Consultation on Social Feasibility of Coastal Aquaculture Madras, India 26 November - 01 December, 1984 – BOBP/MIS/02

Miscellaneous Publications - BOBP/MIS/2

Consultation on Social Feasibility of Coastal Aquaculture
Madras, India 26 November - 01 December, 1984

by
Rathindra Nath Roy
Secretary
Consultation on Social Feasibility of Coastal Aquaculture

Executing Agency: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Funding Agency: SWEDISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Development of Small-Scale Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Madras, India, November 1985

Table of Contents

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to the Chief, Publishing and Multimedia Service, Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by email to [email protected]

© FAO 2004

SUMMARY

Various ideas, methods, strategies and questions concerning social feasibility, discussed at the consultation, are listed below.

Development agencies can choose from this list, those ideas and strategies that are appropriate from the stand point of their policies, the countries they operate in, the projects they are concerned with, and the communities they cater to.

1. When is a project socially feasible?
2. Coastal aquaculture for whom?
3. Technologies should be evolved only after target groups are identified.
4. Questions to be asked before deciding on the technology and process of extension.
5. The need for a mediating agency to take part in project negotiations of behalf of target populations.
6. Development agencies should reorder their organizational structure.
7. Instruments should be developed to implement the social feasibility approach.
8. Social feasibility is a contradiction in terms. (Dissenting view)

Download full ZIP file (992 kb)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOBP/MIS/2pdf


SUMMARYpdf
REPORT OF THE CONSULTATIONpdf

- BACKGROUND

APPENDICESpdf

1. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
2. PROGRAMME
3. KEYNOTE ADDRESS : SOCIAL FEASIBILITY OF COASTAL AQUACULTURE: PACKAGED TECHNOLOGY FROM ABOVE OR PARTICIPATORY RURAL DEVELOPMENT? By IAN R. SMITH
4. A NOTE ON THE CASE METHOD
5. CASE STUDY : PLANNING FOR EXTENSION OF SHRIMP PEN CULTURE IN KILLAI: A CASE STUDY by RATHINDRANATH ROY
6. CASE STUDY ON SHRIMP CULTURE IN SATKHIRA, BANGLADESH
7. CASE STUDY ON CONFINED TANK SHRIMP CULTURE IN CHILKA LAKE, ORISSA, INDIA
8. CASE STUDY ON EXTENSION OF CAGE AND SHELLFISH CULTURE IN PHANG NGA, THAILAND
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SOCIO-CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF TROPICAL AQUACULTURE AND SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES


PUBLICATIONS OF THE BAY OF BENGAL PROGRAMME