Under this topic, first an abstract of a recent paper published by Bay of Bengal Programme (BOBP/WP/90)1 is given and this is followed by a summary of the findings, conclusions and recommendations of eight technical papers prepared by 12 biologists and 2 socioeconomists in Bangladesh2:
The paper describes the socioeconomic survey of selected estuarine set bagnet (ESBN) fishing villages in Bangladesh. It deals with village profiles, households and population structured according to sex, age and education. The households have been stratified according to income-generating activities and income. Fishing households were stratified even further on the basis of the craft and gear combinations owned, owned and operated, or operated only and their income estimated on a monthly basis. Variations in income within the community of ESBN fishermen and relative income from sources other than the ESBN fishery. The survey was conducted to obtain baseline socioeconomic parameters that are relevant to the management of the ESBN fisheries and forms the input for the “Biosocioeconomic assessment of the impact of estuarine set bagnet fisheries on other marine fisheries in Bangladesh”.
The assessment of the socioeconomic conditions of estuarine fisherfolk was made primarily by conducting a detailed bioeconomic enquiry into operations of ESBN fisheries and other fisheries and by examining how certain social features/relations (family size, participation of family members in fisheries, fishery-related and non-fishery jobs, distribution and ownership of fishing assets, sharing of catch value etc.) have affected the living standards of these fisherfolk. The following findings emerge in the study:
Estuarine set bagnet fishing is organized as a family enterprise, with active participation of family labour in fishing, marketing and processing. Although it is practised almost round the year, fishermen seasonally shift to other fisheries also, to increase their income. They also undertake marketing, traditional processing, petty trading and a variety of nonfishery activities as part-time sources of additional income.
The study revealed that about two-thirds of the fishing households combine fishery and non-fishery activities with fishing activities. Almost all the rest concentrate only on fishing.
Although 82% of the ESBN fishermen in Bangladesh have are owners of their gear and craft, the study revealed that there was nevertheless a high degree of poverty among them. there is also a high degree of inequality in the distribution of household incomes. It is estimated that about 39% of the households during 1989–90 were below the poverty line. Lack of proper craft-gear combinations to take up fishing as an economically viable occupation round the year may be the major reason for the high incidence of poverty among fisherfolk. Natural disasters, low catch rates and lack of sufficient supplementary income-generating activities also contribute to this sad state of affairs.
Any effort to regulate fisheries will, hence, have social cost, endangering the survival of the marginal and poor fisherfolk in Bangladesh. However, the desire expressed by many ESBN fishing households to shift to other fisheries and the general tendency among the households to make a surplus income by diversifying their fishing activities are welcome indications of the future course of action.
The following is a summary of the findings, conclusions and recommendations of eight technical papers prepared by 12 biologists and two socioeconomists in Bangladesh:
Typical of tropical fisheries, the estuarine set bagnet catches about 185 species. During shrimp seed (post larval) collection, only 2% of the catches by pushnet and 0.5% of the catches by fixed bagnets are of the P.monodon (tiger shrimp) sought for culture. The larvae and juveniles of other valuable penaeid shrimp species and fresh water prawn, non-penaeid shrimps, finfish and other planktonic forms are discarded on the banks of the estuary, a tremendous loss of valuable resources.
The length or weight of organism is related to its age. Generally, the animals move from shallow water into deeper waters as they grow old and larger. Consequently their vulnerability to different fishing methods varies with the different stages of their lives and the different ecological conditions they live in. Much of the resources of each species is being taken by each fishery at different sizes (or ages) and in different grounds.
There are, generally two peaks in the catch rates for each species. These peaks occur around the latter part of the first and third quarters of the year, showing that there are two broods; one produced during the winter season (Dec-Feb) and the other during the summer season (Jun-Aug).
Comparative analysis of the fisheries exploiting the major species showed that, due to the exploitation of predominantly smaller size fish, the yield in weight from each individual of the animal recruited to that fishery is 20% to 40% less than what could be realized if the animal were not caught by estuarine set bagnet and allowed to remain free until caught by trammelnet or trawlnet.
A market study was undertaken to identify how the value of large, export quality shrimp, small shrimp, juveniles, small fish, and high value fish (e.g. Bombay duck) from the estuarine set bagnet fishery could be improved. Little evidence was found of processing of these catches, which would add to their value.
