Success Stories In Asian Aquaculture - Library - Network of ...

98 T. B. Gurung et al.have suggested that inadequate and exaggerated fish production statistics might besome of the reasons for the low priority in policies, leading to the allocation ofnational development resources away from fisheries (Dugan et al. 2007) . The presentfindings of successful adoption of cage fish culture in support of the livelihoodsof displaced communities in Kulekhani Reservoir suggest that the capacity of fisherieswas indeed poorly recognized by decision makers as fisheries and aquaculturewere not included in the operation plan since the beginning.Recently, however, the planners have given emphasis on establishment of fishhatchery in hydropower projects. The present experience is suggestive that infuture, fisheries research and development planning should be part of hydropowerprojects for additional social development, hopefully leading to more mainstreamedthinking in this regard. The summary details of this chronicle of cage fish culturedevelopment in Kulekhani are given in Box 5.2. Further economic analysis isneeded to evaluate, more deeply, how far cage fish culture contributes to the livelihoodof displaced communities and the improved understanding of the importanceof fisheries in the reservoir.In Nepal, nearly half of the economically active population (47.8%) were illiterateand about only 25% were just literate (Adhikary 1995) . The successful adoptionof cage culture farming by displaced communities has also been responsible formajor social developments with regard to education of the children in the families(Fig. 5.4 ). This has been brought about as a result of financial security and familystability, and the community endeavoring to better itself. Almost all the children ofthe farming community receive some form of education, unlike in many rural communitiesin Nepal.Also the proportion receiving secondary and tertiary education is comparable tothat observed in urban communities in Nepal.College(10+2) Level16%Bachelor1%Primary45%Fig. 5.4 The proportion of farmercommunity children in the differentlevels of educationSecondary38%