latin America,
and reports that a project was carried out in 1988 to assess the feasibility of intertidal
cultivation of Gracilaria pacifica (now renamed as Gracilaria vermiculophylla) in
Mexico. The research was sponsored by FAO (AQUILA project) with support from
the Secretary of Fisheries General Directorate of Aquaculture (Zertuche-Gonzlez and
Garca-Esquivel, 1989). Based on the results obtained, a private company conducted
a commercial-scale pilot to estimate production costs of a 1-ha farm. The cost per dry
tonne amounted to USD800, which meant very low profitability given the international
market price at the time (USD1000 per dry tonne). Given these results and the cheaper
supplies of this genus in Asian countries, all projects aimed at developing its cultivation
as a source of agar in Mexico were discouraged. Exploitation of natural beds in Baja
California, which had been taking place since the 1990s, was terminated for the same
reason.
The most interesting options that have emerged in the scientific and technical
literature concern the cultivation of indigenous and/or introduced species, including
187
188
FIGURE2
Mexican imports of phycocolloids, 19902009

40
Carrageenan
Agar
30
25
20
25
10
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
5
1990
(Import value (million USD)
35
YEAR
Source: SIAVI (2010).
both agarophytes and carrageenophytes. However, commercial-scale cultivation would

require a minimum annual production of 200 dry tonnes, which would necessitate
the participation of commercial investors. Mexico has proposed options such as
the farming of edible species (Godnez-Ortega et al., 2008), the use of seaweeds for
biofiltration (Robledo and Freile-Pelegrn, 2011) and the use of seaweeds as fodder for
other herbivorous marine species that are currently farmed (e.g. shrimp and abalone).
The consumption of seaweed is an age-old tradition in certain coastal communities in
Mexico. Seaweeds containing either agar or carrageenan are boiled in water to prepare
a drink that is normally served cold, or they are used for direct human consumption
(Robledo and Freile-Pelegrn, 1998).
According to McHugh (2002), the promotion of the seaweed sector in developing
countries requires organized support over a period of 35years, with the possibility of
involving the commercial sector or private-sector companies, while not ruling out the
experience obtained through local projects implemented by the academic sector. To
increase the chances of success, McHugh suggests adoption of the following measures:
Joint funding of initiatives involving international producers and importers.
International producers would usually request to be granted a degree of protection
for their investments to shield them from competition, which may be achieved if
the beneficiary country guarantees exclusive rights for initial production for a
limited period.
Initial capital grants for innovative companies in developing countries. These
grants could take the form of low-interest loans or donations, which may be
withdrawn if the company fulfils specific criteria such as reaching a specified level
of exports after a development period of from three to five years.
Support via funding and management and technical assistance to non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) such as local cooperatives and womens groups.
McHugh (2002) points out that Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela (Bolivarian
Republic of) offer the brightest prospects for the development of seaweed industries,
although market surveys and technical assistance are required. Although McHugh states
that developing countries should avoid seaweed farming for the purpose of extracting
hydrocolloids, the experiences with the processing of semi-refined carrageenan in Brazil
indicate the opposite. Therefore, regardless of the chemical process used for extraction,
the potential production of carrageenan in Mexico should not be discounted.
Mexico is the only Latin American country that has temperate, subtropical
and tropical seas. No other country in the region has such diversity in its marine
environment. A number of studies have assessed the use of native species as raw material
for obtaining agar and carrageenan (Zertuche-Gonzlez, 1988; Prez-Enrquez, 1996a;
1996b; Freile-Pelegrn and Robledo, 1997, 2006; Robledo, 1998; Ordua Rojas and
Robledo, 2002). Nevertheless, the major indigenous species do not appear in the list
of those that the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) authorizes
as raw material for the extraction of this colloid, thereby limiting the marketing of any
production to a few species. This has led to studies of introduced coldwater species
such as Chondrus crispus (Zertuche-Gonzlez et al., 2001) and warm-water species
such as Kappaphycus alvarezii (Muoz, Freile-Pelegrn and Robledo, 2004), both of
which are approved by the USFDA, and whose pilot studies have yielded promising
results. In this context, the commercial farming of the latter species in the tropical
region of the Gulf of Mexico is deemed to have the greatest potential in the country.
2.1 Start-up in Mexico
In Mexico, K. alvarezii was introduced in 1999 in order to evaluate its potential for
commercial-scale cultivation along the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico, especially in the
Yucatan peninsula. Farming of the species began in the context of experimental studies
coordinated by the Centro de Investigacin y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto
Politcnico Nacional (CINVESTAV),1 which, with federal and state government
support, established community links aimed at setting up a demonstration plot with
the assistance of 33 fishers from the community of Dzilam de Bravo. In 2002 and
2003, this community was deemed an ideal location for conducting a socio-economic
study in the context of community management of coastal resources and management
of protected natural areas, including the farming of this seaweed as an alternative to
artisanal fishing (Fraga, Arias and Angulo, 2006; Robledo and Townsend, 2006).
Research studies on seaweed farming in Mexico have primarily stemmed
from academic interest, entailing assessment of algal resources and biotechnical
experimentation aimed at their exploitation and/or cultivation. While these studies
have provided valuable information, they have not directly led to the exploitation
and industrialization of seaweed. For example, commercial seaweed farming in the
state of Yucatan has been developing for slightly more than ten years, including a
social assessment process with an artisanal fishing community in Dzilam de Bravo
on the states central seaboard. These activities were preceded by preliminary studies
conducted by CINVESTAV, which assessed various techniques for farming the red
seaweeds Gracilaria cornea and Eucheuma isiforme, producers of agar and carrageenan,
respectively. Intrigued by these experiences, and owing to the presence of researchers
in the area, the local fishers became interested in the economic potential of seaweeds.
The first contact was established in 1995 via a local resident, a ranger at the Las Bocas
de Dzilam Nature Reserve, who began assisting the prospective studies of natural
seaweed populations as a boat operator. In 1998, the initial contact person indicated
that the president of the Dzilam de Bravo fishing cooperative was interested in
developing non-conventional business activities. In the same year, together with some
members of this cooperative, CINVESTAV began the experimental farming of the
red seaweed Gracilaria cornea in an area called Mina de Oro, 4km west of the port of
Dzilam de Bravo. The location was chosen in accordance with certain ecological and
oceanographic criteria relating to the abundance of red seaweed.
Subsequently, information was generated via a project financed by the National
Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (known as CONABIO, its
acronym in Spanish) aimed at preparing a handbook entitled Technical Handbook:
1
Centre for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute.
189
190
FIGURE3
The developmental process of seaweed farming in Yucatan, Mexico