In most areas, a very large percentage of the estuarine set bagnet fishing community has a poor income and their fishing operations are primarily family affairs, with the exception of a few villages where hired labour is used. As long as it is a family operation, it is possible to operate this fishery as a subsistence fishery, as hardly any operational expenses are incurred. But the fishery at the same time catches a large quantity of juveniles of shrimp and finfish, endangering the resource.
Investigations do not hold out much hope for improved gear that would reduce catches of juveniles without decreasing the income of the fisherfolk nor do they indicate any potential to improve the value of the catch through better processing, and marketing. Opportunities for non-fishing activities that might generate some income are also few, because of the large number of unemployed in the country and the lack of such assets as land for cultivation or to use as collateral for loans to invest in small-scale business, industries or even to improve the marketing of fish.
Set bagnet operation in the estuarine as well as marine environments less than 10 m deep should not be permitted.
Seasonal reduction, in selected locations, of the fishing effort with estuarine set bagnets, to be identified from high percentages of juveniles of highly valued species and the areas and seasons of their occurrence, as reflected by the estuarine set bagnet catches.
Test fishing should be conducted, with the participation of set bagnet fisherfolk, to establish suitable, economically viable alternative fishing methods to replace estuarine set bagnets. catches.
Scope for further expansion of gillnetting and hook-and-line fishing, in the light of the reduction in the fishing effort with estuarine set bagnets, should be determined.
Special programmes should be undertaken by the DOF to motivate the fisherfolk to replace estuarine set bagnet with alternative income -generating fishing methods.
Extension programmes, to educate fisherfolk on resources and management issues, should be undertaken and extension material prepared before management measures are introduced. Understanding and participation of fisherfolk and NGOs in the implementation of management measures are essential.
Before introducing any restrictions on estuarine set bagnet operations, the economic effects of it on the very poor set bagnet fisherfolk should be assessed, and they must be motivated to take up already tested alternative fishing methods that might compensate for the loss of income from the set bagnet fishery as well as enhance their incomes.
Greater coordination among various national institutions concerned with Fisheries Research and Management.
Improved fishery management courses in universities, with more emphasis given to the practical side.
Under this topic there are two papers: Khan (1989) and Rahman (1989)1. An abstract of the two papers are respectively given below:
Fisheries in Bangladesh are a common property resource. As such, they are subject to possible over-exploitation in the absence of a proper management. There is a controversy regarding the effect of the present system of leasing various water bodies, whether it renders fishery a free-access resource or not. Fishing vessels and gear are owned by the fishing team leader who organizes the business with a team of family and hired labours. The labourer are generally related to the leader through kinship ties. Socioeconomic factors play an important role in labour hiring relations. Stratification of fishermen on the basis of use of “outside labour” to “family labour” appears to be suitable to analyze the income sharing among various classes. Of the different inputs of fishing, marginal product of the net is negative and that of labour falls short of its earnings. Boat yields a high marginal product. Sharing of output among boat, net, and labourers is not uniform in all sites. Input share values do not exhaust revenue income. The residual represents an amount by which the boat and net owners appropriate a part of rental for the stock. Investment in fishing appears to be profitable if the rate of return is compared to the institutional rate of interest.
In this study, an analysis is made of the economic of fishing activities in four selected riversides of Bangladesh. An analytical framework is developed which allows an understanding of economic management issues and provides the basis for computation of costs and returns of various types of fishing gear and used by fishing units in these sites. An estimate of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) and catch rate is also provided for all four fishery sites. The economic analysis reveals the existence of significant economic rents and pure profits in all four sites. The profitability of fishing is higher in the two sites under the management of the Department of Fisheries (DOF) compared to the other two fisheries which are under the traditional management. The study, however, does not provide a casual explanation of these differences. It is also found from the implicit wage rate computations that fishing is more remunerative than alternative income generating opportunities existing in and around the fishery site.
There are two papers dealing with this topic, Siddiqui (1989) and Naqui (1989)1 whose abstracts are respectively as follows:
A distinction between licensing and leasing system for management of fisheries has been made in this paper. The paper discusses the overall management of fisheries in Bangladesh and cites the reasons of failure of the past policies for the government under the administration of both the Ministry of lands and the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (MOFL) that were initiated from time to time. As regards policy changes from leasing to licensing, the paper concludes that a structural reform would be necessary in order to capture the potential benefits of fisheries through a licensing system.
