Socio - Economic Dimensions of Seawed

CMFRI Special Publication No.
104
Socio-economic dimensions of
Seaweed Farming in India
M. Krishnan
Principal Scientist (Agricultural Economics)
Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture,
Chennai
R. Narayana Kumar
Senior Scientist (Agricultural Economics)
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute
Kochi

(Indian Council of Agricultural Research)
Post Box. 1603, Marine Drive North Extension,
Kochi – 682 018, Kerala, India
www.cmfri.org.in
i
Socio economic dimensions of
M. Krishnan
R. Narayana Kumar
Published by
Dr. G. Syda Rao
Director
Kochi-682 018, India
Telephone : 0091-484-2394867
Fax : 0091-484-2394909
Email : mdcmfri@md2.vsnl.net.in
Website : http://www.cmfri.org.in
Front Cover Photo : Courtesy, National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development,
(NABARD) Chennai
Back Cover Photo : Seaweed Culture, Olaikuda, Rameswaram
© 2010 Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi

ISSN 0972 - 2351
ii
FOREWORD
Stanza 1033 of the Tamil Epic Tirukkural when translated reads: “Those who cultivate their
food live in self-sufficiency — All others follow them and subsist in self-made dependence.”
Nearly 60 per cent of the Indian population is directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture
and related activities. Agriculture is India’s largest private sector activity; yet, far from being a
business, agriculture is a livelihood issue. Less than 4 per cent of the population is engaged in
agricultural activities in the US and the EU where it is “agri-business”.
Financial literacy and empowerment
In India, financial literacy is seen as a means to achieve financial inclusion. The thrust is on
rural areas. 5.7 lakh out of the six-lakh villages do not have a bank branch. There is, however, a
strong case for extending the efforts of financial inclusion to urban areas as well. The Economic
Survey 2009-10, quoting the NSS 61st Round, says that poverty ratio in urban areas is 25.7 per cent
which is only somewhat lower than the 28.3 per cent poverty ratio in rural areas. What will help
financial inclusion is not financial literacy per se but linking people’s livelihood needs with banking
services.
The Aryavrat Gramin Bank in Uttar Pradesh achieved 100 per cent financial inclusion in some
hamlets in UP through its tie-up with a corporate to sell solar powered lamps. The Kisan Mitra
Scheme of Punjab National Bank achieved 100 per cent financial inclusion in 40 villages by linking
bank finance to farming needs. There is also the example of a pilot project in Warangal district of
Andhra Pradesh, where pension payments and payments under NREGS were made through direct
credit to bank accounts. If people need banks for saving or receiving income or for remittances or
loans they will avail of such banking services. In such cases, financial literacy becomes only the
catalyst and not the main driving force behind financial inclusion.
Role of NABARD
Financial literacy can achieve a larger goal: that of empowering the consumer to take financial
decisions confidently. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), in a
bid to step up its focus on the farm sector, plans to bring together about 10 lakh small and marginal
farmers across the country in 2010-11 along the lines of the self-help group (SHG) model. This will
help farmers harness their collective bargaining power to access credit at competitive rates, improve
productivity using quality inputs, and realise better price for their produce in the market. Ever
iii
since the SHG-Bank linkage programme was conceptualised and launched by NABARD in 1992,
about 47 lakh self-help groups (as of March-end 2009), predominantly comprising poor women,
have been able to access the formal banking sector in a sustainable and cost-effective manner.
PURA
The PURA (Providing Urban Amenities in Rural Areas) scheme, on public-private-partnership
mode, in a month at an outlay of ` 1,000 crore on civic amenities such as drinking water supply,
roads, street-lighting and drainage and sewerage systems with private sector efficiencies pooled
in. PURA is being taken up on a pilot basis in six to eight clusters where the population is between
30,000 and 40,000. This marked a paradigm shift in the way the Centre was looking at creating
rural infrastructure.
Developers would be required to maintain the facility they build for 10 years before handing
it over to the panchayats which can again put it up for bidding. The total amount spent on rural
development schemes in 2009 was around ` 75,000 crore. Despite substantial spends on rural
infrastructure development at the panchayat level, it has been seen that the “impact on the ground
was absent”. The PURA scheme launched in 2006 this time round, the basic idea was convergence,
done with private sector efficiency and the maintenance entrusted to them for 10 years. Priority
was, what was planned was built properly, maintained and serviced properly. Further, all amenities
would come up near simultaneously in a specified time span so that the impact was “wholesome”.
On the locations to be taken up on a pilot basis, once the partners were identified they would
come up with proposals on the areas they would like to work.
Priorities of the Reserve Bank of India
With the deadline to draw up a roadmap for providing banking services in every village with
a population of over 2,000 by March 2011, the Reserve Bank of India has asked banks to establish
linkages with NGOs for facilitating and channelling credit to low income households. It has also
asked banks to use well-run primary agricultural credit societies (PACS) as business correspondents
(BCs). Of the nearly six lakh inhabited villages in the country, 1.09 lakh villages have a population
of over 2,000. In its action points to help banks draw up a roadmap for financial inclusion by the
end of this month, the Reserve Bank of India said establishing linkages with local non-government
organisations (NGOs)/ corporate houses can lead to credit flow to low income households. Based
on the report of the high-level committee on lead bank scheme, the RBI believes that banks should
make concerted efforts to use well-run PACs as BCs. Currently, PACs, despite being permitted, are
not being used as BCs.
Agriculture occupies centre-stage in the Government’s plan to promote inclusive growth,
enhance rural incomes and sustain food security. The exercise of Budget hinges on 4 per cent
growth in the agriculture sector Huge investments are necessary at both pre-harvest and post-
harvest stages and the Budget provides ` 400 crore for the initiative for 2010-11. We have had a
iv
significant stepping-up of investments in rural infrastructure in the past five years. Roads have
been built and investments made in rural electrification — two key infrastructure services. These
investments may have led to new industries in rural areas, creating jobs and adding to incomes.
Have they also led to diversification of agricultural output as new market opportunities may
have emerged? Have they spurred new investments on the farm as additional income may have
flowed to farm households from non-farm activities? The returns on new investments are not
evident in the overall growth rates of the farm sector in recent years. It may, of course, be too early
to assess the impact. It is also possible that the development has not been quite effective. Supply of
infrastructure services is more important than the infrastructure itself (Shashank Bhide, 2010).
Extension work
A salaried scientist can never be the best of his kind; nor will a salaried extension worker care
for what happens to the farmers and to the fields after his visit. An extension system based on
qualified agricultural scientists undertaking work on payment of a minimal proportion of the
incremental income in the first year of consultation could change this scenario. The normal channels
of primary and secondary education should care about agricultural education. The extension work
does not keep the farmer informed about the latest developments in agricultural technology. An
agricultural nation like India does not have an “all India” or a ‘Central’ Civil Service (Class I) for
agriculture (Sharad Joshi, 2010).
If only agricultural graduates who find employment in banks could become agricultural officers
with the same rank and status as the District Collector or the District Superintendent of Police, a
significant stride can be made towards improving the quality of agriculture operations, making
agriculture more attractive not only to the children of the farmers but also to outsiders and lend
agriculture some sort of prestige and status which it does not enjoy at present.
The development in seaweed sector
A livelihood becomes a business enterprise with the right mix of financial and institutional
and policy support. The seaweed sector has emerged as the trial blazer for other sectors. A typical
example of demand driven development, the right mix of financial and institutional support in
tandem with private investments have made the prospects of the development of the seaweed
sector bright. The developments documented in this work, underline the fact that consistently
servicing the infrastructure created or, in other words, consistent quality extension education,
maybe more important than creation of the infrastructure itself. Commitment of the government
departments and private sector involved in this work is commendable and I wish the scope of
such typical development models are explored in other areas also.
New Delhi-110 114 Dr. S. Ayyappan,

May 2010 Secretary, DARE & Director General, ICAR
v
PREFACE
Seaweed mariculture is an important and profitable livelihood option for the coastal fishing
community especially for fisherwomen, who with little effort can earn a substantial income for
the household. India possesses 434 species of red seaweeds, 194 species of brown seaweeds and
216 species of green seaweeds. The seaweed potential in India is estimated at 1,005,000 tonnes (t)
in six states of India (Modayil, 2004) comprising 250,000 t in Gujarat, 250,000 t in Tamilnadu,
100,000 t in Kerala, 100,000 t in Andhra Pradesh, 5,000 t in Maharasthra and 300,000 t in Andaman
& Nicobar Islands. In India, traditionally, seaweeds have been collected from natural stocks. However,
the need for farming of seaweeds arose from the unsustainable harvesting of the seaweeds and
the increasing demand for high quality and adequate quantity of seaweed raw material from the
seaweed processing industries. Accordingly the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI),
the Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (CSMCRI) and related organizations began
the experimental cultivation of agar-yielding seaweeds Gelidiella and Gracilaria in 1964 for
developing suitable technologies for the commercial-scale cultivation of raw material to the agar
industries, Today seaweed cultivation techniques have been standardized, improved and made
economically viable. Corporate backed by institutional and financial support led to the expansion
of seaweed (Kappaphycus alvarezii) farming, through Self Help Groups (SHG) model (mostly women),
starting in a small scale in Ramanathapuram district of Tamilnadu in 2000, which now gradually
has spread to neighbouring coastal districts like Tuticorin, Pudukottai and Thanjavur. The seaweed
mariculture is a potential employment generating and income earning activity, which is practiced
by more than thousand members of SHG’s in Ramanathapuram district alone and marching ahead
in the other coastal districts of the country with the support of private investments, industries,
financial institutions like NABARD (through scheduled commercial banks), National Fisheries
Development Board and NGO’s led by Aquaculture Foundation of India.
This publication has given a comprehensive picture of the status of seaweed collection as
well as farming in India with a case study on the socio-economic transformations in
Ramanathapuram district of Tamilnadu. The authors have traced the historical development of
seaweed collection/technology development for farming, the marketing channels and exports,
substantiated with analytical results. The socio-economic conditions of the seaweed farming/
collecting households have been brought out clearly to give background information about the
stakeholders, which is very vital in the process of technology development and adoption. The
study also has established the profitability, economic viability and financial feasibility of the
vi
enterprise by working out appropriate economic indicators, which will help the lending institutions
to come forward to provide the much required financial support. Besides, the structure of organized
SHG contract seaweed farming, the systemic strengths and weakness of the organized seaweed
farming in India and the marketing channels for seaweed farmers in Tamilnadu have also been
brought out clearly. The study has suggested knowledge dissemination on the technology through
organizations like ASSOCHAM, FICCI, and ICCI to motivate entrepreneurs and bring in more
investment into this seaweed sector. Besides, the Government can also encourage this sector by
streamlining the tax, customs and excise duties and collection issues. I compliment the authors,
Dr. M.Krishnan, Principal Scientist, Central Institute of Brackish Water Aquaculture, Chennai and
Dr. R.Narayanakumar, Senior Scientist, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin for
their concerted and committed effort in bringing out this publication undertaken on Personal
Services Consultancy mode of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Rome. I also appreciate
the support given by Dr. G. Gopakumar, Principal Scientist and Scientist-in-Charge, Scientists and
staff members of Mandapam Regional Centre of CMFRI, Dr. P. Kaladharan, Principal Scientist, Calicut
Research Centre of CMFRI in scrutinizing the manuscript and also the help rendered by
Dr.M.Sakthivel, President, Aquaculture Foundation of India, Chennai and Shri.Abhiram Seth, Chief
Executive Officer, M/s. Aquagri Processing (P) Ltd., New Delhi. I am sure that this publication will
be of immense use to the academicians, researchers, policy makers and entrepreneurs to bestow
more attention in this sector and strive for its development in the days to come.
Cochin - 682 018 G. Syda Rao

May 2010 Director
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their sincere thanks to Dr. S. Ayyappan, Director General, Indian Council
of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi for his constant encouragement and support during
the course of this work.
We acknowledge with thanks the support of Dr. Madan Mohan, Assistant Director General
(Marine Fisheries), ICAR, Dr. A.G. Ponniah, Director, Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture
(CIBA), Chennai and Dr. G. Syda Rao, Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI),
Kochi for providing the facilities and access to institute resources and duty leave for carrying out
field surveys.
The authors express their thanks to Dr. S.M. Pillai, Principal Scientist & OIC, Technical Cell,
CIBA and Dr. Grace Mathew, Principal Scientist & Chairperson, Consultancy Processing Cell, CMFRI
for facilitating the work during the period of this consultancy.
The first author expresses his thanks to Dr. V.S. Chandrasekaran and Dr. K.P. Jithendran,
Principal Scientists, CIBA, for their inputs and ideas. Thanks are also due to Messrs. R.Elankovan,
S. Nagarajan, S.Rajukumar and R.Rajasekaran, Technical Officers, CIBA for assistance. The second
author expresses his thanks to Dr. R.Sathiadhas, Head, Socio-economic Evaluation and Transfer of
Technology Division for his constant support.
This work would not have been possible but for the close and personal cooperation of Shri
Abhiram Seth, CEO, M/s. Aquagri Processing (P) Ltd., New Delhi and his colleagues at Mandapam,
Manamadurai, Tuticorin and Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu. Equally enthusiastic and supportive were
Dr.M.Sakthivel, President, Aquaculture Foundation of India, Chennai, Dr.G.Gopakumar, Principal
Scientist & Head Mariculture Division and Scientist-in-Charge Mandapam Research Station (MRC)
of CMFRI, Dr. K.Palanisamy and Mr. Kannabiram, Assistant General Managers, NABARD, Mrs.Uma
Basu Sarkar, IFS, Director, GoMBRT, Ramanathapuram, Mr. G.D.Rajeev, Deputy Director, MPEDA,
Kochi, Mr. R.Dinakaran, Assistant Director, TNDoF, Mandapam, Mr. Elankovan, Aquaclinic,
Mandapam,
We also acknowledge with thanks the cooperation and inputs of Mr. Vinod Nehimiah, CEO
and his colleagues at SNAP Natural and Alginate Products, Ranipet, Tamil Nadu.
Special thanks are due to Dr. N.Kaliaperumal, Principal Scientists (Retired) CMFRI,
viii
Dr. P. Kaladharan, Principal Scientist, Calicut Research Station of CMFRI, Dr. G.Tamilmani, Scientist,
MRC of CMFRI, Mr. V.Edwin Joseph, Officer-in-Charge and Dr. V.Mohan, Technical Officer, Library
and Documentation Section, CMFRI, Kochi, Mr. P.Chidambaram, Library-in-Charge, MRC of CMFRI,
Mandapam, Messrs. K.K. Sankaran, N.K. Harshan, Technical Officers, Mr. M. Antony Joseph, SRF,
Mr. Abilash, Videographer, CMFRI, Kochi and Mr. J.Ramalingam, Technical Officer -CMFRI (Retired),
Madurai
The authors express their thanks to Dr. Diego Valderrama, Fishery Planning Analyst
(Aquaculture), FAO for the consultancy.
The contents of this publication, in no way reflect the official position of CIBA and CMFRI of
the ICAR. All views expressed here are ours including errors.
R. Narayana Kumar M. Krishnan

Senior Scientist (Ag. Economics) Principal Scientist (Ag. Economics)
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture,
Kochi, INDIA Chennai, INDIA
Email: ramani65@gmail.com Email: mkrishnan57@gmail.com
ix
Socio-economic dimensions of
Summary
The Ramanathapuram district in Tamil Nadu was identified as the target location for study-
ing 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, the Ramanathapuram district has
long been recognized as the center of the seaweed farming in India.
Although 434 species of red seaweeds, 194 species of brown seaweeds and 216 species of
green seaweeds naturally occur in India, it was only until the beginning of the twenty-first cen-
tury that the country made any concrete progress towards organized seaweed farming. The tardy
progress was caused by a number of factors including locational disadvantages, inconsistent per-
formance of species for commercial exploitation, absence of a complete package of farming prac-
tices, and 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, acting as a catalyst to rejevunate the industry-institu-
tional linkages. The concept of Self Help Groups (SHG) spearheaded by the National Bank for Agri-
cultural 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
currently operate more than 1,000 rafts. Many of the SHGs have been able to obtain a yield of
more than 50 kg per raft per day (dry weight). Based on findings from this study, seaweed farming
offered 161 and 144 days of employment per annum in the Rameshwaram and Mandapam areas,
respectively. With current development projections targeting 5,000 families in the near future,
the seaweed sector could generate around 765 thousand man-days of employment in the
Ramanathapuram district. It has been estimated that India can produce one million tonnes of
x
dried seaweed and provide employment to 200 thousand families with annual earnings of around
` 0.1 million per family. The annual turnover of Kappaphycus seaweed farming alone can be safely
estimated to be ` 2.0 billion.
Spearheaded by private investments, the clear institutional and financial support of the Gov-
ernment of India through development agencies and research establishments has been funda-
mental for the development of the sector. The distinct possibility of expansion of operations based
on successful commercial trials in sites in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat 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.
xi
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sl. No. Content Page Number
Foreword iii
Preface vi
Acknowledgements ix
Summary x
List of Tables xiv
List of Boxes xvi
List of Figures xvi
List of Plates xvii
List of Annexures xvii
1 Introduction 01
2 Unorganised seaweed collection sector 01
3 Seaweed processing industry in India 06
4 Resource management issues 10
5 Historical account of seaweed 10
mariculture in India
6 Historical production statistics 28
7 Seaweed exports 32
8 Socio-eonomic dimensions of seaweed 33
farming in India
9 Economic analysis of seaweed farming 57
10 Marketing channels of seaweed farmers 61
11 Policy notes, advisories and notifications 63
12 Conclusions, insights and development 65
strategies
13 References 68
14 Annexures 75
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title of the Table Page Number
Number
1 Primary characteristics of commercial seaweeds

collected in coastal Panchayats of Ramanathapuram
District, Tamil Nadu, India 03
2 Prices for seaweed paid by processors to agents 05
3 A time line of the development of seaweed farming
in Tamil Nadu, India 22
4 Per cent increase in crop yields resulting from the
use of bio-fertilizers of seaweed origin 26
5 Estimated harvestable potential of wild seaweeds
in India, by State 28
6 Seaweed resources along the coast of India 29
7 Area, production and exports of Kappaphycus in 31
Tamil Nadu, India (2001-2009)
8 Trends in raft productivity, 2001-2009 32
9 Exports of seaweeds from India 33
10 Economics of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu, India:
cost of materials for the construction of one
raft (3 m x 3 m) 36
11 Economics of seaweed farming (raft culture)
in Tamil Nadu, India: analysis of costs and
returns for the first year of operation 37
12 Economics of mono line culture of seaweeds
per block of 60 ropes 39
13 Composition, structure and performance of SHGs engaged
in seaweed farming in the Mandapam and Rameshwaram
regions of Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India 41
14 Gender composition and average family size of respondents 44
15 Caste and religion structure of the sample respondents 45
xiv
16 Family type 45
17 Fishing experience 46
18 Experience in seaweed farming 46
19 Age classification of respondents 47
20 Literacy level of respondents 47
21 Occupational profile of respondents 48
22 Income levels in the Mandapam area 48
23 Income levels in the Rameshwaram area 49
24 Housing ownership and type 49
25 Livestock ownership 50
26 Occupational patterns in Mandapam and Rameshwaram
areas, Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu 51
27 Estimation of employment generation in seaweed
farming in Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India 51
28 Consumption expenditure patterns, Ramanathapuram
district, Tamil Nadu, India 52
29 Level of indebtedness, Ramanathapuram district,
Tamil Nadu, India 53
30 Social impact of seaweed farming, Ramanathapuram
district, Tamil Nadu, India 54
31 Annual costs and returns of a one-ha seaweed
farm - raft culture (900 rafts) 58
32 Gross revenue of a one-ha seaweed farm (900 rafts) 59
33 Annual cashflow stream for a one-ha seaweed farm
(900 rafts) 60
34 Economic viability and financial feasibility indicators
for a one-ha seaweed farm (project cycle of three years) 60
35 Policy notes, important recommendations, advisories
and selected notifications and communications
relevant to seaweed culture in India 64
xv
LIST OF BOXES
Box Page
Title
Number Number
1 Self Help Groups - History, Guidelines and Performance 17
2 CSMCRI - PepsiCo interaction 19
3 Beneficial environmental impact of sea plant cultivation 23
4 Carrageenan extraction from dry weed 23
5 Products from Kappaphycus alvarezii 25
6 Seaweed as an animal feed supplement 27
7 The Socio-economic premise for Kappaphycus

culture in India 35
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Title
Number Number
1 Map of the Study Area 1
1. (a) Map of Ramanathapuram district 2
2 Products from Kappaphycus alvarezii 25
3 Top view of 3m x 3 m size bamboo raft with 4' diagonals 38
4 General Structure of Organised SHG Contract Seaweed

