Rice-fish culture has long been regarded as an environmentally sound alternative to intensive rice monoculture for small-scale farmers in Southeast Asia. On the one hand, degradation of the ricefield environment and increasing health costs due to the injudicious and unsafe use of pesticides threaten the sustainability of conventional rice production. On the other hand, declining marine catches due to overfishing and exploitation of stocks emphasize the need to look for alternative sources of animal protein for an ever growing population. Rice-fish culture was expected to provide cheap and available fish to small-scale farmers and at the same time reduce pesticide use because of its harmful effects on fish. Especially the combination of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in rice and rice-fish culture was seen as a way to exploit complementary effects between technologies and enterprises, leading to higher income, better nutrition and environmental sustainability of rice production.

To analyze the relationship between rice-fish culture and IPM, case studies were conducted in Indonesia and in the Philippines. The Indonesian case study focused on existing rice-fish systems in the province of North Sumatra. While it could be shown that the integration of rice-fish culture in rice-based farming systems has a positive effect on farm income, the environmental effect seems to be negative. Field level data revealed that, contrary to expectations, insecticide use increased in rice-fish systems mainly to control predators of small fish such as snakehead (Channa striata) and sawah eel (Fluta alba) which are valuable wild fish species. The most commonly used insecticides are organochlorines and organophosphates which are officially banned for rice cultivation in Indonesia but are still available at relatively low prices in the villages.

In the Philippines, where rice-fish culture has been promoted without being adopted on a large scale, farmers trained in IPM were evaluated with regard to their perceptions and attitude towards aquatic organisms. It turned out that while IPM- training had a significant impact on pesticide use, knowledge of pests and beneficial organisms, as well as other pest-related aspects, no such impact could be observed for aquatic life. Furthermore, farmers expressed low preferences for fish species commonly found in ricefields. The main consumers of wild aquatic ricefield organisms are landless laborers who will be deprived of this free source of food if culture systems are introduced.

Thus, it could be shown that the hypothesized mutual interaction between IPM and rice-fish culture is not automatic. Increased pesticide use by rice-fish farmers in Indonesia calls for the development of some kind of 'Integrated Fish Protection Management' which, in combination with IPM for rice, can lead to a holistic ecosystem management according to ecological criteria. On the other hand, the lack of interest and initiative of IPM- farmers in the Philippines with regard to aquatic life questions any further efforts for the promotion of rice-fish culture in areas where this practice is not traditional. Here, the main potential of IPM lies in the creation of a favorable environment for wild aquatic ricefield organisms which can be utilized by anybody regardless of land ownership or tenurial status.