Country review: Myanmar

Peter Flewwelling and Gilles Hosch
FAO Consultants, Fishery Policy and Planning Division, Fisheries Department
December 2003

INTRODUCTION

The Union of Myanmar^[193], formerly Burma until 1989, gained independence from British colonial rule on January 4^th, 1948. It has a coastline of some 3 000 km, which can be divided into three coastal regions: the Rakhine region to the north, facing Myanmar’s most prolific shrimp grounds in the Bay of Bengal and bordering with Bangladesh; the Gulf of Mottama region (or “Ayeyarwady”), in the centre; and the Tanintharyi region to the south, facing the 800-island Myeik archipelago of the Andaman Sea and bordering with Thailand. The continental shelf spreads over some 228 751 km², and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) has a surface area of almost half a million square kilometres (486 000 km²).^[194] The Central Government is located in the capital city Yangon.

Population, Economy and Political Situation

In mid-2002 the population was estimated at 48.9 million, with an annual growth rate of 1.3 percent.^[195] Per capita consumption of fish amounts to 21.04 kg/yr and constitutes 60-70 percent of total protein intake. Some two million people derive direct benefits from the fishing industry.^[196]

Myanmar is a low income country with an estimated GDP of US$5.8 billion for the fiscal year 1999/2000. This makes it one of the poorest Asian countries. The use of a massively overvalued official exchange rate distorts Myanmar’s economic data. Myanmar is a predominantly agricultural economy, with agriculture accounting for 53 percent of current price GDP and employing 66 percent of the workforce (1999/2000).^[197]

The closed political situation of Myanmar and the international political pressure on the governing authorities exacerbate the difficult situation in Myanmar. Most donors cut off aid in the late 1980’s, foreign investment is sagging, and some countries have imposed sanctions.^[198]

POLICY FRAMEWORK

Myanmar has formulated a fishery development policy that is in accordance with national and international standards and that respects the nature of the country’s resources.^[199]

The principal policies and objectives of the livestock and fisheries sector are to:

• promote all-round development of the livestock and fishery sector;

• increase meat and fish production for domestic consumption and share the surplus with neighbouring countries;

• encourage the expansion of marine and freshwater aquaculture;

• upgrade the socio-economic status of livestock and fisheries communities.

The government’s stated long-term strategy is centred on the sustainable exploitation of aquatic resources. The State reports it has given priority to providing support for the development of the fishing industry, with special attention being given to less costly fresh water fish, to contribute to food security. The fisheries sector is important in terms of producing value-added products and promoting economic growth.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The national base law regulating fisheries is the Myanmar Marine Fisheries Law of 1990. Other laws from 1989 to 1991 regulate aquaculture and freshwater fisheries respectively. The law does not identify a particular agency with a mandate to regulate marine capture fisheries. The lead agency or management body is the Department of Fisheries under the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, sharing responsibilities with other agencies at the national level. Both fisheries research and enforcement responsibilities fall under the aforementioned Ministry.

Legislation lays out a process, including a set series of steps for developing and implementing fishery management regulations. Individual fisheries (by species) are not legislated. Management decisions are based on biological analysis, stock assessments, monitoring and enforcement options. Legislation does not list specific objectives for fisheries management.

Legislation indirectly affecting fisheries law and management of fisheries resources includes:

• endangered species legislation

• biodiversity legislation

• coastal management legislation

Conflict resolution mechanisms are accommodated in the law, as well as multiple-user issues, within and between the fisheries sector and other sectors.

Compliance and enforcement is executed through; (i) the Navy, (ii) the Coast Guard, and, (iii) the Fisheries Department, with the latter being responsible for dockside and logbook inspections, and levying penalties. The range of penalties applicable to violations is comprehensive, ranging from small fines for first offenders, to confiscation of fishing vessels for severe offences. Penalties, including prison terms of up to ten years for violations of the fisheries law, are provided for in the law.^[200]

STATUS OF THE FISHERIES

An MSY of 1.05 million mt for Myanmar waters has been established by the government, and current available datasets reported by the government suggest that this level has not yet been reached.