Farming Production and Buy-back System in India 55
5 Casual loop diagram for systemic strengths and

weaknesses in organised seaweed farming in India 56
6 Components of initial investment of one hectare seaweed

farming (percent) 59
7 Marketing channels of seaweed farmers in

Ramanathapuram district of Tamil Nadu 62
xvi
LIST OF PLATES
Plate Page
Title
Number Number
1 Kappaphycus cultivation in Mandapam-First portion 12
2. Kappaphycus cultivation in Mandapam -Second Portion 13
LIST OF ANNEXURES
Annexure Page
Title
Number Number
1 Composition, structure and performance of SHG
seaweed farming in Pudukottai and Tanjavur districts 75
2 Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere 76
3 Palk Bay 77
xvii
ABBREVIATIONS
ADGR Average daily growth rate
AFI Aquaculture Foundation of India
APEDA Agriculture Produce Export Development Authority
ASSOCHAM Associated Chambers of Commerce
BIS Bureau of Indian Standards
CAA Coastal Aquaculture Authority (of India)
ISI Indian Standards Institute
CIBA Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture
CMFRI Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute
CRZ Coastal Regulation Zone
CSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
CSMCRI Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute
DBT Department of Bio Technology
DRDA District Rural Development Agency
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FICCI Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
FIT Fisheries Institute of Technology
GoM Gulf of Mannar
GOMBRT Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust
GoMMNP Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park
G.O Government Order
ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research

ICCI Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
xviii
JECFA Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives
JLG Joint Liability Group
KIA Krishnamurthy Institute of Algology
KMC Kudumbam Model of Cultivation
MARS Marine Algal Research Station (of CSMCRI)
MRC Mandapam Regional Centre of CMFRI
MPEDA Marine Products Exports Development Authority
MYRADA Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency
NAAS National Academy of Agricultural Sciences
NABARD National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development
NACA Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific
NBA National Biodiversity Agency
NCST National Committee on Science and Technology (NCST)
NGO Non Governmental Organization
NIO National Institute of Oceanography
NPOP National Programme for Organic Produce
PB Palk Bay
QoL Quality of Life Index
SBI State Bank of India
SCZMA State Coastal Zone Management Authorities
SGSY Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana
SHG Self Help Groups
SNAP SNAP Natural and Alginate Products
TNCDW The Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women
TNDoF Tamil Nadu Department of Fisheries, Government of Tamil Nadu
TNMB Tamil Nadu Maritime Board
VAT Value added tax
xix
xx
1 Introduction
India possesses 434 species of red seaweeds, 194 species of brown seaweeds and 216 species
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
arose overtime. Today seaweed cultivation techniques have been standardized, improved and
made economically viable. In addition, the industry has developed a preference for greater stabil-
ity through sustained supply of quantity and quality of farmed raw materials. Nevertheless,
collection of seaweed production statistics is not systematic in India; official time series of sea-
weed production simply do not exist.
2 Unorganized seaweed collection sector
Although the major focus of this study is on the development of seaweed farming in India,
the progress that the country has made in this field is deeply connected with the constraints
currently faced by the agar-agar and alginate industries. As of today, these industries are depend-
ent on the raw materials collected from natural sources. Therefore, a brief review of the seaweed
collection process in India is in order.
2.1 Seaweed collection in the Gulf of Mannar 1
2.1.1 Location
Commercial harvesting of seaweed from natural sources takes place in the southern portion
of the Tamil Nadu coastline, from Kanyakumari (Cape Comorin) in the south, extending north-
wards to the peninsula that forms the GoM - a total distance of almost 300 km. The "seaweed belt"
runs along the coast of Ramanathapuram District and includes the villages of Mundel, Valinokkam,
Chinna Ervadi, Kilakarãi, Kalimangundu, Periapattnam, Pudumadam, Seeniappa Darga, Vedalai,
Pamban, Chinnapalam and Rameshwaram. All these villages lie on the GoM side towards the fag
end of the peninsula (Fig 1 & 1.a). Seaweeds in these locations are collected from the waters off the
mainland coast and the chain of offshore islands.
1
This section is largely based on Coppen and Nambiar (1991) and inputs from SNAP Natural and Alginate Products Ltd, 1
Ranipet, Tamil Nadu.
2.1.2 Species of seaweed utilized

The genera Gracilaria, Gelidium and Gelidiella are agarophytes used for commercial purposes.
Gracilaria is used for those applications in which the strength of the gel is not critical, e.g., food
products. In other cases, Gelidium or Gelidiella, separately or mixed with Gracilaria, is utilized for
the manufacturing of bacteriological-grade agar (the terms Gelidium and Gelidiella are often used
interchangeably within the industry although they are recognized as being separate genera). The
distribution of the different genera along the Indian coast is varied. Gracilaria edulis, found along
the entire length of the Tamil Nadu coastline, is the most abundant and commonly used Gracilaria
species. Gracilaria verrucosa occurs in estuarine/brackishwater areas such as those found near
Tuticorin, where it is collected by a few producers. Gracilaria crassa, G. corticata and G. multipartita
are also found in Indian waters.
Gelidiella acerosa is the predominant species in its genus; it tends to be found in slightly more
rocky areas than other seaweeds. Other important seaweeds are Sargassum wightii, S. myriocystum,
Turbinaria conoides and T. ornate, which are used for alginate production.
2.1.3 Seasonality of collection
Most seaweeds are generally available from middlemen (“agents”) throughout the year, but
supplies can be more plentiful in some months than in others. Gracilaria collection peaks during
January-April. Gelidium/Gelidiella is usually available throughout the year but may become scarce
at times. Seasonality is a function of seaweed growth rates, which in turn depend on local
environmental conditions and the extent to which seaweed collection is a primary or secondary
activity within the fishing community. Seaweed collection is minimum during times of rough
seas (June) and heavy rains (November). The peak period for Sargassum collection is July-August,
when high winds have detached the weeds from their growth points. Table 1 presents the major
characteristics of seaweeds collected in Tamil Nadu.
2
Table 1. Primary characteristics of commercial seaweeds collected in coastal Panchayats of
Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu, India.
Year of first
Species collection for Collection centres Seasons of
Remarks
commercial purposes harvest
Gelidiella acerosa 1966 Rameswaram, Throughout a) Ratio of fresh to dry

Pamban, Vedalai the year weed is 7:1.
Seeniappa darga b) Harvested resources
Kilakarai, Ervadi are often mixed with
Ulva reticulate.
c) Collected seaweed
is 50 percent pure.
Gracilaria edulis 1966 Rameswaram Throughout the a) Ratio of fresh to dry

Pamban, Vedalai, year in GoM weed is 7:1
Seeniappa darga b) Found mixed with
Kilakarai other species
Gracilaria crassa 1983 Pamban When G. acerosa a) Hand picked since
Vedalai and G. edulis are weeds are attached
Kilakarai not available to pebbles or in
shallow areas.
b) Large quantities of
sediments settle
over the plants.
Sargassum spp* 1966 From GoM Islands; August-January
shore collection only
at Pudumadam and
Kanyakumari area
Turbinaria spp. 1975 Rameshwaram April-July; a) Ratio of fresh to
Pamban Vedalai August-December; dry weed is 7:1.
Seeniappa darga January-March.
Periapattnam
Kilakarai
* Natural seaweed collection from the islands of GoM is presently allowed only beyond the core area of the GoM
Marine Biosphere Reserve (Personal communication from CMFRI, Mandapam).
Source: Silas et al. (1987).
2.1.4 Methods of collection

Fishing is the major income source for the coastal village inhabitants, with seaweed collection
as an important secondary source. Seaweed collection may be the only income-generating activity
for women as they are not actively engaged in fishing. Weather conditions, festival and marriage
seasons, and personal judgments as to which of the two activities is more remunerative at a
particular time also determine the intensity of either activity.
3
Female seaweed collectors usually work in groups of 6-10 people and jointly hire a vathai
(boat) for ` 300 per day. Their working day starts at 6 AM; depending on the tidal conditions,
return to the mainland is made by 12 PM. The women wear their traditional sarees but also wear
a diver’s mask with a gunny bag (50-kg capacity) tied to their waist; collection is done by hand in
waters up to 3-4 m depth.
In recent years, the use of metal scrapers has made it possible to harvest larger quantities of
seaweed with less effort; however, the scraped seaweed tends to contain a higher proportion of
rock and coral fragments. In addition, removal of the rootstock prevents regeneration with the
consequent threat to future supplies (Coppen and Nambiar, 1991). The scrapers are also used as
tools for warding off eels which may physically injure the collectors’ hands.2
Environmental committees have recently been formed in each costal village engaged in
seaweed collection. Committees are usually formed by seven to eight people and include middlemen
or agents. Meetings are held monthly and are used to discuss issues such as misuse of scrapers
and impacts on the environment.
Men typically collect the alginophytes (Sargassum, Turbinaria) as this involves hoarding larger
quantities of weed. Nevertheless, harvesting of the alginophytes poses fewer complications as
compared with the agarophytes collected by women, which are more likely to be associated with
unwanted seaweeds.
2.2 The role of the seaweed agent
Two distinct phases are evident in the seaweed collection and trade in Ramanathapuram
district, Tamil Nadu.
Seaweed collection, marketing and processing is an unorganised activity in India. Since no
government approval is necessary for a local individual to become a collector, an agent or a
trader, instances of the lowly collector becoming an agent and then assuming the role of a trader
in due course of time is a normal transition. According to Coopens and Nambiar (1991), agents
play a key role in the seaweed industry, acting as a middleman between the collector and the
processor. The collection, transfer and sale of the seaweed was handled by the traders involved in
seaweed trade who generally hired some 20 boats belonging to different boat owners during the
season. Harvesting is directed by the major agents, who designate an organizer to assist the
seaweed collectors. For a fee, the organizer leads the collectors to the seaweed areas. If the agent
owns the boat, he is entitled to a share of the harvest while the reminder is divided among the
collectors. The role of an agent within a village community, however, extends well beyond buying
and selling seaweed. The agent controls the quality, quantity and price of seaweed released to the
processor while also determining the price offered to the collector. Collectors normally borrow
from agents to cover their daily living expenses; they also buy goods on credit from shops owned
by the agents. Debts are adjusted against the value of the weeds the collectors bring in. These
2
Personal communication from SNAP. 4
agreements ensure a regular supply of seaweed to the agents; however, collectors easily fall into
a never-ending cycle of indebtedness. At the end of a season, it is not unusual for a collector to
owe up to ` 20,000 to his agent.
In recent times, the presence of SNAP has become more pronounced as this company is the
main procurer of the landed seaweeds. Payments are made on boat load basis by the local traders
on behalf of the company directly. The company has engaged its own supervisors who oversee
the landings. Companies or outsiders cannot own and operate boats since the local communities
have exclusive rights of seaweed collection there is complete transparency in the actual billed
reportedly amount paid to the agent-trader by the company. The payments are made in full
knowledge of all the collectors and boat owners. As a measure of good will SNAP is reportedly
undertaking repairing the boats of the collectors through their agents-traders.
Land for storage and drying is generally leased; one or two thatched sheds are normally
constructed for seaweed storage. A few agents have registered for tax purposes and tax records
serves to assess the scale of their transactions.
2.3 Pricing the landings
After the seaweed is landed, the agent inspects the harvest and pays a non-negotiable price
to the collectors. Quantities are measured per basket of wet weed for agarophytes and per boat-
load for alginophytes - the latter being more abundant, easier to harvest and consumed in greater
quantities. Prices quoted by processors for the different types of seaweed were fairly consistent
(Table 2).
TABLE 2 Prices for seaweed paid by processors to agents
Seaweed Price (`/tonne) (1991)* Price (`/tonne) (2009) **
Gelidium/Gelidiella 5,000 - 8,000 10, 000 (Fresh)
Gracilaria 2,500 - 3,500 6,000 (Fresh)
Sargassum/Turbinaria 750 - 1,000 7,500 (Semi dry)
Sources: * Coppen and Nambiar (1991). **SNAP.
These prices are indicative rather than representative as the assessment regarding the
weight of one basket or boat-load of seaweed does not appear to be consistent across the
different villages.
Payments received by the collectors are discounted against the loan amounts and value of
goods owed to the agents. Agents in turn claim that the prices they receive from processors are
falling, preventing landing prices on the beach from rising. Prices paid to collectors are also normally
discounted based on the agents' belief that the collectors deliberately adulterate the wet seaweed
5
with sand and other materials.
Following its purchase, the seaweed is spread on the beach for drying. Dried weed is
transferred to thatched sheds for storage in heaps or in gunny bags. Hired labour is used for
sorting, cleaning, drying and packing. As much as five tonnes a day could be handled during the
peak season. During periods of excess demand, agents procure additional partly-dried stock from
subordinate agents for complete drying and the subsequent final sale. In any given year, seaweed
sales typically comprise of a large proportion of Sargassum and Turbinaria and a smaller proportion
of the higher value agarophytes.
The processor negotiates the price of the weed according to his evaluation of purity and
dryness. Small processors inspect the raw material personally and negotiate the deal. Larger firms
have employees who procure the material. These processors often maintain a purchase office in
the locality and even provide "in-house" labour for preliminary sorting and cleaning of seaweed.
Costs of transportation and packing are borne by the processors. The turnover time from collection
to sale could be only 15 days. Agents claim that properly dried material can be stored safely for
many months.
How much seaweed is purchased at any given time by the processors depends more on the
distance between the landing point and the processing factory than on the scale of the operation.
Frequency of purchase could be as high as once a month or as low as once a year. Some processors
may acquire the bulk of material when it is in plentiful supply and then "top it up" with smaller
lots as required.
The process of collection, assembly, drying, storage, sale and transportation has remained
more or less unchanged over the last two decades. Marketing channels have apparently not
undergone any modernization during the same period, either.
2.4 Employment in the seaweed sector
It has been estimated that seaweed resources in India can provide employment to more than
20,000 fishers in harvesting and an equal number of jobs in post-harvesting activities, provided
stocks are managed rationally. The seaweed resources along the southern end of the Tamil Nadu
coast provide a ready-made livelihood for both men and women in poor fishing communities. Rao
and Mantri (2006) have reported that there are 13 seaweed landing centres on the southeastern
coast. According to Immanuel and Sathiadhas (2004), five thousand women in southeastern India
depend on seaweed related activities for their livelihood.
3 Seaweed processing industry in India
3.1 The agar industry in India
In India, industrial uses for agar-agar emerged during the Second World War (Khan, 2003).
The seaweed industry then developed as commercial uses and technologies for agar-agar, alginic
6
acid, carrageenan and liquid seaweed fertilizers were being developed. The R&D conducted by
CSMCRI was crucial in this respect. The seaweed industry emerged primarily as a cottage industry
(Kaladharan and Kaliaperumal 1999) based on the natural stocks of agar-yielding red seaweeds
such as G. acerosa and G. edulis and algin-yielding brown seaweeds species such as Sargasum sp.
and Turbinaria sp.
Agar production in India started in 1940 using G. edulis as raw material. Subsequently, Thivy
(1960) developed a viable cottage-industry method for the manufacture of agar from Gracilaria
lichenoides. Using Gelidium micropterum as raw material, Kappana and Rao (1963) developed a
process for the industrial manufacturing of agar. Subsequently, a number of firms also turned to
G. acerosa as raw material. It is estimated that the Indian industry currently requires around 400
tonnes of agar annually, but only 30 percent of this total is being produced domestically.
As the nearest commercial and industrial hub to the seaweed belt, Madurai district which
is adjacent to Ramanathapuram district is the natural center for agar production in India. Other
producers in Tamil Nadu are located in towns nearer the southern coast. There are also a number
of factories in Kerala, northern Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. However, the potential for
growth in Kerala has been reduced by the energy and water crisis affecting the state during the
last decade.
3.1.1 Scales of operation
The Indian agar industry is mostly composed of small, family-run enterprises employing as
few as three or four people and producing 2-4 kg of agar per day (0.5-1 tonnes per year). Medium-
sized units can produce 10-40 kg of agar per day (2-10 tonnes per year). The outlook for the agar
industry has remained more or less unchanged during the last two decades. The scope of expansion
is very limited as the industry is strictly dependent on the natural stocks of red and brown seaweeds.
India produces between 110-132 tonnes of dry agar annually based on the harvest of 880-1,100
tonnes (dry weight) of agarophytes (Mohanta et al., 2007). Immanuel and Sathiadhas (2004),
estimate that there are 25 agar factories in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, each of which employs around
8-10 workers earning monthly salaries of ` 1,750 (men) and ` 1,500 (women).
3.1.2 Uses of agar
The coastal population of Tamil Nadu uses G. edulis for preparing gruel (porridge); this is the
only known use of algae as food in India. Gracilaria edulis is also used in Tamil Nadu as manure
for coconut plantations (Silas et al., 1987).
Agar is used in the preparation of jellies, dairy products (yoghurt), confectioneries (jelly/
marshmallow type), bakery products (including pie fillings and icings), and canned meats. Agar is
widely used in India in vegetarian foods and dishes such as faluda and blancmange. The Muslim
community traditionally consumes large quantities of agar during the Ramadan season. The
7
growing interest in tissue culture as a standard method for the propagation of orchids and
other ornamental plants, vegetables, fruits and other agricultural products has increased
the demand for agar-agar as a culture media. Agar is also used in the preparation of dental casts
in prosthetic dentistry.
Although the gel strength of Indian agar is lower than that from other sources, it nevertheless
meets the requirements of the domestic food and pharmaceutical industries.
3.1.3 Sourcing raw materials - Quality criteria
Dried seaweeds are available at collection centres in Tamil Nadu at a price of ` 22-25/kg. The
agar industry routinely complains about both the quantity and quality of the raw material.
Inconsistent supplies, poor quality owing to improper drying, fungal infestations and presence of
foreign matters in the seaweeds (e.g. small seashells and seagrasses) result in low agar output and
poor gel strength and viscosity. Most agar producers grade the purity of their raw materials at
around 50-60 per cent at best; users of Gelidiella typically consider it to be 30 percent pure. However,
this state of affairs generate a sense of resignation among processors as the prevailing view is
that someone else would buy what is being offered to them, regardless of the quality of the material.
They repeatedly state that there is little to gain by attempting to enforce quality standards.
Indian producers consider the colour and gel strength of agar as the most important criteria
of its quality. For food uses, paleness of colour ("whiteness") is deemed essential; thus, bleaching
of the agar gel during the final stages of processing is universal. Because gel strength is a less
important attribute, Gracilaria is mainly used for the production of food grade agar.
Currently, no Indian standard specifications have been placed with regard to gel strength,
meaning that producers have little incentive to improve the quality of the product (Coppen
and Nambiar, 1991).
3.1.4 Marketing
Food-grade agar (called China Grass) is sold by small and medium-scale producers to wholesalers
or dealers from large cities such as Chennai and Mumbai. The common mat form is packed in
polythene bags and dispatched in sacks to the dealer, who then repackages the product for retail
sale, often under his own brand name. Poorer quality (off-white) mat agar is powdered and sold as
"instant" China Grass. Larger producers sell to both wholesalers and end-users. IF grade agar3 is
generally sold directly to end-users. IF grade agar appears to be particularly attractive to new or
prospective producers as well as to some of the existing producers of food-grade agar.
Occasional consignments of agar are exported by the larger producers, with opportunities
emerging for the sale of food-grade agar to West Asia. However, most Indian production targets
the domestic market; foreign buyers are not in general attracted to the quantity and quality of
the seaweed produced in India. Output is low (or nil) during the monsoon season (because the
3
The IF grade is the agar used for bacteriological or pharmaceutical applications. The term "IF" is used to denote the fact 8
that the agar meets Indian Pharmacopoeia standards.
agar cannot be sundried) while both demand and supply increase during the Ramadan season.
Prices for food-grade agar are dependent upon colour and gel strength, regardless of the
occurrence of Ramadan. Prices for good quality food-grade agar produced in powdered form are
higher than those of the corresponding mat form.
Marine Chemicals Private Limited, Cochin, Kerala, contributes 50 percent of the total
domestic production (Rao and Mantri, 2006). This company has also established a strong reputation
in the export markets, with sales to countries in the five continents. Its production units are
located in 3 different centres - Kochi in the state of Kerala and Pamban and Madurai in Tamil Nadu,
with a combined production capacity of 60 tonnes per year. The company produces a range of
products based on both bacteriological and food-grade agar.
3.1.5 Constraints faced by the industry
Operational constraints such as power and water supply shortages are common. When
operational constraints become overbearing, bankruptcy is often the end result. Growth of the
industry has also been limited by the unavailability of capital. Small-scale producers are also
affected by low capacity utilization caused by enforced stoppages and seasonal factors.
In general, the industry is looking forward to the potential of culture agarophytes. Producers
have repeatedly expressed their willingness to pay a higher price for cultured seaweeds free of
epiphytes and other foreign matter.
3.2 Alginate production in India
The production potential of refined alginates in India is around 500 tonnes, assuming a yield
of 7 to 30 percent (on dry weight basis) for algin-yielding seaweeds (Thivy, 1964). SNAP contributes
half of the domestic production (Rao and Mantri, 2006). It is estimated that the Indian industry
currently requires around 1,000 tonnes per year of alginate, meaning that domestic production is
only capable of supplying 50 percent of internal demand. Madurai and surrounding areas, with
their proximity to the sources of raw material, and Ahmedabad (near the major markets) have
emerged as the major centres of alginate production in India. A few producers of agar also
manufacture alginates, even though the equipment and chemical requirements for the two
operations are different.
Although the industry is not constrained by the availability of raw materials (Sargassum and
Turbinaria), processing can nevertheless operate at less than installed capacity owing to other
operational constraints.
Many grades of alginates are produced in India. Alginic acid and sodium, calcium, potassium
and ammonium alginates are some of the products manufactured. Alginates are widely used in
textile printing and in the food and pharmaceutical industries; applications in other industries
are constantly emerging.
9
Mumbai and Ahmedabad, the textile hubs of India, are the major purchasers of textile-grade
alginate. Erode, the hosiery hub, is also supplied by alginate producers in Tamil Nadu. Price rather
than quality seems to be the determining factor for buyers in the textile industry. Food-grade
alginates are mainly supplied to the ice cream industry. Pharmaceutical and food-grade alginate,
which are manufactured according to Indian and international standards, are priced around
` 275-300/kg. These products are subject to an 8.2 per cent duty but no value-added tax (VAT)
is levied.
4 Resource management issues
With the establishment of the GoMBRT and the GoMMNP (Appendix 2), the livelihood
opportunities of seaweed-collecting fishermen have been restricted to collection outside core areas
of the Reserve Trust. The livelihoods of many of these fishers are entirely dependent on seaweed
collection. Restrictions have not been placed on the Palk Bay side, which has become a beehive of
activity for seaweed farming.
Landings of Gelidiella, Sargassum and Turbinaria peaked in 1979 while landings of Gracilaria
peaked in 1978. Since then, collectors have complained about the increasing scarcity of red seaweeds
over the years, meaning that they have to work harder to collect the same quantities harvested in
previous years.
Management of seaweed resources has received little attention in India. Government actions
have been restricted to controlling trade through licensing, with little effort being made to prohibit
harmful harvesting practices. The need for conservation is recognized by present efforts to develop
seaweed farming as an alternative source of good quality, easily accessible raw material for the
industry (Coppen and Nambiar, 1991). Sustainable utilization involves both conservation efforts
and proper husbandry practices as unplanned harvesting of seaweeds from their natural habitats
have led to depletion of standing crops. Continuation of these practices might exhaust the resource
completely, not even sparing the basic nuclei needed for propagation in the succeeding season.
Timetables for commercial harvest of economically important seaweeds from the Tamil Nadu
and Gujarat coasts have been drawn up based on the maturity of the crops, which might aid to
improve sustainability of the sector (Kaliaperumal and Kalimuthu, 1997). Countries such as France,
Spain and Zanzibar have enacted legislation to regulate the harvest of seaweed resources. Similar
legislations could be enacted in India to achieve a more sustainable utilization of the resource.
5 Historical account of seaweed mariculture in India
It has been estimated that seaweed can be farmed in around 200 thousand ha or 0.001 percent
of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Krishnamurthy, 2005). The rocky beaches, mudflats, estuaries
and lagoons on the Indian coasts offer ideal habitats for seaweed farming.
10
5.1 Experimental culture trials
With a view towards developing suitable technologies for the commercial-scale cultivation of
raw material to the agar industries, the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), the
Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (CSMCRI)4 and related organizations began
the experimental cultivation of agar-yielding seaweeds Gelidiella and Gracilaria in 1964. In addition,
various carageenophytes and edible seaweeds such as Hypnea, Sargassum, Turbinaria, Cystoseira,
Hormophysa, Caulerpa, Ulva, Enteromorpha and Acanthophora have been cultured in different field
environments using various techniques (Kaliaperumal, 2004). These experiments revealed that
Gelidiella acerosa can be successfully cultivated on dead coral and Gracilaria edulis, Hypnea
musciformis, Acanthophora spicifera and Enteromorpha flexuosa on long line ropes and nets.
The agar-yielding G. acerosa was cultured successfully on coir/nylon ropes, frames, nets and
dead coral stones in the inshore waters of the (GoM) and Palk Bay near Mandapam (Plate 1&2).
Small fragments obtained from mother plants were inserted in the twist of the coir ropes,5 tied at
the mesh intersections of nylon rope nets using nylon twine; seeded twines were wound on the
nails fixed to the dead coral stones. A two-fold increase over the quantity of seed material after 60
days of culture period was obtained from coir rope frames and nylon nets while a 33-fold increase
was achieved on coral stones (Subbaramiah et al., 1975; Patel et al., 1986). The CSMCRI has developed
a technology for commercial scale cultivation of G. acerosa using the dead coral stone method.
Cultivation of G. edulis was carried out in the lagoon of the GoM islands and in the shallow
waters of the GoM and Palk Bay at Mandapam using coir rope and nets, nylon rope nets and nylon
mono-lines (Kaliaperumal, 2004). The fragments of the plants were directly inserted on the twists
of coir ropes and nets tied at mesh intersections of nylon rope nets with nylon twine. These
experiments obtained an average yield of a three-fold increase after 60 days. From the experiments
conducted in a 0.1-ha area, it is estimated that a total quantity of 120 tonnes (fresh weight) could
be harvested from a 1-ha of nets in a year. These experiments also showed that G. edulis could be
successfully cultivated on a commercial scale throughout the year in the GoM coast and during
June-September in the Palk Bay coast of the Mandapam area (Raju and Thomas, 1971;
Umamaheswara Rao, 1974; Krishnamurthy et al., 1975, 1977; Chennubhotla et al., 1978; Kaliaperumal
et al., 1996). Attempts were made to culture the agarophytes G. edulis, Gracilaria corticata and
Gracilaria foliifera in the Kerala coast by reproductive and vegetative propagation methods.
Based on the results obtained with the field trials for G. edulis cultivation, CMFRI evolved a
viable technology for commercial-scale farming using coir rope nets by 1983 (Chennubhotla and
Kaliaperumal, 1983; Kaliaperumal and Ramalingam, 2000). With this method, one kg of seed
material could potentially yield an average of 3 kg/m2 of net after 60 days.
4
CSMCRI is a constituent laboratory of the Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). 11
5
Ropes made from fibre extracted from coconut husks.
Plate 1. Kappaplycus Cultivation in Mandapam first portion
Courtesy: Aquagri Processing Private Limited, New Delhi
12
Plate 2. Kappaplycus Cultivation in Mandapam Second portion
Courtesy: Aquagri processing Private Limited, New Delhi