In this paper, an analysis is made of two alternative access systems, licensing and leasing, used for the allocation of inland fishing grounds in Bangladesh. The fishery management problem in terms of legal, economic and institutional characteristics of both systems are highlighted. Under the New Fishery Management Policy (NFMP), the leasing system would be gradually replaced by a licensing system, i.e., groups of fishermen would be issued licenses. Present experimentation with this policy has already demonstrated positive impact on fishermen as the target group. in experimental sites the exploitation by leaseholders has been eliminated and fishermen are enjoying more benefits than before. Still, pressure from local power groups and elite interventions from behind the scene could not be counter-balanced through fishermen organizations (cooperatives), which are still weak and ineffective.
Marketing of fish is not well organized. In most fisheries, fish production is marketed privately. this marketing system, does not guarantee fair prices to fishermen because of middlemen's power to depress price levels at the ex-vessel level. The credit situation in both licensing and leasing systems is discouraging and fishermen complain about credit scarcity. Credits that are available cannot easily be channelled to their intended recipients because of complicated procedures.
Under this topic, abstracts of two papers, Haque (1989) and Ali (1989)1, respectively presented:
An important requisite for efficient management of fishery resources is the management of the environment, which in turn, contributes to the sustainability of fish population. pollution of the aquatic environment of Bangladesh is already causing concern among fisheries people. There is an urgent need to know the nature and effects of all chemicals used in Bangladesh industries, agriculture and public health on the fish stocks. Similarly, there is a need to understand the physiology and nature of responses of fisheries organisms to various stimuli from the environment. Mere enactment of legislation is not enough; There ha to be an effective mechanism to enforce legislation. The estuarine area and the Kaptai Lake call for especial treatment so as to reap the maximum benefit out of the vast potentialities. There should be a system for easy flow of information and experience, and easy interaction among government agencies. NGO's including scientists, fish culturalists, and fisherfolk. Latest technologies available through satellite imageries may be of help in tackling many of the management problems.
The ODA project (Floodplain Action Plan 17) is investigating the impact of FCDI/FCD schemes on fish behaviour, growth, bio-diversity and fisheries production. The planned output of the project will be a series of predictive Fisheries Resource Production (supply) models, based on a number of environmental and engineering independent variables, at the sight specific, ecosystem, regional and national level.
The interim-findings of the ODA FAP 17 (1993) indicate that the negative impacts of the completed and planned FCDI/FCD projects could be minimized and the floodplain fish production could be increased by the introduction of better water management practices in order to ensure the maintenance of greater volume of water in the floodplain are during the dry season. This could be achieved by proper scheduling of opening and closing of the water control gates in the completed projects and by designing improved water control systems for the planned projects. In addition, in some cases action for rehabilitation of damaged fish habitats and establishment of fish sanctuaries would be required. The final report of FAP 17 will be completed by mid 1994.
The CIDA project (the Northeast Regional Water Management Project, FAP 6) is attempting to assess and quantify the real impact of FCDI/FCD project on fisheries production and to assess the feasibility of various mitigations recomended to minimize the negative impacts on production such as engineering interventions on the life cycle of the species contributing to fish production.
The USAID is carrying out an environmental study (FAP 16) on the adverse environmental impact of water development projects and is formulating guidelines so that the adverse impacts may be mitigated or avoided in planning, design and operation of FAP projects.
In May/June 1993 the world Bank fielded a supervision to study the impact of the Flood plain Stocking Programme implemented under the Third Fisheries Project (TFP). The Stocking Programme aimed at restocking of 100,000 ha. of floodplains. The major floodplains stocked in 1992 and 1993 are Barnal-Salimpur-Kola-Basukhali Beels (BSKB) in Khulna Division, Halti and Hilna Beels in Rajshahi Division and Chanda Beel in greater Faridpur (Dhaka Division). In addition a minor floodplain, Garalia Beel in Khulna Division was stocked in 1991 and 1993.
The above report indicates that:
total production in the project area declined by more than 20% between the prestocking and post-stocking period;
decline in the non-stocked species was nearly 30%, indicating that the stocked species might have had some negative impacts on the non-stocked species;
in aggregate terms, the major beneficiaries from the project have been the rich Kua (pit/ditch/pond in a beel) owners and not the fishermen;
the value of production accruing to the rich Kua owners increased by nearly 40%, while the value of production accruing to fishermen (full-time, part-time, occasional) declined by over 36%.
The study further indicates that the negative impacts seems to be due to the following problems and constraints which have hindered the success of the stocking programme:
