Valuing the Complementarity in Rice-Fish Integrated Farming: The Case of Pokkali Ecosystem

Abstract

Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) are known for their mutually complementary relations. The coastal saline ecosystem along the Ernakulam, Alappuzha and Thrissur districts of Kerala, referred to as Pokkali lands, follow the traditional practice of integrating paddy and fish/prawn farming. Despite the ecological resilience and economic viability, IFS in Pokkali ecosystem has experienced a significant decline in recent decades, shifting to monoculture practices of aquaculture. In this background, the study was conducted with the main objectives of understanding the dynamics of rice-fish rotational system and assessing the relative economics, estimating the economic value of complementarity between the systems based on empirical analysis, estimating the value based on stakeholder knowledge, and effecting the comparison between the two estimates. The study was conducted in Ernakulam district, which holds the largest share (64%) of Pokkali lands focussing on five prevalent farming systems: Rice–Prawn IFS, Rice–Fish IFS, Prawn monoculture, Fish monoculture, and fallowing. Multistage sampling method, was adopted with district, block panchayat (BP) and grama panchayat (GP) as the respective stages of selection. The BP and GP with highest area under respective farming practice were purposively selected, while the sample respondents were chosen on random basis. The total sample size was 250 farmers (random sample of 50 from each system) and 120 other stakeholders, which include officers of agriculture department as well as fisheries department, farm labourers, and general public, working/residing in the locality. Data was gathered from the respondents through personal interview method employing structured pre-tested interview schedule. Soil samples were also collected from the selected farms following IFS system, before and after the rice crop and were analysed in soil testing laboratory under KAU. Analytical tools employed include partial budgeting to assess the relative economics of various systems, productivity change method for capturing the positive externality due to complementarity in IFS, and contingent valuation method. The Pokkali ecosystem in Kerala, a unique agro-ecological unit, has witnessed significant decline over the past two decades. Though official data is not published, informal reports show Pokkali paddy cultivation area shrinking from about 25,000 hectares in the 1980s to merely 5,707 hectares by 2021, driven by low rice profitability, rising wages, labour scarcity, and large-scale land conversion for non-agricultural use. Remote sensing studies further underscore the impact of urbanization and infrastructure growth in altering land use patterns, along with a significant shift toward monoculture aquaculture, threatening the sustainability of this ecologically sensitive system. The Rice–Aquaculture IFS in Pokkali operates in a seasonal rotation: rice is cultivated from June to October, followed by prawn or fish farming from November to April. Despite receiving policy and legal support for rice component, subsidies and mandatory rice cultivation certificates for aquaculture licensing, the system faces declining trend. Rice cultivation yields 1,326 kg/ha, with negative net returns of ₹40,383/ha, it remains financially unviable without support. Conversely, prawn farming is capital intensive (₹2,01,889/ha) but highly profitable, yielding returns of ₹4,88,373/ha and net profit of ₹2,86,484/ha. Together, the rice–prawn IFS yields a total return of ₹5,57,325/ha with a net return of ₹2,46,101/ha and a favourable benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 1.79. On the other hand, the rice–fish IFS, offers limited economic benefits with relatively low fish yield and losses from rice cultivation, this system yields only ₹10,028/ha in net returns and a marginal BCR of 1.03. Comparative analysis indicates prawn monoculture which is resource-intensive and environmentally less sustainable, generates lower net returns (₹1,68,338/ha) and a reduced BCR (1.60) compared to integrated systems, primarily due to higher operational expenses especially feed costs. Monoculture practice, particularly fish farming, delivers higher net returns (₹3,97,311/ha) and a BCR of 2.32 outperforming the rice–fish IFS, incentivizing farmers to abandon traditional IFS practices. The higher profitability in monoculture is primarily due to the ability to rear more number of fish species, including long-duration and high-value species. Such practices are not feasible in the rice-fish IFS, where aquaculture is typically restricted to six-months. However, partial budgeting reveals that shifting from monoculture to integrated farming results in net economic gains, particularly in the rice–prawn system, which offers an additional gain of ₹69,837/ha, despite higher cultivation costs. This gain stems from reduced input expenses in aquaculture (artificial feed, eradicants, electricity) and dual income sources. In monoculture systems, only aquatic species typically high-value prawns like Tiger prawns or commercially viable fishes are cultivated by skipping Pokkali rice cultivation. The relatively poor economic gains along with cultivation challenges act as major drivers for shifting from IFS to monoculture practices, which are very fast and visible in certain pockets like Kumbalam, Kumbalanghi, Chellanam panchayats. At the same time, the ecological complementarity in IFS, particularly the effect of improved soil quality, is also significant. Statistical analysis shows that a 1% increase in Soil Quality Index (SQI) leads to a 0.25% rise in rice yield, which is equivalent to 3.23 kg/ha or ₹167.96/ha. When scaled across 5,000 ha, the realized value of this yield benefit is ₹8.40 lakh. Empirical studies (Sreelatha and Joseph, 2019) confirm that IFS improves SQI by 41.6% over monoculture, equating to a benefit of ₹3.49 crore ecosystem-wide. The study underscores that IFS is both economically viable and ecologically beneficial, especially when complemented with improved management and varietal selection. High-yielding Pokkali varieties provide 29.14% higher yields than traditional types. Yet, current subsidy policies fail to incentivize full-cycle crop management, often resulting in low yield realization and misuse of support mechanisms. Additionally, perceived rice yield gains, though lower than realized, still affirm this ecological value, estimated at ₹97.76/ha. The undervaluation of soil quality benefits among stakeholders reveals a critical perception gap, particularly among aquaculture farmers and fisheries officials, who tend to favour short-term economic returns from monoculture over long-term ecological gains. Stakeholder perceptions reveal wide variation. While agricultural officers’ express optimism about IFS yield potential, fisheries officials lean toward aquaculture. Farm labourers report higher perceived yields, reflecting their hands-on experience. Farmers practicing monoculture acknowledge the ecological benefits of IFS but cited labour shortages, profitability concerns, and climatic risks as key barriers. The study recommends scientific mapping of Pokkali areas using remote sensing, developing a database of Pokkali landholders, linking subsidy to yield or performance metrics to ensure proper crop management, applying externality gains in extension methods, strengthen compliance mechanisms to ensure rice cultivation precedes aquaculture licensing, reinforcing the Pokkali Land Development Authority and establishing targeted support programs to address region-specific socio-economic barriers, and considering the scope of introducing a targeted Green Granary Support Scheme for Pokkali farmers that provides financial incentives, technical support, and market linkages to promote eco-friendly farming practices. Further research focus is to be on assessing the role of water quality in influencing prawn/fish yield across IFS and monoculture systems, examining the efficacy of current subsidy schemes, conducting longitudinal studies on soil health, salinity, and system resilience. IFS being an effective system that ensures food security, profitability and sustainability, is considered as a powerful tool for enhancing the economic status of small and marginal farmers. There should be programme to conserve and support the traditional rice-fish IFS models, especially in view of the climate change challenges.