13
In 1990, G. edulis was transported from Krusudai Islands (Mandapam) and Kavaratti Island to
Minicoy Islands (Lakshadweep) to be cultivated in lagoons on long line ropes and nets by the
vegetative propagation method. Results were encouraging, with yields reaching a maximum of a
30-fold increase in a 60-day growth period. These trials proved that G. edulis could be successfully
cultivated on a commercial scale in the lagoons of these islands during the pre-monsoon (March to
June) and post-monsoon (October to February) seasons (Chennubotla et al., 1992; Kaliaperumal
et al., 1992).
Commercial cultivation of G. edulis was also shown feasible using fiberglass tanks in outdoor
environments with continuous running water and aeration. A growout period of 70 days resulted
in a maximum of a 4.75-fold increase in biomass (Kaliaperumal, 2004). Gracilaria edulis has also
been cultivated successfully by reproductive methods using tetraspores and carpospores. With
this technology, spores from mature plants are liberated and settled on cement blocks and other
substrates and cultured to germlings in the laboratory. They are thereafter transferred to the sea.
The germlings take between 5 to 6 months to reach a harvestable size. The technology has been
perfected at CMFRI for commercial scale cultivation (Reeta Jayasankar and Kaliaperumal, 1991).
In the case of the carrageenan-yielding red algae H. musciformis, CMFRI achieved a four-fold
increase in biomass in 25 days during experimental trials (Rama Rao et al., 1985; Rama Rao and
Subbaramaiah, 1986). With A. spicifera, CMFRI achieved a 3.6-fold increase after 45 days through
vegetative propagation (Kaliaperumal et al., 1986). Kappaphycus alvarezii was cultured successfully
by vegetative propagation at the Suarashtra in the west coast of India and Mandapam regions
(Mairh et al., 1995; Eswaran et al., 2002). It was also successfully cultured in the nearshore areas of
Narakkal (Kochi) and Calicut in the state of Kerala.
Chennubhotla et al. (1986) has documented the pattern of release of spores for several Gracilaria
species found in Mandapam. The TNDoF has also conducted trials on the seaward side of Kurusadai
Island using vegetative propagation techniques (Kalkman et al., 1991).
In 1987, following a great deal of preparatory work and the active involvement of communities
from the fishing villages of Vedalai and Chinnapalam, the FAO-supported Bay of Bengal Programme
set up culture trials of G. edulis after assessing the technical, economic and social viability of
seaweed culture in Ramanathapuram district (Kalkman et al., 1991). The program had the objective
of introducing commercially oriented practices suitable to the local environmental and socio-
economic conditions, to increase the level of training in seaweed culture and to conduct marketing
trials. Although a small amount of seaweed was harvested, these pilot-scale attempts failed
primarily because of grazing by juvenile siganids (rabbit fish) and issues with the management of
the program.
Despite the encouraging results from some of the initial experimental trials, which revealed a
14
clear potential for successful commercial cultivation, industrial development did not follow up
immediately (Coppen and Nambiar, 1991).
5.2 Organized development of seaweed farming6
The first organized attempt to culture seaweed at an industrial scale in India was initiated by
PepsiCo Holdings India Ltd (PepsiCo) in 2000. Given its experience with contract farming, the
international chocolate, foods and pet foods manufacturer MARS requested PepsiCo to explore
seaweed farming as a business opportunity in India. The search for technology and the planting
material eventually led to CSMCRI in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, which had developed the commercial
cultivation method for K. alvarezii. Initially PepsiCo evaluated two types of red seaweeds, K. alvarezii
and H. musciformis. From the onset, evaluation trials revealed that efforts had to be focused on the
former given its greater ease of cultivation and market acceptability.
Activities began in 2002 with the leasing of an area of 10 ha on the Palk Bay side towards
Mandapam; around 100 kg of planting material received from 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. Mono-line cultivation gave way to raft culture with net bottoms to
prevent grazing by fish.
PepsiCo had initially requested permission to operate along a 35-km stretch along the GoM
and Palk Bay, equivalent to an area of about 350 ha. The company had a preference for the GoM
because of its calmer seas, conducive to faster growth rates (average daily growth rate [ADGR] of
6-8 %). However, because the selected area fell within the GoMNNP, cultivation was restricted to
the Palk Bay side, where growth rates are lower (ADGR of only 2.5 to 3.5 %).
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. Even though contract farming offered a greater potential for increased
income, the proposed contractual arrangement did not gain immediate acceptance among fishing
villagers.
The contract farming model proposed an allocation of 45 rafts for each individual member of
a SHG (Box 1) and a harvest cycle of 45 days. The model assumed that each individual within the
group would be able to conveniently plant and harvest one raft per day. A farmer should be able to
harvest around 260 kg per raft, out of which 60 kg would be used as planting material for the next
cycle, leaving 200 kg of fresh weed or 22 kg of dry weed available for sale.
5.2.1 Role of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD)7
NABARD 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
6
This section is based on personal communications and inputs from Mr Abhiram Seth, Managing Director, Aquagri Processing P7
7
This section is based on personal communications from Dr K. Palanisamy and Mr. Kannabiram, Assistant General Managers,
15
NABARD in Chennai and Ramanathapuram (Tamil Nadu), respectively.
funds available to commercial banks, including State Bank of India, for agricultural sector lending
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 channeling 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.
To ensure smooth implementation, farming contracts were arranged between the State Bank
of India (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. By means of
Government Order G.O. Ms No. 229 (dated 20 December 2005), the Government of Tamil Nadu
authorized SHGs to begin seaweed cultivation in the sea waters north of Palk Bay and on the
South of Tuticorin coast. Under this arrangement, SBI approved the release of ` 11,542 million8 to
finance around 60 SHGs (covering 285 members) in the Ramanathapuram-Mandapam area during
2008-2009, with no subsidies being involved
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 (SGSY)
programme, which covered 50 percent of the project cost, provided the subsidy did not exceed
` 10,000 per person or ` 0.125 million per SHG, whichever was less. Under this scheme, the Bank
of Baroda financed 40 SHGs (covering 200 members) during 2008-2009. Sporadic financing has
also been provided in Thanjavur, Tuticorin and Kanyakumari districts of Tamil Nadu by the Indian
Overseas Bank and SBI.
An “Aquaclinic Centre” (Meenvalamaiyyam) operating in Mandapam, has been promoted by
NABARD and the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), an Indian NGO that implements
training programs on various livelihood opportunities in fisheries (including seaweed culture), in
association with the TNDoF. Seaweed culture has been identified by the Indian Government as
one of the rural technologies to be promoted in India (NIRD, 2003).
8
Exchange rate as of April 2010: USD 1.00 = ` 44.422. 16
BOX 1
Self help groups – history, guidelines and performance
Self-help groups (SHGs) first emerged in projects led by the Mysore Resettlement and Development
Agency (MYRADA) in 1985. By 1987 some 300 SHGs had been established in MYRADA projects. NABARD
(1992) issued guidelines that would allow banks to lend directly to SHGs. The Tamil Nadu Women’s
Empowerment Project, an IFAD-supported project implemented through the Tamil Nadu Corporation
Development of Women (TNCDW), was the first project in the country to incorporate the SHG concept
into a state-sponsored program, in 1990.
A SHG is an association of rural poor who have volunteered to organize themselves into a working
group. Members agree to save regularly and pool their savings into a common fund known as the
group corpus. Members agree to use this common fund and such other funds they may receive as a
group through a common-management arrangement. The SHG may consist of 5-20 persons. To be
recognized as a SHG, a group should adhere to the following norms: 1) all members should belong to
families below the poverty line (BPL); 2) only one member from a single family is permitted as a
member in a SHG; 3) a member can belong to only one SHG; 4) members belonging to families
marginally above the poverty line (living with BPL families) can be admitted into a SHG as long as
they do not represent over 20 percent and in exceptional cases over 30 per cent of the entire
membership; 5) above-poverty-line members will not be eligible for state subsidies and positions as
office bearers in the SHG; and 6) 50 per cent of members should be women.
The SHG movement in India has reached an exceptional number of poor households since its
inception and thus has been recognized as the largest microfinance program in the world. Since
1992, when NABARD initiated the SHG-bank linkage programme, over 2.2 million SHGs have been
reached, which translates to almost 33 million households. Today there are more than 3
million SHGs with active banking accounts in India.
As of 31 March 2008, 4770,612 SHGs have been credit-linked in Tamil Nadu, of which 46, 283 are
formed exclusively by women. The pace of formation of SHGs in the southern Indian states is
remarkable. On the other hand, activity in the northern and eastern states is not very encouraging.
These states account for as much as 63 per cent of the country’s rural BPL population, but claim
only 40 percent of the total SHGs. The southern states are home to 11 per cent of the rural BPL
population but account for more than 33 per cent of the SHGs.
Federations of rural SHGs from village up to the district level are necessary to strengthen their voice
and bargaining power and reduce their dependency on external agencies. In most states, however,
very few SHGs have been federated at various levels.
State Government initiatives - Mahalir Thittam programme
The TNCDW has been spearheading the SHG movement in Tamil Nadu in partnership with NGOs
and community-based organizations, under the Mahalir Thitttam programme. Training in leadership
17
quality, team building, accounting systems are currently being undertaken. As of 31 March 2008,
370 thousand SHGs had been formed under this programme, of which 310 thousand had been credit
linked with bank loans amounting to ` 26,734 million. To upscale the program, the Government of
Tamil Nadu has started providing revolving funds of ` 10,000 to groups in rural areas under the
Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) programme, with banks providing cash credit (up to
` 30,000 per group). In 2008-09, the State Government has decided to provide a revolving fund
subsidy to all eligible 150 thousand SHGs. The State Government is also providing seed money to
panchayat-level federations of SHGs functioning in the State (Panchayat is the basic unit of district
administration in Tamil Nadu). The State Government has now started the “Vazhndhu Kaatuvom
Project” to financially assist SHGs with the formation of micro enterprises.
For more details, visit: http://www.tn.gov.in/dtp/shg.htm
http://www.nabard.org/fileupload/DataBank/FocusPapers/SPF%20Executive%20Summary%2009-
10_170209.pdf
5.2.2 Role of the State Bank of India (SBI)

The SBI began to promote seaweed cultivation projects in collaboration with the Chennai-
based NGO Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI) in 2006. Marketing was conducted through
PepsiCo. It is estimated that each member of participating SHGs earned over ` 5,000 a month
after repaying the monthly loan installment to SBI. This model represented a new approach for
funding livelihood restoration projects following the destruction caused by the December 2004
tsunami. Nearly 80 per cent of those involved in these SHGs were women.
The experience with SHGs has proved to be a major success in entrepreneurship development
and loan recovery. By 2006, the bank had granted a total of about ` 22,630 million to over 540
thousand groups, 64 662 of which were located in Tamil Nadu. This approach was also
implemented in the livelihood restoration project in Mandapam and extended to Tuticorin and
Kanyakumari. The bank had plans to extend the project to other states and other coastal districts
in Tamil Nadu. By March 2007, SBI was planning to release over ` 1.0 billion in credit to support
the livelihoods of over 10 thousand families.
5.2.3 Role of the Seaweed Research and Utilization Association (Mandapam)

The Seaweed Research and Utilization Association was established in 1970 at the initiative of
Prof. V. Krishnamurthy, who was at the time an Assistant Director at CSMCRI directly in charge of
the field station in Mandapam (subsequently named the Marine Algal Research Station). The
Association organizes an annual symposium on algae related topics and publishes a journal, Seaweed
Research and Utilization, with Prof. Krishnamurthy as its Chief Editor. This is the only journal in
India devoted exclusively to the publication of research on marine algae.
18
BOX 2
CSMCRI – PepsiCo interaction
During the last few years, PepsiCo has provided funds to the CSMCRI (Bhavnagar, Gujarat) to
carry out a number of projects on the development of viable technologies for Hypnea Kappaphycus
cultivation, harvesting and manufacture of semi refined carrageenan, and studies on the environmental
impact assessment of Kappaphycus cultivation on the marine ecosystem.
CSMCRI successfully transferred the technological package for cultivation of Kappaphycus on a
commercial scale to PepsiCo in March 2000. For its contribution to the development of seaweed
farming in India, the CSMCRI was granted the prestigious CSIR Technology Award in Biological Sciences
in 2001.
At present, PepsiCo is engaging in massive scale cultivation of K. alvarezii in a 15-20 ha area in
the Palk Bay site near the famous temple at Rameshwaram. The total permitted area extends to 100
ha. The company continues to benefit from the advice of CSMCRI scientists.
Source: CSIR News, Vol. 53, No. 13, 15 July 2003.
5.2.4 Role of the Krishnamurthy Institute of Algology