POTENTIAL
2000 - 2002
1994 -1998
STAGE I
Prospective work in
commercial species
Dzilam fishermen
(transit and
expectations)
2010
STAGE II
J
U
N
C
T
U
R
E
Experimental culture
(CONABIO)
Technoguide Marine
Agronomy of Yucatn
STAGE III
J
U
N
C
T
U
R
E
Experimental farm
2002 (SEP)
Isidoro Hurricane
Mariculture programme
(SEMARNAT) PET IDRC
Marine Agriculture in Yucatan Cultivation of Gracilaria cornea, which was

published in 1999 with financial assistance from the Ministry of the Environment,
Natural Resources and Fisheries (SEMARNAP). This publication enabled the
Yucatan office of SEMARNAP to convey its interest in seaweed farming techniques
by proposing two Temporary Employment Programmes (PET) in 2000 in two coastal
communities in Yucatan (Sisal and Dzilam de Bravo) with the goal of testing seaweed
farming as a complementary or alternative activity to fishing. These programmes
built on the results of the above-mentioned research projects. The fishing community
in Dzilam de Bravo was more receptive than the one in Sisal; as a consequence, an
experimental farm was set up in Dzilam to farm Gracilaria between November 2000
and January 2001. The harvested seaweed was sold to a European agar processing
company (Iberagar) to obtain agarose. These events led CINVESTAV researchers to
work jointly with the fishing community. Going beyond the promotion of seaweed
farming, this cooperation entailed socio-economic engagement and the creation of
links with the scientific work in order to enable improved living conditions in the
communities where the research was being carried out. These closer links generated
an interest in socio-economic research into this activity as an alternative to artisanal
fishing in this community. In December 1999, a consultant from the International
Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada visited the seaweed production
unit and supported a proposal for in-depth investigation of seaweed farming as an
alternative activity to fishing, including an assessment of the social dimensions and the
gender perspective. Financed by the Public Education Secretary (SEP), 33fishers set up
an experimental pilot farm of 3000m2 on the coast of Dzilam de Bravo in March 2002,
based on the species K. alvarezii, thereby diversifying the supply of raw material to
obtain carrageenan for industrialization in France and Denmark. However, Hurricane
Isidore lashed the coasts of the Yucatan peninsula in September 2002 and destroyed the
farm, hampering the continuity of the project.
2.2 Value chain

The Latin American seaweed industry plays an important role at a global level as about
17 percent of all seaweeds and 37 percent of red seaweeds destined to phycocolloid
production come from this region. The leading producer by far is Chile, which accounts
for 13 percent of world seaweed supplies, being the largest producer of agarophytes
(about 21 percent) and Gracilaria (50 percent). Argentina, Brazil and Mexico also
contribute significant amounts of seaweed for the production of carrageenophytes and
brown seaweed for the production of alginates (McHugh, 1996).
With regard to carrageenophytes, world production amounts to 160000tonnes of
seaweed (dry weight), from which 28000tonnes of carrageenan are obtained, valued
at USD270 million. The processing plants are located in Europe (United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Denmark, France and Spain), Asia (China,
Japan, the Philippines and the Republic of Korea), the United States of America and
Chile. There are at least 24 recognized producers of carrageenan, as well as about
10other minor producers. However, three companies account for 65percent of total
production. New applications are constantly being spawned, driving an industry
annual rate of growth of 15percent in the last 15years.
In the specific case of Kappaphycus alvarezii farming in Mexico, three companies
expressed an interest in purchasing the biomass grown by fishers on a pilot scale, and at
least two of them evaluated the cultivated material (CP Kelco and Cargill TS). Agarmex, a
Mexican subsidiary of the Spanish transnational Hispanagar, expressed interest in supporting
farming initiatives in Yucatan and purchasing the harvest in order to promote development
of the activity in the region. However, carrageenan production at the companys Mexican
plant was not considered a priority. FMC (based in the United States of America) has
mixed attitudes towards sourcing this seaweed from the Atlantic basin because of the poor
track record of introduced K. alvarezii achieving commercial production levels and the fact
that production in the native range (Indo-Pacific) meets FMCs current needs. In addition,
as an introduced species, it might create corporate image problems.
Finding investors that are willing to participate in the seaweed industry in Mexico is
problematic. More detailed studies on more productive farming techniques are needed.
Demonstration projects need to have a clear commercial orientation, investors must
be willing to take advantage of the research results, while groups of fishers need to
have a desire to develop alternative activities to fishing, overcoming their economic
dependence for the provisioning of supplies and the marketing of fishery products.
3.
PERFORMANCE
The technical and scientific literature contains very few studies regarding the
management and economics of tropical macroalgae. A study by Lee and Ang (1991)
notes that annual yields of about 45kg/m2 may be obtained from natural populations.
Productivity comparisons made between different farming methods such as bottom
monoline and floating or raft monoline reveal that, while greater biomass is obtained
with the latter, the former is more profitable (Samonte, Hurtado-Ponce and Caturao,
1993). Other studies comparing hanging long-line, fixed-off-bottom and a combination
of both methods, have demonstrated that the latter generates the highest net revenues
and returns on investment for a 60-day growing period (Hurtado et al., 2001).
In addition to the species farmed and its growth in terms of environmental variables,
any economic analysis of seaweed farm management should take into account social
aspects that affect the operation of farms. In this study, an economic analysis was
carried out to determine the viability of the off-bottom and floating-raft farming
methods, taking into account two seeding sizes (50and 100g). The effect of the selling
price of dry seaweed on the viability of the production project based on the experience
from a previous pilot farm was also examined.
191
192
3.1 Farming and post-harvest systems