Offshore industrial vessels are those in excess of either 30 ft, or 12HP engines. Inshore vessels are therefore under 30 ft or vessels with engines less than 12HP. Two separation zones for fishing have been established:

• Zone 1: shoreline out to 5 nm (northern region) or 10 nm (southern region) for coastal inshore vessels,

• Zone 2: outer limit of Zone 1 out to the edge of the EEZ for industrial offshore vessels

Table 1 provides an overview of the main two offshore fisheries^[201]:

TABLE 1
Commercial Fisheries in Myanmar - Overview 1999-2000

Source: FAO Country Fisheries Management Brief, 2001.

TABLE 2
Fishers and their catches

n.a. = not available

Notes:

1. Source: FAO Country Management Brief, 2001

2. Source: Government Communication, 2003

3. Figure provided by FAO Country Profile, and stands for total offshore (commercial) marine capture fisheries output.

4. Figures provided by FAO Country Profile, and stand for total small-scale marine capture fisheries vessels and output.

5. Figure provided by FAO Country Management Brief, 2001. Possibly includes inland fishermen - and certainly excludes fish farmers.

6. Source: Flewwelling, 1999

The number of offshore (commercial) fishing vessels and participants have increased over the last ten years, while inshore fishing vessel numbers seem to have fluctuated. This trend is reflected by Flewwelling (1999), who reports a 25 percent reduction in inshore vessel numbers (6 785 units) between 1997 and 1999 on the basis of supplied government data, while the latest data^[202] suggest a renewed increase back to 28 240 units.

The main inshore fisheries include^[203]:

• Inshore anchovy purse seine

• Driftnet

• Gillnet

• Others (hook-&-line, bag nets, lift nets, seine nets, traps, barrier nets, scoop nets)

No detailed data are available on the volumes caught by individual gear types.

TABLE 3
Inshore Fisheries - Overview 2000-2001

Source: FAO Country Fisheries Management Brief, 2001

^* Source: Government Communication, 2003

Detailed, stock-specific data on status and trends of exploitation and resource levels for both inshore and offshore fisheries are unavailable.

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY

The fisheries management process is reported by government to be transparent, including information sharing, advertising management meetings, stakeholder contribution to decision-making and public input, with full support of the media to release information. Over 67 percent of all marine capture fisheries are legislated and managed in some way (usually by regulatory measures), noting an increase in the number of managed fisheries over the last ten-year period. Consultation and co-management with significant devolution of management powers to stakeholders (defined as “entrepreneurs” & “local fishermen”) are accommodated in the legislation, but are not a legal requirement, nor routinely applied.^[204]

It appears that no total allowable catches (TACs) for specific stocks have been established. Consequently, there is no quota system in place. Management tools are thus mostly input based, and consist of a mix of the following:

• Licensing

• Gear restrictions

• Reserved fishing zones for inshore fisheries

• Nursery area closures

• No-take zones

• Temporary area closures

• Fishing seasons

• Limited fishing days (effort control mechanisms)

Myanmar has taken advantage of FAO FISHCODE initiatives for training, but the political priority and commitment in financial and personnel terms to fully implement lessons learned is weak at this time.

Fisheries are reported as “not over fished”. Consequently, in government, there is no cause for concern regarding overcapacity, and no measures being considered to reduce fishing capacity or to limit effort. The belief of external fisheries specialists however, suggest that the lack of government priority for fisheries and subsequent lack of commitment to sustainable management, despite the efforts at the field level, lend credence to the idea that data completeness and veracity is questionable and that there is in fact an excess in capacity and effort in Myanmar.

A “comprehensive core of [MCS] components” (Flewwelling, 1999) is in place. Government reports this to include a VMS system, use of observers, at-sea and on-land inspections, check point inspections, daily catch reporting and real-time electronic data recording^[205]. Offences are reported to have decreased over the last five years, indicating, according to government officials, relative success regarding the MCS arrangements in place. The lack of effective inter-agency mechanisms, incomplete coverage of all fisheries activities, delays in compiling and analysing data and validity of information available suggest that the system is weaker than that projected by the government.