The Krishnamurthy Institute of Algology (KIA) was established by a group of Indian phycologists
who felt there was a need for an institution devoted to research and development on algal studies.
The group unanimously resolved to establish the Institute in Chennai and to name it the
Krishnamurthy Institute of Algology after Prof. Krishnamurthy, who had convened the meeting
for discussing the creation of such an institution in July 1991.
The laboratory is currently equipped for studies on morphology, taxonomy, life history and
basic algae chemistry. The library has an extensive collection of books and journals on phycology.
The herbarium contains about 500 sheets of Indian marine algae, in addition to collections from
South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
The facilities of the institute are open to research to any visitor with a special interest on the
field. During its beginnings, the institute was mostly interested on macroalgal culture and practical
applications; the current focus has expanded to cover microalgae culture, development and
utilization. The institute conducts periodical seminars and symposia on algal-related subjects
and has been publishing a journal (Indian Hydrobiology) for the last 12 years.
5.2.5 Aquagri Processing Private Limited (Aquagri)
PepsiCo sold its eight-year-old seaweed cultivation business – which also resulted in a global
patent for a chemical-free derivative product – to a group of entrepreneurs led by former PepsiCo
executive Abhiram Seth in August 2008. PepsiCo transferred the assets of the seaweed venture at
19
book value to a newly formed company, Aquagri. According to press reports, PepsiCo hived off the
seaweed division owing to problems associated with managing an increasing workforce on a non-
core business activity. Through Aquagri, PepsiCo continues to honor 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. The company is planning to extend operations
in the Gujarat coast and set up the first seaweed processing plant in Tamil Nadu. Aquagri has also
provided buyback guarantee for the new cultivation projects launched by 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.
While seaweed cultivation currently engages about 1,000 people (predominantly women) in
Mandapam area of Tamil Nadu, Aquagri plans to increase that number to 50,000. A seaweed farmer
typically earns ` 3,000 – 5,000 a month but his/her earnings could go up to ` 10,000 a month. In
order to provide prospects for long-term livelihood sustainability, Aquagri introduced the Growers
Investment Program (GIP) in April 2009. Under this program, the company deducts 5 per cent of
the income of the SHG/farmer; the deduction is matched by the company and the total contribution
is deposited in a bank. The overall goal is to initiate a SHG-owned microcredit lending program.
Aquagri also extends monetary assistance to growers to help them meet their out-of pocket expenses
in times of social emergencies.
As an additional example of corporate social responsibility, SNAP Natural and Alginate Products
Limited (SNAP), an Indian alginate conglomerate based in Ranipet, Tamil Nadu, is also engaged in
organizing village committees to help seaweed collectors understand the issues of responsible
collection and conservation of Sargassum resources in the region. The company is reportedly in
the process of taking over the debt burden of the seaweed collectors to release them from their
obligations with seaweed agents and traders. SNAP has also made financial contributions to cover
the salaries of teachers in Panchayat9 schools.
5.2.6 The Tamil Nadu State Department of Fisheries (TNDoF)10
The support of the TNDoF to seaweed farming as an alternative livelihood strategy for small-
scale fishermen has provided a major impetus to the activity. Given the length of the Indian
coastal line and the number of people looking for alternative livelihood opportunities, India has
the potential to evolve into a major world seaweed producer. From 2007 to 2009, the TNDoF
trained 1,300 fishers (13 batches of 100 members each) in the farming of Kappaphycus. This included
200 members of 40 SHGs who received a government subsidy under the Joint Liability Group (JLG)
scheme of the TNDoF.
9
Panchayat is the basic unit of district administration in Tamil Nadu.
20
10
Personal communication: Mr R. Dinakaran, Assistant Director of Fisheries, TNDoF, Mandapam, Ramanathapuram district, Tamil
Nadu (26 October 2009).
5.2.7 Role of the Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI)
The Aquaculture Foundation of India (AFI)11 plays a very active role in the promotion of seaweed
farming in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu. AFI identifies the most suitable SHGs for further
involvement with the DRDA, TNDoF and the banks. With support from Aquagri and the government
departments, AFI also imparts training and provides support to to SHG participants for obtaining
government subsidies and financing from the banks. AFI also works in collaboration with colleges
and universities (such as the M.S. University, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu) to increase the scale of
seaweed farming.
5.2.8 Role of the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB)
The NFDB is a government agency specifically constituted in 2006 for 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 (a) training and demonstration programs and (b) establishment of seaweed
processing units.
For the training programs, farmers/entrepreneurs (preferably fisher women) are selected based
on (i) past experience of the farmer in undertaking seaweed cultivation; (ii) willingness of the
farmer to assimilate scientific advice; and (iii) willingness to upgrade current farming practices.
The NFDB also awards grants to other government agencies, NGOs, etc. for the development of
training and demonstration sites for seaweed farming. The NFDB is currently considering to
provide financial assistance for the construction of seaweed processing plants.
5.3 A time line of the development of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu
Table 3 provides a timeline of the major events marking the development of seaweed farming
in Tamil Nadu since the year 2000.
11
AFI is an NGO based in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. 21
Table 3 A time line of the development of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu, India
2000 Agreement with 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 CSMCRI, but was not found suitable for
commercial scale. The TN Government granted PepsiCo access to one km of water
front (10 ha) for pilot-scale cultivation at Palk Bay. Farming began in Munaikkadu
(Mandapam area) by adapting the mono-line method.
2002 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) officials visited the PepsiCo site to monitor the 10-ha
farming area and certified the project. Mono-line cultivation was in place until April
2002. Due to severe grazing, the entire seeded area (10 ha) was lost in May. Thereafter,
trials were conducted to establish a commercially viable method. ` 0.2 million were
paid to the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board (TNMB) for the leasing of the 1-km water front
area. A full-fledged quality control lab to check the quality dry weeds was also
established.
2003 Based on the results of more than 120 trials, the bamboo raft technique emerged as
the most suitable commercially viable method. The daily-wages model was withdrawn
and the contract faming method was successfully implemented in March 2003.
2004 About 3,500 rafts were harvested, delivering 126 tonnes. Another 5,000 rafts were
seeded for further expansion. Trial cultivation was also carried out in the Prakasam
District of Andhra Pradesh (AP).
2005 PepsiCo expanded farming to the Tuticorin District. For the first time, three SHGs
received subsidies from DRDA to engage in seaweed cultivation. The Department of
Biotechnology (DBT) sanctioned ` 9 million to rehabilitate tsunami-affected areas,
which led to the floating of 5,500 rafts. The company entered into an agreement with
SBI for establishing a buyback guarantee; both infrastructure and cultivators were
placed under insurance coverage.
2006 Expansion of farming to the Tanjore District. A total of 8,100 rafts were harvested,
delivering 244 tonnes of dry weed. The sap extracted from Kappaphycus was found to
be an excellent biofertilizer.
2007 Expansion of farming to Pudukkottai. The DBT activates a project in Tanjore but due
to poor growth/whitening, it is moved to Mandapam. Mono-line method was restarted
again in Mandapam as it is found to provide better returns. Trial cultivation is carried
out in Krishna district (AP); however, salinity drop in back waters and rough waves in
open seas lead to poor plant growth.
2008 Aquagri takes over the PepsiCo project. Commercialization of AquaSAP has been started.
2009 Construction of a Semi-Refined Carrageenan (SRC) unit at SIPCOT is initiated.
22
5.4 Development of alternative production methods and value-added processes and products
The main product derived from K. alvarezii is carrageenan, a gel-forming agent widely used in
the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, food and pet food industries. Carrageenan fetches prices of up to
USD 5,000/tonne in the world market, the total size of which was valued at over USD 300 million
in 2005. The Philippines and Indonesia today account for over 90 per cent of the world production
of K. alvarezii, currently estimated around 400 thousand tonnes. Sixty-five per cent of this total is
traded in dried form. Carrageenan is much superior to agar both in terms of cost and versatility,
particularly in its ability to form an almost infinite variety of gels at room temperature. It is for
this reason that carrageenan compounds are used for thickening, stabilizing and improving viscosity
of various foods and non-food products.
BOX 3
Beneficial environmental impacts of sea plant cultivation
As any other alga, Kappaphycus sequesters carbon, thereby ameliorating the impact of greenhouse
gases.
Twenty-six percent of the dry mass of Kappaphycus consists of carbon. Seaweed farming offers a
clear opportunity for growers to earn carbon credits.
Co-cultivation of algae with marine finfish is recommended as a best aquaculture practice as it
reduces the polluting potential of farming sites.
Algal cultivation creates habitats/shelters for the breeding of fish and other marine organisms.
Most algae have a 90 percent moisture content and, despite growing in sea water, have limited
sodium content and are rich in potassium, which opens up the potential for extracting fresh
potable water and low-sodium salt.
BOX 4
Carrageenan extraction from dry weed
Carrageenans are a family of linear sulphated polysaccharides extracted from seaweeds.
Carrageenan has the ability to form a variety of different gels which are stable at room temperature.
This leads to a wide range of applications as thickening and stabilizing agents in various industries
such as food processing, dairy, pet foods, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.
The process of manufacture and extraction of carrageenan from dry weed is both water and
energy intensive.
Given concerns of water availability in coastal areas, PepsiCo partnered with CSMCRI in developing
fresh-weed processing technology.
23
The partnership established between PepsiCo and CSMCRI to explore more water and energy
efficient processing technologies led to the development of a fresh-weed processing system which
yielded SAP,12 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 12 to 40 per cent (Table 4). This technological innovation
– for which CSMCRI obtained a global patent – was licensed to PepsiCo. The development was
singled out as an important technology breakthrough by former President Dr Abdul Kalam in his
National Technology Day broadcast to the nation in 2006.
Aquagri has sourced the technology for extracting SAP from wet seaweeds and acquired
exclusive marketing rights for three years from CSMCRI.
A seaweed farmer in Rameswaram
A good haul of seaweed, Olaikuda, Rameswaram

12
In this context, SAP is not a generic term. It rather indicates the liquid biofertilizer developed by Aquagri and branded as 24
AQUASAP.
AQUASAP
Seaplant nutrient
AQUAFEED
BOX 5 Animal nutrition
CARRAGEENAN
Polysaccharide
gelling/stabilizing agent
Fig 2 Products from Kappaphycus alvarezii
25
Table 4 Per cent increase in crop yields resulting from the use of bio-fertilizers of seaweed origin
Crop Increase in yield (%) Trials location
Broad Acre Crops 16.1 Pepsi farm.
Gracilaria 2,500 - 3 500 6,000 (Fresh)
Paddy 18 Madras University.
Barley 11; 22 4 farmer fields; Rajasthan government farm.
Wheat 20.2 (2005-6);

Pepsi farm; 5 farmer fields.
13.5 (2006-7)
Sugarcane 40.1; 45 Renuka Sugar; farmer fields in Karnataka.
Mustard 7.2 Rajasthan government farm.
Vegetables
Brinjal 22.1 Pepsi farm.
Tomato 20 Clean Foods.
Potato 26, 25 Techno Tubers; Agricultural University,

Kalyani, West Bengal.
Capsicum 19.1 Pepsi farm.
Chilli 18 Clean Foods.
Legumes
Soya Bean 13.6 (2005);

Soya Producers Association.
15.3 (2006)
Gram 12.5; 16 5 farmers; Rajasthan government farm.
Peanut 14.5 Madras University.
Source: Aquagri Processing Private Limited, New Delhi.
According to 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.
26
BOX 6
Seaweeds as an animal feed supplement
Research and trials have proved beyond doubt that animals can obtain natural nutrients from
seaweeds. The nutritional value of seaweeds may even exceed that of land plants.
Seaweeds contains macro and micronutrients, trace minerals, alginic acid, vitamins, aminoacids,
naturally occurring plant growth hormones and antibiotics. All these compounds are chelated,
making them 100 percent absorbable.
Seaweeds are also a natural source of iodine which acts as an antibiotic to kill germs; it also
increases growth rates and helps regulate metabolic functions in organisms.
The complex constituent profile of seaweeds also contributes to strengthen the immune system
and increase resistance against disease.
Advantages of seaweeds for cattle
International literature and trials suggest that seaweeds
build resistance to disease by ensuring a complete balance of micronutrients. They also help
reduce the incidence of mastitis and cow fever;
increase the availability of nutrients; improve milk yield, fertility and health;
improve fat level and iodine content in milk.
Seaweeds as a poultry feed supplement
Seaweeds as a supplement for poultry feed have been used since the 1960s. Their benefits are as
follows:
Carotenoids (30-60 mg/kg) and trace elements in seaweeds improve egg shell strength.
Fucoxanthin A, which produces a xanthophyll in the gut, improves egg yolk colour.
By adding five-percent-content granules to the feed, trials showed a decrease in mortality rate
of five percent and an increase in weight of 10 percent in treatment individuals as compared to
control individuals.
Source: Aquagri Processing Private Limited, New Delhi
Aquagri has recently completed the construction of two facilities for processing of seaweeds
in Tamil Nadu, located at Mandapam and Manamadurai. These facilities are capable 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.
Other firms such as SNAP (Ranipet, Tamil Nadu) are also developing value-added products
using Sargassum as raw material. The list of products includes organic manure, foliar sprays, and
27
liquid and gel fertilizers. SNAP reported that their products were certified by the Agricultural and
Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) under the National Program for
Organic Produce certification.
5.5 Farming problems
Seaweed farming can be affected by a host of 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 devastating physical damage. Long spined sea urchins are also a pest
and can cause injury to the farmer as he tries to remove them.
The most common symptom of poor health is ice-ice, 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 (FAO,
2003). The period from October to December in Tamil Nadu are months of seasonal rains and
cyclones.
6 Historical production statistics13
6.1 Production potential
Modayil (2004) estimated a total potential of 1 005 000 tonnes of seaweed in six states of
India. The greatest potential exists in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the lowest in the state
of Maharashtra. (Table 5).
Table 5 Estimated harvestable potential of wild seaweeds in India, by State
State Potential (tonnes)

Gujarat 2,50,000
Maharashtra 5,000
Kerala 100,000
Tamil Nadu 2,50 000
Andhra Pradesh 100, 000
Andaman and Nicobar Islands 300, 000
Source: Modayil (2004).
13
The section is strictly a compilation of available information from various sources and the authors have no specific 28
comments to offer on the estimates and the methodology.
Dhargalkar and Pereira (2005) estimated the total seaweed harvest from the Indian coastline
at about 100 thousand tonnes (fresh weight). Their survey covered eight States and two Union
Territories of India. The estimates of seaweed resources in earlier studies by other workers in
various states are given in Table 6.
Table 6 Seaweed resources along the coast of India
Area Annual yield
(tonnes fresh weight Source
Gujarat
Gulf of Kutch 100,000 Chauhan and Krishnamurthy (1968)
Hanumandandi to 19,000 Bhandari and Trivedi (1975)
Vumani (Okha) 650
Adatra reef 60 Sreenivasa Rao et al.,(1964)
Saurashtra coast 282-608 Chauhan and Mirh (1978)
Maharashtra
Konkan coast 315 Chauhan (1977)
Entire coast 20,000 Untawale et al. (1979)
Goa 2,000 Dhargalkar (1981)
Karnataka Negligible
Kerala Negligible Nair et al., (1982)
Tamil Nadu
Cape Comorin to Colachel 5 Koshy and John (1948)
Calimere to Cape Comorin 66,000 Chacko and Malu Pillai (1958)
Pamban 1,000 Varma and Rao (1964)
Palk Bay 900 Umamaheshwara Rao (1968)
South East coast 20,535 Subbaramaiah et al., (1977)
Entire coast 22,044 Subbaramaiah et al., (1977)
Andhra Pradesh Data not available
Orissa
Chilka lake 5 Mitra (1946)
Lakshadweep Islands 3,645 to 7,598 Subbaramaiah et al., (1979)
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Little Andaman 120 Gopinathan and Panigrahy (1983)
Source: Dhargalkar and Pereira (2005).
29
Although structured feasibility studies on seaweed farming did not appear until the last decade
of the twentieth century in India, Thivy (1958) was perhaps the first to map the distribution of
economic seaweeds along the Indian coast. ‘The Survey of Economic Seaweed Resources’ was
initiated by the CSMCRI during 1961-91. This effort was funded by the National Committee on
Science and Technology (NCST). However, surveys were sporadic after 1980 owing to lack of funding.
The Indian seaweed flora is highly diversified: boreal, temperate and subtropical species have
all been reported. Krishnamurthy (2005) reported that Indian waters contain 271 genera and 1,153
species of marine algae belonging to four groups of algae: Cholorophyceae, Rhodophyceae,
Phaeophyceae and Cyanophyceae. These seaweed resources have supported a collection industry
that currently faces many obstacles such as overexploitation of a number of species, poor quality
of harvested material, labour shortages during the paddy harvesting and transplanting seasons,
lack of technology to improve processed product quality, and lack of information on new and
alternative sources of raw materials. Despite the great number of sheltered bays and lagoons
suitable for mariculture, large-scale attempts to grow seaweed were never attempted.
6.2 Production statistics of Kappaphycus seaweed
PepsiCo’s entry into Kappaphycus culture marks the beginning of organized, commercial-
oriented production of this specific type of seaweed. Production increased from 21 tonnes in 2001
to 714(+) tonnes (dry weight) in 2009. The entire production resulted from the output of the SHGs
working in coordination with PepsiCo (Table 7).
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 will increase its purchases of wet
Kappaphycus, enabling growers to devote a greater portion of their time on farming rather than
on drying. Wet seaweed is currently being purchased from the SHG members at the rate of ` 1.50
per kg.
Table 7 provides information on raft productivity in Kappaphycus farming. The output per raft
increased from 21 kg in 2002 to almost 50 kg in 2008, i.e. productivity more than doubled in just
seven years.
30
Table 7 Area, production and exports of Kappaphycus in Tamil Nadu, India (2001-2009)
Cultivation Growth Business Procurement Number of Production Exports
Year method rate (%) model cost, (`)/kg (dry ML/BR dry weight (FCL of dry
weight)** (tonnes) seaweed)
2001 ML 1.5 - 6.0 Company Daily wage Test plots 21 1

owned system
2002 ML 2.2 - 2.4 Company Daily wage ML: 82 4

owned system 5 275
2003 BR: 75% 2.0 - Company Daily wage ML: 3 567 147 7
ML: 25% 2.5 owned and system BR: 1 962
contract & 4.50
farming
2004 BR 2.6 Contract 4.50 & 7.50 BR: 3 469 126 6

farming
2005 BR 3.25 Company 7.50 & 8.50 BR: 3 450 135 6

owned
2006 BR 2.5 - 3.0 Company 8.50 & 10.00 BR: 8 100 244 12
owned
2007 BR: 95% 2.5 - Contract 10.00 & 12.00 BR: 10 464 315 15
ML: 5% 3.0 farming
and private
cultivators
2008 BR: 90% 2.5 - 3.0 Company 12.00 & 14.00 BR: 588 28
ML: 10% owned 16 000+
2009 BR: 90% 2.5 - 3.0 Company 14.00/kg BR: 714* 34*
ML: 10% owned (dry) 18 000+
1.75/kg (fresh)
TOTAL 2, 372 113
Note: BR: bamboo rafts; ML: mono-line culture; FCL: Full Container Load (1 container = 21
tonnes).
* Data incomplete for 2009.
** The column includes two prices to indicate that prices offered to SHG members were
revised in the same year.
31
Of the 250 -260 kg of seaweed that is obtained as wet weed from a raft, about 25 percent of
the harvest is kept aside as seed material (cuttings) for planting the next raft. Therefore, since the
yield of dry weed is a proportion of total output harvested, there is an urgent need to develop an
off shore seed jetty to help the SHG farmers to outsource their seed (instead of keeping a part of
their total harvest towards seeding the next raft). Table 8 indicates loss in dry weed yield and
income resulting from retaining a portion of the total harvest as seed material. It may also be
noted that yields have been increasing over time indicating that SHG farmers have been seeding
and harvesting more rafts and monolines than estimated, daily. The yields have risen from 21 kg
to 49 kg at full utilization rate in less than a decade. The figures given here are indicative (as
obtained from Aquagiri Procesing Private Limited) since the data is a mix of output from rafts and
monoline culture.
Table 8 Trends in raft productivity, 2001-2009 (kg)
Number of Dry weed yield per raft at Number of Dry weed yield per
Year raft at75% utilization
ML/BR 100% utilization (kg/raft) ML/BR
(kg/raft)
2001 Test plots Test plots Test plots Test plots