The selected area was Dzilam de Bravo, located at Km 71 on the Progreso-Dzilam
de Bravo highway in the state of Yucatan, Mexico. This open-sea site is an area of
moderate currents and winds, with little influence from freshwater streams and
minimum and maximum depths of 1m and 2.5m at low and high tide, respectively. The
seabed is solid and sufficiently stable for the installation of stakes. Both the substrate
and oceanographic conditions are favourable for cultivating K. alvarezii (Muoz,
Freile-Pelegrn and Robledo, 2004).
Off-bottom system
A fixed-off-bottom system was used in Yucatan on the experimental trials and results
were extrapolated to an area of 1ha for the economic analysis (Muoz, Freile-Pelegrn
and Robledo, 2004). The modules consisted of ten 20-m lines placed at 1-m intervals.
Stakes made of local hard wood, with a length of 1.8m, were used to demarcate and
hold the ropes. The thalli, with an average initial weight of 50100g, were placed 25cm
apart, in order to obtain a density of 80plants per line. The seeds were fastened to the
ropes with plastic raffia (tie-tie) using the Philippine tying method to ensure their
free movement and growth (Figure4). The entire production area was enclosed by a
two-inch (5cm) mesh netting to reduce the incidence of epiphytism and grazing. The
lines are set up during low tides in order to keep them submerged 2530cm below the
surface.
FIGURE4
Cultivation of seaweeds using the fixed-off-bottom method
m
5
20
0.3 m
Stakes
Monofilament
1.8 m
1m
Floating system
The floating type system described by FAO (2005) was also considered for the analysis
of a 1-ha farm. The system consists of 10 20m modules, built with bamboo poles
(jimbas, which are commonly used in artisanal octopus fishing in the region) that are
placed in parallel at intervals of about 5m and tied together with polypropylene ropes
forming a rectangle. The polypropylene ropes are used as cultivation lines, 1m apart
from each other, for a total of 10lines per module. Two seed sizes (50and 100g) were
also considered for this system, placed 25cm apart from each other and with a density
of 80fragments per line. The module was anchored to the sea bed with 50-kg weights,
193
tied with polypropylene ropes at an angle of 45 to the water column. The depth of the
module is regulated via floatation buoys tied to wooden posts at the edges of the frame.
Depending on the biomass growth, additional floatation buoys are added if required
(Figure5). This keeps the cultivation module at a depth of 2530cm below the water
surface. The boat (without engines) used for seeding, maintenance and harvesting is
4m long.
FIGURE5
Cultivation of seaweeds using the floating system
20
10 m
Rope
Float
Bamboo
Anchorage (50 Kg)
Harvesting and post-harvest treatments

A culture cycle of 60 days was assumed, after which plants generally reach 1 kg of
growth or more (fresh weight), although common commercial practice entails only
30days of cultivation. Stainless knives or penknives are used for harvesting, carefully
placing the plants in plastic crates inside the boat. Seaweed is spread to dry across
15m2 wooden benches, on 2-mm-mesh PVC netting, in order to prevent sand and
soil contamination. Drying to reduce humidity by 70percent takes one or two days,
and up to three days if sunlight is absent. After drying, the seaweed is packed in jute
and/or plastic sacks for transportation in containers to ships that will take the product
to processing plants in other countries.
Capital costs
Estimating according to the market prices prevailing in Yucatan, the total investment
cost for the 1-ha off-bottom-system seaweed farm in Mexico is about USD10 459,
while 1-ha floating-type system is more costly, about USD13889 (Table1).
The farming system, which is composed of stakes, rope, weights, floats, rafts, etc.,
is the main investment cost, accounting for 73 percent of the total investment for
the off-bottom system and 80 percent for the floating system. It costs USD11 106
to build a 1-ha floating system, which is more expensive than the 1-ha off-bottom
system (USD7676). Other capital costs include investments in vehicles (mainly boats),
equipment (knifes, plastic crates, scales, etc.) and drying facilities (Table1).
194
TABLE 1
Investment requirements for 1-ha seaweed farm in Mexico

Investment cost (USD)1
Amortized annual
capital cost2
(USD/year)
Farming system
7 676
1 535
- Stakes
3 985
797
501
100
- Protective netting
3 191
638
Vehicle, equipment and facilities
2 783
557
- Boat
1 077
215
Items
Off-bottom system
- Monofilament
- Equipment for use on land
Total investment
1 706
341
10 459
2 092
Floating system
Farming system
11 106
2 221
- Polypropylene rope
1 088
218
- Flotation buoys
3 392
678
- Weights
3 047
609
- Protective netting
3 191
638
- Bamboo (jimbas)
Vehicle, equipment and facilities
388
78
2 783
557
- Boat
1 077
215
- Equipment for use on land3
1 706
341
13 889
2 778
Total investment
Converted from Mexican peso; USD1 = MXN13.