COSTS AND REVENUES OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Government funds all activities related to fisheries management, including research, MCS, and administration. Partial cost recovery occurs through licensing and tax regimes on a general basis to the central government revenue funds, and hence are not recorded or re-disbursed on a fisheries specific basis. Both funds allocated, and costs related to management are reported to have increased over the last ten years. Increased costs, which are fully assumed by central Government, are reported to be directly related to increased stakeholder consultation, monitoring needs and development of the law.

IMPLEMENTATION OF GLOBAL FISHERIES MANDATES AND INITIATIVES

Myanmar responded favourably to the IPOA for the Management of Fishing Capacity, by putting in place: (i) a monitoring system, and (ii) a licensing regime. Myanmar is unlikely to finish the exercise of measuring total capacity in the marine fisheries by the target date of 2005, due to a number of other constraints. The country responded favourably to the IPOA to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing, through its current MCS system, and claims it bans vessels from its waters that practice re-flagging to avoid regional conservation and management measures.

Myanmar is party to UNCLOS, having ratified the Convention in May of 1996, as well as the United Nations Implementation Agreement (UNIA) (i.e. Part XI of UNCLOS). It acceded to the FAO Compliance Agreement on the 8^th September, 1994.

PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES

Myanmar is a member of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre (SEAFDEC), the Asia-Pacific Fisheries Commission (APFIC), and participates in the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Programme (BOBP-LME). Myanmar notes it provides data to regional fisheries bodies, but adds that deadlines for submissions cannot always be met due to the lack of data, lack of human resources and/or more pressing priorities.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Myanmar has an extensive coastline measuring 3 000 kilometres in length, supporting an EEZ of 486 000 km². It has valuable fisheries resources, of which the shrimp grounds in the north are probably the most noteworthy. A total MSY of 1.05 million mt has been estimated for its marine waters, and current marine fisheries production is approaching this level.

Fisheries are mainly managed through input controls, such as licensing schemes, with spatial, temporal and gear restrictions. A comprehensive MCS control system is reported to be in place. The structure of the fleet is difficult to evaluate due to lack of data, but it appears that the majority of the fleet consists of small, traditional, non-motorized fishing vessels. Myanmar reports that there are currently no problems related to overcapacity, over fishing or stock depletion, but this claim is questioned by external fisheries specialists as the supporting data for such a statement is incomplete, dated, and the analytical capacity is weak. The priority and enthusiasm for responsible and sustainable fisheries management at the field level is not shared by the higher level of government, and hence the positive political view of the fisheries situation is not shared by external specialists.

Myanmar has ratified the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Nations Implementation Agreement and the FAO Compliance Agreement, and indicates it has initiated a number of actions on the IPOAs.

One of the main challenges in evaluating the status of Myanmar’s fisheries and associated management has been noted above, the reliability and completeness of the available data.

REFERENCES

FAO. 1999. Report of a Regional Workshop on Fisheries Monitoring, Control and Surveillance and Supplement 1, Country Reports, Regional Reports and Case Studies. Kuala Lumpur and Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, June/July1998, FAO, Rome.

FAO. 2002/27. Building an Awareness in Aspects of Fishery Statistics, Stock Assessment and Management. Proceedings of the FAO/SEAFDEC Workshop on the Use of Statistics and Other Information for Stock Assessment. Samut Prakarn, Thailand, September 2002, FAO, Rome.

FAO Country Management Brief. 2001. Country Fisheries Management Brief for Myanmar, http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/.

Flewwelling, P. 1999. Report on travel to Myanmar. Mission Report No. 19, FishCode Project MCS, FAO, Rome.

Flewwelling, P. 2001. Fisheries Management and MCS in South Asia: Comparative Analysis. FAO, Rome.

Personal Communications with Government Officials. 2003.

APPENDIX TABLES

Current management of marine capture fisheries in Myanmar

Summary information for three largest fisheries (by volume) for the fiscal year 2001/2002 in Myanmar

n.a. = not available
* Value in 2002 U.S. Dollars.
** % values are based on totals for each category of fishery.

Use of fis

hery management tools within the three largest fisheries in Myanmar

Costs and Funding Sources of Fisheries Management within the three largest fisheries in Myanmar

Compliance and Enforcement within the three largest fisheries in Myanmar

Capacity Management within the three largest fisheries in Myanmar