2002 5 275 20.73 3956 15.55
2003 5 529 35.45 4147 26.59
2004 3 469 48.43 2602 36.32
2005 3 450 52.17 2588 39.13
2006 8 100 40.16 6075 30.12
2007 10 464 40.14 7848 30.10
2008 16 000+ 49.00 12000 36.75
2009* 18 000+ 13500 **
**Ongoing (*No of BR and ML)
7 Seaweed exports
By international standards, Indian agar and alginates do not compare favourably in terms of
gel strength and viscosity. Although Indian products are competitive on a cost basis and are not
subject to export restrictions, the world market offers little scope for most categories of Indian-
produced agar and alginates. However, some large producers (e.g. Marine Chemicals, Kochi) have
achieved important export levels.
Seaweed exports data are available from MPEDA and are shown in Table 9. PepsiCo has exported
32
113 containers of dried seaweed between 2000 and 2008 (valued at USD 0.923 million). It should
be noted that PepsiCo exports are not reflected in MPEDA statistics.
Table 9 Exports of seaweeds from India
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Year Quantity Value Value Exports of PepsiCo
(Tonnes) ( ` million) (USD Million) (FCL Dry)
2000-01 Negligible Negligible Negligible 1
2002-03 0.37 0.149 0.00 7
2006-07 21 0.538 0.01 15
2007-08 74.25 1.991 0.05 28
2008-09 855.82 38.438 0.86 34*
Sources: MPEDA (columns 3 and 4); Aquagri (column 5). FCL: Full Container Load (1 FCL: 21 tonnes).
*Incomplete data for 2008-09
8 Socio-economic dimensions of seaweed farming in India
Kappaphycus seaweed grow profusely in areas with sandy or rocky bottoms, salinity in the
range of 28 to 33 ppt, temperature around 30o ± 3o C, depth around 1.5 meters, moderate light
intensity and wave action. A seed plant of 150 g 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. But Kappaphycus seaweed
grows more than eight times in the open sea where wave action is fairly high (AFI, 2008).
The Kudumbam (family) model of cultivation (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 a 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 maintainance and harvests on
the due date. Basic infrastructure is facilitated by the company, the harvest is purchased on a
buyback basis and payments are effected by the company through the bank accounts of the SHG
(Box 7).
The advantages of the SHG/KMC model are manifold and obvious. The major advantage is
33
that fishers are given an opportunity to become entrepreneurs in an activity with growth potential.
The seaweed farming initiative in Ramanathapuram started with a strong positive gender bias.
Women took up the gauntlet with ardor as the activity empowered them with a highly productive,
non-hazardous work environment. The overall economic and social quality of life has improved by
leaps and bounds as discussed in the following sections. Convenient hours and stress-free work of
4-6 hours a day enhanced their quality of life. It has been argued that seaweed farming development
has also led to alleviate pressure on fish stocks and reduce dependence on agriculture, although
these facts are not well documented. According to experts, the area suitable for culture in
Ramanathapuram district --– one of the most under-developed regions in Tamil Nadu – could
exceed 50 thousand hectares. It has been estimated that substantial employment and income
opportunities can be provided to more than 50 thousand families for every 10 thousand hectares
brought under cultivation.
8.1 Locations
PepsiCo started operations in 2002 by leasing an area of 10 hectares (one km of sea front) on
Palk Bay, near Mandapam (Ramanathapuram district) in Tamil Nadu. Currently, seaweed farming
is practiced in Tamil Nadu at various scales of operation in Mandapam, Rameswaram, Pudukottai,
Tuticorin, Tanjore and Cuddalore. Experimental trials are being conducted in Thondi and Karangadu
areas of Ramanthapuram district, Parangipettai in Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu, Ongole district
of Andhra Pradesh on the east coast, Edavanakad in Kerala and state of Diu on the west coast of
India.
8.2 The SHG model of seaweed farming
There are currently more than 110 SHGs involved in seaweed farming in the Ramanathapuram
district. Each group presently comprises five persons. During 2002-2003, the daily-wage corporate
model was the prevailing production arrangement in the region, which came to be replaced by
the more successful contract farming/SHG model.
In addition to PepsiCo (2002-2008) and Aquagri, the seaweed farming movement in India has
been promoted by a network of institutions, namely NABARD, commercial banks, the TNDoF, AFI,
DRDA, DBT, CSMCRI, CMFRI and numerous NGOs.
The economics of the raft-culture/SHG production model for the farming of Kappaphycus as
supported by the TNDoF (2009) is presented in Tables 10 and 11. Fifty per cent of the total production
cost of 45 rafts per SHG trainee (` 31,050) is borne by the TNDoF; the other 50 per cent is financed
with a commercial bank loan.
34
BOX 7
The socio-economic premise for Kappaphycus culture in India
The advantages of Kappaphycus cultivation in coastal waters of Tamil Nadu are:
Kappaphycus grows by absorbing nutrients (N, P and other minerals) present in the seawater
(i.e, no input of external nutrients is needed).
Kappaphycus is a versatile plant capable of growing almost anywhere in tropical marine
environments.
It propagates vegetatively by cuttings (no need to undergo sexual phases) and thus it is easy to
reproduce.
Grows fast and regenerates fast after harvesting.
Can be consumed raw or used in salads.
Culture does not involve applications of fertilizers, growth hormones, pesticides, insecticides,
or herbicides; the final product is 100-percent organic.
Cultivation technology is simple and environmentally friendly.
Kappaphycus is a major source of Kappa carrageenan.
Kappaphycus culture does not release any harmful chemicals or solid wastes into the surrounding
environment.
Two to three persons in a family can handle the operations and earn from ` 12,000 to 15,000 a month
(The average net income per annum per farmer is ` 73,107 which works out to ` 6,092 per month per
farmer. In a family if two to three members are involved in seaweed farming, they can earn about `
12,200 to `18,000, which is near to the approximation of ` 12,000 to ` 15,000 a month)
The technological and economic viability has been established in Tamil Nadu.
Farming, harvesting and processing generates new cottage industries and direct and indirect
employment for the coastal poor.
Commercial banks provide loans to SHGs without collateral (up to ` 0.50 million per SHG).
Buyback of the produce is guaranteed.
Research, development institutions, TNDoF, commercial banks and corporate investors have
developed a network to promote Kappaphycus cultivation in the coastal waters of Tamil Nadu.
Refined carrageenan extracted from Kappaphycus fetches a price ranging from USD 7,000 to
10 000 per tonne depending upon grade and quality. Raw weeds with around 30 percent moisture
get a price of USD 250-600/tonne.
Kappaphycus is a high-value seaweed with expanding demand and innumerable applications in
various industries.
Because of its plant-growth-promoting properties, Kappaphycus culture could revolutionize
organic agriculture in India. Preliminary experiments have revealed substantial growth
enhancement (18-40 percent) in rice, sugarcane, groundnut and wheat.
Source: Modified from AFI (2008).
35
Table 10 Economics of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu, India: cost of materials for the construction
of one raft (3 m x 3 m)
Items Quantity/ Raft `/ Unit Total value (`)
Bamboo rafts 64 ft ` 3.10/ft 198.50
Five cornered anchors 15 kg ` 40/kg 60.00
3-mm nylon rope (1.25 mm 0.45 kg ` 10/kg 50.00

thickness / 4.5 m length / 20
lengths)
20 ropes for seeding 400 cuttings 0.165 kg ` 120/kg 20.00
36 m of 6-mm thickness nylon 0.65 kg ` 110/kg 75.00

rope (for the manufacturing of
the raft)
3.5 x 3.5-m nets for reducing 1.13 kg ` 75/kg 85.00

grazing by fish
28 m of 2-mm thickness ropes 0.09 kg ` 110/kg 10.00

for tying the nets to raft bottoms
1 kg nylon rope of 5.4 m length 0.10 kg ` 110/kg 11.00

pieces for tying together a
batch of 10 rafts.
Anchor ropes 17 M of 10mm 0.09 kg ` 110/kg 10.00

thickness. 1 length for a batch
of 10 rafts
65 kg of seed materials 65 kg ` 0.85/kg 55.25

(including 5 kg-loss in handling)
Transportation charges for

seed materials 25.00
Mats/ladders/baskets/ knives, etc. 40.00
Floats 25.00
TOTAL 690.00
36
It maybe noted that the interest rate is charged annually, even though culture is restricted to
270 days and since the Tamil Nadu coast is subjected to the north east monsoon seaweed culture
is not practiced during the balance of 95 days (Table 10). The yield is calculated for 270 days as the
culture operations are confined to this period in a year. One raft a day is expected to be seeded and
harvested by the SHG farmer. Therefore the yield of dry weed (24 kg) indicated is for a cycle of 45
days. It may also be noted that the figures cited here by the government of Tamil Nadu forms the
basis on which the commercial banks work out their lending strategies to the SHGs. However, the
farmers now (December 2009) are receiving upto ` 18/- per kg of dry weed based on quantity and
quality of output. Many farmers are able to handle as many as 3 rafts a day by way of seeding and
harvesting therby enhancing their economic returns handsomely.
Table 11 Economics of seaweed farming (raft culture) in Tamil Nadu, India: analysis of costs and
returns for the first year of operation
Item
Item Quantity
number
1 Cost of 45 rafts per farmer - ` 31,050
2 Subsidy from TNDoF (50%) - ` 15,525
3 Bank loan (50%) - ` 15 ,525
4 Production from 45 rafts in 45 days (kg fresh weight) 300
5 Seed material allocated to the next stocking cycle (kg) 60
6 Production of dried weed 24 kg
7 Interest on bank loan (11%) - ` 1,708
8 Insurance - ` 380
9 Returns (24 kg @ ` 14.00 x 270 days) - ` 90,720
10 Net returns for the first year (9 - [2 + 7 + 8]) - ` 73,107
Source: Seaweed Culture, Golden Jubilee Village Self Employment Opportunities, Government of Tamil Nadu (2008-09).
8.3 Seaweed farming practices

Two different culture techniques are practiced in Mandapam: raft culture and mono-line culture.
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 3’x3’) is used to suspend the seaweed about 50
cm below the surface. Three-mm polypropylene ropes are stretched in parallel between the two
sides of the raft, at 10-15 cm intervals. The seedlings are tied to the ropes and the raft is anchored
to the bottom. Anchor ropes may be need to hold the raft below the surface at the beginning but
37
as the plants grow and add weight to the raft, extra support (such as polystyrene foam boxes tied
to the corners of the rafts) may be required to prevent it from sinking too low in the water. Specific
details of this technique are provided in Figure 3.
A cluster of 4-6 rafts during the monsoon season or a cluster of 10 rafts during the normal
season can be anchored with a five-toothed iron anchor of 15 kg. 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.
Figure 3 Top view of a 3 m x 3 m bamboo raft with 4-ft diagonals.
Source : AFI, 2008

In the mono-line culture method, ropes of 60 m each are tied in two sections to avoid sags in
the line caused by the weight. Each fishermen or stakeholder is given 45 ropes, which are tied in
two plots of 30 m x 45 m each. A spacing of one metre is allowed between the two plots.
In each plot, 150 seaweed cuttings are inserted in the ropes, leaving a spacing of 20 cm. The
initial weight of the seedling is 200 g and thus a total of 60 kg of seed material is required for each
production cycle. Normally the seaweed plants are simply tied up to the nylon ropes. However,
38
during the summer months of May-June (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.
The major advantage of mono-line culture is that it provides superior yields to those achieved
with rafts. The disadvantages are that investment per rope is higher, there is a higher threat of
grazing by fish, ropes could break (leading to crop loss), and maintenance of the plots is labor
intensive.
Table 12 Economics of mono line culture of seaweeds per block of 60 ropes
Item Quantity
Item
Number
1 Average initial investment for 60m rope- ` 1,716
2 Average operating cost for 60 ropes 175
3 Cost of seedlings 105
4 Production from 60 ropes in 45 days (kg fresh weight) 400
5 Seed material allocated to the next stocking cycle (kg) 100
6 Production of dried weed at 10:1 ratio of fresh to dry seaweed 30
7 Average harvest of dried seaweed per rope (after deducing
2 kg for impurities and other wastes)-kg 28
8 Average gross revenue - ` 448
9 Cost of Harvesting- ` 50
10 Net returns per farmer per block of 60 ropes- ` 398
Harvest is normally conducted after 45 days in the Ramanathapuram district; 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 from the two plots ranges from
350 to 400 kg of fresh seaweed. From this harvest, 100 kg are separated as planting material
for the subsequent cycle. Hence 25 to 30 kg of dry weed are obtained from a harvest of 250-
300 kg of fresh weed after 45 days (10:1 ratio). The estimated annual harvest of seaweeds
(per 900 ropes) is 27,000 kg, which is higher than what is obtained under raft culture.
The average initial investment for 60-m length of long line culture amounts to ` 1,716,
which is higher than that of the raft, which was ` 690. (Table 12) The cost of the nylon ropes
accounted for of 33 per cent of total investment but the labour charges for the installation
accounted for the highest share of 38.5 per cent of the total investment (` 660). The average
39
operating cost per rope worked out to ` 175 per 60 m ropes, if family labour wage is not
included. This comprised the cost of seedlings, which worked out to ` 105 for 60 kg seed
material. The average harvest per rope was 28 kg of dried seaweed, which fetched gross
revenue of ` 448. Deducting the harvesting charge of ` 50, the average net income per rope
worked out to ` 398 (Table 11).
Although mono-line culture appears to be more profitable than raft culture, the
operational difficulties may be overbearing, especially when the workforce is mostly composed
by women. The non-monetary advantages of raft culture make it a preferred system choice in
the Ramanathapuram district. As such, this study will concentrate on the socio-economics of
the raft culture system.
The socio-economic status of seaweed farmers was assessed through personal interviews
using a pre-tested schedule. Details on socio-economic parameters such as family size, age
composition, experience in fishing and seaweed farming, asset ownership, income and
occupational status, indebtedness, and socio-economic status improvement associated with
seaweed farming, were collected from the sample respondents (n = 437). The population of
organised SHG seaweed farmers at the time the survey was administered was estimated at
1,000. The sample was drawn based on purposive sampling proportionate to size. For
comparison purposes, respondents were grouped into two major areas: Mandapam and
Rameshwaram. The selected locations represent the mainland and island ecosystems,
respectively.
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.
The earliest groups in the selected locations seem to have been formed in 2006 (Table 13).
The SHGs are predominantly formed by women, even though a few of the SHG consisted
exclusively of men and some other SHGs were mixed. Each SHG consists of five members. The
names of the supporting institutions are also indicated in Table 13; the agencies most actively
engaged are 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.
A number of SHGs in Vedalai, Thonithurai, Ariyankkundu and R.Vadakadu are currently
handling more than 1,000 rafts each. These SHGs have been exposed to Kappaphycus culture
longer than other groups; because of this experience, they are able to obtain yields exceeding
50 kg 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 now expanding to other districts within Tamil Nadu such as
Pudukottai and Thanjavur also(Annexure I).
40
Table 13 . Composition, structure and performance of SHGs engaged in seaweed farming in the
Mandapam and Rameshwaram regions of Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India
Number Number Annual
Name of Supporting Starting Number of female of male Number yeild per
location Name of SHG
institution Year of SHGs members members of rafts raft (kg)
Sri Lingeshwar
Andavar SHG DBT 2006 3 12 10 1040 52
Vedalai Sri Karumaliyan
Andavar SHG DBT 2006
Sakthi
Mariyamman RDDA 2007
Mahalir
Umiyal MNS Mahalir
Puram SHG RDDA 2007 1 12 0 540 53
Valarpirai
Andavar SHG DBT 2006 4 0 20 900 58
Vidivelli
Andavar SHG DBT
Munaikadu Team Andavar
SHG TNDoF
Kadal Pavalam
Andavar SHG DBT
Kadal Alli
Mahalir SHG DBT 2006 3 12 3 750 54
T.Nagar Kadal Thamarai
Mahalir SHG DBT 2006
Kadal Pasu
Mixed SHG DBT 2006
Meeenavar Karuppanasamy
colony Andavar SHG DBT 2007 2 0 10 400 55
Sri Thillai
Adavar SHG DBT 2007
Uthayam Mixed
SHG DBT 2006 5 12 19 1050 43
Krishna Andavar
SHG DBT 2006
Thonithurai Nila Andavar SHG DBT 2006
41
Kadal Nila
Kadal Muthu DBT 2007
Pamban Jesus Andavar – DBT
DBT 2007 1 0 5 200 43
Vasantham
Andavar SHG DBT 2006 3 5 10 675 48
Akkal madam Kadal Thendral
Andavar DBT 2007
Kadal Osai
Mahalir TNDoF 2008
Nallupanai Vetri Andavar SHG DBT 2006 1 0 5 250 46
Ariyan Red Algae
kundu Andavar SHG DBT 2006 3 12 10 1040
Thendral
St. Sebasthiyar
Mahalir SHG RDDA 2007
A.Vadakadu Nalvalvu Josw
a Andavar SHG DBT 2006 1 0 5 250 46
R. Vadakadu Private
Cultivators 2008 0 0 0 1080 47
Parvatham Sri Sastha
Mahalir SHG RDDA 2007 1 12 0 540 48
Sambai Kadal Rani
Mahalir SHG DBT 2007 1 5 0 200 51
Subam
Andavar SHG DBT 2006 3 5 10 700 49
Dharma
Muneshwarar
Mangadu Kadal Pura
Nalvalvu
Antoniyar
Andavar SHG DBT 2006 2 12 5 790 51
42
Number Number Annual
Name of Supporting Starting Number Number
Name of SHG of female of male yeild per
location institution Year of SHGs of rafts
members members raft (kg)
Iyarkai Mahalir
SHG RDDA 2007
Paralogamatha
Mahalir SHG TNDoF 2009 5 5 0 225 —
Punitha
Antoniyar
Andavar SHG TNDoF 2009 5 0 5 225 —
Olaikuda Annai Therasa
Sengol Matha
Punitha Annal
Kadal Pura
Kadal Pookkal
Sri Vinayagar
Kaliamman
Sambai Ramanathasamy
Pathrakaliamman
Kanthari Amman
Prathingara Devi
Kadal Ulagam
43
8.4.1 Socio-economic indicators in seaweed farming
The socio-economics of the farming villages were studied by examining parameters such as
average family size, age and caste structure, occupation and income patterns, consumption
expenditure and indebtedness.
8.4.1.1 Head of the family - Family size
Normally in Tamilnadu as in most other states of India, Head of the family is the senior most
male in the family. Of late, widows who are the bread winners are also represented as family
head. The analysis of the head of the family is given in Table 14.
The analysis of the head of the family of the respondents revealed that about 64 percent of
the respondents in Mandapam and 66 percent in Rameswaram are males and the rest are female
seaweed farmers (Table 14). The concept of 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, men in
fishing households followed their women. The initial success of women in seaweed farming
motivated men to enter the activity as well.
The average family size of respondents ranged from 4.5 in Mandapam to 5.5 in Rameshwaram.
This is consistent with the national average of 4.5 for fishermen families reported by the Marine
Fishery Census (CMFRI, 2005).
Table 14 Gender composition and average family size of respondents
Mandapam Rameshwaram
Category
Number % Number %
Male 145 64 139 66
Female 81 36 72 34
Total 226 100 211 100
Average family size 4.5 5.5
8.4.1.2 Caste / Religion structure

The analysis of caste structure reveals that only a few castes like valaiyan and kadayar
are getting involved in seaweed farming (Table 15). It must be noted that these castes form
the major coastal belt community engaged in fishing and related enterprises. It also must be
noted that a number of individuals with capital resources but without any other liaison to
the coastal area have entered seaweed farming. To avoid potential conflicts, authorities have
adopted the method of allocating the oceanic inshore area among stakeholders based on the
"ration cards" 14 allocated by the Government of Tamil Nadu (Olaikuda village, Rameswaram).
14
Ration cards are family food cards allotted to households in India which entitles the holder to periodic subsidized rations 44
of food. These cards also function as identification documents enabling the holder to establish his place of residence at a
particular place and
Table 15. Caste and religion structure of the sample respondents
Caste structure
Number % Number %
Backward communities 0 0 15 7.11
Valaiyan 124 54.99 119 56.40
Ambalakarar 5 2.01 14 6.64
Sheeper 0 0 1 0.47
Kadayar 63 28.07 21 9.95
MBC 0 0 33 15.64
Servai 23 9.93 1 0.47
Muslim 5 2.01 2 0.95
Christian 0 0 3 1.42
Paman 0 0 1 0.47
Paller 0 0 1 0.47
Nadars 6 3.99 0 0
Total 226 100.00 211 100.00
8.4.1.3 Type of family

Most of the sample respondents' families belong to the nuclear family type15 (Table 16).
However, Rameshwaram has a relatively greater number of joint families16 involved in seaweed
farming. The social development programmes promoted by the Government of Tamil Nadu have
led to a general improvement of 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 taking place in coastal villages.
Table 16. Family type
Type of family
Number % Number %
Nuclear 219 97 162 77
Joint 7 3 49 23
Total 226 100 211 100
15
A nuclear family is a family group consisting of only a father and mother and their children, who share living quarters.
16
A Hindu Joint Family or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or a Joint Family is an extended family arrangement prevalent
45
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.
8.4.1.4 Experience in fishing and seaweed farming
Table 17 indicates that 92 and 72 percent of the respondents in Mandapam and Rameshwaram,
respectively, have between 11 and 25 years of experience in fishing. Because these individuals
belong to the middle-aged group, they can be expected to successfully adapt to innovations in
farming techniques.
Table 17. Fishing experience
Years of experience
Number % Number %
Less than 10 years 11 6 49 23
11- 25 years 208 92 151 72
More than 25 years 7 2 11 5
Total 226 100 211 100
The concept of seaweed farming was introduced only after 2001, thus the maximum
experience a farmer can be expected to have is nine years (Table 18). About 85 percent of
respondents in both areas have about five years of experience in seaweed farming, with 9-13
percent of respondents already having between 6-7 years of experience. This indicates the level
of commitment of stakeholders as fishers perceive seaweed farming as a less risky and more
sustainable activity relative to traditional fishing practices.
Table 18. Experience in seaweed farming
Years of experience
Number % Number %
Less than 5 years 196 87 176 84
6 - 7 years 20 9 28 13
More than 7 years 10 4 7 3
Total 226 100 211 100
8.4.1.5 Age classification of respondents

Table 19 indicates that the proportion of middle-aged individuals (31- 50 years old) in both
groups was around 60 percent. This age bracket corresponds to a productive group of individuals,
which is usually receptive to new ideas and is capable of implementing them, even if doing so
involves some risk.
46
Table 19 Age classification of respondents
Age group
Number % Number %
Below 30 years old 70 31 53 25

31- 50 years old 138 61 124 59
Above 50 years old 18 8 34 16
Total 226 100 211 100
8.4.1.6 Literacy level of respondents