2
Depreciation calculated based on five-year straight-line method.
3
Including materials used for maintenance, harvesting and drying such as knives, plastic crates, scales and drying
facilities.
Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
1
Variable costs
The optimum temperature for growing K.alvarezii ranges from 25to 30C (Ohno,
Largo and Ikumoto, 1994). Seaweed farming in the area usually takes place between
15March to 15November with four two-month cycles, whereas the winter season is
unsuitable for the activity.2 Table2 summarizes the technical and economic assumptions
on the operation costs of seaweed farming in Mexico.
Both 50-g or 100-g seed can be used; their growth rates are assumed to be
5.6 percent (Muoz, 2003) and 5.4 percent (Batista 2009) per day, respectively.3 The
unit costs of 50-g and 100-g seeds are MXN1 (USD0.075) and MXN2 (USD0.154) per
piece,4 respectively.
When 50-g seed is used, the labour cost is about MXN25 100 (USD1 931) per
cycle, 78 percent of which is used to hire full-time employees to conduct routine
maintenance and care, 19 percent for harvesting and drying, and 3 percent for
seeding. For 100-g seed, the labour cost is about MXN29900 (USD2300) per cycle,
In winter (DecemberFebruary), the water temperature in Yucatan falls to 21 C, the turbidity of the
water reduces light penetration, and the currents bring debris to the coastal area. Storms are another
factor hindering seaweed farming in this season.
The growth rate of 100-g seed reported for Panama (Batista, 2009) was used as a proxy as the farming
environment in Panama is similar to that in Yucatan.
The cost of 50-g and 100-g seeds was calculated on the basis of current costs at the CINVESTAV
phycology laboratory.
65percent for maintenance and care, 32percent for harvest and drying, and 3percent
for seeding.
The rental cost for an onshore property to accommodate general services (e.g. drying
and storage of equipment and materials) during the operation is about MXN42 000
(USD3 231) per year. The marketing cost for packing and shipping the products is
about MXN1787 (USD137) per tonne.
Assuming 4production cycles per year and 22400units of seeds per each cycle, then
the initial seed biomass would be 4480kg per year for 50-g seeds and 8960kg for 100-g
seeds, which would result in 27tonnes and 54tonnes of dried seaweed production per
year, respectively.
Assuming a price of USD1 000/tonne (MXN13 000/tonne) of dry seaweed, the
revenue, cost and profit situations of different farming systems are analysed and
summarized in Table3.5 The results indicate that:
Both the off-bottom system and floating system would generate profits. For the
same seed mass, the profit margin of the off-bottom system is higher than that of
the floating system. For the same farming system, the profit margin of using 100-g
seeds is higher than that of using 50-g seeds.
The off-bottom system appears to have a higher profit than the floating system.
This is because of its relatively low initial capital investment,6 while other costs are
assumed to be the same for the two systems.
Use of 100-g seeds appears to be more profitable under both systems. This is
because growing 100-g seeds would generate almost twice as much biomass as
growing 50-g seeds; and the higher revenues would more than compensate for
the higher costs in terms of materials, labour and marketing. Indeed, although the
biomass produced with 100-g seed is only two-times that of 50-g seeds; the profit
is almost 6 times under the off-bottom system and 7 times under the floating
system because of economies of scale in labour and capital costs.
Under the off-bottom system, the internal rates of return (IRRs) are 40 and
189percent for 50-g and 100-g seeds, respectively. Under the floating system, the
IRRs are 25and 141percent for 50-g and 100-g seeds, respectively.
With 50-g seeds, it takes 2.0 years to recover the initial investment in the offbottom system and 2.7 years for the floating system. With 100-g seeds, the
payback periods are 0.5 and 0.7 years for the off-bottom and floating systems,
respectively.
The analysis was carried out using experimental results from the cultivation trials conducted by the
CINVESTAV/Merida Unit on the Yucatan coast (Muoz, 2003; Muoz, Freile-Pelegrn and Robledo,
2004). The results were extrapolated to commercial scale (FAO, 2005). The analysis of costs and benefits
was carried out in accordance with the economic theory of natural resources (Shang, 1990; Romero,
1994) while cost and investment assumptions were based on prices prevailing in the domestic market
(Mexico).

The profitability indicators net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) were used
according to the formula:
n
Cash flowsi
NPV =
Initial investment
i =1 1 + discount rate i
where n is the projects life in years. The discount rate was assumed to be 6 percent according to the
interest rates paid by the Federal Treasury Certificates (CETES) at 28 days, plus approximately 1.5
points. CETES are negotiable instruments issued and settled by the Government of Mexico on maturity.
The investment costs of the off-bottom cultivation system are 25percent lower than that of floating rafts,
primarily because of the weights and floats required by the latter system (Table1).
195
196
TABLE2
Technical and economic assumptions on seaweed farming in Mexico

Parameter
Value
Unit of measurement
Technical parameters
Growth of 50-g seed
5.6
%/day
Growth of 100-g seed
5.4
%/day
Crop cycle
Annual cycles
Initial seeds
Loss or mortality
60
Days/cycle
Cycles/annum
22 400
10
Units/cycle
%/cycle
Cost
Material cost
- 50-g seed
MXN/unit
- 100-g seed
MXN/unit
Labour cost
- Seeding
- Harvesting and drying 50-g seed
- Harvesting and drying 100-g seed
800
MXN/cycle
4 800
MXN/cycle
9 600
MXN/cycle
- Maintenance and care
19 500
MXN/cycle
Rental of onshore property
42 000
MXN/annum
Price of dry seaweed
13
MXN/drykg
Annual discount rate
Price parameters
Note: MXN13 = USD1.

1
Muoz (2003).
2
Batista (2009).
The profitability analysis in Table 3 is under the assumption of seaweed price at

MXN13000 (USD1000). However, in reality, prices for cottonii seaweed vary greatly
over time, depending on supply and demand conditions, and are highly influenced by
the target market (American, European, Asian, etc.) and socio-economic aspects of the
countries where it is grown and processed. The price of K.alvarezii currently ranges
from MXN7800 to 18200/dry tonne (USD6001400) in European and Asian markets
(I.Neish, personal communication).
Break-even prices of K.alvarezii are calculated based on the production and costs
specified in Table 3, which indicate that seaweed farming would be unprofitable at
the lower bound price (USD600) for both systems. However, if 100-g seeds are used,
seaweed farming would be profitable under both systems at prices above USD700. The
break-even prices for 50-g off-bottom and floating systems are USD886 and USD911,
respectively (Table3).
As mentioned above, experimental seaweed farming has been tried in Dzilam de Bravo,
a large fishing community along the Yucatan coast.7 However, the experimental pilot
farm (composed of 33fishers) was destroyed by Hurricane Isidore six months after its
establishment in 2002.
In outlining the process of experimental seaweed farming, two important phases (occurring in 1988
and 20002002) may be identified. Both phases were led by CINVESTAVs Merida Unit, especially the
research team of the Department of Applied Phycology and Marine Phycochemistry (Robledo, 1998;
2006).
197
TABLE3
Revenue, cost and profit of seaweed farming in Mexico

Revenue, cost and profit (USD/year)
Off-bottom system (1 ha)
Floating system (1 ha)
50 g seed
100 g seed
50 g seed
4 480
8 960
4 480
8 960
27
54
27
54
Sales revenue (1)
26 998
53 779
26 998
53 779
Total cost (2)
23 921
35 972
24 607
36 658
Initial seed biomass (kg/year)

Dry seaweed at harvest (tonne/year)
100 g seed
- Marketing costs (3)
3 712
7 394
3 712
7 394
- Production cost (4)
20 210
28 579
20 895
29 264
- Material cost (5)
7 164
14 056
7 164
14 056
Cost of seeds
6 892
13 785
6 892
13 785
Cost of raffia and strings

- Labour cost (6)
Seeding
Maintenance and care
Harvesting/drying
271
271
271
271
7 723
9 200
7 723
9 200
246
246
246
246
6 000
6 000
6 000
6 000
1 477
2 954
1 477
2 954
5 323
5 323
6 008
6 008
Depreciation
2 092
2 092
2 778
2 778
Property rental
3 231
3 231
3 231
3 231
Marketing in total cost (%)
16
21
15
20
Production in total cost (%)
84
79
85
80
Material in production cost (%)
35
49
34
48
- Seed in production cost (%)
34
48
33
47
Labour in production cost (%)
38
32
37
31
- Maintenance in production cost (%)
30
21
29
21
- Capital and rental cost (7)
Cost structure
Capital & rental in production cost (%)

Net profit (8)
Profit margin (%) (9)
NPV (5 years; 6% discount rate) (USD)
IRR (5 years) (%)
Payback period (years)
Break-even price (USD/tonne)
26
19
29
21
3 077
17 806
2 391
17 120
11
33
32
11 318
73 359
7 884
69 929
40
189
25
141
2.0
886
0.5
669
2.7
911
0.7
682
Notes: MXN13 = USD1. Price of dry seaweed = USD1000/tonne. (2) = (3) + (4). (4) = (5) + (6) + (7). (8) = (1) - (2) (9) = (8)/
(1)*100. NPV = net present value. IRR = internal rate of return. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Lack of substantial development of seaweed farming in Mexico makes it difficult

to make a quantitative evaluation of its social performance. Based on the limited
experience in Dzilam de Bravo, some insights on the social dimensions of seaweed
farming in Mexico are discussed below and summarized in Table4.
Given fishers declining revenues and the vulnerability associated with seasonality
and weather events along the Yucatan coast and Dzilam de Bravo in particular, a core
group of pioneering fishers and farmers is genuinely interested in resuming seaweed
farming despite being fully aware of the obstacles to be faced, primarily with regard to
organizational and marketplace issues. In addition to the core group, other individuals
in the community are also interested in taking up seaweed farming. The pioneer group
is also willing to transfer technology expertise to other communities, primarily in San
Felipe, a port located 70km away.
198
TABLE 4
SWOT analysis for seaweed farming in Dzilam de Bravo, Yucatn, Mexico

Strengths
Weaknesses
Willingness to put knowledge acquired in farming into

practice.
Proud to hear that Dzilam people are the pioneers of
seaweed farming in the entire Yucatan peninsula.
Organizational feasibility.
Comprehensive cooperative including 30people
(fishing, handicrafts, tourism, aquaculture) soon to be
legally registered.
Positive attitude towards risk.
Previous training in experimental farming.
Access to habitats.
Engagement in economic activities not dependent on
the overexploited fishing resource.
Willingness to transfer know-how and experience in
seaweed farming technology to other ports.
Social network (inclusion of families and friends)
promoted by the new cooperative, which will enable
stronger alliances and solidarity.
A new alliance (association) between fishers and
tourism providers has emerged.
Risks associated with climate change (more frequent

red tides, hurricanes, murky waters, etc.).
The notion of immediate profit in connection with any
complementary or alternative activity to fishing.
The impossibility of preventing the effects of
nortes storms on seaweed farms.
Lack of training in marketing.
Unavailability of information regarding the potential of
seaweed farming at a world level.
Move seaweed farming beyond temporary
employment programmes (manage it as a business
activity rather than a pilot project).
Weariness caused by the excessive number of
experimental projects.
Opportunities
Threats (limitations)
The new group wishes to become a comprehensive

cooperative.
Federal and state governments have sufficient
resources to fund agricultural projects or activities.
Harvest seaweed plots before the nortes storm
season.
Rely on legal forms of land management (UMAs?)
Job creation.
Access to a biotechnological adviser.
Seaweed farming as an activity complementary to
tourism.
May be alternated with fishing.
More organized division of labour.
Community members have the expertise to revive
seaweed farming.
The new comprehensive cooperative group is more
inclusive because it covers a range of activities, unlike
the fishing cooperative.
The envy of fishers who do not take part in the