The literacy rate was estimated to be approximately equal to the district average of 52.8
percent. The infrastructure of educational facilities in the area is poor. The cumulative quality of
life (QoL) index was estimated to range from 0.285 at Puliamadam to 0.485 in Vedalai, with an
average cumulative QoL index below normal tending towards unsatisfactory (CSMCRI, 2003). The
literacy level of respondents in the two areas is comparatively higher than the national average of
about 65 percent. Table 20 reveals that about 43 percent of respondents in Mandapam have
undergone elementary schooling while 43 percent of respondents in Rameshwaram have reached
middle-school level. About 10-20 per cent of respondents have achieved secondary level of schooling.
Table 20. Literacy level of respondents
Literacy level
Number % Number %
Illiterate 2 1 14 7
Elementary 97 43 17 8
Lower primary 48 21 38 18
Upper primary 49 22 91 43
Secondary 25 11 38 18
Higher Secondary 5 2 13 6
Total 226 100 211 100
8.4.1.7 Occupational profile
Fishing and seaweed farming are th0e two most important occupations in these two areas. In
Mandapam, 48 percent of the respondents practiced fishing as a primary activity while only 13
percent chose fishing as the primary occupation in Rameshwaram (Table 21). Seaweed farming
has become the primary livelihood activity of fishers in Rameshwaram, which has contributed to
reduce pressure on the fish stocks of the area. The emergence of seaweed farming has also
47
contributed to reduce the political tension with neighbouring Sri Lanka over access to common
fishing grounds.
Table 21 occupational profile of the respondents
Occupation
Number % Number %
Fishing 108 48 24 13
Seaweed farming 118 52 187 87
Total 226 100 211 100
8.4.1.8 Income status

Table 22 indicates that the maximum proportion of income earned in fishing in the Mandapam
area was within the range of ` 10,001 to ` 20,000 (69 percent), followed by the less than ` 10,000
bracket. In the case of seaweed farming, most individuals earn income between ` 20,001 and
` 30,000 (57 per cent), with two individuals reporting even higher earnings (` 30,001 to ` 40,000
bracket).
Table 22. Income levels in the Mandapam area
Income levels Fishing Seaweed farming

(` per year) Number % Number %
Less than 10 000 62 28 20 9
10 001- 20 000 157 69 76 33
20 001- 30 000 7 3 128 57
30 001- 40 000 0 0 2 1
40 001 - 50 000 0 0 0 0
50 001- 80 000 0 0 0 0
80 001- 100 000 0 0 0 0
More than 100 000 0 0 0 0
Total 226 100 226 100
In Rameshwaram, the maximum proportion of income earned from fishing was also in the
range of ` 10,001 to ` 20,000 (57 per cent) while the maximum proportion of income earned in
seaweed farming was equally split between the ranges of ` 10,001 to ` 20,000 (25 percent) and
` 20,001 to ` 30,000 (24 percent). A considerable number of seaweed farming practitioners reported
relatively high income levels, up to ` 100,000. Tables 22 and 23 highlight the clear potential of
seaweed farming for lifting the socio-economic status of the communities in both regions.
48
Table 23. Income levels in the Rameswaram area
Income levels Fishing Seaweed farming
(` per annum) Number % Number %
Less than 10 000 5 2 27 13
10 001- 20 000 53 25 121 57
20 001- 30 000 51 24 41 19
30 001- 40 000 36 17 16 8
40 001 - 50 000 46 22 4 2
50 001- 80 000 16 8 2 1
80 001- 100 000 1 1 0 0
More than 100 000 3 1 0 0
Total 211 100 211 100
8.4.1.9 Housing and livestock ownership

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 kutcha houses was high in Mandapam (75 percent). The proportion
of kutcha and pucca houses was approximately the same (49 percent) in Rameshwaram (Table 24).
Only four respondents (in Rameshwaram) were found to reside in Reinforced Cement Concrete
(RCC) houses.16
Table 24 Housing ownership and type
Fishing Seaweed farming
Details
Number % Number %
Ownership of house
Owned 226 100 211 100
Rented
Type of House
Kutcha 171 75 103 49
Pucca 55 25 104 49
RCC 0 0 4 2
Total 226 100 211 100
16
A pucca house is one which 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 either tiles, GCI (Galvanized Corrugated Iron) sheets,
asbestos cement sheets, RBC (Reinforced Brick Concrete), RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete), timber, etc. In a kutcha house, the 49
walls and/or roof are made of materials other than those mentioned above, such as un-burnt bricks, bamboos, mud, grass, reeds,
thatch, loosely packed stones, etc
Livestock husbandry is an important source of supplementary income for the fishermen
households. Maintaining livestock is also often seen as a symbol of prestige among rural
households. About 55 percent of respondents in Mandapam and 60 percent in Rameshwaram
maintain livestock to supplement their income and domestic needs (Table 25). The most common
livestock type is poultry.
Table 25 Livestock ownership
Livestock Details
Number % Number %
Cattle 43 18 8 4
Buffalos 15 7 0 0
Poultry 67 30 116 55
Non owners 101 45 87 41
Total 226 100 211 100
8.4.1.10 Changes in patterns of consumer expenditure

During the last five years, the surveyed households were 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 %) and 141 persons (67 %) had purchased cell phones
in Mandapam and Rameshwaran, respectively, over the last five years.
8.4.1.11 Occupational patterns
Table 26 present the occupational patterns of respondents. On average, one member from
each family is involved in active fishing in both areas. One member per family is involved in post-
harvest fisheries like peeling, drying, freezing, processing, value addition and related activities 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
Rameswaram. The average annual employment 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 (161 days in Rameshwaram as opposed to 144 days in
Mandapam).
50
Table 26 Occupational patterns in Mandapam and Rameshwaram areas, Ramanathapuram
district, Tamil Nadu
Name of the Number of days Number of days
occupation Average number of employed per year Average number of employed per year
members per family members per family
Normal Lean Peak Normal Lean Peak
Active fishing 01 179 0 0 01 181 66 98

Post-harvest
fisheries 01 96 0 0 02 100 0 0
Seaweed
culture/harvest 02 144 0 0 02 161 95 106
8.4.1.12 Estimated labour force in the seaweed farming sector

Table 27 provides an estimate of total employment (man-days per year) in seaweed culture in
the Mandapam and Rameswaram regions. Assuming that two members in each household are
engaged in seaweed farming during 144 and 161 days of the year in Mandapam and Rameswaram,
respectively, the sector would be providing 148,896 and 155,526 man-days of employment per
year in the two areas (this calculation assumes a total of 1,000 families engaged in seaweed
farming in the Ramanathapuram district). The various development programs in the region are
currently planning for total of 5 thousand families to become involved with seaweed farming,
which would translate into 765 thousand days of employment in the district (assuming 153 days
of employment per person per year). More generally, it has been argued that seaweed farming
could provide employment to 200 thousand families in the country, with annual earnings of
about ` 0.10 million per family (AFI, 2008).
Table 27 Estimation of employment generation in seaweed farming in Ramanathapuram district,
Tamil Nadu, India
(1) (2) (3) (4) (4) (6) (8)
Number of Average Days of Days of Days of
employ -ment Total Man-days
sample number of employment employment in
inseaweed number of per year in
Area households family members in seaweed seaweed farming families seaweed
farming per
engaged in farming per year for year for (N = 1000) farming
seaweed per person sample house sample house (2)x(3)x(6
farming per year holds holds
(1) x (2) x (3) (1) x (2) x (3)
Manda-
pam 226 02 144 65,088 51.7 517 148,896
Ramesh-
waram 211 02 161 67,942 48.3 483 155, 526
51
8.4.1.13 Consumption expenditure patterns
The household consumption basket includes expenses on items such as food, oils, meat, fish,
clothing, medical and children education expenses. The average annual expenditure per household
amounted to ` 28,417 in Mandapam and ` 31,625 in Rameswaram (Table 28).
The maximum expenditure share in both areas corresponded to the purchase of fish (28.26
and 30 percent, respectively). Total food expenditures (including food, oils, meat and fish)
amounted to ` 18,525 (65.19 percent) and ` 19,819 (62.79 percent) in Mandapam and Rameswaram,
respectively. These large expenditure shares are characteristic of households with relatively low
incomes.
Seaweed farming has enabled the families to raise their economic status significantly, with
members of SHG families actively participating in the activity and contributing handsomely to
total family income, thus enabling comfortable family consumption expenditure.
Table 28. Consumption expenditure patterns, Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India
Mandapam Rameswaram
Items of expenditure Percentage of
Expenditure Percentage of Expenditure
(`/year) total expenses (`/year) total expenses
Food 5,569 19.60 5,462 17.27

Oils 2,358 8.30 2,704 8.55
Meat 2,568 9.04 2,205 6.97
Fish 8,030 28.26 9,448 30.00
Clothing expenses 2,027 7.13 3,407 10.77
Children education 1,210 4.26 1,749 5.53
Medical expenses 4,284 15.08 3,668 11.60
Electricity 836 2.94 851 2.69
Fuel charges 1,193 4.20 807 2.55
Recreation 0 0.00 583 1.85
Social function 342 1.20 701 2.22
Others 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 28 417 100.00 31 625 100.00
8.4.1.14 Indebtedness
Table 29 presents the average amounts of loans availed, repaid and outstanding for Mandapam
52
and Rameshwaram. Respondents prefer institutional loans mainly due to awareness that has
been created since the advent of seaweed farming in the region. They now realize that though
institutional loan procedures maybe slightly more cumbersome, the post loan experiences are
decent and transparent and hence worth the trouble of going through the paper work. The
households avail loans for different purposes including domestic activities and social obligations.
The absolute amounts availed as loans clearly indicate the preferences of the respondents in
Ramanathapuram district for institutional sources of credit. The comparative absolute levels of
outstandings also indicate the easy terms of repayment in respect of the institutional loans.
Table 29 Level of indebtedness, Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India
Source of loans Average loan availed Average loan repaid Outstanding loan per
per household (`) per household (`) household (`)
Mandapam
a) Institutional 4,350 3,050 1,300
b) Money lenders 1,505 1,292 213
Rameshwaram
a) Institutional 8,071 7 ,607 464
b) Money lenders 5,089 4,763 324
8.4.1.15 Social impacts of seaweed farming

The socio-economic impact of seaweed farming was examined by means of a series of ques-
tions asked to participants in the study. The evaluation revealed that 68 and 48 per cent of re-
spondents in Mandapam and Rameshwaram were able to purchase or renovate their existing
house using the income earned from seaweed. In Rameswaram, about four percent of the re-
spondents were able to purchase agricultural land with their earned income (Table 30).
Seaweed farming has also had a large positive impact on the ability of the respondents to
purchase livestock, quality clothing and consumer durables. Respondents in Rameshwaram also
reported a large positive impact of seaweed farming on their ability to celebrate marriages in the
family. Seaweed culture has also allowed respondents to engage more frequently in social and
religious traveling.
The responses from the participants reveal that seaweed farming has indeed emerged as a
new, sustainable livelihood option for the fishing communities in the district. Encouragement of
seaweed aquaculture with appropriate policy, financial, technical and institutional support can
also serve to divert pressure on overexploited fish stocks. Dramatic structural changes in the
socio-economic status of many fishermen have taken place over the last 10 years: a number of
53
seaweed farmers actually started as hired labor for other farmers; however, many of them used
this initial experience to become members of a SHG. After a few production cycles, a SHG member
can aspire to operate his own set of rafts and transform himself into a farmer capable of hiring
labour to look after his own plots.
Table 30 Social impact of seaweed farming, Ramanathapuram district, Tamil Nadu, India
Using the income earned from
seaweed farming, were you able to... Yes % No % Yes % No %
Purchase or renovate the

existing house 154 68 72 32 103 48 108 52
Purchase agricultural land 0 0 226 100 08 4 203 96
Purchase cattle/poultry 168 74 58 26 177 84 34 16
Purchase quality clothing 223 99 03 1 188 89 23 11
Purchase consumer durables
and modern electronic
appliances 156 69 70 31 139 66 72 34
Celebrate a marriage in
the family 9 4 217 96 97 46 114 54
Engage in social and religious
traveling outside the
district/State 75 37 151 67 53 25 158 75
Transfer to a better educational
institution 0 0 226 100 20 9 191 91
Increase expenses on
entertainment 0 0 226 100 0 0 211 100
Engage in any other activity 0 0 226 100 0 0 211 100
The organised seaweed farming sector as given in Fig 4 is driven by committed corporate
interests, NGO's and related government agencies. Though Tamil Nadu is the second most literate
state in India next only to the state of Kerala, the expected social transformation resulting from
higher levels of education such as adherence to commitments, keeping away from negative societal
influences such as drinking and gambling etc. is yet to get reinforced. Figure 5 summarizes the
major strengths and weaknesses associated with organized seaweed farming. The seaweed farm-
ers tend to break the contract if they are offered a higher price by competing by fly by night
operators in the sector leading to a possible chain reaction among neighbouring farmers. The
54
organised value chain management has taken steps to keep the flock together by announcing
incentives prices for producers who attain high levels of production and ensure proper manage-
ment of stock during the season.
Figure 4 General structure of organized SHG contract seaweed farming production and buyback
system in India
Drying of seaweed at Pamban, Rameswaram

55
Figure 5 Loop diagram illustrating systemic strengths and weaknesses in organized seaweed
farming in India
56
9 Economic analysis of seaweed farming
The farming of seaweed is preferred to its natural collection because of the comparatively
lesser effort involved and the suitability of the marine ecosystem for seaweed cultivation. In
addition, seaweed farming holds the potential of larger economic returns. In this regard, this
section evaluates the economic performance of seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu, India, by 1)
estimating annual costs and returns for the raft culture technique, and 2) by developing indicators
of economic viability and financial feasibility. Subsidies were excluded from these analyses.
9.1 Annual costs and returns of seaweed farming
Table 31 presents the annual costs and returns for a one-ha seaweed farm using the raft
culture technique. The average initial investment amounted to ` 600,000. The different types of
nylon ropes required for planting, tying, mooring and anchoring the rafts accounted for the
maximum share of investment (41%) followed by the bamboo poles (32%) and seedlings (15%)
(Figure 6). Seedlings are sourced from the harvest of an earlier crop.
The annual total cost of production was estimated at ` 694 100, comprising a fixed cost of
` 197,300 (28 percent) and an annual operating cost of ` 496 800 (72 percent). The annual fixed
cost included depreciation on capital investment, interest on capital and insurance premium while
operating costs included labour expenses, transportation, and raft maintenance.
The annual gross revenue was estimated at ` 1.15 million, leading to an annual net income of
` 460,000. The estimation of gross revenues assumed a yield of 280 kg of fresh seaweed per raft
after a growout period of 45 days, a 10:1 ratio of fresh to dry weight, and a market price of ` 16/
kg of dry weed. The complete set of assumptions is presented in Table 32.
9.2 Economic and financial viability
Indicators of economic and financial feasibility for a one-ha seaweed farm were estimated.
The following assumptions were made: i) each cultivation cycle has a duration of 45 days; ii) four
cycles are carried out in the first year; iii) six cycles are carried out in the second and third years;
iv) after three years of operation, a new set of investments needs to be made; and v) interest on
investment is charged at 7 percent per annum, based on the guidelines provided by the commercial
banks.
The average annual net income for the three-year farming project (` 676,300) is higher than
the initial investment (` 597,100), suggesting a payback period shorter than a year (Tables 31, 32,
33 and 34). The estimated Net Present Value (20-percent discount rate) was ` 1.30 million (implying
an IRR higher than 100%) while the Benefit-Cost Ratio was 1.70. All these indicators provide
strong evidence of the economic and financial feasibility 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 per cent for seaweed farming in the Philippines; Shang (1976),
who estimated an IRR of 56 per cent for Gracilaria cultivation; and Tisdell (1991), who reported an
IRR of 123 per cent in Bali. Seaweed farming has thus emerged as one of the most profitable
57
livelihood options for coastal fishing communities in various locations of the Asian continent.
Table 31 Annual costs and returns of a one-ha seaweed farm – raft culture (900 rafts)
Price per Share Economic

Unit Quantity Total value
unit (%) life (in
(` thousand) years
(`)
A. Initial investment
Seedlings kg 54 000 1.75 94.50 16
Bamboo poles feet 57 600 3.30 190.10 32 3
Anchorage weight kg 1 350 42.00 56.70 9 10
Nylon ropes, 3-mm
PP twisted kg 405 115.50 46.70 8 3
Nylon - Braided ropes kg 148.5 126.00 18.70 3 3
Raft framing ropes kg 585 115.50 67.60 11 3
HDPE fishing nets kg 1 017 78.80 80.10 13 3
HDPE net tying rope kg 81 115.50 9.40 2 3
Anchoring rope kg 81 115.50 9.40 2 3
Raft lining rope kg 90 115.50 10.40 2 3
Labour charges for
installation raft 900 15.00 13.50 2
Total Initial Investment ` 597.10 100
B. Fixed costs
Depreciation ` 148.40 75
Interest on investment (7%) ` 41.80 21
Insurance at 1.2% of
investment ` 7.10 4
Total fixed costs ` 197.30 100
C. Operating costs `
Braider twining charges ` 108.00 22
58
Transportation ` 93.60 19
Raft maintenance ` 284.40 57
Miscellaneous ` 10.80 2
Total operating costs ` 496.80 100
D. Total cost of production ` (B+C) 694.10
E. Gross revenue
(four production cycles in
first year) ` 1 152.00
F. Net income ` (E-D) 457.90
Note: Based on data from the 2008-2009 production year.
Figure 6. Initial investment in a one-ha seaweed farm, Tamil Nadu, India
Table 32 Gross revenue of a one-ha seaweed farm (900 rafts)
Details of harvest Unit Value
Average harvest of fresh seaweed per raft after 45 days

of culture kg 280
(Less) allocation of seedling for the subsequent crop kg 60
Balance of fresh seaweed kept for drying kg 220
Quantity of dry seaweed produced from 220 kg

of fresh seaweed at 10:1 ratio of fresh to dry weight kg 22
Dry seaweed available for sale per raft after allowing

for impurities kg 20
59
Market Price `/kg 16
Average revenue per raft per preduction cycle (45 days) ` 320
Average revenue per raft in the first production year

(four cycles) ` 1,280
Average revenue per ha (900 rafts) in the first `

production year (thousand) 1,152
Average revenue per hectare (900 rafts) in the second `

production year (six cycles) (thousand) 1,728
Average revenue per hectare (900 rafts) in the third `

production year (six cycles) (thousand) 1,728
The annual cash flow stream for the first three years of the farm is presented in Table 33. The
net cash flow is much lower in Year 1 (` 58,100) because of the initial investment; however, net
cash flow increases to ` 983,000 in Years 2 and 3. These high values are indicative of the overall
profitability of seaweed farming and corroborates findings from earlier studies (Padilla and Lampe,
1989; Tisdell, 1991).
Table 33. Annual cashflow stream for a one-ha seaweed farm (900 rafts) (` thousands)
Cash outflow
Year Total cash Annual cash Annual
Investment Annual cash outflow inflow cash flow
outflow
1 597.10 496.80 1 093.90 1,152.00 58.10
2 0 745.20 745.20 1,728.00 982.8
3 0 745.20 745.20 1,728.00 982.8
Table 34 Economic viability and financial feasibility indicators for a one-ha seaweed farm
(project cycle of three years)
Indicators Unit Year I Year II Year III Average
Gross investment `
(thousands) 597.10 N/A N/A 597.10
Total cost of production `
(thousands) 694.10 942.50 942.50 859.70
60
Gross returns `
(thousands) 1,152.00 1,728.00 1,728.00 1,536.00
Net income `
(thousands) 457.90 785.50 785.50 676.30
Net Present Value ` 1,300.00
(20% discount rate) (thousands)
Benefit Cost Ratio Ratio 1.70
(20% discount rate)
Return on investment Percent 113.26
Payback period Years 0.9
IRR Percent >100
10 Markets, marketing channels and prices

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 due to Aquagri's willingness to source the dried weed irre-
spective of its impurities.
The marketing channels for seaweed are illustrated in Figure 7. Basic prices are arranged to
the satisfaction of the farmers taking into account the effort invested. In 2009, Aquagri was offer-
ing ` 16/kg of dried weed. Although it has been argued that Aquagri currently holds a monopsony
advantage, competing companies with an interest on Kappaphycus have routinely induced the
farmers to break the contracts by offering a marginally higher price. However, Aquagri has devel-
oped its own price incentive schemes for loyal farmers and high-volume producers. In addition,
non-price measures such as providing assistance to farmers with their economic and social obli-
gations have contributed to build bondages of mutual trust and loyalty.
SAP is the major product extracted from the dried weed. Efforts are currently underway for
building a plant in Manamadurai for the extraction of carrageenan; the plant is to be commis-
sioned in 2010. Dried seaweed is exported by PepsiCo to the carrageenan conversion plants of
MARS, the international chocolate, foods and pet foods manufacturer, 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 due to the large demand from the domestic
market.
61
Figure 7. Marketing channels of seaweed farmers in the Ramanathapuram district of Tamil Nadu, India.
62
11 Policy notes, advisories and notifications
The Government of India, the banking and insurance sectors, the State Departments of
Fisheries, development agencies (e.g. DRDA and DBT) and research institutions (e.g. ICAR, CMFRI
and CSMCRI) are fully conscious and enthusiastic about the prospects for seaweed culture in India.
Roundtables and expert committee meetings on seaweed cultivation and utilization have been
organized by the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS), CMFRI and CSMCRI. The salient
findings and recommendations from these high-level meetings are presented in Table 35. Experts
have given recognition to the potential of seaweed aquaculture in India and have advised the
Government of India to provide full-fledged institutional support to the activity.
Table 35 (column 4) also provides a list of periodic advisories with relevance to the development
of seaweed farming in the Ramanathapuram district of Tamil Nadu. These advisories are mostly
related to the establishment of the GoMMNP (1986) and the GoMBRT (1989). The G.O. Ms. No. 229
of the Department of Environment and Forests, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai (dated 12
December 2005) issued a directive allowing seaweed cultivation by SHGs in the North of Palk Bay
and South of Tuticorin coast; in this regard, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief
Wildlife Warden informed that from the point of the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, no objections
are made to cultivation of Kappaphycus by SHGs in the above mentioned locations.
The Conservator of Forests and GoMBRT Director in his communication GoMBRT/Misc-08/
dated 1 June, 2009 has clarified that stoppage of Kappaphycus culture is not applicable to the
regions other than GoM (i.e. Coastal Waters of Tamil Nadu excluding GoM). This seems to be in
response to a report in the Hindu dated May 25, 2009 on stoppage of Kappaphycus culture in
Mandapam area (Not seen).
The Wildlife warden GoM Marine National Park, in his communication of September 4, 2009
has requested for a clarification from the Government of Tamil Nadu on the correct interpretation
of the order of 20 December, 2005 regarding the “jurisdiction” where Kappaphycus can be cultivated.
In view of the potential impact that the cultivation of Kappaphycus has had on the livelihoods
of coastal communities in the Ramanathpuram distric, the State Government is well advised to
take decisive actions in favour of this activity, declaring it as an economic alternative with the
potential to raise the socio-economic status of coastal inhabitants. The Government should also
lead a transparent process for the designation of areas where the cultivation of Kappaphycus would
be allowed. Marine scientists from the CMFRI Mandapam Research Station have clearly stated that
seaweed farming is relatively benign to the environment when compared to the bottom trawling
activities currently taking place on the region.17
17
Personal communication from Dr. G. Gopakumar, Principal Scientist and Head, Mariculture Division and Scientist-in-Charge, CMFRI
Mandapam Research Station. Dr. Gopakumar is categorical in his assertion that the damage caused by roller muddies trawling in the
Mandapam/Rameshwaram waters is the major environmental threat faced by the marine ecosystems of the region. In addition, claims
made on the negative impact of Kappaphycus culture on the GoM corals are easily proven unfounded, simply because seaweeds do not
have the ability to grow on live corals.
63
Table 35. Policy notes, important recommendations, advisories and selected notifications and
communications relevant to seaweed culture in India.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
NAAS (2003) CMFRI (2005) CSMCRI (2003) advisories Notifications/
commissioned by PepsiCo Communications
Commercial cultivation and Observations: Observations: 1. G.O. Ms. No.

processing of marine Most Indian Most Indian 962 Forests
macroalgae identified as a seaweed culture seaweed culture and Fisheries,
national priority. practices are eco- practices are eco- dated 10
A new nodal cell for promotion friendly. friendly. September
of commercial cultivation, Kappaphycus is a 1986.
Kappaphycus is a
processing and marketing of non-invasive non-invasive 2. No. 1/S/80 -
macroalgae to be established. marine marine Mannar/ K3/
Kappaphycus alvarezii – macroalgae. macroalgae. 49181/88
introduced to Indian coastal No adverse No adverse impact
Government
waters over a decade ago and impact on the of India,
on the marine
domesticated since then – marine Ministry of
ecosystem.
considered ecologically safe. ecosystem. Environment
Salient and Forests,
Natural incidence of Salient
recommendations: recommendations: dated 4 April
Kappaphycus alvarezii is
Seaweed farming Seaweed farming 1989.
reported in the Andaman
as a strategy for as a strategy for 3. G.O. Ms. No.
islands. Ecological studies have
pollution pollution control. 229
revealed that cultivation yieds
no adverse effects to the control. Good prospects for Department
ecosystem. Large-scale Good prospects co-cultivation of of
cultivation of Kappaphycus for co-cultivation Kappaphycus with Environment
alvarezii in Andaman islands is of Kappaphycus other species. and Forests of
ideal. with other Formation of GOTN, dated
species. District and State 20 December
Other recommendations:
Formation of level committees 2005.
Seaweed farming is ideal in District and State for monitoring of 4. Rc. No. 37076/
Chilika, Andamans and level committees seaweed farming. Q3/2006 TN
Lakshadweep. for monitoring Promotion of DoF, dated
Cultivations of agarophytes, of seaweed 8 June 2009.
culture through
alginophytes and farming.
SHG model. Lr. No. 3264/2009/
carrageenophytes must be Promotion of
given high priority. Develop protocols M, TN Forest
culture through Department,
for the collection
Sustainable cultivation is SHG model. dated
of seaweeds from
possible. Develop natural habitats. September 2009.
Environmental friendly disposal protocols for the
of wastage. collection of
seaweeds from
natural habitats.
Sources: (1): NAAS (2003); (2): Minutes of expert committee on seaweed cultivation, CMFRI, Kochi, 2 February 2005; (3)
CSMCRI (2003).
64
12 Conclusions, insights and development strategies
Commercial farming of seaweeds including Eucheuma in coastal waters is a well proven practice
by many countries including Japan, China, Philippines and Korea. This is a time tested practice
and such activities are increasing in these countries and other countries. Considering the above
said facts, it is clear that Eucheuma cultivation will be beneficial for the environment as well as
local inhabitants (CSMCRI, 2003).
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA, 2009) in a recent trainers’ training
programme in August 2009 has prioritized the needs of red seaweeds farming communities in the
Philippines under policy support, regulation and sector management. The issues seem to be typical
of problems that small farmers in developing countries face the world over. The issues in research
and development, training and extension, information development and dissemination, credit
needs are also typical.
It is heartening to state that India has been able to circumvent most of the problems that
seem to be haunting the development of seaweed sector in other developing countries. The adoption
of the SHG model in seaweed culture in India by PepsiCo from 2003 has proved to be a big success.
Participatory approach in culture and management via contract farming has enabled rapid
expansion of this activity that began as a livelihood option and is now developing into an organised
and institutionalized socio-economic transformation of these farming villages.
The insights gained from the development of seaweed farming in India so far are listed below
1. The SHG model accepted by the network of institutions involved in the process of
development of seaweed farming is at the foundation of this development. Strengths
are in strong organization, record keeping and transparency.
2. Kappaphycus culture is perhaps the first of its kind initiated by a corporate in Indian
agriculture. It also maybe the first to get designated as an agricultural activity among
other mariculture initiatives in India.
3. Demand driven and corporate led initiative has enabled the development of the sector
on a fast track. Corporate commitment is very evident. Based on rough calculations, the
gross revenue over cost per tonne exported works out to only ` 8,000 which is a reasonable
margin for a corporate considering its overheads. The social responsibility is well and
truly getting translated to tangible benefits to the farming community.
4. The consistent backing of the sector by the banking sector led by NABARD and other
commercial banks such as SBI, IOB, Bank of Baroda and Indian Bank besides others has
strengthened the movement
5. The clear policy back up and financial support of the Government of India, through
65
development agencies and research establishments have given a substantial fillip to the
sector
6. The distinct possibility of expansion of operations based on commercial trials in sites in
Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat will give a further presence to the seaweed farming sector
7. Seaweed sector has all the potential to rise from a low level equilibrium trap that is
normally associated with livelihood interventions to higher levels of employment-income-
consumption relationships in coastal India
8. At the farm level, the establishment of a off shore seed jetty will enable the farmers to
go in for full scale cultivation at the beginning of the season itself instead of having to
divert part of their output as cuttings for the next crop
9. Poaching is a problem but is limited by the strong organizational structure of the
enterprise
10. Industrial and civic discharges reportedly take place and have an adverse impact on
water quality.
11. Improper garbage disposal in the region needs to be stopped.
12. Occurrences of seaweed diseases like ice-ice and epiphytism; prevalent during the summer
months need to be studied and suitable preventive / ameliorative measures suggested.
13. Better understanding and joint exercises and efforts of concerned monitoring institutions,
TNDoF and Department of Environment and Forests (GoMBRT and GoMNP) will enable
the direct stakeholders in seaweed farming in the region work with greater degree of
confidence and trust
14. The corporate initiative taken by PepsiCo and equally well followed by Aquagri needs to
be appreciated and is a clear case of how responsible community inclusive corporate
interventions in agriculture can bring about a sea change in the lives of local communities.
15. Seaweed sector offers one of the best avenues for institutional financial agencies to
promote venture capital
Immediate suggested policy initiatives
The nodal cell for quick clearance of new projects and for handling all issues related to seaweed
culture as envisaged in NAAS (2003) needs to be set up on a priority basis.
a. Entry into the Kappaphycus culture in India is restricted by knowledge. Corporates
need to be educated on the immense scope in terms of returns to investment
considering the low levels of investment requirement and the fast turnover that could
be forthcoming given efficient human resource management. Periodic presentations
66
by experts on Kappaphycus culture at chambers of commerce such as ASSOCHAM,
FICCI and ICCI will help induce new investment in the seaweed sector
b. Anomalies, if any, in the tax structure in terms of excise and customs duties need to
be ironed out
c. The nodal cell could be the final authority in deciding the various aspects of culture
practices, interpretations of G.O’s and inter-departmental conflicts.
Development strategies
A sector develops either by deficiency of Social Overhead Capital (SOC) or availability of Directly
Productive Activities (DPA) or vice-a-versa. Either of these development strategies or business
models in a macro sense is suitable depending upon current stage of development of a sector. In
the case of seaweed sector in India we are fortunate that the DPA is more or less in place at least
in Tamil Nadu and in a typical model that warrants the development of forward linkages, it is
most crucial that support infrastructure and policy are available to the entrepreneurs for furthering
the growth of the sector. Warehouses to store dried weed, port facilities for enabling exports,
power, potable water, roads, telecommunications, public transport are some of the linkages that
need to be established in coastal towns that will help industry to take the opportunity in seaweed
sector.
Lessons need to be learnt from policies in place for New Zealand aquaculture development.
A hectare of water area is leased at NZ$200,000 (Townsend and Young, 2005). This could keep
weak firms from entering the market. The Government of New Zealand has a 10 point policy plan
which has helped the country’s aquaculture to reach new heights. New Zealand aquaculture,
though restricted to mussels, oysters and salmon, has had a disease free track record.
Modified version of such measures which promotes inclusive growth of stakeholders in all
levels of the society needs to be charted out in India for the development of the seaweed sector.
Based on track record of multi-national aquaculture companies, contract farming of seaweed based
on the current model in place in Tamil Nadu may also be examined. This would make the field
more competitive and spur movement towards a perfectly competitive market structure. The
immediate pay offs would be towards achievement of the much elusive 4 % growth rate envisaged
for the agricultural sector in India during the XI and XII Five Year Plan periods
The seaweed sector in India even at this point of development can serve as role model to
other developing countries of the world.
67
13 References
Agadi, V. V. 1985. Distribution of marine algae in the littoral zone of Karnataka coast. In Krishnamurthy,
V. & Untawale, A. G. (eds), Marine Plants, Madras, Seaweed Research Utilization Assoc., pp. 35–42.
Anon. 1979. A report on the survey of marine algal resources of Lakshadweep, 1977–1979. Bhavnagar, CSMCRI,
p. 48.
Anon. 1984. A report on the survey of marine algal resources of Andhra Pradesh, 1979–1982. Bhavnagar, CSMCRI,
p. 30.
Anon. 1978. A report on the survey on the marine algal resources of Andhra Pradesh, 1972-1982, Bhavnagar,
CSMCRI, p. 137.
Anon. 2004. Progress report of the DBT project - Studies on field cultivation and harvesting of seaweeds Porphyra
(Nori), Enteromorpha (Ao Nori), Eucheuma (Tosaka Nori) and their use in processed foods, October 2003–June
2004, Bhavnagar, Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute, p. 9.
Anon (undated). Income generation activities for the fisher folk living around Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay
coastal regions through eco-friendly seaweed farming in India in AFI 2008.
Aquaculture Foundation of India. 2008. Final report of the DBT project: Seaweed Farming to Rehabilitate Tsunami
Affected Coastal Communities in Tamil Nadu, Department of Bio-technology, Ministry of Science and
Technology, New Delhi, Government of India, pp. 41.
Bhanderi, P. P. & Trivedi Y.A. 1975. Seaweed resources of Hanumandandi reef and Vumani reef near Okha
port, Gujrat. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 4: 97–99.
Børgesan, F. 1933a. Some Indian green and brown algae, especially from the shores of presidency of Bombay
– III. Journal of Indian Botanical Society, 12: 1-16.
Børgesan, F. 1933b. Some Indian Rhodophycaea, especially from the presidency of Bombay – III. Bulletin of
Miscellaneous Information, Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, pp. 113-142.
Børgesan, F. 1933c. Some Indian Rhodophycaea, especially from the presidency of Bombay – IV. Bulletin of
Miscellaneous Information, Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, 1-30
Børgesan, F. 1934. Some marine algae from the northern part of the Arabian Sea with remarks on their
geographical distribution. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Med., 11: 72
Børgesan, F. 1935. List of marine algae from Bombay. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Med., 12: 64.
Børgesan F. 1938a. Two species of Scinaia from south India. Bot. Nat., 16: 183-189.
Børgesan, F. 1938b. Contribution to a south Indian marine algal flora – II. Journal of Indian Botanical Society,
16: 311-357.
Børgesan F. 1938b. Contribution to a south Indian marine algal flora – III. Journal of Indian Botanical Society,
17: 205-242.
Bradford, D.F., 1975. Constraints on government investment opportunities and the choice of discount
rate. Am.Econ.Rev.65 (6):887-899
Chacko, P. I. & Malu Pillai, C. 1958. Studies on utilization of the seaweed resources of Madras State. Contrib.
Mar. Biol. Stn., Krusadai Island, GoM, 6: 1–12.
Chandrkrachang, S. & Chinadit, U. 1988 : Seaweed production and processing — a new approach. INFOFISH
International, 4: 22—25.
68
Chauhan, V. D. & Krishnamurthi, V. 1968. An estimate of algin-bearing seaweeds in the Gulf of Kutch. Curr.
Sci., 37: 648.
Chauhan, V. D. 1978. Report of the survey of marine algae resources of Maharashtra coast. Salt Res. Ind., 14:
1–10.
Chauhan, V. D. & Mairh, O. P. 1978. Report on survey of marine algal resources of Saurashtra Coast, India.
Salt Res. Ind., , 14: 21–41.
Chennubhotala, V.S., Kaliaperumal, N., Ramalingam, J.R. & Kalimuthu, S. 1986. Growth, reproduction and
spore output in Gracilaria folifera (Forsskal) Boergesen and Gracliaraia sjoestedtii (Kylin) Dawson around
Mandapam. Indian J. Fish., 33(1): 76-84.
Chennubhotla, V.S.K., Kaliaperumal, N & Kalimuthu, S. 1978. Culture of Gracilaria edulis in the inshore
waters of GoM (Mandapam). Indian J. Fish., 25 (1&2): 228-229.
Chennubhotla, V. S. K., Ramachandrudu, B. S., Kaladharan, P. & Dharmaraj, S. K. 1988. Seaweed resources
of Kerala coast. Aquat.Biol., 7: 69–74.
Chennubotla, V.S.K. & Kaliaperumal, N. 1983. Proven technology 7, Technology of cultured seaweed
production. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T&E. Ser., No. 54: 19-20.
Chenuubhotla, V.S.K., Kaladharan, P., Kaliaperumal, N. & Rajagopalan, M.S. 1992. Seasonal variation in
poduction of cultured seaweed Gracilaria edulis (Gmelin) Silva in Minicoy lagoon (Lakshadweep). Seaweed
Res. Utiln., 14(2): 109-113.
CMFRI. 1987. Seaweed research and utilization in India. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst., No. 41: 116
Coopen, J.J.W. & Nambiar, P. 1991. Agar and alginate production from seaweed in India. Madras, Bay of Bengal
Programme (India), p.32.
Coppen, J.J.W. 1989. International trade in agar for countries in the Bay of Bengal Project Region. In
Seminar on Gracilaria production and utilization in the Bay of Bengal, October 23-27, 1989, Songkhla,
Thailand.
CSMCRI, 2003. CSMCRI- PepsiCo Interaction. CSIR News Vol 53 No 13, 15 July 2003, ISSN 0409-7467
CSMCRI, 2003. Report on Rapid Environmental Impact Assesment of Euchema Cultivation on Marine Environment
in the Selected Regions of Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay of Tamil Nadu Coast, Submitted to M/s. PepsiCo
Holdings (I) Ltd., pp. 8.
Department of Fisheries, 2009. Swarna Grammeena Rozgar Yojana : Seaweed cultivation, Goovernment of
Tamil Nadu. 19pp.
Desai, B. N. 1969. Seaweed resources and extraction of alginate and agar. In: Krishnamurthi, V.(ed.), Proceedings
of the Seminar on Sea, Salt and Plants, Bhavnagar, CSMCRI, 1967, pp. 343–351.
Desikachari, T.V. 1967. Seaweed resources of India. In: V. Krishnamurthi, ed. Proceedings of the Seminar on
Sea, Salt and Plants, Bhavnagar, CSMCRI, pp. 7–24.
Dhargalkar, V.K. 1981. Studies on marine algae of the Goa coast. Ph.D thesis, Bombay University, p. 168.
Dhargalkar, V.K. & Deshmukh, G.V. 1996. Subtidal marine algae of the Dwaraka coast (Gujarat). Ind. J. Mar.
Sci., 25(4): 297-301.
Dhargalkar, V.K. & Neelam Pereira. 2005. Seaweed : Promising plant of the millennium. Science and Culture,
March-April, 60-66.
69
Dinabandhu, S. Seaweeds Utilisation and their cultivation as an alternate source of livelihood. (available at
http://www.nio.org/past_events/fisheries/session_III.jsp)
Dogma Jr. I.J., Trono, Jr. G.C. Tabbada, R.A. 1981. Proceedings of the symposium on culture and utilization of
Algaein Southeast Asia, 8-11 December, 1981, AQD, Tigbaun, Iloilo, Philippines, SEAFDEC, p. 111
Earthtrends. 2003. (available at http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/cp/coa_cou_356.pdf)
Eswaran, K., Ghosh, P.K. & Mairh, O.P. 2002. Experimental field cultivation of Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty)
ex. P.Silva at Mandapam region. Seaweed Res. Utiln., 24(1): 67-72.
FAO. 2003. Seaweeds used a source of carrageenan (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4765e/
y4765e09.htm, accessed on December, 12.2009)
Firdausy, Carunia and Tisdell, Clem, 1991. Economic Returns from Seaweed (Eucheuma cottonii) farming
in Bali, Indonesia. Asian Fisheries Science, 4(1991):61-73
Gittinger, J.P., 1982. Economic analysis of agricultural projects. The John Hopkins University Press, Second
Edition, Baltimore, London
Gopinathan, C. P. & Panigrahy, R. 1983. Seaweed resources in mariculture potential of Andaman and Nicobar
islands – an indicative survey. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst., No. 34: 47–51.
Hornell, J. 1918. Report on development of fishery resources of Baroda state.(cited in Rao and Mantri, 2006)
Original not seen
Hurtado, Q.A., Agbayani, R.F., Roman Sanares, Ma Teresa, R. de Castro-Mallare, 2001. The seasonality and
economic feasibility of cultivationg Kappaphycus alvarezii in Panagatan Cays, Caluya, Antique, Philippines.
Aquaculture, 199: 295-310.
Immanuel, S. & Sathiadhas, R. 2004. Employment potential of fisherwomen in the collection and post
harvest operations of seaweeds in India. Seaweed Res. Utiln., 26: 209–215.
Iyengar, M.O.P. 1927. Krusadai Island Flora. Bulletin Madras Government Museum New Ser., Natural History, 1:
185-188.
Joshi, H.V. & Chauhan, V.D. 1985. Effect of repeated harvesting on the growth of Gelidiella acerosa (Forsskål)
Feldmann et. Hamel. Seaweed Res. Utiln., 7: 94–100.
Joshi, H.V. 1984. Studies on Indian seaweeds physiological ecology of Sargassum of Okha. Ph D thesis, Bhavnagar
University. p.229.
Kaladharan, P. & Kaliaperumal, N. 1992. The seaweed industry in India. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly, 22(1):
11-14.
Kaladharan, P., K.Vijayakumaran & V.S.K.Cheenabhotla, 1996. Physical parameters in the husbandry practices
for mariculture of Gracilaria edulis in Minicoy Lagoon and Laccadives Archipelago. Aquaculture, 139:265-
270
Kaladharan, P. & Jayasankar, R. 2003. Seaweeds. In M.J. Modaiyil, & A.A. Jayaprakash, eds. Status of exploited
marine fishery resources of India. Cochin, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, pp. 228–239.
Kaliaperumal, N., S.Kalimuthu, J.R.Ramalingam & M.Selvaraj. 1986. Experimental field cultivation of
Acanthophora spicifera (Vahl). Boergesen in the nearshore area of Gulf of Mannar, Indian J. Fish., 33 (4):
476-478
Kaliaperumal N., Rajagopalan, M.S. & Chenuubhotla, V.S.K. 1992. Field cultivation of Gracilaria edulis
(Gmelin) Silva in Minicoy lagoon (Lakshadweep). Seaweed Res. Utlin., 14(2): 103-107.
70
Kaliaperumal, N. 2004. Prospects of seaweed farming in India. In Proceedings of Ocean Life Food and
Medicine Expo, 27-29 February, 2004, Chennai, Aquaculture Foundation of India, Chennai, pp. 384-393.
Kaliaperumal, N. & Kalimuthu, S. 1997. Seaweed potential and its exploitation in India. Seaweed Res. Utiln.,
19: 33–40.
Kaliaperumal, N. & Ramalingam, J.R. 2000. Seaweed culture. In Training course manual of seaweed culture,
processing and uitilization, Cochin, CMFRI, pp. 7-13.
Kaliaperumal, N. 1992. Seaweed culture. In Handbook of Aquafarming, Cochin, MPEDA, pp. 30-37.
Kaliaperumal, N., Kalimuthu, S., & Ramalingam, J.R. 1998. Seaweed resources and distribution in deep
waters from Dhanushkodi to Kanyakumari, Tamilnadu. Seaweed Res. Util., 20: 141–151.
Kaliaperumal, N., Kalimuthu, S. & Muniyandi, K. 1996. Experimental cultivation of Gracilaria edulis at
Valinokkam Bay. In Proc. Natl. Symp. Aquaculture for 2000 AD. Madurai Kamaraj University, pp. 221-226.
Kaliaperumal, N., Kalimuthu, S. & Ramalingam, J.R. 1996. Effect of repeated harvesting on the growth of
Sargassum spp. and Turbinaria conoides occurring in Mandapum area. Seaweed Res. Utiln, 18: 57–66.
Kaliaperumal, N., Kalimuthu, S. & Ramalingam, J.R. 2004. Present scenario of seaweed exploitation and
industry in India. Seaweed Res. Utiln., 26: 47–53.
Kalkman Ineke, Issac Rajendran & Charles L. Angell, 1991. Seaweed (Gracilaria edulis) farming in Vedali
and Chinnapalem, India. Bay of Bengal Programme, Madras, India BOBP/WP/65, Small Scale Fisherfolk
Communities GCP/RAS/118/MUL, p. 28
Kappanna, A. N. & Rao, A. V. 1963. Preparation and properties of agar agar from Indian seaweeds. Indian J.
Technol., 1: 222– 224.
Khan Sajid, I., Goud D., Patil S.V. & Satam S.B. 2003. Importance of seaweeds and their culture prospects.
Fishing Chimes 23(9): 25-28.
Koshy, T.K. & John, C.C. 1948. Survey of Gracilaria resources of Travancore. Department of Research, University
of Travancore, Rept. Septen. pp.35-53
Krishnamurthy, V. 2005. Seaweeds – Wonder Plants of the Sea. Chennai, Aquaculture Foundation of India,
p.30.
Krishnamurthy, V. 1969. Seaweed drift on the Indian coast. In Proc. Symp. Indian Ocean, Natl. Inst. Sci. India,
38: 657–666.
Krishnamurthy, V., Raju, P.V. & Thomas, P.C. 1977. Onaugmenting seaweed resources of India. Seaweed Res.
Utiln., 2(1): 37-40.
Krishnamurthy, V., Raju, P.V. & Venugopal, P.V. 1975. On augmenting seaweed resources of India. J. Mar. Biol.
Ass. India, 17(2): 181-185.
Kumaraguru, A.K., V.Edwin Joseph, N.Marimuthu & J.Jerald Wilson, 2006. Scientific information on Gulf of
Mannar-A Bibliography . Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai,
Tamilnadu, India, p656.
Kumaraguru, A.K., V.Edwin Joseph, M.Rajee & T.Balasubramanian, 2008. Palk Bay Information and
Bibliography, Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, Madurai Kamraj University, Madurai, Tamil Nadu,
India, 1-27
Mairh, O.P., Zodape, Tewari, A. & Rajyaguru, M.R. 1995. Culture of marine red alga Kappaphycus striatum
(Schmitz) Doty in the Saurashtra region, West Coast of India. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 24: 24-31.
71
Mantri, V. A. & Subba Rao, P. V. 2005. Diu island: A paradise for tourists and seaweed biologists. Curr. Sci., 89:
1795–1797.
Marine Fisheries Censu 2005 Part I. All India over view of the Census data. Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India and Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Indian Council of Agricultural
Research.pp104
Mendelsohn, R., 1981. The choice of discount rate for public projects. Am.Econ.Rev. 71(1):239-241
McHugh, D. J. 2003. A guide to the seaweed industry. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 441: 105.
Miahan, E.J., 1982. Cost-benefit analysis. Third Edition. George Allen and Unwin, London
Michanek, G. 1975. Seaweed resources of the Ocean. FAO Fish Tech. Rep. No. 138. pp. 1-126.
Misra, J.N. 1960. The ecology, distribution and seaweed succession of the littoral algae on the west coast of
India. In: Kachiroo, P.(ed.), Proceedings of the symposium on algology, New Delhi, ICAR, pp. 187-203.
Mitra, C. 1946. Report on development of Chilka Lake, Cuttack
Modayil, M. J. 2004. How to increase marine fish production. Fishing Chimes, 28(1): 14-16.
Mohanta, K.N., Subramaniam, S., Komarpant, N. & Saurabh, F. 2007. On improving the present status of
seaweed industry in India. Fishing Chimes, 26(10): 157-158.
MPEDA. 2001. Statistics report of Marine Products Export Development Authority, Cochin, MPEDA. 300 pp.
Mukhopadhyay, A. & Pal, R. 2002. A report on biodiversity of algae from coastal West Bengal (South and
North 24-Parganas) and their cultural behaviour in relation to mass cultivation programme. Indian
Hydrobiol., 5: 97–107.
Muthuvelan, B., Chennubhotla, V. S. K., Nair, K. V. K., Sampath, V. & Ravindran, M. 2001. Standing crop
biomass and comparative distribution of agarophytes, alginophytes and other algae in south Andaman.
Indian Hydrobiol., 4: 130–138.
Muthuvelan, B., Chennubhotla, V. S. K., Nair, K. V. K., Sampath, V. & Ravindran, M. 2001. Seaweed standing
crop biomass and comparative distribution in eastern shoreline of middle and north islands. Indian
Hydrobiol., 4: 139–148.
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences. 2003. Seaweed cultivation and utilization, Policy Paper 22, p.5
National Institute of Rural Development, 2003. Directory of Rural Technologies-Part IV(Eds.) Mathew
Kunnankal and B.Sant, NIRD, Hyderabad, pp156-158
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific. 2009. Capacity Building Needs For Small Scale Aquaculture
Farmers, available at http://library.enaca.org/inland/reports/
annex_b_capacity_building_needs_for_aquaculture_farmeINRpdf; accessed on Novemver 4, 2009
Padilla, J.E. and H.C.Lampe, 1989. The economics of seaweed farming in he Philippines, Naga, the
ICLARM Quarterly.12(3):3-5
Patel, J.B., Gopal, B.V., Nagulan, V.R., Subbaramaiah, K. & Thomas, P. C. 1986. Experimental field cultivation
of Gelidiella acerosa at Ervadi in India. In: Proc. Symp. Coastal Aquaculture, Pt. 4: 1342–1343
Pearce, D.W. and C.A.Nash, 1981. The social appraisal of projects: a text in cost-benefit analysis,
Macmillan, London
Raju, P.V. & Thomas, P.C. 1971. Experimental filed cultivation of Gracilaria edulis (Gmel.) Sila. Bot. Mar., 14 (2):
71-75.
72
Rama Rao, K., Nair, M.R.P. & Subbaramiah, V. 1985. Experimental field cultivation of Hypenea musciformis
(Turn). Mont. at Krusudai Island. In V. Krishnamurthy, ed. Marine Plants, pp. 205-208.
Rama Rao, K. & K.Subbaramaiah, !986. A technique for the field cultivation of Hypenea musciformis (Wulf.)
Lam. Proc. Symp. Coastal Aquaculture (MBAI, Cochin), 4:1190-1192
Rao, G. Syda, and Kumar R.Narayana, 2008. An economic analysis of land based
production of marine pearls in India. Aquaculture Economics and Management
. 12(2):130-144
Rao, M.U. 1973. Seaweed potential of the seas around India. Proc. Symp. Living Resources of the Sea around
India, Cochin, CMFRI, pp. 687–692.
Rao, M.U. 1974. On the cultivation of Gracilaria in the near shore are around Mandapam. Curr. Sci., 43(20):
660-661.
Rao, M.U. & Seeramulu, T. 1964. An ecological study of some intertidal algae of the Visakhapatnam coast.
Journal of Ecology, 52: 595-616.
Rao, P.V. Subba 1983. Biology and propagation of Gelidiella acerosa (Forsskal) Feldmann et Hamel in the
Mandapam region. Ph D thesis, Banaras Hindu University, p. 127.
Rao, P.V. Subba & Mantri, V.A. 2006. Indian seaweed resources and sustainable utilization: scenario at the
dawn of a new century. Cur. Sci., 91(2): 164-173.
Rath, J. & Adhikari, S.P. 2004. Algal biomass of Chilika Lake, east coast of India, Seaweeds – 2004. National
Symposium and Exposition, Cochin, Abst., p. 24.
Ravindran, V. S., Thangaradjou, T. & Kannan, L. 2004. Qualitative and quantitative distribution of seaweeds
in the Great Nicobar Island. Seaweeds – 2004 – National Symposium and Exposition, Cochin, Abst. p. 27.
Reeta Jayasankar and Kaliaperumal, N. 1991. Experimental culture of Gracilaria edulis by spore shedding
method. Seaweed Res. Utiln., 14 (1): 21-23.
Sahoo, D., Sahu, N. and Sahoo, D. 2003. A critical survey of seaweed biodiversity of Chilika Lake, India. Algae,
18: 1–12.
Sahoo D., available at http://www.nio.org/past_events/fisheries/Sustainabilityof_seafood.jsp
Sakthivel, M. 2006. Kappaphycus seaweed cultivation: Economics. Fishing Chimes,
26(8): 19-24.
Sanil Kumar, V., Pathak, K. C., Pednekar, P., Raju, N. S. N. & Gowthaman, R. 2006. Coastal processes along
the Indian coastline. Cur. Sci., 91(4): 530-536.
Shang, Y.C., 1976. Economic aspects of Gracilaria culture in Taiwan. Aquaculture 8:1-7
Shang, Y.C., 1981. Aquaculture Economics: basic concepts and methods of anlaysis. Westview, Press,
Boulderview, Colorado
Silas, E.G., Chennubhotla, V.S.K. & Kaliaperumal, N. 1986. Seaweed resources, products and utilization.
Seaweed Res. Utiln., 9(1): 11-24.
Silas, E. G. & Kalimuthu, S. 1987. Commercial exploitation of seaweeds in India. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res.
Inst., No. 41: 55–59.
Sreenivasa Rao, P., Iyengar, E. E. R. and Thivy, F. 1964. Survey of algin bearing seaweed at Adatra reef, Okha.
Curr. Sci., 33: 464–465.
73
Srinivasan, K.S. 1947. Ecology and seasonal succession of the marine algae at Mahabalipuram. (Seven pagodas)
near Madras. In B. Sahni, ed. M.O.P.Ieyngar Commemoration Volume. Silver Jubilee Session, Allahabad,
Indian Botanical Society, pp. 267-278.
Subbaramiah, K., Rama Rao, K., Thomas, P.C., Nair, M.R.P., Gopal, B.V. and Nagulan, V.R. 1975. Cultivation
of Gelidiella acerosa. Salt Res. India, 11(1): 33-36.
Thivy, F. 1958. Economic seaweeds. In: Jones, S. (ed.), Fisheries of West Coast of India, Mandapam Camp,
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, pp. 74-80.
Thivy, F. 1960. Seaweed utilization in India. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Algology, New Delhi, Indian
Council of Agricultural Research.
Thomas, P.C., Rama Rao, K. & Subbaramaiah, K. 1975. Periodicity in growth and production of agar of
Gelidiella acerosa (Forsskål) Feldmann et. Hamel. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 4: 210–21.
Tisdell, C., 1972. The Microeconomics: the theory of economic allocation. John Wiley and Sons, Sydney
Townsend, Ralph E., & Michael D.Young. 2005. Perspectives: evergreen leasing of aquaculture sites,
Marine Resource Economics, 20, pp. 203-210
Trono Jr. G.C. 1981. Seaweed resources in the developing countries of Asia: Production and socio-economic
implications. In I.J. Dogma Jr. G.C. Trono, Jr. R.A. Tabbada, eds. Proc. Symp. on Culture and utilization of
algae in south-east Asia, 8-11, December 1981, Tigbaun, Iloilo, Philippines. p. 1-7.
UNDP. 1994. Conservation and sustainable-use of the GoM siosphere reserve’s coastal biodiversity, New
York. (available at UNDP Project Brief), accessed on November 4, 2009
Untawale, A.G., Dhargalkar, V.K., Agadi, V.V. & Jagtap, T.G. 1983. Marine algal resources of Maharashtra
coast. NIO Technical Report, Goa, National Institute of Oceanography, p. 42.
Usitalo, J. 1986. Commercial seaweed collection and the agar/alginate industries in Tamil Nadu, India.—
Seaweed cultivation as a solution to over-exploitation of a natural resource. Swedish National Board of
Fisheries, Gothenburg, pp.
Verma, R. P. & Krishna Rao, K. 1962. Algal resources of Pamban area. Indian J. Fish, 9: 205–211.
Zemke-White, L. W. & Ohno, M. 1999. World seaweed utilization: An end of century summary. J. Appl. Phycol.,
11: 369–376.
74
14 Annexure
Annexure - 1
Composition, structure and performance of SHGs engaged in seaweed farming in Pudukottai
and Tanjavur districts.
Name of the Name of the Year of Number of Number of Number Average yield
location SHG start female male of rafts per raft
members members (kg/year)
Muthukuda Kadal Muthu (men) 2008 0 5 200 18
Five Star
Arasanagri (men) 2009 0 15 600 23
Pattinam Panimalar (men) 2009 0 5 200 23
Pasumai 2009 0 5
Bishmilla (mixed) 2009 2 3 200 23