farming activities.
The arrival of PEMEX, which would displace fishing.
The temporality of the projects (short-term).
Lack of ownership of the farmed land.
Lack of access to technologies that enable
conservation and preservation of the harvested
product (e.g. protection of crops during the nortes
storm season).
Fishing is declining.
Seaweed farming has elicited interest from the outset, despite having been
introduced as an experimental project. It was taken up as a novelty and put forward
by external groups as a viable alternative means of employment. The benefits of
accessing new markets through different commercial channels (food, beauty products,
pharmaceuticals, etc.) were also emphasized (Novaczek et al., 2001). The seaweed
farming proposal emerged from the linkage between academia, the government (via
the PET programme) and a group from the local fishing cooperative interested in
undertaking employment that offered an alternative to the seasonality and the crisiswracked artisanal fishing sector.
Fishers recognize that there are possibilities as long as money is still available to
fund the plots (fisher interviewed in February 2010). Working at the family level may
prove to be advantageous as alternative arrangements have led to disputes. Leadership
is vital in this respect, which should be in the hands of men rather than women (women
concurred on this point). The fishers interviewed are aware that the pilot project was
more dynamic and successful in biotechnological rather than social and entrepreneurial
terms. Therefore, a conclusion is that the pilot project was introduced prematurely
without a solid social platform to enable better integration.
The manifest disengagement of the productive sectors and the ways in which
government and civil society institutions operate reflect a paternalistic culture for
project implementation (L. Durand, personal communication). Regardless of these
problems, seaweed farming emerges as a strategic activity for coastal populations
whose livelihood strategies have increasingly run into difficulties owing to precarious
employment, low prices for fishery products, coastal land speculation, local regulatory
measures and marine and fishing legislation in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean
Sea.
No activity enables members of the community to generate sufficient income to
meet their basic needs completely. The community then resorts to a wide range of
alternatives, of which the most important are federal and state government subsidies
(temporary employment programmes). An interviewee made this comment: As there
is not much work to do here, the governor brought along a reef project.8 This was
facilitated by a fishers son from the port who studies at CINVESTAV, and previously
studied in France. But because at CINVESTAV they are not free to do certain things
they wanted to hem him in he went to the Autonomous University of Yucatan, and
together with another scientist set up the reef project. There are also state government
projects with SEDUMA which promoted seaweed collection and beach cleaning
a group of women do that. And for one month (15 February to 15 March) fishers
receive provisions and 300pesos a week to compensate for the grouper close season
(fisher and former seaweed farmer, February 2010). According to those interviewed
in February 2010, tourism has little positive impact because ...there are no beaches.
Tourists only come and have a look at the scenery. So it would be a good idea for
women to manufacture and sell seaweed-based products to the tourists. Nevertheless,
there are not many of them yet, and the most attractive inlets in Dzilam are a long way
from town (an hour in a 24-foot boat).
Regarding funding, the communities are aware of the scarcity of financial resources.
The funding mechanisms provided by government authorities to the community of
Dzilam de Bravo in support of the development of its productive activities are for a
very short period and for not much money. Besides, they are allocated only to four
or five families and the remaining 3000inhabitants are excluded (fisher and former
seaweed farmer, 2010).
Alternatives should also be sought in order to incorporate important sectors of the
population within productive activities such as older people and especially women who,
while still looking after their families, are interested in self-employment opportunities
to supplement household income. It is essential not to lose sight of the fact that these
participatory planning processes need to develop gradually.
There is mistrust and a lack of credibility regarding external institutions that
promise change through poverty-reduction programmes. Lack of confidence and trust
among people was noted.9
4.
THE WAY FORWARD
The methods currently used to grow K.alvarezii and other similar marine algae that
contain carrageenan were developed 30years ago in the south of the Philippines. While
they require modest capital investment, they are labour-intensive and have a low level
of profitability. Therefore, their use is only attractive in relatively poor areas that
lack alternative economic opportunities. In many areas of Latin America, including
Mexico, more productive farming techniques are needed. No significant progress
has been made in this regard at the time of writing, although implementation of new
systems using plastic net tubes to reduce seeding and harvesting times has produced
excellent results in Brazil (R.Reis, personal communication) compared with the system
8
This reef project proposed the deployment of artificial reef balls along the coast of Dzilam to improve
habitat for fisheries recruitment.
A recent assessment undertaken by the Mexican Council for Sustainable Rural Development found that
the greatest problem in Dzilam is the lack of organization in the community, which hampers the access
to more profitable markets. The assessment pointed out that new leadership that truly represents the
interests of the community is required.
199
200
using polypropylene ropes. The new system could be implemented especially during
Yucatans poor weather season, from December to March.
Unlike other Latin American countries such as Brazil, to date there have been no
official initiatives to promote seaweed farming in Mexico.10 While initial investment
and operating costs are higher for seaweed farming as compared with wild harvests,
farming guarantees more stable and better-quality production in the long term.
Companies that buy seaweed constantly complain about unstable production levels
and seaweed quality. As with any agricultural activity, selection of strains is perhaps
one of the aspects of greatest importance to the industry. Commercially relevant
characteristics such as rapid growth, high yield and resistance to adverse conditions
need to be investigated continuously. In accordance with the opinion of regional
experts, biotechnological development could lead to a significant improvement in
aspects such as resistance to epiphytism, increased quality of gels, and availability of
improved seed (Baweja et al., 2009; Hayashi et al., 2010).
Techniques have been successfully tested in the region on different variants suited
to various types of environment. However, practical experience on an adequate scale
to establish the costs and activities of the operation is also of paramount importance.
A promotion programme should ideally include demonstration commercial pilot
farms (at least 1 ha) where technical training may be given in situ. Moreover, these
farms should conduct programmes to develop new techniques that improve technical
and engineering aspects (e.g. the testing of new materials or seeding and harvesting
machinery) as well as the biological performance of the culture systems (e.g. the testing
of new genetically improved strains).
In terms of sociodemographic processes, coastal populations in Mexico remain
highly dynamic. Emigration and immigration are part of the labour mobility process
in artisanal fishing, which continues to be a livelihood strategy platform for thousands
of people in Mexico. In the case of Dzilam de Bravo, diversification of activities is
urgently needed because of the highly seasonal nature of the labour market and the
frequency of meteorological phenomena such as hurricanes and red tides (harmful algal
blooms).11
Although the community receives substantial federal and state government
subsidies and benefits from Global Environment Facility (GEF) programmes such as
the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, it is crucial to inject more financial resources
in Dzilam de Bravo in order to set up farm plots for red seaweed.
However, this injection of funds should be subject to two fundamental conditions.
The first is to conduct multidisciplinary studies from an institutional perspective in
order to enable discussion among social science specialists, primarily social economists,
economic anthropologists and cultural ecologists. The multidisciplinary studies
should also establish links between research teams and fishers and fisher farmers from
within and beyond the community in order to acquire an in-depth knowledge of the
livelihood strategies of coastal populations.12 Participatory methodologies can be used
to increase trust between fishers and researchers in order to pursue common goals,
In the Latin America and Caribbean region, successful experiments have been carried out in Saint
Lucia and Brazil aimed at producing seaweed for human consumption and carrageenan production,
respectively.
10
A focus group In Dzilam de Bravo that might take up seaweed farming consists of lobster divers who
have endured episodes of decompression and are still suffering from the after-effects of this illness
(mainly joint pains). Of the 60lobster divers in Dzilam, all except one have suffered from decompression
sickness more than four or five times during their working lives (reported by a local fisher, March 2010).
11
The model suggested by Novaczek et al. (2001) may be used to facilitate the process.
12
such as the building of local capacities.13 Funding should also be provided to facilitate
dissemination of information. This democratization of information can start in the
community of Dzilam de Bravo and embark on the culture of seaweed at a commercial
scale in cooperation with groups from other places with similar farming interests.14
The second condition is to operate a plot beyond the experimental phase, i.e. test its
commercial feasibility with a view to granting access to two identified and potentially
successful community groups: fisher farmers with previous experience on working
the land (former maize farmers) and traditional fishers (such as the pioneer seaweed
farming group during the pilot phase), including young people who are settled in the
port and wish to be entrepreneurs and innovators in business activities. In Dzilam de
Bravo, there is the opportunity to reintroduce demonstration plots, which, combined
with tourism, may generate income for a portion of the local population. As an
employment strategy during the low fishing season, community members have also the
opportunity to become trainers for other fishing ports. This could reduce tension among
fishers from different groups. It is also possible to create a prototype small-family or
extended-family company that serves as a business model for other farmers. This could
enhance the interest and trust of other local groups. A commercial association between
the prototype group and private fishery agents can also be considered, inasmuch as it
generates new employment and tourism opportunities.
For example, multidisciplinary studies can provide useful background information to help NGOs or
other institutions to conduct training courses and workshops that are more connected to the goals
pursued by institutions.
13
Apart from the port of San Felipe, at least one other community, the community of Islas Arenas in
Campeche, is highly likely to undertake successful projects.
14
201
202
References
Batista, G.E. 2009. Cultivo ecosostenible de Kappaphycus alvarezii en Panam. University
of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. (PhD thesis).
Baweja, P., Sahoo, D., Garca-Jimnez, P. & Robaina, R.R. 2009. Seaweed tissue culture as
applied to biotechnology: problems, achievements and prospects. Phycological Research,
57(1): 4558.
FAO. 20052010. Cultured aquatic species information programme. Eucheuma spp.
Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Text by G.C. Trono Jr. In: FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 13 January 2005. [Cited
12February 2010]. www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Eucheuma_spp/en.
Fraga, J., Arias, Y. & Angulo, J. 2006. Communities and stakeholders in marine protected
areas of Mexico, Dominican Republic and Cuba. In Y. Breton, D. Brown, B. Davy, M.
Haughton & L. Ovares, eds. Coastal resource management in the wider Caribbean:
resilience, adaptation, and community diversity, pp. 105136. Kingston, Ian Randle/
IDRC. 265pp.
Freile-Pelegrn, Y. & Robledo, D. 1997. Effects of season on the agar content and chemical
characteristics of Gracilaria cornea from Yucatan, Mexico. Botanica Marina, 40: 285290.
Freile-Pelegrn, Y. & Robledo, D. 2006. Carrageenan of Eucheuma isiforme (Solieriaceae,
Rhodophyta) from Yucatan, Mexico. II. Seasonal variations in carrageenan and
biochemical characteristics. Botanica Marina, 49: 7278.
Godnez-Ortega, J.L., Snoeijs, P., Robledo, D., Freile-Pelegrn, Y. & Pedersen, M. 2008.
Growth and pigment composition in the sublittoral red alga Halymenia floresii under
different light qualities. Journal of Applied Phycology, 20(3): 253260.
Hayashi, L., Hurtado, A.Q., Msuya, F.E., Bleicher-Lhonneur, G. & Critchley, A.T. 2010.
A review of Kappaphycus farming: prospects and constraints. In A. Israel, R. Einav & J.
Seckback, eds. Seaweeds and their role in globally changing environments, pp.251284.
London, Springer. 480pp.
Hurtado, A.Q., Agbayani, R.F., Sanares, R. & de Castro-Mallare, M.T.R. 2001. The
INAPESCA 2010. Carta Nacional Pesquera, Instituto Nacional de Pesca, Secretara de
Agricultura, Ganadera, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentacin, pp. 33-34. Diario
Oficial de la Federacin, Mxico. 95 pp.
Lee, S.C. & Ang, Jr, P. 1991. A simple model for seaweed growth and optimal harvesting
strategy. Ecological Modelling, 55: 6774.
McHugh, D.J. 1996. Seaweed production and markets. FAO/GLOBEFISH Research
Programme Vol.48. Rome, FAO. 73pp.
McHugh, D.J. 2002. Prospects for seaweed production in developing countries. FAO
Fisheries Technical Circular. No. 968. Rome, FAO. 28pp.
Muoz, J. 2003. Maricultivo del alga roja productora de carragenina Kappaphycus alvarezii
(Doty) Doty ex Silva en Dzilam de Bravo, Yucatn. Autonomous University of Baja
California Sur, Mexico. (BSc thesis) (also available at http://biblio.uabcs.mx/tesis/te1405.pdf).
Muoz, J., Freile-Pelegrn, Y. & Robledo, D. 2004. Mariculture of Kappaphycus
alvarezii (Rhodophyta, Solieriaceae) color strains in tropical waters of Yucatan, Mexico.
Aquaculture, 239: 161177.
Novaczek, I., Harkes, I.H.T., Sopacua, J. & Tatuhey, M.D.D. 2001. An institutional
analysis of sasi laut in Maluku, Indonesia. The World Fish Center Working Papers
No.14142. Kuala Lumpur.
Ohno, M., Largo, D.B. & Ikumoto, T. 1994. Growth rate, carrageenan yield and gel
properties of culture kappa-carrageenan producing red alga Kappaphycus alvarezii
(Doty) Doty in the subtropical waters of Shikoku, Japan. Journal of Applied Phycology,
6: 15.
Ordua-Rojas, J. & Robledo, D. 2002. Studies on the tropical agarophyte Gracilaria
cornea J. Agardh (Rhodophyta, Gracilariales) from Yucatan, Mexico. II. Biomass
assessment and reproductive phenology. Botanica Marina, 45: 459464.
Prez-Enrquez, R. 1996a. Summer biomass density and weight assessment of the red
seaweed Eucheuma isiforme (Rhodophyta, Gigartinales) at Dzilam, Yucatan State,
Mexico. Botanica Marina, 39: 251253.
Prez-Enrquez, R. 1996b. Growth of Eucheuma isiforme (C. Agardh) J. Agardh on
experimental rafts off the coast of Yucatan State, Mexico. Journal of Applied Phycology,
8: 2728.
Robledo, D. 1998. Seaweed resources of Mexico. In A.T. Critchley & M. Ohno, eds.
Seaweed resources of the world, pp.331342. Tokyo, Japanese International Cooperation
Agency.
Robledo, D. 2006. Seaweed resources of Mexico. In A.T. Critchley, M. Ohno & D.B.
Largo, eds. World seaweed resources: an authoritative reference system. Amsterdam,
Netherlands, ETI BioInformatics.
Robledo, D. & Freile-Pelegrn, Y. 1998. Macroflora marina de inters econmico de las
costas de Yucatn. In H. Bentez, E.Vega, A. Pea & S. vila, eds. Aspectos econmicos
sobre la biodiversidad de Mxico, pp. 167179. Mexico, CONABIO SEMARNAP.
203pp.
Robledo D. & Freile-Pelegrn, Y. 2011. Managing the interactions between plants and
animals in marine multi-trophic aquaculture: integrated shrimp and valuable low food
chain organisms with seaweeds. In J. Seckbach & Z. Dubinsky, eds. All flesh is grass:
plant-animal interrelationships, pp.367384. London, Springer. 531pp.
Robledo, D. & Townsend, W. 2006. Seaweeds and mangroves: improving environmental
practices in coastal communities of Mexico and Jamaica. In Y. Breton, D. Brown, B.
Davy, M. Haughton & L. Ovares, eds. Coastal resource management in the wider
Caribbean: resilience, adaptation, and community diversity, pp.172190. Kingston, Ian
Randle/IDRC. 265pp.
Romero, C. 1994. Economa de los recursos ambientales y naturales. Madrid, Alianza
Editorial. 189 pp.
Samonte G.P.B., Hurtado-Ponce, A.Q. & Caturao, D.R. 1993. Economic analysis of
bottom line and raft monoline culture of Kappaphycus alvarezii var. tambalang in
Western Visayas, Philippines. Aquaculture, 110: 111.
Shang, Y.C. 1990. Aquaculture economic analysis: an introduction. Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
USA, The World Aquaculture Society. 211 pp.
SIAVI. 2010. Sistema de informacin arancelaria va Internet. Mxico, Secretara de
Economa, Gobierno de Mxico. (also available at www.economia-snci.gob.mx:8080/
siaviWeb/siaviMain.jsp).
Zertuche-Gonzlez, J.A. 1988. In situ life history, growth and carrageenan characteristics
of Eucheuma uncinatum (Setchell and Gardner) Dawson from the Gulf of California.
Stony Brook, USA, State University of New York. (PhD thesis).
Zertuche-Gonzlez, J.A., ed. 1993. Situacin actual de la industria de macroalgas
productoras de ficocoloides en Amrica Latina y el Caribe. Programa Cooperativo
Gubernamental FAO-Italia GCP/RLA/102/ITA. Proyecto Aquila II, Documento
de Campo N 13. Mxico. (also available at www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AB483S/
AB483S00.htm#TOC).
Zertuche-Gonzlez, J.A. 1996. Feasibility for establishing a carrageenan industry in
Mexico. Hydrobiologia, 326/327: 381386.
203
204
Zertuche-Gonzlez, J.A. & Garca-Esquivel, J. 1989. Promocin del cultivo de Gracilaria