Gopalapattinam Kadal Pasu
(mixed) 2009 2 3 200 23
Jegathapattinam Valampuri
(women) 2007 5 0 225 26
Thamarai (men) 2009 0 5 200 23

Jevan (men) 2009 0 5 200 23
Kottaipattinam Mallikai
(mixed) 2009 2 3 200 23
Senthuram
(mixed) 2009 3 2 200 23
Roja ( mixed) 2009 3 2 200 23
Sethupava Kadal pasu 2007 2 3 200 21

Chatram (mixed)
Tanjore Kadal Nila 2007 3 2 200 21
Manora Kalpana Chawla

Tanjavur (women) 2007 4 0 200 21
75
Annexure - 2
Gulf of Mannar
The Gulf of Mannar (GoM) in the southeast coast of India extends from Rameshwaram Island
in the north to Kanyakumari in the south. It encloses a chain of 21 islands stretching from
Mandapam to Tuticorin to a distance of 140 km along the coast. Each of the islands is located
anywhere between 2 and 10 km from the mainland. The Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (GoMBR)
was established on 18 February 1989 by the Government of Tamil Nadu with the purpose of
protecting the marine environment and its wildlife. The reserve has an area of 10 500 km2 (including
the 21 islands in the gulf) and it runs along the mainland coast for about 170 nautical miles.
The GoM is endowed with a rich variety of marine organisms as it houses ecosystems of coral
reefs, rocky shores, sandy beaches, mud flats, estuaries, mangrove forests, seaweed stretches and
seagrass beds. These ecosystems support a wide variety of fauna and flora including rare cowries,
cones, volutes, murices, whelks, strombids, chanks, tonnids, prawns, lobsters, pearl oysters,
seahorses, sea cucumbers, etc. Among other reasons, the GoMBR is particularly important because
it provides a safe habitat to the declining populations of the endangered dugong, an herbivorous
aquatic mammal of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.
The GoM supports finfish and shellfish fisheries as well a number of aquaculture activities
(seaweed farming, primarily). The finfish fishery includes perches, carangids, barracudas, mackerels,
milkfish, mullets, tunas, sardines, scrombroides, silver bellies, pomfrets, lethrinids, groupers, sharks
and rays. The shellfish fishery includes oysters, mussels, clams, prawns, lobsters and crabs. In
addition to seaweed, aquaculture trials have been conducted for pearl oysters, edible oysters,
crabs, sea cucumbers, prawns, and milkfish.
Source: Kumaraguru et al., (2006)
76
Anneuxre - 3
Palk Bay
Palk Bay, named after Sir Robert Palk (1717-1798), Governor of Madras from 1755 to 1763, is
situated in the southeast coast of India encompassing the sea between Point Calimer (Kodikkarai)
near Vedaranyam in the north and the northern shores of Mandapam to Dhanushkodi in the south
(about 110 km long). Palk Bay and the GoM to its south are connected by a narrow passing called
Pamban Strait (about 1.2 km wide), which separates the Island of Rameswaram from the mainland.
The coastline of Palk Bay harbors coral reefs, mangroves, lagoons and seagrass ecosystems.
The saline water and the muddy substratum coupled with seasonal rain and discharge form Vaigai
and Cauvery rivers has created good breeding grounds for pelagic and demersal fishes. Palk Bay is
also rich in seaweed resources of economic importance. The fringing coral reefs contain Gelidium
micropterum and various species of Gracilaria. The lagoons between the reefs and the shore exhibit
rich growth of Gracilaria lichenoides (locally known as kanji ppasi). The reefs also harbour large
standing crops of Sargassum and Turbinaria.
Source: Kumaraguru et al. (2008)
77
78

Socio - Economic Dimensions of Seawed

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

Socio - Economic Dimensions of Seawed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CMFRI Special Publication No.

Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute

© 2010 Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi

New Delhi-110 114 Dr. S. Ayyappan,

Cochin - 682 018 G. Syda Rao

R. Narayana Kumar M. Krishnan

1 Primary characteristics of commercial seaweeds

1 Self Help Groups - History, Guidelines and Performance 17

2 CSMCRI - PepsiCo interaction 19

3 Beneficial environmental impact of sea plant cultivation 23

4 Carrageenan extraction from dry weed 23

5 Products from Kappaphycus alvarezii 25

6 Seaweed as an animal feed supplement 27

7 The Socio-economic premise for Kappaphycus

1 Map of the Study Area 1

1. (a) Map of Ramanathapuram district 2

2 Products from Kappaphycus alvarezii 25

3 Top view of 3m x 3 m size bamboo raft with 4' diagonals 38

4 General Structure of Organised SHG Contract Seaweed

5 Casual loop diagram for systemic strengths and

6 Components of initial investment of one hectare seaweed

7 Marketing channels of seaweed farmers in

2. Kappaphycus cultivation in Mandapam -Second Portion 13

2 Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere 76

AFI Aquaculture Foundation of India

APEDA Agriculture Produce Export Development Authority

ASSOCHAM Associated Chambers of Commerce

BIS Bureau of Indian Standards

CAA Coastal Aquaculture Authority (of India)

ISI Indian Standards Institute

CIBA Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture

CMFRI Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute

CRZ Coastal Regulation Zone

CSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

CSMCRI Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute

DBT Department of Bio Technology

DRDA District Rural Development Agency

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FICCI Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

FIT Fisheries Institute of Technology

GoM Gulf of Mannar

GOMBRT Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust

GoMMNP Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park

G.O Government Order

ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research

2.1.2 Species of seaweed utilized

Gelidiella acerosa 1966 Rameswaram, Throughout a) Ratio of fresh to dry

Gracilaria edulis 1966 Rameswaram Throughout the a) Ratio of fresh to dry

2.1.4 Methods of collection

Gelidium/Gelidiella 5,000 - 8,000 10, 000 (Fresh)

Gracilaria 2,500 - 3,500 6,000 (Fresh)

Sargassum/Turbinaria 750 - 1,000 7,500 (Semi dry)

Sources: * Coppen and Nambiar (1991). **SNAP.

Courtesy: Aquagri Processing Private Limited, New Delhi

Courtesy: Aquagri processing Private Limited, New Delhi

5.2.2 Role of the State Bank of India (SBI)

5.2.3 Role of the Seaweed Research and Utilization Association (Mandapam)

5.2.4 Role of the Krishnamurthy Institute of Algology

A seaweed farmer in Rameswaram

A good haul of seaweed, Olaikuda, Rameswaram

Fig 2 Products from Kappaphycus alvarezii