sp. Proyecto FAO-AQUILA, GCP/RLA/075/ITA. Rome, FAO. 35pp.
Zertuche-Gonzlez, J.A., Garca-Lepe, G., Pacheco-Ruz, I., Chee, A., Gendrop, V. &
Guzmn, J.M. 2001. Open water Chondrus crispus Stackhouse cultivation. Journal of
Applied Phycology, 13: 249-253.
Carrageenan is a gelling agent extracted from red seaweeds and it has multiple applications
in the food processing and other industries. Increasing demand for carrageenan has led to
rapid expansion of carrageenan seaweed (primarily Kappaphycus and Eucheuma) farming in
tropical areas. This expansion is expected to continue, but many issues need to be addressed
to enable the sector to develop its full potential in contributing towards sustainable
livelihoods, human development and social well-being. Including six country case studies and
a global synthesis, this document provides a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the
economic, social and governance dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming. Information
and insights provided by this document should facilitate evidence-based decision-makings in
both the public and private sectors.
ISBN 978-92-5-107746-7 ISSN 2070-7010
7 8 9 2 5 1
0 7 7 4 6 7
I3344E/1/06.13

Karargenan PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Karargenan PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Karargenan PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

580

Social and economic

Copies of FAO publications can be requested from:

Social and economic

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this

Preparation of this document

2. Carrageenan seaweed production and value chain

3. Economic performance of carrageenan seaweed farming

4. Social performance of carrageenan seaweed farming

5. Governance and institutions

The private sector

6. Lesson learned and the way forward

Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming

2. Carrageenan seaweed production and value chain

Production and trade

3. Carrageenan seaweed farming: economic and social performance

4. Governance and institutions

Government, regulations and standards

5. Challenges and the way forward

Issues perceived by farmers

Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed

2. Carrageenan seaweed production and value chain

3. Carrageenan seaweed farming: Economic and social performance

Business structure and farming system

4. Governance and institutions

Government and international agencies

5. Challenges and the way forward

Trade and marketing

Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed

2. Carrageenan seaweed production and value chain

3. Carrageenan seaweed farming: economic and social performance

4. Governance and institutions

4.1 Legal and institutional framework

5. Challenges and the way forward

Issues and challenges

Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming

2. Carrageenan seaweed production and value chain

3. Carrageenan seaweed farming: economic and social performance

4. Governance and institutions

5. Challenges and the way forward

Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming

2. Carrageenan seaweed production and value chain

3. Carrageenan seaweed farming: economic and social performance

4. Governance and institutions

5. Challenges and the way forward

Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed

2. Carrageenan seaweed production and value chain

3. Carrageenan seaweed farming: economic and social performance

Farming and post-harvest systems

Abbreviations and acronyms

Agricultural Cooperative Development International/

Certificados de la Tesorera de la Federacin (Mexico)

Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust (India)

Local Government Units (Philippines)

Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and

Small-holder Empowerment and Economic Growth through

Village Corporate Banks (United Republic of Tanzania)

Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming