INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT OF FISHWORKERS

ISSN 0973-1121

INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT OF FISHWORKERS

WOMEN iN TAMil NAdu FisHiNG VillAGEsCONVENTioN ON BiOlOGiCAl DivERSilY

CANAdiAN FisHERS' Co~opERATiv£SHARiJ\G THE FisH COJ\fEREf'I,CEPOST~TSUNAMi REHAb WORksJ.lOpCAMbodiA'S AOUARiAN REfoRMS

ESA WORksl-topCoNSERVATiON ANd livEliHoods

NEWS RouNd,up

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Aquatic Commons

https://core.ac.uk/display/33720857?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-decoration-v1

ContentsSAMUDRA Report No. 43 March 2006 TRIANNUAL REPORT OF ICSF

COMMENT 1

GENDERDon’t be hasty and impetuous 3

CANADAUs and them 7

REPORTWho’s sharing the fish? 11

DOCUMENTLearning from experience 15

DOCUMENTAiming for integrated intervention 21

DOCUMENTOnly four years left to 2010! 24

REPORTBraving the perils of the sea 27

KENYAPillagers or victims? 30

NOTICENew from ICSF 32

CAMBODIAA meaningful beginning 33

REPORTLife studies 37

REPORTEmpowering co-management 44

NEWS ROUND-UPMalaysia, Indonesia, Somalia, South KoreaThailand, Philippines, Fiji, Kenya 50

SAMUDRA News Alerts

SAMUDRA News Alerts is a freeservice designed to delivernews reports and analysis onfisheries, aquaculture and re-lated issues, on a daily orweekly digest basis, in plain-text or HTML format.

The service often features ex-clusive,original stories onsmall-scale and artisanalfisheries, particularly in theregions of the South, as wellas issues that deal withwomen in fisheries and safetyat sea. Apart from news andstories on fisheries, the ser-vice also focuses on environ-mental and oceans issues.

Please visi t http:/ /www.ics f.net to subscr ibe toSAMUDRA News Alerts. TheICSF website has archives ofall past news items as well asall issues of SAMUDRA Reportand several other documentsand resources that might in-terest you. We would also behappy to get feedback andsuggestions on the news ser-vice and the website. You canreach us at [email protected].

Comment

An uncommon tragedy Recent reports about suicides by fishermen in Kendrapara, Orissa, India can only bedescribed as shocking, particularly as there have rarely, if ever, been reports of fishermencommitting suicide. Notably, these suicides have taken place in a State considered one ofthe poorest in India, with about 47 per cent of the population estimated to be below thepoverty line.

Investigations have indicated that the suicides were linked to the restrictions on fishingactivity and subsequent declines in income following the declaration of the Gahirmatha(Marine) Wildlife Sanctuary in 1997, to protect the olive ridley sea turtle in its nesting andbreeding habitat (see page 37). Declining incomes from fishing in a context of highindebtedness, lack of social security nets, and few alternative livelihood options haveproved to be a shock fishermen have found difficult to bear. Many fishermen are reportedto have migrated out of Kendrapara district, some are burdened with extreme mentaldistress, while, over the past four years, at least seven fishermen have taken the extremestep of the final exit.

That this should have happened is unacceptable, even more so as various measuressuggested over the past few years, if implemented, would perhaps have made it possibleto improve turtle conservation, while enabling the continuation of sustainable fishingoperations and livelihoods based on them. Several of these suggestions have emanatedfrom organizations like the Orissa Traditional Fish Workers Union (OTFWU).

It is important that the message from this tragedy does not go unheard. Traditionalfishworkers must be made equal and effective partners in identifying socially-justconservation and management measures, and specific steps to cushion the socioeconomicimpacts of conservation should be implemented. For example, where research conclusivelyestablishes that certain types of fishing gear, whether traditional or trawl, have detrimentalimpacts, regulation on their use should be accompanied by adequate financial assistancefor shifting to other permissible gear. Training and other financial assistance for alternativelivelihood programmes for fishworkers displaced from the fishery as a result of conservationmeasures should also be considered.

The importance of comprehensive socioeconomic data on communities living adjacent toturtle conservation areas, to gauge the potential impact of conservation programmes onthem, cannot be overemphasized. There needs to be a specific focus on the issue ofindebtedness, especially in view of the rising costs of inputs, such as fuel. High rates ofindebtedness have also been a major factor in the suicides of an estimated over 10,000farmers in India in the past few years.

The approach to conservation adopted in Orissa is by no means an isolated example.Fishing communities living adjacent to marine protected areas (MPAs) in several countriesin Asia and Africa have similar experiences to recount, and their concerns must beaddressed, as articulated in the Joint NGO Statement on Protected Areas presented to the8th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 8) to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) in Curitiba, Brazil on 23 March 2006 (see page 24).

Coastal fishing communities can be powerful allies in the efforts to conserve, restore andprotect coastal and marine biodiversity. And needless to say, coastal fishing communitiesdependent on the resource base for their livelihoods, can also be the prime beneficiariesof well-designed conservation and management programmes. To ensure that happens, isthe challenge ahead. It is completely unacceptable and totally unnecessary that the costof conservation should be paid in human lives.

COMMENT

SAMUDRA Report No. 43 March 2006 1

Women in fisheries

Don’t be hasty and impetuous

This note cautions against hasty judgement of the role of women in the fishing-caste panchayats of Tamil Nadu, India

The tsunami of 26 December 2004and the relief-and-rehabilitationefforts that followed have swung

the spotlight on to the fishing-castepanchayats (village councils) of theCoromandel coast of Tamil Nadu, India.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs),government agencies and concernedintellectuals in India have suddenlydiscovered, amongst the physicalwreckage, the heartbeat of an unknownand vibrant institution. It stood in theirway, mediated their well-intended efforts,and, in the end, won many of their hearts.

However, in assessing the role offishing-caste panchayats for the future, onemust keep in mind some troublingaspects. One of the most tenacious of theseis gender. All observers agree that castepanchayats are dominated by men.Opinions differ, however, on whether thisis harmful to the interests of fisherwomen,and whether the situation can beremedied.

Having studied the functioning of castepanchayats, particularly with regard totheir role in the regulation of marinefisheries, I would caution against hastyjudgement and impetuous action.Panchayats should be understood inrelation to their social and historicalcontexts. One should also take care not tothrow the baby out with the bathwater.

Caste panchayats of the Coromandel coastare remnants of pre-colonial villageadministration forms of government thathave survived the imposition of colonialrule and, subsequently, the establishmentof the democratic republic of India. Theyhave endured, first of all, because of theisolation of coastal areas and thegovernment’s long-term disinterest in theaffairs of coastal villages. Above all,

however, they have lasted because of theiressential role in village life. Settlingdisputes with regard to a wide range ofproblems—from fishing rights todomestic affairs—panchayat leadersdecide on issues that otherwise tend tosplit the community.

They determine the rules for fishing intheir sea territories as well as thearrangements for marketing at landingsites. In times of collective need, such asduring the yearly offseason, it is thepanchayat that distributes food and othernecessary items.

When disaster strikes fishermen at sea, thepanchayat takes action to support thewidows. Finally, the panchayat is thecommunity’s voice to the outside world:an intermediary with the police station,the Fisheries Department, NGOs, and soon. It is in the latter capacity thatpanchayats have recently attained renown.

But the caste panchayats of theCoromandel coast are not standaloneinstitutions. They are the tip of the icebergresting on other village structures, in all ofwhich gender distinctions are a coreelement. Let us, therefore, take a look atthe fishing village as a social entity.

Single ethnic groupMost of the fishing villages of theCoromandel coast are dominated by asingle ethnic group: the Pattinavar caste.Each Pattinavar village is broken up intoseveral lineages, or pangaali groups, whichare constituted according to the patrilinealprinciple. Patrilinearity implies thatchildren ‘belong’ and are loyal to theirfather’s family group, rather than to theirmother’s relatives. As a political unit, eachfishing village of the Coromandel coasthas three layers: the household, thelineage and the village. Households are

G

end

er


represented in the pangaali group, each ofwhich has several leaders.

A selection of these leaders isdeputed to the village panchayat,which is composed in such a way

that it reflects the relative weight of eachpangaali group. Dominant lineages (eitherin number or in economic-politicalsignificance) exercise more influence inthe panchayat than do lesser lineages.

Throughout this sequence ofinstitutions—household-pangaali group-village—it is men who exercise mostinfluence. This emerges also in the list ofvillage membership, which, along theCoromandel coast, is an official matter.Membership is the prerogative of adultfishermen alone. It is the collective ofvillage members (varikkaarar or taxpayer)that maintains the village fund, decideson issues of joint importance, and takesaction to enforce whatever decisions havebeen reached.

It is they who defend the village in timesof danger. Contrarily, when a villageenjoys an economic bonanza—andtsunami relief can be considered anexample of such a bonanza—the goodsare divided over the collective of villagemembers. In this case, the system ofdividing rights and responsibilities givesadvantage to households with a largenumber of adult men, in opposition tothose with many womenfolk. (However,

when it comes to taxes, the situation isreversed.)

From an institutional perspective,therefore, men enjoy more authority invillage life than women do. But does thismean that the fishing villages of theCoromandel coast are glaring examples ofpatriarchal society? There is reason todeny such an interpretation.Fisherwomen along the Coromandelcoast are vocal and quite capable ofvoicing their opinion, even though itsometimes needs to be channeled throughmen. They tend to control the household’spurse strings and have an important sayin expenditure. Such an economicposition precludes subservience andcontributes to clout.

This does not mean that women’s positionin the village’s political system, whichculminates in the panchayat, cannot beimproved upon. It definitely can. Thereare indications too that the panchayatsystem is flexible enough to incorporatechange, provided it is given time.

Debate and negotiationHowever, any movement in the directionof larger women’s representation should,in my opinion, emerge from the inside,and not from the outside. It should resultfrom debate and negotiation withinvillage society, and follow the local pace,and not be imposed. This, on the one hand,is a matter of respecting indigenous

Gen

der

4 SAMUDRA Report No. 43 March 2006

cultures. It is also a recognition of thevalue of effective village government, alsowith regard to fisheries. We should takeproper care of our institutional heritage,even though it sometimes containsunpalatable elements.

G

end

er

This piece is by Maarten Bavinck([email protected]), Director,Centre for Maritime Research(MARE), University of Amsterdam,and author of Marine ResourceManagement: Conflict andRegulation in the Fisheries of theCoromandel Coast


Can

ada


Fishermen’s co-operatives

Us and them

This article traces the history of the Prince Rupert Fishermen’s Co-operative Association in British Columbia, Canada

The Prince Rupert Fishermen’sCo-operative Association wascreated in 1931 by a group of

fishermen eager to take control of theirown economic destiny. Their aim was tobypass the large canning companies’control of the fishery and sell fish directlyto fresh-fish agents in the urban centres.

These early co-operators opted to developdirect links between fishers and thefresh-fish market rather than challengethe existing sets of producer-processorrelations of production and form a tradeunion. The new co-operative succeeded inincreasing its members’ earning potential,which, in turn, allowed them to reinvest inmore efficient fishing technologies. AsPRFCA’s success grew, so too did theconflicts between the co-operative and itsdeveloping shoreside processing workers.

PRFCA’s formation was facilitated by thelow capital investment required at thattime to enter the troll fishery and theflexible market potential of troll-caughtsalmon. Trollers’ economic freedom waspartly the result of a technological processthat required a minimal investment ingear. Net fishers, however, wereeffectively tied to the private canneries bythe high cost involved in replacing theirlinen seines and gillnets and throughrestrictive fishing licence regulations. Thecanneries offered easily accessible credit.In return, net fishers were contractuallyobligated to deliver all of their catch to thecannery.

The consistently higher quality productproduced by trollers meant thattroll-caught fish could also be sold in thefresh-fish market. However, the privatefish-processing firms were indifferent tothe market potential of troll-caughtsalmon and chose instead to concentrateon canned fish. The founders of PRFCA

thus organized their resistance to privatecapital by taking advantage of theunrealized market potential oftroll-caught salmon. They used theirresource-sharing networks of kin andclose friends to establish a coalition ofsmall boatowners who, together, couldmarket their catch in the domestic,fresh-fish market.

The different strategies adopted by fishersto circumvent the control of the largecompanies reflect the differences in theirrespective class characters. Those fisherswho lacked formal control over theirlabour power tended towardunionization. The unionist strategyemphasized the working-class characterof fishers and had the restructuring ofcapitalist society as it implicit goal. Thosefishers, such as the independent trollersand longliners, who maintained somedegree of control over the means ofproduction, but lacked the power toconfront the companies individually,opted for co-operative organizations.

The co-operativist strategy emphasizedthe business character of fishers. Theco-operative organizer attempted to usethe mechanisms of capitalism to improvethe individuals’ material status.Nonetheless, whether fishers weremembers of a union or a co-operative, theyshared a similar ideological focus inregard to their ‘place’ as fishermenvis-à-vis the companies.

ShoreworkersPRFCA and the union initially co-existedwithout conflict. However, the shift toprocessing immediately expandedPRFCA’s shoreworkers and created asituation in which the co-operative wasmore vulnerable to strikes by theirnon-member shoreworkers. The first openconflict between the union and PRFCA in

C

anad

a


1943 set the pattern for future conflictsbetween the two fisheries organizations.

PRFCA had recently begunprocessing halibut and wasbuilding a new cold-storage

facility. Since an agreement had alreadybeen signed with the co-operative’sshoreworkers in the spring, PRFCA fishersdid not anticipate a summer strike.However, when unorganized workersstruck the companies for a first contract,the co-operative’s shoreworkers joinedthe strike. PRFCA fishermen, infuriated athaving their fishing so interrupted,threatened to operate the plantthemselves. The matter was resolvedafter the companies signed an agreementwith the union that, according to thePRFCA’s Board of Directors, was “less thanwhat the co-operative was alreadypaying.”

During the 1960s and 1970s the PRFCA’seconomic development focused onexpanding production. A shrimp andcrab cannery was built 1961 andexpanded a few years later to also cansalmon. In 1965 a half-million dollar plantwas built in Vancouver. In the early 1970sPRFCA built an expanded cold-storagefacility and a moderntrawl-fish-processing plant in PrinceRupert. Through 1978 to 1988 theco-operative’s average annualproduction was 38 mn pounds, withannual gross sales of Can$67 mn.

Following five decades of continuousexpansion, PRFCA’s practices were lookingincreasingly less co-operative and morecorporate.

Despite the many similarities betweenPRFCA and corporate fish-processingplants, the co-operative was different.PRFCA members owned and controlled theoperations of their fish plant. PRFCAmembership included all fishers,irrespective of whether they wereboatowners or not. To become a member,a fisher had to sign a marketing contractand agree to purchase a set number ofshares of the co-operative. The profitmade on the sale of their fish was returnedto the membership. While the sharestructure changed over the life of theco-operative, the basic principle of onemember-one vote was maintained. For abrief period during the 1940s,shoreworkers were also given an option ofbecoming members. However, thefishermen members were concerned thatshoreworkers would “take over theco-operative” and, by the end of the 1940s,had reverted to a fishermen-onlymembership.

Democratic responseThe democratic structure of PRFCA reflectsyet another important difference betweenit and the private companies. PRFCAattempted to remain responsive to theinterests of its membership through asystem of elected regional boards and

Can

ada


committees. Whereas most companyfishers are employees of the company andhave little, if any, say over companypolicy, PRFCA fishers had a direct voice inshaping the policies of their association.

While PRFCA’s economicdevelopment was, for most ofthe post-war years, a picture of

a steadily expanding enterprise, theco-operative’s relationship withorganized labour was the reverse.Contrary to the majority of sources, whichsuggest that conflicts between PRFCA andthe United Fishermen and Allied WorkersUnion (UFAWU) are a product of themid-to-late 1960s, the co-operative andorganized labour were in conflict sincetheir formative years. Initial tensions wererelatively insignificant, but as bothorganizations grew, the animosity of theconflicts intensified, culminating in amajor dispute in 1967.

PRFCA members saw the 1967 dispute as anattempt by UFAWU to destroy theirco-operative. Letter writers to the localnewspaper argued that “the so-calledfisheries dispute is not a dispute at all buta planned attack by the UFAWU to raid themembership of the Deep Sea Fishermen’sUnion (DSFU), the union representingmost co-operative crew, and capture thesecurity of PRFCA.” The UFAWU leadership,however, argued that the 1967 disputesignalled the takeover of PRFCA by the bigcapitalist boat skippers.

At the conclusion of the 1967 dispute, therelationship between the UFAWU andPRFCA had been fundamentally changed.The UFAWU’s shoreworker section wasdecertified. All co-operative fishers wererepresented by the DSFU. Two of theUFAWU’s leaders received jail terms fortheir part in the dispute and the union wasfined Can$25,000 for counselling itsmembers to disobey the 23 March 1967court injunction.

The conflicts of 1952, 1959 and 1967intensified the animosity between UFAWUand PRFCA. The increasing level of conflictbetween these institutions underlined thefundamentally antagonistic class intereststhey represented. After havingsuccessfully pushed the UFAWU out of thePrince Rupert plant in 1967, co-operatorsmight be forgiven for believing that they

had resolved the fundamentalcontradiction between capital and labour.However, as the events of the 1970s and1980s demonstrated, the issue of labour(or, more precisely, the question of classand class struggle) remained at the heartof the co-operative’s difficulties. While itmay be argued that PRFCA’s labour historyaffirms the big-boat takeover thesis,something far more crucial was at stake interms of evaluating the progressivepotential of co-operative forms ofproduction.

In the post-Soviet era, market-basedsolutions are advocated as the only wayforward by Left and Right alike. Whilecommentators may disagree over how farone should go, the questions of whether ornot one should go is rarely given seriousattention. However, the example of PRFCAand its relationship to working-classpeople raises crucial questions about thepossibility of finding equitable solutionsto the ravages of a capitalisteconomy—especially in the context ofneoliberal globalization. PRFCA’s ongoinglabour strife points to a fundamentalcontradiction between the possibility ofsocial ownership and capitalism.

As long as PRFCA persisted as a marginalplayer and restricted its activities toselling members’ fish, it could, and did,avoid conflicts with organized labour.However, the moment PRFCA changedfrom marketing to processing, it wasforced to confront the inherentcontradiction of trying to act in theinterests of one segment of the subaltern(small boatowners) while necessarilyhaving to suppress the interests of asecond segment (shoreworkers and, to alesser extent, deckhands). Up until theeconomic crises of the 1980s, the interestsof deckhands were subsumed within thecategory of “members.” But, except for abrief moment in the early 1940s,shoreworkers were always excluded frommembership.

Growth periodMeeting the needs and aspirations of theshoreworkers ultimately stood in the wayof PRFCA’s economic viability. That thiswas so was not as noticeable during theexceptional period of growth in thecapitalist world economy after World WarII. In the context of generalized growth,

C

anad

a


PRFCA could afford to pay its workforce aslightly better rate than the socialaverage.

At the point when the worldcapitalist economy began tocontract in the early 1970s, PRFCA

was forced to either rationalize itsoperation (holding down wages and fishprices and increasing managementprivileges such as contracting out tonon-union work sites) or face theprospect of bankruptcy. This was, andremains, the limit to the progressivepotential of co-operative forms oforganizing production.

Economic and management upheavalsduring the late 1980s and early 1990s ledto the dissolution of PRFCA. Despitehaving survived the crisis period of highinterest rates and low fish prices duringthe late 1970s and early 1980s—a crisisthat caused the financial collapse of manyof the medium-scale private companies—PRFCA was unable to maintain its positionin a fishing industry constantly beset byregulatory, ecological and economiccrises. PRFCA’s strength had resided in thesupport of a core group of members whoowned their own fishing vessels.However, the continued retreat of theUFAWU throughout the 1980s (which ledto lower fish prices for all fishers) plus afundamental change in the structure ofthe international market for fish and fishproducts, combined with governmentregulations aimed at forcing small-scalefishers out of the British Columbiafishery, ultimately destroyed the coremembership base of PRFCA.

In a sequence of emergency meetingsduring the fall of 1989, PRFCA’smembership was asked to approve aseries of cost-saving measures designedto save it. But it was too little too late andin 1991, the PRFCA membership voted toend its half-century of operation as aproducer’s co-operative. The road toPRFCA’s collapse is littered withaccusations of mismanagement andvested interests. Underlying it all,however, was the simple reality thatPRFCA was unable to make the completetransition from co-operative enterprise tocapitalist firm and, in the midst of the1980s’ economic crisis, lacked theflexibility of a fully capitalist firm to do

what was ‘necessary’ in terms ofrationalization, cost cutting and taking theturn into the neoliberal marketplace.When all was said and done, one optionwas left: privatization.

Ultimately, co-operatives must respond tothe inherent laws of accumulation undercapitalism. At particular points in aco-operative’s history, it may be possible,due to ideological commitment orfavourable economic conditions, to ignoreor override this economic imperative.However, the laws of the marketplaceinevitably intervene and, as the history ofPRFCA suggests, a co-operative eitherbecomes a fully developed capitalist firmor collapses.

Can

ada

This article by Charles R. Menzies([email protected];www.charlesmenzies.ca),Associate Professor ofAnthropology, Department ofAnthropology and Sociology,University of British Columbia,Vancouver, Canada, is excerptedfrom “Us and Them: The PrinceRupert Fishermen’s Co-op andOrganized Labour, 1931-1989,”Labour/Le Travail, Fall 2001(http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/48/04menzie.html)


Allocation in fisheries

Who’s sharing the fish?

This is a reaction to the ‘temperate minority’-worldview on the allocation of fishing rights that dominated the Sharing the Fish Conference 2006

Fremantle, Australia, the site of theSharing the Fish Conference 2006, wasnot exactly temperate between 26

February and 2 March 2006, with Celsiustemperatures in the mid- to high-30s.Nonetheless, the intellectual climate of theconference was distinctly Northern. Inretrospect, perhaps this should not havebeen a surprise, given that it was hostedand supported by various Australianfisheries agencies and the New ZealandMinistry of Fisheries. However, the lack ofrepresentation from the South was still ashock, considering that the theme of theconference—allocation issues in fisheriesmanagement—is of enormous globalimportance currently, and alsoconsidering that the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO)co-hosted the conference.

As someone with experience of primaryfisheries research in both the South (India)and the North (Canada)—sufficient tohave generated an internationalperspective—I offer this review from theperspective of the majority of worldfishers, whose interests and concerns werelargely left out of the conference, whichwas, nonetheless, a stimulating andthought-provoking experience.

Sharing the Fish 2006 was an expensiveevent. Conference fees were AUD700(US$500). For those who wished to stay inthe hotel where the conference was held,room rates were another AUD175 (US$125)a night. Such rates allowed the conferencecommittee to hire a professional eventmanagement company to run the event ,and thus it was extremely well organized.The downside, of course, was thatordinary participants from other parts ofthe world, not already dissuaded fromattending by the high cost of travel, wouldhave had to think twice aboutparticipating because of the high fees.

There was thus a paucity of representationfrom the most important fishing regionsof the world and even a surprisingly smallnumber of academic participants,particularly from the non-economic socialsciences. I counted only three of this lastgroup, along with the economists, lawyersand biologists who made up theacademics at the conference, althoughthere may have been several more thanwere immediately apparent. Thecharacter of the conference was thusprofessional and corporate. Tables 1 and 2give a breakdown of conferenceparticipants by region of origin and bywork.

The allocation theme of Sharing the Fish2006 was divided into three subtopics:“allocation across jurisdictions” (26papers); “allocation across sectors” (51papers); and “allocation within sectors”(25 papers). Thirteen papers did not fitinto these categories. The three conferencesubtopics were further divided. The“allocation across jurisdictions” subtopicincluded “high seas, regional and nationalcases”. “Allocation across sectors”

R

epo

rt

Table 1. Origin of Speakers

Country Speakers

Australia 61

New Zealand 15

United States 11

Northern Europe 8

Canada 7

Africa 4

South Pacific 3

Southeast Asia 3

Asia 2

Latin America 1

FAO 1


included “extractive vs. non-extractiveuses”; “allocation between commercialand recreational sectors”; “indigenous,recreational and commercial allocation”;and a number of more conceptual papersgrouped under the headings of “temporaland spatial systems of allocation” and

“approaches to the allocation problem”.“Allocations within sectors” included“recreational allocation” and “allocationand reallocation within the commercialsector”.

The notion of “sector” was debatable, inthe sense that the indigenous sectoroverlaps with the commercial and thatsome papers did not fit into either the“allocation across sectors” or the“allocation within sectors” subtopics. Onthe whole, however, the logic of thedivision was clear and as consistent aspossible under the messy circumstancesthat characterize fisheries.

A final distinctive element of theconference was the large number ofkeynote and invited speakers, whonumbered 22 out of the total 116 speakers.In combination with the effective use ofdaily rapporteurs and conferenceoverview speakers on the last day, thisinnovation gave the conference anadmirable coherence and sense ofpurpose.

Allocation can be seen as theimplementation challenge of assigningrights to fish. In this sense, Sharing the Fish2006 built directly on the foundation laidby its predecessor, the Fish Rights 1999conference. Whether deliberate or not, theselection of keynote speakers for Sharingthe Fish 2006 fostered the impression thatindividual transferable quotas (ITQs) arethe ideal path to allocation. Two of thethree conference keynote speakers, PeterPearse and Gary Libecap, purveyed this

point of view along with Ragnar Arnason,one of the invited speakers for theconference.

The argument for ITQs is well known andwas clearly presented by these threespeakers. When quota rights can beassigned such that they are secure,transferable and permanent, they result infisheries that are ecologically sustainablebecause quota holders gain the incentiveto care for the resource that they now own.Ecological considerations, previouslyexternalities, are now internalized underITQ systems.

Of most interest in relationship to thisperspective, and perhaps in dissonancewith the intentions of the conferenceorganizers, several strong voices pointedto the limitations of the ITQ approach. Themost forceful critique came from theinvited speaker and representative of theInternational Collective in Support ofFishworkers (ICSF), Chandrika Sharma,whose staunch advocacy of thesmall-scale fisher perspective came like acry in the wilderness. Sharma pointed outthat a very small minority of the world’sfishers are subject to ITQs and wonderedwhy such a high-profile conference wasdevoting so much attention to an issue ofrelevance only to a small proportion of theglobe. As she and members of the smallSouth African delegation to theconference noted, ITQs threaten thelivelihood basis of small-scale fishers.Moeniba Isaacs and Andrew Johnstonshowed in their presentations howartisanal fishers in South Africa have beenbadly divided, and had their ability tomake a living from fishing undermined bythe recent South African legislation thathas based all South African fisheries onITQs. The inequity of ITQs was echoed byFrank Alcock and the twoend-of-conference overview speakers,Susan Hanna and Ray Hilborn, whoaffirmed the challenge to equity that ITQsrepresent even in countries of the North.

Weak defenceThe three proponents of ITQs seemedunable to defend themselves against thesechallenges, saying that while ITQs mightincrease inequity, the broaderenvironmental and social benefits theybrought were worth it. Pearse succinctlyencapsulated this response by stating that

Rep

ort

Table 2. Speaker Affiliations

Affiliation Speakers

Government 62

Academic 27

NGO 13

Private sector 11

Other 3


it is the end, not the means that isimportant, a statement I personally foundhighly problematic as it goes against theincreasing emphasis on process and socialjustice that has informed theories ofco-management and fisheries governancein recent years. I was also troubled by theamiable reasonableness of the ITQproponents, which softened an otherwiseharsh message.

The lack of sufficient participationby delegates representing theworld’s most populous fishing

regions meant that the conference did notadequately discuss allocation andrights-based approaches appropriate tothe majority of the world’s fisheries,which are highly complex, diverse andrapidly changing. The invited speakerMahfuzzudin Ahmed did list allocationalternatives for tropical fisheries but at alevel of generality that sparked littledebate. ITQs are clearly of little relevancein most complex developing countryfisheries. What is the cutting edge incommunity-based quotas? How canallocation be worked out betweensemi-industrial fleets and small-scalesubsectors with thousands of units? WhileI can see the real advantages ofintroducing ITQs for semi-industrialfisheries in developing countries forcapacity reduction and sustainability,how could such ITQs co-exist with otherforms of rights for the small-scalesubsector that would have to be extremely

well protected? How do we manage largeand complex fisheries that are alsodata-poor and in regions wheregovernance is weak? How can fishers beprotected when coastal tourism,industrial development and oilexploration move into traditional fishinggrounds? It is not enough to leave suchquestions to the very end of thedeliberations, for the conference overviewspeakers; and it makes me wonder whythe FAO was not able to put such questionsmore forcibly on to the agenda of theconference.

Despite these concerns about theconference, within the confines of thelargely antipodal group of papers at theconference, there were many thatprovided examples of challenges—andcreative solutions—similar to thoseencountered in the fisheries of the South.The Maori case in New Zealand, forexample, as introduced by the invitedspeaker Alison Thom, shows that strongcommunities can participate in an ITQprocess and come out ahead.

Equity implicationsIt would be interesting, nonetheless, to seea more disinterested presentation of thatprocess, and to hear about the equityimplications of sharing quota for thecommunities. The Alaskan native quotaallocation case would be another exampleto consider. There are surely lessons frommany of the other papers presented at the

R

epo

rt


conference that may be helpful for themajority-world fisheries. One examplewas the paper presented by ClaireAnderson, which discussed thedevelopment of a more transparentinstrument for inter-sector allocation bythe Queensland government.

If the debate over the applicability andequity of ITQs bumped along mostlyin the background during the

conference, two topics created a buzzduring the event. The first of thesefollowed the presentation of RosemaryRayfuse, who talked about allocationacross jurisdictions. She argued that theprinciple of freedom of the high seas hasnow been sufficiently constrained byinternational agreements that it should bewithdrawn.

In effect, obligations under internationallaw, particularly when regional marinefisheries organizations are involved, havecreated a situation where there are nowlegal instruments to control access andallocate fish stocks on the high seas. Theseinstruments are still far from perfect, andillegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)fishing persists to the degree that someobservers, such as another invitedspeaker, Gordon Munro, are pessimisticabout their ever being controlled.

The increasing concern of internationalorganizations like Greenpeace,represented at the conference by AlistairGraham, for the protection of deep-seamounts may be a recognition that thetime may have come for effectiverestrictions on such sensitive areas. Thequestion that arises, however, is whetherso much effort on the part of internationalorganizations should be invested inenvironmental areas that are marginal tothe livelihoods of the world’s fishers. Interms of social benefit, it would seem abetter use of resources to focus on threatsto the tropical coastal waters where mostof the world’s fishers and marinebiodiversity co-exist.

The second topic that stimulatedconsiderable interest at Sharing the Fish2006 was triggered by an example givenby Pearse, and relates to ITQs andallocation across sectors. Pearse statedthat the Canadian Minister of Fisherieshas recently given an ITQ share to the

recreational fishery sector for halibut onCanada’s Pacific coast. This arrangementsatisfied the commercial halibut sector,which had been increasingly concernedabout the growing share of fish caught bythe recreational sector. The advantage forthe commercial sector was that, in future,any further growth in the recreationalcatch would have to be purchased fromthem, and they would thus get a fairmarket rate instead of the gradual erosionof their quota as had been occurring. Thebuzz at the conference revolved aroundthe innovation of giving a transferablequota to a disparate group of unorganizedrecreational fishers who would have littlechoice but to become organized in orderto administer their new right. Thisexperiment clearly stimulated theminority-world fisheries managerspresent, all of whom face large andgrowing demand from recreationalstakeholders. It is less relevant for placeslike India, where recreational fishing isvirtually nonexistent. Nonetheless, it doesraise an interesting comparison withsmall-scale sectors in majority-worldfisheries, which also have large numbersof diverse stakeholders who often lackeffective institutional means fornegotiating their rights.

As these points demonstrate, the Sharingthe Fish Conference 2006 was a stimulatingforum. Clearly, however, it would bepreferable, in future, to seek much greaterparticipation from the majority areas ofthe fisheries world. If that is not possible,then it would be wise to indicate moreclearly that such a conference is gearedprimarily towards the interests of thefisheries of the North, a small minority inglobal terms. It would be a pity if this werethe outcome, however, as Sharing the Fish2006 and its predecessor Fish Rights 1999have been important milestones on thepath to improving fisheries management.

Rep

ort

This review is by Derek Johnson([email protected]) of theCentre for Maritime Research(MARE), Amsterdam, theNetherlands


Post-tsunami workshop

Learning from experience

The following is excerpted from the Proceedings of the ICSF workshop on post-tsunami rehabilitation of fishing communities

The tsunami that struck countries inthe Indian Ocean region on 26December 2004 caused severe

damage to life and livelihood. The impacton fishing communities in affectedcountries was particularly severe. Apartfrom loss of life and injury, manyhouseholds dependent on fisheries losttheir houses, craft, gear, equipment andother means of livelihoods. Estimatesindicated that damages to the fishing andaquaculture industry were substantial, tothe order of US$568 mn in India, US$511mn in Indonesia, US$335 mn in Sri Lanka,about US$139 mn in Thailand and aboutUS$25 mn in Maldives.

It is well known that while naturaldisasters make no distinction, the abilityto face them and recover from them differssubstantially, depending on the social,economic, environmental and politicalreality.

Clearly, the damage from the IndianOcean tsunami was much greater than itshould have been, because of certainunderlying realities facing fishingcommunities along the coast. Iflonger-term resilience to natural disastershas to be increased, rehabilitationinterventions would need to take intoaccount, and address, issues requiringinterventions of a longer-term nature.

To obtain a comprehensiveunderstanding of the interventions thathave taken place to rehabilitate thefisheries sector and communitiesdependent on fisheries and to identify theemerging issues/challenges, ICSFcommissioned studies in four countries,namely, Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lankaand India, in October 2005. In addition tothese four studies, ICSF also commissioneda study in India on “The Role of

Traditional Panchayats in Coastal FishingCommunities in Tamil Nadu, with SpecialReference to their Role in MediatingTsunami Relief and Rehabilitation.”

These studies were presented at theRegional Workshop on Post-tsunamiRehabilitation of Fishing Communities andFisheries-based Livelihoods held in Chennai,India on 18 and 19 January 2006.

The workshop provided a constructivespace for dialogue between fishworkerorganizations, NGOs, policymakers andrepresentatives of multilateral agencies,from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesiaand Maldives. It was aimed to:

• analyze the status of rehabilitationefforts in the fisheries sector andfishing communities; and

• identify issues that need to beaddressed in ongoingrehabilitation projects vis-à-vis thefisheries sector for sustaininglivelihoods in the longer term.

A one-day meeting of fishworkerorganizations and NGOs working withfishing communities in tsunami-affectedcountries was held on 17 January, prior tothe regional workshop. The meeting wasmeant to:

• provide an opportunity forparticipants from variouscountries to share experiences andlearn from one another; and

• enable participants to agree onbasic issues that need to beaddressed by ongoingrehabilitation interventions, someof which are likely to becountry-specific.

D

ocu

men

t


The one-day NGO meeting was heldat the YWCA Conference Hall,Chennai. A total of 50 delegates

participated in the meeting. The meetingenabled organizations working withfishing communities to share experiencesand to learn from one another. It also tookstock of rehabilitation interventions andagreed on some basic issues that need tobe addressed by ongoing rehabilitationinterventions, keeping in mind the factthat rehabilitation initiatives by NGOs,multilateral agencies and governmentsare still underway. Theserecommendations were presented to theworkshop on 19 January 2006.

The regional workshop was organized atthe IMAGE Auditorium, in Chennai, TamilNadu, India. A total of 90 persons,primarily from the tsunami-affectedcountries of Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka,Maldives and Thailand, participated inthe workshop. They includedrepresentatives from fishworkerorganizations, NGOs and multilateralorganizations such as the Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO), the World Bank, the AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB) and the UnitedNations Development Programme(UNDP). Government representativesfrom all the above countries alsoparticipated in the workshop.

The workshop programme includedpresentations of the country-level

studies, followed by discussions in theplenary. Multilateral agencies presentprovided an overview of their work andproposed future interventions. In a paneldiscussion, representatives ofgovernments and NGOs highlighted theirfuture priorities for tsunami rehabilitationwork. The recommendations from theNGO meeting were also presented.

The field visit provided participants withan exposure to post-tsunamiinterventions as related to houseconstruction, habitat restoration,appropriate technologies, alternativeemployment and co-ordination of aid,taking place in the districts ofNagapattinam and Villupuram in theState of Tamil Nadu, India, throughinteractions with government officials,women’s self-help groups, NGOs andfishing communities. Initiating theinaugural session, Chandrika Sharma,Executive Secretary of ICSF welcomed theparticipants to the workshop and gave ashort background about the organization.ICSF was formed in 1986 to defend theinterests of the small-scale fisheries sector,particularly in the developing world, andto ensure their participation in importantdecision-making processes affecting theirlives.

Sharing informationAn important part of ICSF’s work is tomake available information for, andabout, small-scale fishworkers, to bring

Do

cum

ent


greater visibility to the sector, through itsDocumentation Centre. Towards this end,ICSF brings out various publications, suchas SAMUDRA Report. A more recentinitiative is the SAMUDRA News Alerts thatgo out free to subscribers all over theworld on a daily basis.

The Documentation Centre alsomaintains active links with othersuch centres in the French and

Spanish-speaking regions. ICSF has alsobeen organizing workshops forsmall-scale fishworkers and NGOs,providing a constructive space fordialogue between fishworkerorganizations, NGOs, scientists,governments, researchers and others. Thepresent workshop was in line with this,Chandrika Sharma said in conclusion.

R. Santhanam, Special Commissioner andCommissioner for RevenueAdministration and State ReliefCommissioner, Government of TamilNadu, India, in his inaugural address, saidthat the workshop was being organized atthe right time, just over a year after thetsunami disaster struck the State. This is agood time to take stock of the situation, toreview the state of rehabilitation efforts, toidentify issues that need to be addressed,and to chalk out issues for theimplementation of projects that aresustainable in the long run, said the StateRelief Commissioner.

Santhanam congratulated ICSF on thereports brought out. He complimented, inparticular, the author of the India studyfor covering the entire gamut of fisheriesrehabilitation, and for the indepthanalysis of significant issues in therehabilitation process, namely, relief andcompensation, livelihood restoration,relocation, role of institutions likefishermen’s panchayats in India, theproblem of surplus boats, the dilemma ofworkers-turned-owners, and the rights offisherwomen in the changed structure andscenario.

Santhanam also referred to various otherstudies, including those brought out bythe Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS),the Fritz Institute, the South IndiaProducers’ Association (SIPA) and others,pointing out that such studies undertakenby independent organizations, made

useful and important contributionstowards providing directions to therehabilitation processes, and identifyingcorrective actions, wherever necessary.

He drew attention to the fact that thetsunami disaster was the worst in livingmemory with the largest proportion of thedamage concentrated in fisheries, housingand infrastructure. He said that it was notsurprising that there was a greater focuson fishers during the relief andrehabilitation process.

The Government of Tamil Nadu not onlyconcentrated on fishers but also took intoaccount the requirement of other affectedsections like small and marginal farmers,agricultural labourers, businessmen,petty traders, orphaned children,adolescent girls, students and variousother categories of people, and providedrelief packages to every category.

Just as ICSF has commissioned studies forimproving the lot of fishers, similarstudies by others on other affected groupswould be appreciated, as the commonobjective is to strive for a safe and securefuture for all those who are affected by thetsunami in some way or the other.

Santhanam stressed that the Tamil Nadugovernment’s response to the tsunamidisaster has been characterized by awillingness to provide adequate space forcivil society organizations (CSOs), toremove bottlenecks for their functioning,and be accessible and receptive tofeedback and act upon it promptly. TheState Relief Commissioner thenproceeded to flag three main issues thatare the main areas of concern:

(i) Proliferation of boats after the tsunamiIn the post-tsunami period, theCoromandel coast saw the presence of alarge number of NGOs and their desire todo something quick and visible in thetsunami-affected areas. This resulted in alarge number of people who previouslyhad no boats now getting boats.

This is likely to result in a chain of otherevents such as shortage of people workingas crew; increased dropouts from schoolsdue to fishers taking their children to sea;competition by more boats from the samevillage for finite fishery resources in the

D

ocu

men

t


same fishing area, causing tensions bothat sea and on shore; and finally, anaggravation of tensions resulting fromthe changed social structure ofworkers-turned-owners.

Santhanam also pointed out thatbeneficiaries who have receivedboats have expressed concerns

over the quality of boats built in a hurryand supplied by the NGOs. This, in turn,raises safety concerns.

The other issues include a surplus ofboats, alongside a shortage of nets andother equipment required for fishing; thehigh cost of maintenance; theunsuitability of boats to local conditionsor requirements; and variations from thepreferred design and make of engine.These are very serious issues that have tobe dealt with and for which solutionshave to be found, said the Commissioner.

(ii) RelocationThe State Relief Commissioner said thatthe Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu hadannounced a well-thought policy onhousing in March 2005. The fishingcommunities in the tsunami-affectedareas were faced with a difficult situationof deciding between safety andlivelihoods. He said that while safetyconcerns required them to go inland, theirlivelihood interests forced them to be atthe shoreline.

The governments’ housing policy is inaccordance with the coastal regulationzone (CRZ) notification, and gives theoption to the fishers to relocate beyond 200m from the high tide line (HTL) if they sowish, reiterated the Commissioner. Thereis no compulsory relocation. Those whoare willing to relocate have been assuredof a house worth Rs150,000 (US$3,388),along with land. Those not willing torelocate would be allowed to repair,without government’s assistance, if thestructures are authorized and were intheir current plots prior to 1991.

The Commissioner said that thegovernment’s policy is driven purely bysafety considerations. There is amisconception among some people thatthe space vacated by fishermen who choseto relocate would be given to some otherindustries, which would totally destroythe fishers’ livelihood.

The Chief Minister had already assuredthe State Legislative Assembly that thevacated land would be entered in theProhibitory Order Book (POB) and wouldbe maintained for public purposes, whichinclude the occupational use of beach bythe fishing community. The communitywould be allowed to keep their boats, nets,etc. in this area. Since new houses are to bebuilt as per the technical specification ofthe government for safety and durability,it is in the interest of the community to

Do

cum

ent


look at the relocation issue in the rightperspective, he stressed.

(iii) Alternative livelihoodsSanthanam said that the issue ofalternative livelihoods was important inthe current situation where the tsunamihas brought to the fore the risks involvedin coastal lives. The limited nature of theaquatic resources has added anotherdimension. The government hasaddressed these needs in right earnest,and a dedicated programme of alternativelivelihoods is being formulated inconsultation with the affectedcommunities.

Recognizing the advantages ofgroup-based activities, special attention isbeing paid to ensure that theseopportunities are delivered throughself-help groups. Initiatives such asseaweed farming, crab and lobsterfattening, etc. are being looked at asoptions. Generally, all these have got verygood export markets, and can make a lotof difference to the fishers. The State ReliefCommissioner emphasized theimportance of establishing forwardlinkages if such activities are to be done ina sustainable manner.

He said that the coastal economy supplychain could be substantially alteredthrough the identification andimplementation of alternative livelihoodopportunities. These will not onlysupplement the income gained but alsoprovide for substantive riskdiversification for the fishingcommunities. There is a provision ofnearly US$50 mn for livelihood promotionin the Asian Development Bank (ADB)Tsunami Emergency Assistance Project,which is now being implemented in TamilNadu.

Similarly, the post-tsunami sustainablelivelihood programme funded by theInternational Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment (IFAD) focuses mainly oncommunity resources management,community institutions, micro- and ruralfinancial institutions andmicro-enterprise development. He hopedorganizations working with fishingcommunities, such as those present at theworkshop, would help in theidentification and implementation of

projects, as that would go a long way inthe restoration of the community that wasthe worst affected in the tsunami.

V. Vivekanandan Chief Executive, SouthIndian Federation of Fishermen Societies(SIFFS) and a Member of ICSF, provided thebackground to the workshop. He said thatone year on, it was a good time to takestock and reflect on post-tsunami reliefand rehabilitation processes. ICSF hadbeen, from the very beginning,monitoring and trying to follow up on thetsunami relief and rehabilitation process.He pointed out that, even though coastalareas are disaster-prone, many present atthe workshop did not have much previousdisaster experience.

The experience that has been gained in thepost-tsunami period will help us to bebetter prepared for future disasters. Therehave also been amazing opportunities forcomparison due to the vast diversity of theaffected areas/countries. Areas andcountries seen as distinct geopoliticalentities, which previously had rarelycome together to think of commonapproaches and programmes, wereunited by the indiscriminating tsunami.This has also given an excellentopportunity to look at fisheries issues witha common perspective.

Vivekanandan pointed out that SoutheastAsia, for example, is way ahead of southAsia in terms of community-based coastalresource management (CBCRM). It is withthis kind of a regional perspective that ICSFdecided to take stock of the situation oneyear after the tsunami by launchingcountry-level studies in India, Indonesia,Thailand and Sri Lanka. It was decided topresent these studies and organize adiscussion and debate around them. TheFisheries Department of the Maldives hadalso expressed its interest in the workshopeven though ICSF itself has not been ableto commission a study in the Maldives.The workshop thus offers the opportunityto discuss the post-tsunami situation infive tsunami-affected countries in Asia.

Long-term interventionsVivekanandan then proceeded to give theschedule of the workshop. He pointed outthat this was the time that multilateralagencies, with large funds at theirdisposal, were starting their longer-term

D

ocu

men

t


interventions. It is important to knowtheir plans for tsunami rehabilitation,with the aim of coming out with the bestway to take the whole process ofrehabilitation forward. Therefore,following the presentations of countrystudies and inputs by governmentofficials present on the country situations,multilateral agencies would present theirplans for the coming period.

And finally, the fishworker perspectivewould be presented in the form of a set ofrecommendations that had been draftedduring the NGO meeting prior to theworkshop. The recommendations, hesaid, were based on issues that emergedduring country-level processes andconsultations with affected communities.

Do

cum

ent

The Regional Workshop onPost-tsunami Rehabilitation ofFishing Communities andFisheries-based Livelihoods washeld at Chennai on 18 and 19January 2006


Post-tsunami rehab

Aiming for integrated intervention

These recommendations were made at the ICSF’s Chennai workshop on post-tsunami rehabilitation

The past year has seen considerablemobilization of aid and diverseinterventions towards relief and

rehabilitation of tsunami-affectedpopulations in Asia, including fishingcommunities, who are considered amongthe worst affected.

A little over a year after the tsunami andafter taking stock of interventions aimedat rehabilitating fishing communities,we—organizations that have beenworking with fishing communities for aconsiderable period of time in Sri Lanka,Indonesia, Thailand and India—wish toemphasize aspects that need to beintegrated into the ongoing interventionsof governments, multilateral agencies andNGOs.

Land and shelter1. It is important to urgently resolve issuesstill hindering completion of permanenthousing as part of tsunami rehabilitation,particularly issues of land allocation, afterpaying special attention to the problemsof tenants and the homeless. Wherecommunities decide to relocate, rights tovacated coastal lands should remainvested with the community.

2. Housing sites for fishery-dependenttsunami victims should be located at aconvenient distance from areas wherefishing communities store fishingequipment, access fishing grounds anddry fish. It is important to ensure commonquality standards, use of locally availablematerial and technology, proper habitatplanning, basic amenities, equity and theinvolvement of the fishing community inthe reconstruction process.

3. Titles to houses built as part of tsunamirehabilitation should be provided, andshould be in the joint names of the womanand the man of the household.

Quality of rehabilitation assistance4. Tsunami rehabilitation programmesshould adopt a broader coastaldevelopment approach, and should aimto improve the quality of life andlivelihood of coastal communities,including those not directly affected bythe tsunami. Particular attention shouldbe paid to historically marginalizedcommunities and victims of conflict.

5. Governments should put in placemechanisms for the maintenance of publicutilities provided by donors/NGOs as partof tsunami relief/rehabilitationprogrammes.

6. Mechanisms for maintainingcommunity assets created post-tsunami,such as auction halls and fish drying andprocessing facilities, should be assessed,and, where lacking or inadequate, shouldbe established, in participation withcommunities.

7. Transparent, single-windowmechanisms should be set up to registercomplaints about the quality of thetsunami rehabilitation that has beendelivered, as, for example, poor housingand poor-quality boats. Such complaintsshould be addressed in a timely manner.

8. Regional and other imbalances in theprovision of tsunami rehabilitationassistance should be assessed, and equityin access to aid, ensured.

9. Mechanisms for co-ordination oftsunami rehabilitation at different levels,and between various actors, should beestablished/strengthened. Government-NGO partnerships for co-ordination oftsunami rehabilitation should be fostered.

10. Mechanisms to promoteaccountability of the different actors

D

ocu

men

t


involved in tsunamirehabilitation—governments, NGOs andothers—should be established.

Local institutions11. Under tsunami rehabilitation, localand traditional institutions should bestrengthened, after assessing their roles,potentials and limitations. A coherentand sensitive strategy should bedeveloped to work with them and tostrengthen them in the long run.

Protection and restoration of coastalhabitats12. Protection and restoration of coastalhabitats and biodiversity should beundertaken on a priority basis and shouldnot be confined to tsunami-affected areas.It is necessary to implement/put in placemeasures to regulate activities that canpollute, degrade or otherwise harm thecoastal environment and its capacity toprotect coastal communities from futurenatural disasters.

13. Habitat restoration programmes intsunami-affected areas should beundertaken in participatory ways, andshould not lead to alienation ofcommunities from coastal lands. Thefocus of coastal afforestationprogrammes, such as shelter belts, shouldbe on native, indigenous species, and onbuilding local awareness about theirimportance.

Fisheries management14. A scientific assessment to improveunderstanding about the possible impactof the tsunami on fishery resources andhabitats should be undertaken in affectedand unaffected areas. There is, forexample, reason to believe that even some“unaffected” areas are facing problems ofhigh tides and waves after the tsunami.

15. Further construction and distributionof small-scale fishing vessels as part oftsunami rehabilitation should beundertaken only if there is clear evidencethat there has been a shortfall in replacingvessels in particular regions. Whereaffected persons have not received vesselsin a situation of oversupply, mechanismsto provide replacements should beestablished without further addition tothe fishing fleet.

16. Efforts should be made to ensure thatappropriate and selective fishing gearcompatible with the status of fisheryresources are distributed under tsunamirehabilitation programmes.

17. Diversification of fishing activities totarget offshore fishery resources as part oftsunami rehabilitation should beundertaken only if there is evidence ofresource availability and financialviability of such fishing operations.

18. Replacement of fishing vessels lost tothe tsunami that have habitually beentargeting fishery resources in the waters ofneighbouring countries should be doneonly after due consultation withstakeholders to lay down conditions ofaccess to such fishery resources.

19. Brackishwater aquaculture andmariculture should be promoted as analternative source of employment intsunami-affected areas only afteraddressing concerns of environmentaland social sustainability.

20. Systems for effective registration ofcraft, gear, engines and fishers should beestablished to streamline post-tsunamirehabilitation of the fisheries sector and,where appropriate, governments shouldestablish such systems in co-operationwith relevant local institutions and NGOs.

Do

cum

ent


21. Participatory programmes to improveand strengthen management regimes forthe conservation of fishery resources andprotection of fish habitats should beundertaken in the context of post-tsunamirehabilitation programmes. Failures onthis account in the past underline the needfor greater co-operation amongst fishingcommunities, departments of fisheries,fishworker organizations, NGOs andscientists.

Sea safety 22. Safety of fishing vessels and fishingoperations should be given greaterattention under tsunami rehabilitationprogrammes. Setting standards forboatbuilding and developing awarenessamong fishers about safety aspects need tobe undertaken on a priority basis. Fishersshould be imparted sufficient training inbasic sea safety in accordance with thedraft revised FAO/ ILO/ IMO FishingVessel Safety Code and VoluntaryGuidelines.

Post-harvest operations in fisheries23. Tsunami-rehabilitation programmesto support the post-harvest sector shouldpromote labour-intensive, locallyappropriate, low-cost technologies of fishprocessing. The establishment of coldchains should ensure that they benefit,and not displace, the small-scale fishprocessors and traders.

Insurance, compensation and socialsecurity24. Vessel and crew insurance should bemade mandatory for all fishing operationsat affordable premia. Social securityschemes in tsunami-affected countries,including accident benefit schemes forfishing and other coastal communities,should be developed to enhancelong-term resilience and to ensure rapidrecovery from disasters. The experiencesof State-run systems, commercially runsystems and community-managedsystems need to be reviewed, to developsystems appropriate to the social,economic and legal environment of eachcountry affected by the tsunami.

Census of fishing communities25. A periodic census of men and womeninvolved in fishing and fishery-relatedactivities, including migrant fishers,should be undertaken on a priority basis

to facilitate proper enumeration andeffective compensation during naturalcalamities, such as a tsunami.

Disaster preparedness26. Programmes to enhancecommunity-based disaster preparednessand training should beinitiated/continued.

Women in fisheries27. Women of fishing communitiesengaged in fisheries operations (fishing,marketing processing, etc.) should berecognized as workers in their own right.Tsunami rehabilitation programmesshould be tailored to meet theirrequirements and should aim to improvewomen’s livelihoods, conditions of work,access to resources and social security.

Diversification of livelihood options28. The quality of education andopportunities for skill developmentshould be enhanced to enablediversification of the livelihood options oftsunami-affected fishing communities.

D

ocu

men

t

These recommendations werepresented at ICSF’s “RegionalWorkshop on Post-TsunamiRehabilitation of FishingCommunities and Fisheries-basedLivelihoods”, held in Chennai on18 and 19 January 2006. Thecomplete Proceedings can bedownloaded from http://www.icsf.net/jsp/english/pubPages/proceedings/pros08.jsp.


Biodiversity

Only four years left to 2010!

A joint NGO statement at the recent Convention on Biological Diversity meet called for the involvement of indigenous/local communities

As Parties to the CBD, you didyourselves proud by framing ahistoric Programme of Work on

Protected Areas. Civil society across theworld saw this as a potentially powerfultool to meet the global goals of haltingbiodiversity loss on land by 2010, and atsea by 2012.

We acknowledge the progress made inimplementing the Programme of Work.Several countries, NGOs, andindigenous/local communityorganizations have achievedconsiderable success on many fronts. Wealso acknowledge the work done by theExpert group on Protected Areas, justbefore COP8, to design a more specificEvaluation Matrix.

However, we are concerned that ingeneral, progress with implementation ofthis Programme of Work appears to bepainfully slow. Our concern is both onsubstantive and procedural matters.

On substance, we flag the following keyissues:

1. The world’s biodiversity continuesto face threats from unsustainableland and water use activities,including inside many protectedareas. In particular, we are alarmedat the continuing spread ofcommercial plantations andmonocultures, unregulatedcommercial fisheries, extractiveindustries, illegal andunsustainable logging and relatedtrade, uncontrolled tourism, and ingeneral the still-unsustainablepatterns of ‘development’ andconsumption. There is little sign ofgovernments moving towardsmeeting the target laid out in

Activity 1.5.5 of the Programme ofWork.

2. In particular, we would highlightthe need for urgent action tosafeguard relatively large intactforests from illegal andunsustainable logging andextractive industry, and deep-seabiodiversity from the impacts ofhigh-seas bottom-trawling andindustrial fishing. A representativenetwork of protected areas of suchecosystems is urgently needed.

3. Very few countries appear to bemoving towards the largerlandscape and seascape levelplanning that is required underActivity 1.2.2, as protected areamanagement remains an isolated,usually very weak part of theoverall decision-making apparatusof government.

4. Issues of governance, equity, andparticipation, as laid out inActivities 2.1.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and2.2.3, remain weakly developed inmost countries. The paradigm shiftthat the Programme of Workrepresented, in terms ofdemocratizing protected areadesign and management, is yet tofind a place in the relevantlegislation of most countries. Onthe contrary, in many countriesindigenous peoples and localcommunities continue to facedispossession by protected areas.Local people still pay heavy costs,while the tourism industry andglobal society receives substantialbenefits. This trend is exacerbatedby the widespread privatization ofprotected areas over whichindigenous and local communities

Do

cum

ent


have customary or traditionalrights.

5. In particular, very few countrieshave moved to recognizeindigenous and communityconserved areas, though theProgramme of Work explicitlyrequires this.

Equally of concern are problems ofprocess. In particular, we flag thefollowing:

1. Most countries don’t seem to havethought it important enough toreport back on their national levelprogress, with only 15 havingresponded to the Secretariat’squestionnaire and 50 havingprovided some information in theirNational Reports. We note that thelack of financial and otherimplementation support fromdonor countries is also a factor inthis.

2. The failure to provide funding tohold the second meeting of the AdHoc Working Group on PAs(AHWGPA), scheduled for late 2005,is indicative of the lack of interestshown in this Programme of Work.

3. In general, funding commitmentsremain woefully inadequate.

Given the above concerns, we urge partiesto the CBD to commit to:

• Rescheduling, well within 2006,the aborted 2nd meeting of the AdHoc Working Group on PAs; andmaking Element 2 a major focus atthis meeting;

• Adopting an Evaluation Matrixthat requires very specificreporting on progress ofimplementation, including in it thequestion of how protected areasare meeting the socio-economicand equity needs of indigenouspeoples and local communities(also in line with the ElaboratedProgramme of Work On Marineand Coastal Biological Diversity,under Decision VII/5 (COP7, KualaLumpur, 2004), that stresses thatthis programme of work aims tomake a direct contribution topoverty alleviation, in accordancewith the MillenniumDevelopment Goals). Specificrevisions of the draft EvaluationMatrix are appended to thisstatement.

• Preparing, through participatoryprocesses that fully andmeaningfully involveindigenous/local communitiesand NGOs, their national reports on

D

ocu

men

t


progress of implementation of thePA POW, especially with regard tothe 2006 activity targets; andsending these reports to theSecretariat before the 2nd meetingof the AHWGPA.

• Finishing full transparent andparticipatory reviews on keymeasures needed to comply withthe Programme of Work, andinitiating substantive actions oneach of these measures.

• Exchanging key lessons fromsuccesses and failures in achievingthe various targets of the PA POW,bilaterally and through the CBDmechanisms.

The donor community too needs torealize that a renewed focus on protectedareas, using the paradigm of the CBD PAPOW, would help address not onlyconservation but also livelihood, poverty,and sustainability issues. The PA POWneeds political commitment, skills andcapacity, but it also needs funds, whichare currently sorely lacking.

In turn, we in civil society commit totaking the actions we can, to helpimplement the Programme of Work.

We thank you for your attention.

[Delivered by Ashish Kothari,Kalpavriksh, on behalf of theundersigned alphabetically listed NGOs,and several other NGOs, gathered at COP8]

• Association of Private NatureReserves of Minas Gerais, Brazil

• CARE International

• Equitable Tourism Options(EQUATIONS), India

• Fauna and Flora International

• International Collective inSupport of Fishworkers

• Global Forest Coalition

• Global Justice Ecology Project, USA

• Greenpeace International

• International Institute ofEnvironment and Development

• Kalpavriksh, India

• Pastoralist Integrated SupportProgramme, Kenya

• Royal Society for the Protection ofBirds, United Kingdom

• Social Equity in EnvironmentalDecisions, United Kingdom

• The Nature Conservancy

• Wildlife Conservation Society

• WWF

Do

cum

ent

The Joint NGO Statement onProtected Areas was presented tothe 8th meeting of theConference of the Parties (COP 8)to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) in Curitiba, Brazil on23 March 2006


Sea safety

Braving the perils of the sea

The Third International Fishing Industry Safety and Health Conference addressed the issue of safety and health in the fishing industry

Fishing at sea has been rightlydescribed as the most dangerousoccupation in the world. Based on

statistics maintained by countries onfatalities at sea, it is estimated that about24,000 deaths occur annually. Theproblems are more acute in small-scalefisheries where safety and health aspectsare totally neglected and, in the absence ofreliable statistics, it is difficult to get a clearpicture of the issues that confront thesmall-scale fishers. While the governmenthas paid little attention to this growingproblem, the fishers themselves appearleast concerned about their safety andhealth, continuing to brave the perils ofthe sea, and living on the edge.

Overexploitation of the coastal fish stockshas forced more and more small-scalefishers to move offshore in pursuit of fish.In many developing countries, small-scaleboats fish all over the exclusive economiczone (EEZ). While there have beensignificant advancements in fishingtechnology, similar improvements havenot happened to fishing boats, resulting inincreased accidents at sea. Poor boat andengine maintenance, fatigue fromexcessive days at sea, and lack ofcommunication and safety devices onboard are some of the larger issuescontributing to the poor safety and healthregimes in small-scale fisheries.

The Third International Fishing IndustrySafety and Health Conference (IFISH 3)held at Mahabalipuram, Chennai, India,from February 1 to 4, 2006 focused on thesafety and health issues of small-scalefishers. Organized jointly by the Bay ofBengal Programme Inter-GovernmentalOrganization (BOBP-IGO), the Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO) and the National Institutefor Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH), Alaska, US, the conference

brought together 52 experts fromsmall-scale and commercial fisheries aswell as from governments, who debatedmany aspects of the subject. Theyincluded worldwide safety challengesfacing the fishing industry; regionalapproaches to sea safety; safetyequipment and training of crew; injuryprevention and health promotion; fishingvessel and equipment design; andinternational standards and statusreports.

Lack of reliable statistics has been a majorconstraint in addressing the sea-safetyissues of small-scale fisheries indeveloping countries. Better estimates areneeded on causes of accidents leading todeaths and injuries. This would enableproper understanding of the problemsand also in finding solutions. Whilegovernments should set up mechanismsfor systematic collection, collation andanalysis of information, it is also essentialto involve fishers and their associationsand families, as well as epidemiologists.

Small-scale fisheries often lack a propercertification system for boats, and vesselsare constructed by persons withtraditional skills handed down from onegeneration to another. Some small vesselsgo into the deep seas in search of fish,though they are not equipped to do so;they run into both safety and legalproblems.

Poor certificationRegistration and insurance of smallfishing boats, and better co-ordination ofvessel monitoring and communityparticipation programmes can strengthensafety at sea. Also important are theintroduction of a vessel monitoringsystem for larger vessels, and first aid forvictims of injuries at sea. In manydeveloping countries the responsibility

R

epo

rt


for fishing vessel safety lies with manygovernment departments, creatingambiguity.

Repetitive training, constantre-enforcement, managementcommitment and safety

inspections have together reduced, to alarge extent, fatalities at sea in thecommercial fisheries; the same needs tobe done in small-scale fisheries too.

A good balance is needed between‘hardware’ and ‘software’. At present, thecost of safety and communicationequipment is prohibitive for small-scalefishers. While very high frequency (VHF)devices are inexpensive sea-safety tools,their range needs to be extended. Acoastal radio network can be very usefulfor fishermen. The benefits of satelliteweather prediction and of simple deviceslike hand-held radios should be madeavailable widely to artisanal andsubsistence fishermen.

In many countries the Coast Guard isresponsible for protecting fishermen andassisting them at sea. They are alsoresponsible for undertaking search andrescue (SAR) of fishermen in distress.However, SAR operations are expensive.For example, the Indian SAR regioncomprises 4.6 mn sq km, and the annualexpenditure on SAR is estimated atapproximately US$ 1 mn. Clearly, the costof SAR operations must be lowered.

Savings from such reduction could beused to subsidize sea-safety measures.

A related area of neglect is health.HIV/AIDS is a major threat to the health offishermen in many parts of the world. Acommunity health model should beadopted to tackle this and other diseasessuch as tuberculosis, which is commonlyprevalent among small-scale fishworkers.

The United Nations agencies responsiblefor fisheries (FAO), working conditions oflabour (the International LabourOrganization, ILO) and maritime safety ofvessels, equipment and life (theInternational Maritime Organization,IMO) have so far not been successful intheir efforts to bring outguidelines/regulations that address theissues of small-scale fishing vessels,including the safety and health of workerson such vessels. The SOLAS (Safety of lifeat sea) and GMDSS (Global maritimedistress and safety system) regulations donot apply to small-scale fishing vessels.The proposed ILO work-in-fishingConvention is strict in relation to largervessels but flexible with small-scalevessels. There seems to be a lack of interestin the safety of fishing vessels below 12 m.

Various codesThe FAO/ILO/IMO Code of Safety forFishermen and Fishing Vessels (Parts Aand B) as well as the FAO/ILO/IMOVoluntary Guidelines for the Design,

Rep

ort


Construction and Equipment of SmallFishing Vessels are currently beingrevised and will be published soon.

The Code of Conduct for safety offishing vessels should also beimplemented. Fisher groups

should be involved in thedecision-making process. However,safety instruments can be useful only ifthey are implemented and enforced; thisis mainly the responsibility of thegovernments.

Safety at sea depends largely onawareness, prevention and mitigation.Documenting best practices anddisseminating sea-safety informationthrough popular literature and theelectronic media would help fishers gainthe right knowledge. Also, familymembers, including women and children,should be approached for long-termsuccess with safety. Women constitute apowerful pressure group and they haveoften taken the lead in highlightingproblems of sea safety and workconditions in fishing.

The 26 December 2004 Indian Oceantsunami killed a quarter of a millionpeople, and made many more homelessand jobless. The absence of a propersystem for boat registration, and ofsystematic data, compounded theproblem of relief for fishermen. Thetsunami generated several lessons andforced a fresh look at the developmentagenda in the tsunami-affected countries.The proliferation of new boats in thepost-tsunami period throws up safetyconsiderations too.

IFISH 3 succeeded in increasing awarenesson the safety and health issues of fishers,especially those belonging to thesmall-scale category. The challenges forthe future relate to governmentregulations, awareness and outreachprogrammes, and data organization andcollection. Improvements are needed inthe areas of communication, equipmentand materials, training, communityhealth, data collection and surveillancemechanisms. Political will is also essentialto improve the safety of fishersworldwide.

R

epo

rt

This piece is by Yugraj SinghYadava ([email protected]), Director, Bay ofBengal Programme Inter-Governmental Organization,Chennai, India


IUU fishing

Pillagers or victims?

The plight of Kenyan fishermen on board foreign-flagged trawlers is often shocking

Most Kenyan sailors (usuallyfishermen) are employed ontrawlers flying Kenyan or

foreign flags. There are 20 trawlers flyingthe Kenyan flag, 17 of which are ownedby Italian companies and three byKoreans. A study carried out in 2002 bythe Seafarers Assistance Programme(SAP) showed that 165 Kenyan fishermenwere working on board these trawlers.Another 295 were working on European-flagged vessels, the majority of whichwere Spanish trawlers and longliners. Afurther 65 sailors were employed byKorean longliners.

Andrew M Mwangura, Co-ordinator ofSAP, strongly condemns the workingconditions of the Kenyansailor-fishermen employed on both Asianand European industrial fishing boats,some of which are fishing illegally in eastAfrican waters. “Whether local orforeign, none of these vessels that employKenyan sailors comply with theinternational conventions and standardsof the International LabourOrganization,” he says.

About ten years ago, SAP set up aprogramme to monitor the well-being ofthe sailors. It revealed that neither theirworking hours nor their rest periods arelegal: once the vessels are out fishing, restperiods are rare. Kenyan fishermen takenon board these vessels generally have nofixed working hours and no workclothing. Most of them earn, on average,US$100 per month, well below the US$800earned by crew members from othercountries on the same boats.

There are no agreements in place ormeasures taken to ensure health onboard. There is no medical care at sea andno social security system for these sailors.Between 1983 and 2003, 64 fishermen (one

Senegalese, 16 Tanzanians and 47Kenyans) perished at sea; 121 wereseriously injured and 37 had their fingersfrozen.

Some of these boats are fishing off theSomali coast. This fishing zone isextremely rich in resources: it is estimatedthat fisheries off the 3,300-km long Somalicoast could produce annually, on asustainable basis, 300,000-500,000 tonnesof fish.

Even before the civil war in Somalia beganin 1991, official fisheries statistics showedannual production levels of 20,000 tonnes,that is, only 4 per cent of the potential.Artisanal fishermen and foreign vesselsholding licences accounted for half of thiscatch.

Since the beginning of the civil war, and inthe absence of any central government inSomalia, large-scale illegal fishingoperations have increased. Theseoperations stem from all over the worldand use fishing methods and gear bannedinternationally.

Statistics on fishing operations carried outby foreign vessels off the Somali coasthave been collated by the Somaliresearcher M. Abdirahman JamaKulmiye. There are some 300 vesselscarrying out IUU fishing operations off thecoast of the self-proclaimed Republic ofPuntland, and 700 others fishing along theSomali coast. They target high-valueseafood products such as shrimp, lobsterand other demersal species, for whichhigh prices are paid in the EU and otherinternational markets.

Flags of convenienceA further deception is that the trueidentity of the vessel owners is oftenhidden as a result of registering vessels

Ken

ya


under flags of convenience and usingfronting companies in Kenya. Kenyanports are thus de facto the advanced basesfor organizing illegal fishing campaigns inthe rich waters of Somalia. NumerousKenyan seafarers are hired to work onboard such vessels that take part of illegalfishing operations in Somali waters.

Under the pretext of fighting thislarge-scale illegal fishing, someSomali people have decided, in

order to “protect” their territorial waters,to start the business of taking hostages. Inresponse, the trawler owners hiremilitiamen to guard ships while they arefishing within Somali territorial waters.

SAP reported that, despite the presence ofmilitia on board the fishing boats, Somalipirates have succeeded in taking severalfishing boats with crew members thatinclude Kenyan seafarers. In recent years,five Kenyan, two Korean, three Italian andthree Russian fishing boats have beenseized by pirates.

Examples include the 1997 seizure bypirates of a Kenyan-registered,Italian-owned ship, the Bahari Hindi,which was held for 45 days at Kismayo,Somalia. The pirates demanded aUS$500,000 ransom in order to release thecrew of 36, comprising Italians, Poles,Kenyans, Romanians, Tanzanians andSenegalese. In December 2001, the BahariKenya, also a Kenyan-registered,Italian-owned vessel, was held at EllyPort, Somalia for 99 days, with a crew of33 on board that included Italians,Kenyans, Romanians, Somalis andSpaniards. This time, the ransom demandwas US$1 mn. In 2003, 15 Kenyan, nineIndonesian and three Korean fishers wereheld as hostages aboard theKorean-flagged Beira 3, and were releasedafter six months. Some fishermen haveeven been caught twice or thrice but,driven by the need to earn a living, theyhave developed a sense of daredevilry.

The fishermen victims of such piracyexplain that their captors are alwaysarmed with AK-47 assault rifles, bazookasand rocket-propelled grenade launchers.The first thing the hijackers do is draw offall the fuel from the vessel. They also takewith them all the fresh food, and feed thehijacked crew with stale food from

Somalia. As the ransom negotiations dragon, the captives are often beaten up andtold that if the ransom is not paid, they willbe killed.

Illegal fishing is also affecting the proteinintake of Kenyans. Kenya has apopulation of 30 mn, and 9.5 kg of fish arerequired per year to meet the proteinneeds of an individual. Thus 300,000tonnes of fish are needed annually. Butaccording to the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO),the per capita supply of fish in Kenya wasonly 6.1 kg in 1999, and in 2002, 5.6 kg(from marine fisheries). According to theMinistry of Livestock and Fisheries,Kenya is currently experiencing a seriousshortage of fish and fish products, to thetune of over 200,000 tonnes. Nationalproduction, combined with regionaltrade, could help address this shortage;but the lack of a national fisheries policy,and the extent of illegal fishing operationsin the region by local boats (owned byEuropean or Asian interests) and foreignfleets from Europe and Korea representserious obstacles.

K

enya

This article by the Coalition for FairFisheries Arrangements (CFFA) isbased on The Safety and Healthof Kenyan Fishers on BoardIndustrial Fishing Vessels, withSpecific Reference to Illegal,Unreported and UnregulatedFishing by Andrew Mwangura,Co-ordinator, SAP, published inMarch 2005


Legal handbook

New from ICSF

ICSF has just published a handbook on international legal instruments relevant to fisheries and fishing communities

International Legal Instruments Relevantto Fisheries and Fishing Communities: AHandbook provides detailed

information for a wide range of legalinstruments relevant to fisheries andfishworkers. It covers 114 legalinstruments, categorized into the

following seven themes: (1) HumanRights, Food Security, Women andDevelopment; (2) Environment andSustainable Development; (3) Oceans andFisheries Management; (4)Environmental Pollution; (5) FishingVessels and Safety at Sea; (6) Labour; and(7) Trade.

The handbook also includes the workingof the instruments (decision-makingbodies, monitoring and implementationagencies, periodicity of meetings, rulesfor participation in meetings of thedecision-making bodies andimplementation agencies for States andnon-governmental organizations),regional instruments/agencies andfollow-up. Apart from being a readyreckoner to the instruments, it highlightsthe important sections of relevance to

fisheries/ small-scale fisheries/fishworkers.

The companion CD-ROM provides the fulltexts of the instruments in a searchabledatabase. The handbook will be useful forfishworker and non-governmental

organizations, and also for researchersand others interested in fisheries issues. Itis also available online at www.icsf.net.

No

tice

For more information onInternational Legal InstrumentsRelevant to Fisheries and FishingCommunities: A Handbook,please contact ICSF ([email protected])


Aquarian reforms

A meaningful beginning

The following is from a document published by the Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFReDI), Cambodia

The main objective of this documentis to make a modest attempt tohighlight the challenges which are

emerging with the current phase ofCambodia’s aquarian reforms—the mostimportant component of which is thecurrent transition from fishing lots tocommunity fisheries. The challengesinclude the realms of institutional andpolicy reform, local action, innovation andresearch. We contextualize our effort bycommencing with an assessment of theimportance of the aquatic resources andby providing a brief historical backgroundto the reforms. This is followed by anexamination of the changes in the accessand property rights and the systemchanges which have been brought aboutas a result of the reform.

How some of the transitional changes canbe assessed and the manner in which theefforts at community fisheries can bemade more economically and sociallyviable are also addressed. We deal withthe complex issue of social identity andthe aspirations for creating a new sense ofcommunity. The new role of women, theimportance of creating networks andcloser collaboration with Cambodia’slocal governance structures and vibrantcivil society organizations are alsohighlighted. The reforms have creatednew legal realms of local ‘micro’ecosystem space and resourcegovernance.

But this should not detract from the needfor an understanding of the larger ’global’context—be it in relation to the ecosystemdynamics or governance priorities. Wesuggest that research and developmentpriorities must be re-oriented to considerways of dealing with the vast number ofnew and evolving ’local realities’ and yet,link them up contemporaneously to thebig ‘global picture’. We end with a few

recommendations addressed to differentactors involved in the process of aquarianreforms. There is a call for a new missionand greater collaboration by researchinstitutions; new methodologies for datacollection; greater participation with localgovernance structures; an exit strategy foraid agencies and the need for setting up anational institute for co-managementapplications and training.

Developing countries have been recentlychallenged by many opportunities andproblems pertaining to their efforts tofacilitate economic growth and promotehuman development. Providing agrowing population with the entitlementsand capabilities needed to meet risingaspirations in a globalized,market-dominated economy is often adaunting task before policymakers andpoliticians. Tapping into the renewablenatural resources in a country—its realwealth—is often the ‘fallback option’which both the State and the people adoptwhen crisis brews in the other sectors ofthe economy. The market-oriented optionof converting natural resources to wealthoften ends up in what economist HermanDaly recently referred to as the tragedy ofartificial or self-inflicted scarcity. Thisapproach generally leads to private richesfor a few and exclusion from the publicwealth for the many.

Under pressureRecognizing the pitfalls of such anapproach, but often under pressure fromthe people and civil society, States haveincreasingly resorted to measures to openup the terrain of renewable naturalresources to communities who depend onthem for a livelihood. Doing so withoutthe appropriate institutionalarrangements to modulate the use andmanagement of these resources has oftenled to the tragedy of open access.

C

amb

od

ia


Finding the ‘middle-path’—whereinboth efficiency and equityconsiderations can be adequately

met within their social, cultural andpolitical frameworks—has been on theagenda of many developing countries.

Cambodia is pictured in international percapita income comparisons to be one ofthe poorest countries in the world. Thereis certainly much truth in this statistic.However, viewed from the perspective ofavailability of per capita naturalresource—land, aquatic resources,particularly fish, and forests—it iscertainly one of the richest countries inAsia. Converting this latter statisticalaverage into equitable access andwell-being for the majority is indeed thegreatest challenge before the State and thepeople of Cambodia. The challenges toachieve this goal with respect to the mostvaluable aquatic resource of thecountry—the fish in its inlandwaters—are the focus of this document.

We term the efforts at aquatic resourcemanagement which have been unfoldingin Cambodia as ‘aquarian reforms’. Weadopt the term ‘aquarian reforms’ ratherthan ‘fishery reforms’ for a variety ofreasons. The reforms have a historicalcontext. In the past, governmentintervention in the sector was focused ongathering revenue rather than managingfish production or promoting locallivelihoods. In the current phase, the

attention of the reforms is focused on theinstitutional changes which are beingmade—contemporaneously by the Statefrom above and the communities frombelow. These reforms are meant toempower people to relate collectively tothe country’s rivers, lakes, floodplains andthe fishery resources therein. In future, thereforms will play a role in conditioning thetechnological choices and organizationaldecisions that people make in order toobtain sustainable gains from theircollective action. In brief, we areconcerned with a dynamic process oftransformation. The focus is not merely onfish but on the whole aquatic terrain andthe evolving manner in which peoplerelate and intervene in it. Our contentionis that the ecological and socioeconomicinitial conditions have a definite bearingon these evolving circumstances. Thepresent course and the future trajectory ofthe new institutional changes sought to beintroduced need to be envisioned withthis perspective. Aquarian reforms coverthis entire canvass.

Good scholarshipAn excellent body of scholarship alreadyexists about these reforms written beforethe sub-decree of community fisheriesmanagement was formally approved. Ourefforts build upon that corpus ofinformation and on recent (late 2005)discussions with fishery officials andresearchers and field visits to severalprovinces for firsthand information from

Cam

bo

dia


the women and men in the villages mostimpacted by these reforms. The documentprimarily addresses the various actorsassociated with the aquarian reforms inCambodia. It seeks to provide them withsome guideposts on the range of issuesthat may arise if the reforms are to be takento their logical conclusions.

The community access to resources,if managed well and strengthened,can yield significant familial and

societal changes that sustain resourcesand foster convivial livelihoods.

More than mere poverty alleviation, it cancontribute significantly to enhancement ofthe capabilities and entitlements of therural masses in Cambodia. Combinedwith enlightened advice and support fromresearch and development agencies, localcontrol over resources can lead to greatercare and nurture of the unique aquaticecosystem of Cambodia.

During our visits to community fisherieswe were informed about the greaterlivelihood opportunities available for menand the increased employment andincome-earning opportunities for women.

People spoke about the manner in whichthe availability of greater money incomewas utilized to keep children healthierand educated. They spoke about reduceddomestic violence.

The greater control over local naturalresources also leads to reduction in‘push-pull’ migration of men in search ofwork. These factors taken together canyield intergenerational reduction in infantmortality, family size, enhancement ofeducational levels and greater genderjustice.

Such positive ecological, socioeconomicand demographic changes will createdifferent occupational expectations in thenext generation. This can yield reducedpopulation pressure on the aquaticresources in the not-too-distant future.

Coupled with changes in the access rightto aquatic resources, if there is a generalrevival of economic growth andemployment opportunities in the country,this can result in the new generationopting for other gainful occupations.

These opportunities can arise in small andmedium village enterprises dealing withaquatic resource processing, which can berural-based, urban- orexport-market-oriented, and yieldinghigher incomes.

Greater economic democracy is anecessary condition for raising humandignity and creating stable politicaldemocracy and peace. This will havefar-reaching implications for the future ofthe country.

Aquarian reforms in Cambodia have along history. The earlier phases weremeasures taken with considerationsaimed at efficiency and maximum rentextraction, and tempered in accordancewith some sociopolitical considerations.

The current phase is anchored in thecontext of the country’s recent voyagetowards greater democratization andintegration into the global economy. It ispart of the government’s RectangularStrategy which is intended to “firmly andsteadily build Cambodian society bystrengthening peace, stability and socialorder, entrenching democracy andpromoting respect for human rights anddignity.”

These are indeed laudable objectives. Thecurrent move towards communityfisheries should be seen as an importantcommitment towards achieving thesegoals. Being simultaneously a top-downand bottom-up approach, it is only naturalthat there will be doubts and anxietiesabout the sense and the viability of thewhole enterprise, both on the part of thegovernment and the people.

There is no need to concentrateexcessively on the organizational form ofthe reforms. The debate is not aboutwhether the inland fish of Cambodia arebetter harvested through large fishing lotsor small community fisheriesorganizations.

Complete reformsAquarian reforms are complete only whenthose who directly relate to the aquaticresource through their labour, to givevalue and meaning to it, are assured thefreedom and given their rightful rewardsfor doing so on a sustainable basis. On this

C

amb

od

ia


count, a meaningful beginning has beenmade in Cambodia. But there will bemany challenges ahead and a long way togo.

Cam

bo

dia

This excerpt is from Cambodia’sAquarian Reforms: The EmergingChallenges for Policy andResearch by John Kurien([email protected]), Fellow,Centre for Development Studies,Trivandrum, India, So Nam,Deputy-Chief, Fisheries Domainand Extension Division,Department of Fisheries, PhnomPenh, Cambodia, and Mao SamOnn, Deputy-Chief, Administrationand Personnel Division andAssistant of the DG, Departmentof Fisheries, Phnom Penh,Cambodia


Conservation

Life studies

A seasonal fishing ban meant to conserve turtles in Orissa, India, has fatally affected fishing communities

On 27 September 1997, theGahirmatha Marine WildlifeSanctuary was set up in the

Indian State of Orissa to protect the oliveridley species of sea turtles in their nestingand breeding habitat, under Section 26 Aof the Indian Wildlife Protection Act 1972.The sanctuary of 1,440 sq km is the world’slargest nesting site of the endangeredolive ridley turtles. It is demarcated into acore area of 725.5 sq km and a buffer zoneof 709.5 sq km.

The Indian Coast Guard was appointedWildlife Warden of the Gahirmathasanctuary in 1998, with the power to stopand seize fishing vessels, especiallytrawlers, and to hand them over to theForestry Department for further action.(The Wildlife Protection Act 1972 isimplemented by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests, at the nationallevel, and by the State ForestryDepartments, at the State level.) All formsof fishing are prohibited in the corearea—10 km from the high-tide line—ofthe Gahirmatha marine sanctuarythroughout the year. However, innocentpassage through the core area is permittedto fishing vessels with no mechanicalmeans of propulsion. Non-trawl forms offishing, both mechanized andnon-mechanized, are permitted in thebuffer area—10 km to 20 km from thehigh-tide line. Trawlers that are permittedto fish beyond 20 km, however, arerequired to use turtle excluder devices(TEDs).

For the coastal communities of Orissa,which is amongst the poorest States ofIndia, the fishing prohibitions and theolive ridley issue have turned into a boneof contention because the turtles’ breedinghabitats in the river mouths also happento be the richest fishing grounds of theState. The marine turtle congregations

occur in the peak fishing season.Interactions between such congregationsand bottom-trawl and gillnet fishing havebeen reported from 1974. This is perhapsthe most striking example of suchinteractions in the world, involving theprotection, almost every year, of anestimated 150,000 adult olive ridleypopulation and their breeding and nestinggrounds, on the one hand, and thelivelihood interests of about 50,000fishermen and fishworkers entirelydependent on coastal fisheries, on theother.

Fishing is considered to be the greatestthreat facing the olive ridleys in Orissa.The main cause of turtle death is believedto be drowning in bottom trawls andentanglement in certain types of gillnets,which account for about 90 per cent ofmortality during the December toFebruary fishing months.

For the first two to three years after thedeclaration of the sanctuary in 1997,enforcement of the fishing ban was notvery strict. As a result, according to forestofficials, the mortality of the turtlesincreased. According to the WildlifeSociety of Orissa and Operation Kachhapa(Operation Turtle), during the last 13years, more than 129,000 turtles have beenfound dead along the Orissa coast in theBay of Bengal. With the sandy beachesturning into turtle graveyards, pressuresoon began to mount fromenvironmentalists and conservationistsfrom around the world. As a result, theCoast Guard and the Forest Departmentintensified patrolling, and began strictlyenforcing the conservation law.

Traumatic effectThe net effect, however, has beentraumatic for Orissa’s traditional fishingcommunity, which has to battle poverty

R

epo

rt


and starvation induced by the fishingban.

According to Narayan Haldar, thepresident of the OrissaTraditional Fish Workers’ Union

(OTFWU), the fishing ban has alreadybroken the backs of the fishingcommunity, especially in the coastalareas of Kendrapara district, wheresuicide deaths have been reported (seecase studies below).

According to Haldar, the fishermen haveraised their voices in different ways. On21 November 2005, around 2,000fishermen demonstrated inBhubaneswar, demanding that thesanctuary’s seaward boundary should beredrawn up to 10 km from the high-tideline, from the existing 20 km. Similarly,the boundary of the core area of thesanctuary should be reduced to 5 kmfrom the existing 10 km, and innocentpassage through the sanctuary should beafforded to all their fishing units. Thegovernment should provide them largerboats and engines so they could gooffshore for fishing. A 30 per cent loanand a 70 per cent subsidy should beprovided to purchase fishing equipment,they demanded.

In January 2006, about 3,000 fishermenblockaded a road in Kendrapara districtto protest the ban. Forest Departmentofficials had seized three gillnetters and atrawler, and arrested nine fishermen oncharges of illegally fishing in theprohibited area. The irate fishermenblocked the main road at Jamboo villagefor three hours, demanding the release ofthe arrested fishermen.

The fishermen alleged that the ForestDepartment officials were preventingthem from fishing even beyond the 10-kmdistance. “They arrested the fishermenillegally when they were fishing outsidethe prohibited area,” Tushar KantaSardar, secretary of the Kendraparadistrict fishermen’s association, said.

The fishermen of the area say they usesmall motorized boats, and pay their netsmanually, and do not hurt turtles. Thelarge trawlers kill turtles, they allege.Turtle conservationists, however, have adifferent view. They say that traditional

fishing with 10-14-hp motorized boatsalso causes turtle mortality.

According to Mangraj Panda of OTFWU,since the fishing ban limits all options fora decent living, the fishermen should beprovided an alternative source of income.The union had filed a petition with theCentral Empowered Committee (CEC)constituted by the Supreme Court ofIndia. After a visit to Orissa between 10and 14 February 2004, the CEC directed theState government to demarcate theprohibited zone where fishing is banned.

The 2004 CEC report recommended thatinnocent passage through the core area ofthe sanctuary should be allowed only for“traditional fishermen” on localnon-mechanized fishing vessels. Thereshould be a committee at the grassrootslevel, constituted by the fishermen’sunions, turtle conservationists, the ForestDepartment, the Fisheries Departmentand local representatives. Wildlifeprotection should be done with theinvolvement of the community of the area,the CEC proposed.

Unfortunately, nothing has been done yet.The Forest Department has neitherdemarcated the sea zone nor formed anygrassroots committee. As a result, theresentment and misery among the localpeople have increased, said NarendraBehera, the president of the Mahakalpadazilla parishad (village council).

While local fishermen complain, theForest Department has different views.“The fishermen are trying to make a pleain the name of demarcation. Till date, allthose arrested, have been arrested withinthe 9-10 km sea zone, which is theprohibited area. Of course, the CEC hasdirected for the demarcation, but it is notan easy task. It requires millions of rupees,which the government has not yet beenable to allocate,” said A. K. Jena, DistrictForest Officer (DFO), Rajnagar.

No proposalHe added that there was no proposal fromthe Fisheries Department for innocentpassage. Nor has the fishermen’scommunity given any memorandum toanybody regarding such passage. He alsosaid that the Forest Department does noteven know how many boats have been

Rep

ort


issued licences. There seems to be a majorcommunication gap or lack ofco-ordination between the FisheriesDepartment and the Forest Department.The fishing ban has a great impact on thefish markets also. According to data fromthe Fisheries Department, there has beena decline in fish production in Kendraparadistrict during the last few years.

Greenpeace, the internationalenvironmental group, launchedSugaytri, a boat specially

equipped to undertake exhaustivepatrolling to protect the sea turtle. Thefirst event to mark the launch of thecampaign was the laying of buoys outsidethe periphery of the Gahirmathasanctuary to demarcate the non-fishingzone. Greenpeace also solicited thesupport of the State Forest Department forthe demarcation of the remainingboundaries of Gahirmatha andeventually, the no-fishing zones of otherbreeding sites, said Sanjeev Gopal, OceanCampaigner, Greenpeace India.

The CEC is clear in its directives of the needto strike a balance between the rights oftraditional fishworkers and theresponsibility to protect olive ridleys. Thedemarcation of the marine protected areain Orissa was the first step inimplementing the directives, says Gopal.

Now the immediate intervention thatshould be made is to give passage to

traditional fishermen to venture into theirfishing grounds. There should be properdemarcation in the sea, and the fishermenshould be covered under special welfareschemes. They should be provided withalternative sources of income, throughvocational training, says Ashish Senapati,the project director of Project Swarajya, anNGO in Kendrapara district.

The fishermen in the Mahakalpada areaare mostly post-Partition immigrants anda large number are Bengali refugees fromthe then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh),who settled on land provided by thegovernment. Most—80 per cent—of thecoastal villagers are Bengali-speakingpeople who eke out a living by fishing.Being immigrants, they are a politicalminority, and their voices remainunheard. They are just used as a vote bank,says Rajesh Behera, a freelance journalist.

In last two years, the coastal villages ofKharnasi and Ramnagar have seen at leastseven persons committing suicide andseven more reporting severe mentaldistress, unable to feed their families andrepay bank loans after they lost theirtraditional means of livelihood due to thefishing ban.

Official ignoranceBoth Jyotiprakash Das, the DistrictCollector of Kendrapara, and SureshMohanty, the Chief Wildlife Warden,claimed to be unaware of the deaths in the

R

epo

rt


fishing community, reportedly inducedby the poverty that resulted from thefishing ban. But they did not hesitate toaccept the fact that the livelihoods of thefishermen have definitely been affectedby the ban and that they are yet to providea single alternative source of livelihoodfor them. “Definitely, the turtleconservation and fishing ban has had agreat impact on the fishermen. From timeto time, we visit the places that havereported the deaths, but officially, I can’tsay that the deaths are due only to thefishing ban. A proper investigation isneeded,” said B. C. Hembrum, a FisheriesDepartment official at Kujang.

It is high time that the whole internationalcommunity, the government machinery,turtle conservationists,environmentalists and NGOs startthinking of the interests of the fishermenand their families and communities, andlink these with the protection of the oliveridley turtles.

CASE STUDY 1: Gauranga Saha Gauranga Saha of Kharnasi village diedon 14 March 2004 at the age of 50, leavingbehind his 44-year old wife, Arati, andfive children—two sons and threedaughters, one of whom, the second,Tulasi, 20, got married last year. Theeldest son, Deepak, is 24 years, and theyoungest, Debabrata, 15, studies in theninth class. The other two daughters areNilima, 22, and Bulu, 18.

Saha committed suicide by consumingpoison, confirmed his widow. She saidthat after the fishing ban, he wasincreasingly worried about the family’ssource of livelihood. The family ownedfour boats, outfitted in 1997 with 10-14 hpmotors. A boat costs around Rs250,000(US$5,666) and typically, six persons workon each boat.

Saha was the sarpanch (village councilleader) of Kharnasi during the last term.He had borrowed Rs150,000 (US$3,399)from the fish merchants Nari Tarai andBapina Saha of Paradeep to repair his netsand gear. In 2001 the Forest Departmentseized two of Saha’s boats. Another boathad already been destroyed in the 1999supercyclone. In 2002 Saha’s seconddaughter got married, so he had toborrow Rs2,500 ($56) from the fish

merchant for the dowry. Thus Saha’s loanburden multiplied as time wentby—moneylenders in the coastal villagesof Orissa double their interest rates forevery three months of default.

According to Arati, since 2001 the familyhad virtually lost their source oflivelihood. Though they had one boat left,the fishing ban prevented Saha from goingfishing. Since then, he was a verydepressed man. He constantly worriedabout how they would marry off their twodaughters. The elder son had alreadydropped out of school to help his father.But as they could not venture into the seato fish, he too sits idle. “Just two daysbefore his death, he bought me a cottonsaree as I was managing with just twosarees. He assured me that everythingwould be fine. He also, at the same time,said he regretted not being able to do a lotof things for the family. Destiny did notseem to support us...Who knew thosewould be his last words?” Arati sobbed.

Saha ended his life by consuming poisonwhen the entire family was asleep. Whenthey did not find him on the bed in themorning, they searched all around andfinally found his body in an isolated room,which had been lying unused for a longtime.

The family plans to hand over their onlyboat to Bapina, the fish merchant, to repaya debt of Rs70,000 ($1,577). Their currentfinancial condition is miserable. Deepak,the elder son, is unemployed and idles outthe fishing ban period; he can get work onother boats as a deckhand for only twomonths, earning Rs500 ($11) per month.Arati sells puffed rice, for which she earnsRs2 ($0.05) a day. Her daughters roll beedis(cigarillos). “For 1,000 beedis, we makeRs30 ($0.7). To bind 1,000 beedis, we taketwo days, so per day, we get only Rs15($0.35). And in a month, we get work foronly 12 to 14 days,” Nilima said. Thatmeans that on average both sisters earnabout Rs225 ($5) per month. Add to thistheir mother’s income of about Rs90 ($2),and their total monthly income comes toabout Rs 315 ($7), or yearly, Rs4,780 ($108).

CASE STUDY 2: Bidyadhar Ram Bidyadhar Ram, 35, of Kharnasi villagecommitted suicide by hanging himselfone night in an abandoned thatched

Rep

ort


building near his house in December 2005.His widow, Sikha, is 32 years old. “For thelast few years, he was depressed andfrustrated,” she said. “One day twomonths ago, in December 2005, he cameand told me that he could no longermaintain us because he had a loan burdenof Rs10,000 ($225), accumulated over timefrom borrowings from the trawler ownersof Paradeep.

Ram did not have any boat of his own; heworked on trawlers as a helper, earningRs100 ($2.25) daily. I decided to go to myparent’s home for some time, thinkingthat I would return with my childrenwhen the fishing starts.

The day after reaching my parent’s housewith my children, I was informed thatRam had committed suicide by hanginghimself. If I could have smelled hisintention, I would never have left him,”Sikha lamented. Sikha said that thoughthey were not financially very sound, theymanaged a hand-to-mouth existence.Their problems started over the last fiveyears. When the fishing ban got longer,Ram could not earn anything, and so hestarted borrowing money from thetrawler owner whom he used to work forearlier.

Asked whether they had had a fight beforeshe left for her parent’s house, Sikha said:“It soon came about that we couldn’tprovide a square meal for our children.

That irritated me and frustrated him. Sowe had arguments and fights sometimes,like any family in a similar situation, Iguess. My husband was renderedhelpless. He tried to go outside and getwork as a wage labourer but in this area,no work was available.”

Sikha now stays in a one-roomed thatchedhouse with her three children and oldmother-in-law. The eldest daughter,Mausumi, is 14 years old. The two sons,Bitu, 10, and Bibekananda, 7, are with hermother. The family does not own anyland. They built their thatched house ongovernment land. Their only source ofincome is the daughter, Mousimi, whonow works as a maidservant in a nearbyvillage. “I have to walk at least 2 km toreach that village. They pay me Rs2 ($0.05)daily,” Mousimi said. Both the sons havebeen withdrawn from their schools andwill be sent to the town to work as childlabour, according to their mother.

CASE STUDY 3: Sukumar Sarkar Sukumar Sarkar, 54, of Pitapata villagecommitted suicide by consumingpesticide in March 2004. He had threechildren—daughters, Sabita, 23, andBinita, 21, and a son, Bhabani, 20. Hisdaughters had been married off before hisdeath. His widow, Golapi, left the villagewith her son last year.

Though we could not contact them, wecould gather information of the family

R

epo

rt


from the president of the panchayat(village council), Narayan Haldar, andthe villagers. According to them, Sarkarowned two gillnet boats, fitted with 10-15hp motors. In 2002, the ForestDepartment seized both the boats.Though Sarkar managed to work onother boats for some time, after the fishingban, all fishermen, including the trawlerowners, were in financial difficulty.Sarkar managed to marry off hisdaughters by borrowing some money.Meanwhile, he fell ill and could not go outin search of work. The fish merchantsfrom whom he had borrowed moneywould frequently badger the family forrepayment, so one day, Sarkar’s son,Bhabani, migrated elsewhere and hiswidow Golapi went to stay with herdaughter-in-law.

CASE STUDY 4: Rashyamaya Mandal 50-year old Rashyamaya Mandal of RamNagar village committed suicide on 10April 2002. Mandal had sixchildren—three daughters and threesons. The eldest daughter, Sabitri, is 26years old; the other children are: Ganesh,24; Laxmi, 22; Bijili, 21; Sanjay, 15; andPintu, 14.

According to Mandal’s widow, Kalidasi,they had one motorized 20-ft gillnet boat,which they had already lost to the 1999supercyclone. Besides, they had onecountry boat and two acres of land, onwhich they sometimes grew paddy. “Wewere living hand-to-mouth because we

had a large family, with six children. Myelder son abandoned his studies to gofishing with his father. When the ban wasimposed, our economic condition gotworse. Meanwhile, the marriage of ourelder daughter, Sabitri, was finalized. Myhusband took a loan from the bank for hermarriage. To repay the loan, wemortgaged our two acres of land to RanjitMandal of Ramnagar and Mahant Babu ofKharnasi village. During the fishing ban,we faced lots of problems in meeting ourdaily needs. My husband’s frustrationfrom the financial crunch cost him hismental balance. He began to behaveabnormally and went out for daystogether. My children had to search forhim and bring him back home. One day,all of us went to attend a social functionand when we returned home late in theevening, he was no more. He hadcommitted suicide by hanging himself,”Kalidasi burst out in tears.

After Mandal’s death, the family had tosell their country boat for Rs2,500 ($56),though its market value is almost Rs7,000($158). Their land was confiscated byRanjit Mandal and Mahant Babu, as theycould not repay their debt. Now they haveneither land nor a source of livelihood.The elder boy, Ganesh, is now the soleearning member of the family. Ganeshused to work as a casual labourer for Rs50($1) per day. But since there are no jobseasily available in the village, he has to gofar off in search of work, and gets to workfor only 10 to 12 days in a month duringthe seven-month fishing ban period.Occasionally, he finds work on a trawlerwhen the fishing ban has been lifted. Hismonthly income is about Rs600 ($14). Hismother sells dried cowdung cakes, butmakes very little income from her work.The total monthly income of the family isRs720 ($16). The six members of the familyhave to survive on that amount.

CASE STUDY 5: Sripad Jagdar 48-year-old Sripad Jagdar of Ramnagarvillage died in November 2004, leavingbehind four children: Ranajan, 24, Ranjit,23, Sapan, 16 and Sanjay, 12. His wife,Srimati, said that Jagdar had onemotorized 10-hp gillnet boat, which is stillwith the Forest Department. Though theydid not have any land of their own, Sripadcould earn enough for his family, hiringother boats for fishing. Before the ban was

Rep

ort


imposed, he was earning up to Rs4000($90) per month. After the ban, graduallythe family income shrunk and soonbecame insufficient for a decent living.Meanwhile, Sripad contracted a tumour inhis abdomen, and doctors referred him tothe city hospital.

“At first, we somehow managed to collectRs15,000 ($338) by borrowing and got hisoperation done in a hospital in the capital.When he fell ill again, the doctordiagnosed it as a stone in his kidney, andadvised us to take him to Hyderabad fortreatment, but we could not since we wereleft without even a single paisa,” Srimatisaid. As a result, he remained at home andultimately died for want of propertreatment.

“If fishing had not been banned, and ourfishing activities had continued as earlier,we would not have lost our father. You aredirectly or indirectly forcing people to die.It’s happened to us,” laments Jagdar’seldest son, Ranjan. All the three brothersnow collect shrimp fry from the river, eachearning about Rs7-10 ($0.22) per day. Theyhave no cultivable land, and only a mudhouse to live in, and their mother does noteven get a widow’s pension from thegovernment.

CASE STUDY 6: Jagdish Das Jagdish Das, 55, committed suicide byconsuming poison in September 2003. Hiswife, Kalpana, said that after the fishingban, both his 14-hp motorized boats gotdestroyed. Das has seven children: foursons and three daughters. The earningsfrom his two boats were not sufficient forthe large family. Besides, all the childrenwere studying, and there were loans to berepaid.

Being very introvert by nature, Das neverdiscussed his financial condition withanyone, not even with his wife. The couplehad great hopes for their two sons whowere doing undergraduate studies. Bothhoped to get good jobs once theygraduated. Meanwhile, Das developed aphysical ailment, but the family had nomoney to take him to the hospital.Kalpana then decided to sell their onlyhouse to treat her husband. Though shebroached the subject with him, he neverresponded. Two days later, he committedsuicide.

Now the Das’ do not have a source ofincome. Though the two sons gained somesort of employment in a private school,they have not started getting salaries. Das’sons were very reluctant to give aninterview. They wished to regard thewhole thing as a family affair.

CASE STUDY 7: Birat HaldarBirat Haldar of Kharnasi died in January2003 after consuming poison. He leavesbehind his wife Deepali, and two sons.They now survive by working ontrawlers and collecting shrimp fry fromthe creeks. Though we could not meetthem, the villagers of Kharnasi confirmedHaldar’s death and his family’s plight.

CASE STUDY 8: Jodan BiswasJodan Biswas, 46, of Ram Nagar,committed suicide by consuming poison.He leaves behind a son. The small familyhad been earning a living from fishing.Biswas had one boat, which has since beentaken over by the fish merchant, to whomhe owes Rs40,000 ($903), which he hadborrowed for the treatment of his wife’stuberculosis, which she never survived.His wife’s death and the financial crisisfollowing the fishing ban forced Biswas tocommit suicide. His only son has since leftthe village.

R

epo

rt

This report has been filed bySarada Lahangir ([email protected]), correspondent, ANI,Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India


ESA workshop

Empowering co-management

The issue of co-management came up for detailed discussion at the ESA Fish Workshop organized by ICSF at Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

The workshop on “FishingCommunities and SustainableDevelopment in Eastern and

Southern Africa (ESA): The Role ofSmall-scale Fisheries” was organized bythe International Collective in Support ofFishworkers (ICSF) in collaboration withthe Western Indian Ocean Marine ScienceAssociation (WIOMSA), the MasifundiseDevelopment Trust and the Coalition forFair Fisheries Arrangements (CFFA). Itwas held at Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,from 14 to 17 March 2006.

Among the various issues discussed,considerable interest focused onco-management in fisheries. SimeaoLopes of the Institute for theDevelopment of Small-scale Fisheries(IDPPE), Mozambique, said fishingcontributes to the country’s employment,food security and foreign exchange. Thesector is organized into the industrial,semi-industrial and artisanal fisheries.Private and joint-venture companiesengage in industrial fisheries, especiallyfor shrimp resources in the Sofala bank.The semi-industrial fishing vessels aremainly Mozamibque-based trawlers thattarget shrimp. They also includehandlines as well as freshwater fishingplatforms for kapenta. The artisanalfisheries are spread along the seaboardand the inland waters, employing about130,000 in canoe fishing and fishprocessing. There are about 11,000artisanal fishing vessels, only 3 per cent ofwhich are motorized. Beach-seines,gillnets and handlines are the popularartisanal fishing gear.

The development of co-management inMozambique began, Lopes said, with thestructural adjustment programme (SAP)in the post-Second World War era, asdemands increased on Africa todemocratize and implement SAPs, from

its traditional Western donors, led by theWorld Bank and the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF), who stressedresource management based uponparticipatory approaches, devolution ofauthority and decentralization of powers.Thus, by the early 1990s, userparticipation had become almost a givenrequirement for donor-fundeddevelopment projects in Mozambique.

Within the fisheries sector, studies wereconducted to evaluate fisheriesprogrammes and projects implementedduring the previous two decades so as todraw lessons and propose appropriatefuture interventions. A Fisheries MasterPlan (FMP) was developed and approvedby the Mozambican government in 1994.The process of elaboration of the FMPinvolved many central fisheriesinstitutions, fishing communities andother stakeholders, Lopes said.

The FMP laid out the priorities andstrategies for development to be pursuedin the subsequent years. With regard tothe management of small-scale fisheries,the FMP emphasized the involvement offishermen in setting and enforcingmanagement regimes. It was from theFMP that co-management approacheswere formally declared as part of thegeneral new strategic interventions forfisheries management and development.

Better analysesA subsequent evaluation underscored theimportance of more careful andcomprehensive analyses and discussions,and the development of more activeparticipation of beneficiaries. Pilotmeasures for user-sensitization began inthe late-1990s. Several co-managementcommittees were since set up in themarine coastal areas of the country toimprove the efficacy of fisheries

Rep

ort


management through developing a senseof ownership of managementprogrammes amongst active fishers.

However, Lopes identified severalconstraints to realizingco-management goals in

Mozambique. Firstly, the State acts as thecustodian of all natural resources,including marine resources. Through theMinistry of Fisheries’ directorates andautonomous institutes, the State has theright to manage marine resources for thebenefit of the people. In artisanalfisheries, the users (coastal communities)have the right to use fisheries resources;however, they do not have the right toparticipate in planning for the use nor theright to legally act, individually orcollectively, in respect of management ofthe fishery resource. This is a seriousconstraint to the goal of better resourcemanagement.

Secondly, there are restrictive meaningsassociated with the concept ofparticipation. Thus, for example, as far asfishing communities and their traditionalleadership are concerned, participationdoes not apply to the crew on boardfishing vessels. It applies only to thosewho have the political and economicpower to take strategic decisions, to thelocal elite, the traditional and religiousleaders and other individuals who arewilling to offer their services on behalf ofothers. These people may not be the most

appropriate to deal with issues related tofisheries co-management. There couldthus be conflicts between participatorydemocracy as demanded by the maindonors, and effective fisheriesmanagement. However, to guarantee thesuccess of co-management, thegovernment should understand thesesociocultural aspects (as traditionalleaders are still respected by the majorityof rural people), and ensure that allrelevant institutions, individuals orinterest groups, which are consideredlegitimate by different members of fishingcommunities, are engaged in the process,Lopes added.

Thirdly, the government has not been ableto empower fishing communities (legally,through economic incentives or throughcapacity building) to cope with resourcemanagement responsibilities. Neither hasthere been an effort to use local knowledgein decision-making processes or to explainthe criteria used to make somemanagement decisions. As long as there ispoor understanding of fisheriesmanagement amongst the fishermen,there might be unwillingness to complywith fisheries regulations.

Local knowledgeIt is important to integratetraditional/local authorities, as well aslocal knowledge, into co-management asa means to connect political and scientificobjectives of the government to the

R

epo

rt


community. For the fishing community,it could be a way to reach full control oftheir marine resources through thedevolution of power and responsibilitiesfrom government, Lopes observed.

The pressures on the coastal fishingresources in Mozambique result,among other things, from the

overall unhealthy economic situation inthe country, he added. To raise enoughincome for subsistence, fishingcommunities are putting pressure on theresource by increasing fishing effortthrough the use of inappropriate fishinggear like fine-meshed nets in beach-seinesthat target small pelagic fish. Open accessto fisheries resources further complicatesthe matter, resulting in serious threatsboth to the resource and to the economicdevelopment of fishing communities.

The fishermen themselves say that thecatch rates from the nearshore watershave declined, and the average size ofcommercial fish species have decreased.The falling productivity of fishing unitsindicates the need to manage the fisheryand exercise caution in promoting anyincrease in fishing effort.Co-management arrangements should beable to reconcile conservation with thesubsistence or livelihood interests offishing communities.

The competition for the marine coastalresources of Mozambique is becomingincreasingly evident, with both artisanalfishing communities and tourism relyingon the resources for livelihoods anddevelopment. At present, theGovernment of Mozambique (GoM) isencouraging tourism as a way to rapidlydevelop the economy, Lopes said. As partof this process, the GoM has delegated themanagement responsibility of some areasof the coastal zone to private tourismdevelopers.

Artisanal fishing communities areconcerned about the use of, and access to,the same coastal resources, leading toconflicts where fishing communities havebeen displaced from their traditionalliving and fishing grounds. These aremore evident where tourism interests arepromoting the preservation of marinecoastal resources as their primary asset,which contrasts with the extractive value

of the coastal fishery resource, asperceived by the fishing communities.

On the one hand, the GoM is supportingthe development of co-management in theartisanal fisheries sector without thelegislative framework that can delegateresource management responsibilities tothe communities. On the other, it isproviding the legislative framework fordelegating resource managementconcessions to private tourism developerswithout the co-management institutionalframework that would consider the needsof all resource users. In both instances, theresult of partial regulation and controlover each resource user group risksoverexploitation of marine coastalresources.

Co-management is seen by the GoM as ameans to better control fisheries activities(especially the fishing effort and conflictsof interest) through sharing ordecentralization of some responsibilitiesto the local institutions. But thecommunities view the arrangement as astep to achieve full control over the fisheryresources through the devolution ofpower and authority to the localinstitutions.

However, the GoM may not be able, oreven willing, to devolve the authority, asthat would require some changes to thecountry’s constitution. Sufficient financialcapacity would also be needed to ensureappropriate collective organizationsamong the communities.

Lopes raised the following questions inthe light of the experience of Mozambiquewith co-management: (i) What are thedifferent approaches of different playersin co-management and what is theirunderstanding of ‘sustainabledevelopment’? (ii) How could balancebetween conservation objectives ofgovernments and the livelihood needs offishing communities be established whileimplementing co-managementprogrammes? (iii) Could co-managementachieve the objectives of all players, giventhat the outcome might not always beexactly the same and may often becontradictory in nature? (iv) How couldparticipatory and traditional elementswork together? (v) Are co-managementinstitutions willing, or able, to use

Rep

ort


multiple sources of knowledge inmanagement decisionmaking? (vi) Whatcould be the implications of the twomodels—decentralization anddevolution—for fisheries co-managementarrangements? (vii) What are the impactsof participatory development approacheson the traditional and (new) economicpower structures in a co-managedresource environment?

In the discussion that followed Lopes’presentation, it was observed thatco-management basically referred toshared management responsibilitybetween the government and thecommunity. It was noted that it isimportant to have an understanding ofwhat definition to use in the ESA context.It was further observed that theparticipation of women inco-management initiatives is poor.

Friday Njaya of the Fisheries Departmentof Malawi spoke about the status ofparticipatory fishery management (PFM)in Malawi lakes. PFM was introduced inLake Malawi at the behest of internationalagencies in the 1990s in response todeclining lake fishery resources andintensifying conflicts between small-scaleand commercial fisheries. Historically,there were traditional controls overfisheries resources in some parts of LakeMalawi and Lake Chiuta, and usercommittees and associations called beachvillage committees (BVCs) were formed toestablish PFM in all the lakes.

The composition of the BVCs varied fromlake to lake. While some were associationsof chiefs, others had mixed composition.The issue of devolution of fisheriesresponsibilities to local district assembliesis still an outstanding one. BVCs have to beredefined to allow for the participation ofall representatives of different fishingactivities. Formal bye-laws are yet to bedeveloped for effective devolution offishery management powers.

There are doubts whether or not PFM couldwork in Lake Malawi, which is a largewater body supporting small-scale,semi-industrial and commercial fisheries,including trawling. The fishingcommunities along Lake Malawi aremulti-ethnic. There are problems insuccessfully imposing access regulation

on fishing, in demarcating boundariesand in enforcing fishery regulations,Njaya said.

Yet, despite difficulties, it is possible to setup “broad-based co-management” inLake Malawi, with the participation ofstakeholders such as the police,magistrates, chiefs, natural resources-based government departments and thedistrict assembly. There is a move now tointroduce a closed season for trawlers. Insmaller lakes such as Lake Chiuta, PFMstructures are useful mechanisms toresolve transboundary conflicts betweenMalawi and Mozambique. Njaya saidco-management should be based on localconditions, and defined and developed ina contextual manner. It is important tomake a policy distinction between therural poor and the village elite inco-management programmes. Thereshould be clarity on the introduction ofproperty rights or access regulationregimes. Sufficient caution should beexercised while applying theories inpractice. Implementation of aco-management initiative is a learningprocess and it evolves with time, Njayaconcluded.

Mafaniso Hara of the University ofWestern Cape, South Africa, gave apresentation on the implications forcoastal communities of co-managementperspectives and experiences in the ESAregion. The objectives of fisheriesmanagement mainly involve threeaspects: setting management objectives;defining and providing the knowledgebase for management decisions; andimplementation of managementdecisions. Historically, fisherymanagement decisions have beentop-down. The fisheries resources havebeen treated as State property, and theobjectives of fisheries management havemainly been confined to conservation offishery resources, relying on biologicalsciences. The implementation of fisherymanagement was through policingmeasures.

Conventional regimesCo-management of fishery resources wasproposed in light of the failure ofconventional fishery managementregimes to prevent overexploitation offishery resources. It is also proposed as an

R

epo

rt


effective mechanism to break the barriersbetween fishery administrators and usercommunitiesa legacy of the top-downapproach through democraticdecentralization, Hara said.

Co-management of fisheryresources mostly as short-term,externally funded projects—was

led by government line agencies throughthe creation of ‘user’ representativeorganizations (’democratically’ electedcommittees). The process has sometimeslacked flexibility because of specificdonor requirements.

The experiences with co-management inthe ESA region have so far been mixed.The most common types ofco-management have been ‘instructive’or ‘consultative’. Hara discussed severalcritical aspects of co-management as it iscurrently practised in the region. Firstly,there are conflicting objectives betweenconservation of fishery resources andsocioeconomic development of fishingcommunities. The government approachhas usually been instrumental; it co-optsusers into the management process toachieve the same old conservationobjectives without really acceptingalternative knowledge, ideas and viewsfrom them.

By and large, governments do notperceive co-management as a means ofintroducing more democratic principles

of fisheries management, but as a meansto better achieve the government’soriginal conservation objectives.

Secondly, co-management has beenproposed as a way to deal withopen-access problems. The introductionof access rights has been with the idea ofenabling effort control. However, suchmeasures often clash with historicalfishing practices. Enforcing access controlwas particularly problematic in areaslacking alternative economicopportunities.

Thirdly, centralized co-managementsystems are favoured that rely on thegovernment’s natural scientists. Very fewinputs from users are incorporated intosuch systems. Usually, only tasks that thegovernments have failed to implement, orare costly, are left to the user groups. Thelocal communities are usually not legallyempowered. Their negotiating position inrelation to the government is still weak.The governments are also reluctant todevolve real power and genuine authorityto user groups.

Customary powerFourthly, co-management usuallyrequires customary sources of power heldby traditional leaders for effectiveapplication of sanctions. There is thus aneed to involve traditional authority. Thetraditional authorities or local elites oftencapture power to offset any challenge to

Rep

ort


their authority that could crop up fromco-management programmes.

Fifthly, while the governments maylack appropriate skills and capacityto undertake co-management,

communities might not have theeconomic, social and political incentivesor capacity to undertake someresponsibilities required underco-management.

Finally, the definition of ‘user community’and ‘stakeholders’ can be evolving anddynamic in a temporal and spatial sense.Existing mechanisms cannot define theusers and decide on how to representthem in co-management structures. Thereis also the problem of lack, or low degree,of downward accountability ofrepresentative organizations. However,tacit threats of governments to revokepowers and authority force upwardaccountability.

Hara had the following recommendationsfor “efficient, equitable and sustainablefisheries management” in the ESA region.Firstly, co-management models shouldacknowledge and integrate the role ofpoverty in community/individualdecisions, and occupational andgeographic mobility incommunity/individual livelihoods. Therole of fishing in the community’slivelihood interests should be betterunderstood. The community shouldknow the status of fishery resources andbe better informed about alternativesources of livelihoods that could possiblycombine with fishing. In this context, howfar occupational and geographic mobilitycould help improve socioeconomic statusis important, Hara added.

Secondly, there is a need for “empoweringco-management” by fully involving usersin setting up management objectives, inintegrating ‘user knowledge’ into formalscience and in the implementation ofmanagement decisions.

And finally, it is important to improve theability of communities to agitate. Theyshould challenge formal science(including international conventions)using their local knowledge to balanceconservation with local socioeconomicconcerns. They should agitate for enabling

legislation and improvement in theattitude of governments to their concerns.They should agitate for better informationand better organization ofco-management structures withimproved human and financial resources,Hara concluded.

R

epo

rt

This report has been filed bySebastian Mathew ([email protected]),Programme Adviser, ICSF. Acomplete account of the ESAworkshop can be found athttp://www.icsf.net/jsp/conference/eastAfrica/report.jsp


Fish bowl

Kedah, Malaysia’srice bowl, is alsoworking towardsbecoming thecountry’s fish bowl,reports Sira Habibuin The Star. The Stateis now aggressivelypromoting thecaged-fish rearingindustry.

Minister Datuk SeriMahdzir Khalid saidthere were plans toset up at least 1,000fish cages in Merbokand Langkawidistricts by the end ofthe year.

“We are aggressivelypushing this businessthrough jointventures betweensubsidiaries ofgovernment-linkedcompanies andfishermenassociations,” he said.Kedah is taking anintegrated approachto promote thebusiness. The privatesector, fishermenassociations, theMalaysia FisheriesDevelopment Board,the FisheriesDepartment andindividuals will beroped in, he said,after presenting 82boats to Kedah

tsunami victims onbehalf of ProtonHoldings Bhd. Theboats were presentedto fishermen who didnot receive anycompensation fortheir boats whichwere totally damagedin the 26 December2004 Indian Oceantsunami.

Biz plans

Three Thaicompanies plan toinvest around US$150mn in the fisheriessector in Indonesia,Fisheries and MarineResources MinisterFreddy Numberisaid. He said ninemore foreigncompanies wouldfollow suit soon.

The minister said thegovernment haddecided that anyenterprise wishing tooperate in fisheries,especially in theExclusive EconomicZone (EEZ) had to setup a processingindustry under itsmanagement.

“The policy is aimedat promoting theimplementation ofresponsible fishingfor the interest of theIndonesian people,”he said.

He said theintegration of fishingand fish-processingindustry wasexpected to be able toincrease the addedvalue of fisheryproducts,employment, foreign

exchange earningsand growth of otherancillary fisheryindustries.

The Indonesiangovernment wouldonly give fishingpermits to foreigncompanies if theyhad industries intheir countries oforigin to process theircatch. He said foreigncompanies whowished to set up anindustry in Indonesiahad to co-operatewith local fisherycompanies and thecooperation mustbenefit the localcompanies.

Cancer scare

South Koreacontinues to haveworries overcontamination ofimported farmed fish.The carcinogenic dyemalachite green isstill to be found inmarine productsimported from Chinaand other nationsdespite a hugescandal over

contamination lastyear.

The Ministry ofMaritime Affairs andFisheries and theNational Fisheries

Products QualityInspection Service(NFPQIS) said thatsome 40 tonnes ofimported live fishfrom China,including flatfish andsea bass, were sentback or destroyedthis year alonebecause malachitegreen was detected inthem.

Five tonnes of frozenshrimp importedfrom Thailand werealso sent back inJanuary for the samereason.

The NFPQIS says itperforms frequentrandom checks formalachite green andantibiotics at fishfarms around thenation.

Pirates ahoy!

Somali pirates stillrule the seas, butthere seems to besome hope. Anofficial Yemeniagency has reportedthat Somalilandreleased 15 Yemenifishing boats andtheir crew. Accordingto Yemen’s SabaNews Agency, theboats were seized inthe Barbara seaporton the pretext thatthey were fishing inSomaliland waters.

Yemen andSomalilandexchangedaccusations lastmonth when theindependentbreakaway republicaccused Yemen offishing in itsterritorial waters.

Yemen, for its part,said Somali pirateskidnapped theYemeni fishing boats

News Round-up


and their fishermenon a fishing journeyin Yemen’s territorialwaters.

Somaliland laterconfessed that itsforces seized severalYemeni fishermenand their boats.

Somaliland’s coastguard interceptedeight Yemeniboats—across theGulf of Aden’s richfishingwaters—under acampaign to enforceterritorialsovereignty. NineYemeni boats wereseized in Februaryand their 84 crewmendeported.

Officials fromSomaliland’s capital,Hargiesa, visitedSana’a last month todiscuss regionaldevelopments andsolve the fishingdispute. A localnewspaper reportedon 26 March, thatYemen andSomaliland signed acooperationagreement on thefishing industry andfishing rights.

The agreementincludes deals onfishery co-operation,particularlyregarding inform-ation exchange,investment,organizing fishingprocesses andoffering trainingopportunities toSomali workers.

Meanwhile, KoreaTimes reports that thegovernment has beenstepping-updiplomatic efforts tosecure the release of aSouth Korean vesselhijacked earlier thisweek off Somalia.

Turning turtle

March 1 marks theofficial start of theYear of the MarineTurtle within theIndian Ocean andSouth-East Asianregion, reportsPanda.org, WWF’swebsite.

Today, six of theseven species ofmarineturtle—hawksbill,olive ridley, Kemp’sridley, leatherback,loggerhead andgreen—are classified

as “Endangered” or“CriticallyEndangered”.

“Concertedconservation effortshave seen turtlepopulations recoverin some areas, butwithout urgent globalaction the future ofthese animals looksincreasingly grim,”said Dr SueLieberman, Directorof WWF’s GlobalSpecies Programme.

Marine turtles haveswum in the world’soceans for over 100million years. Theyare the only widely

distributed marinereptiles and manyspecies migrate forthousands ofkilometres—and evenacross entireoceans—betweenfeeding and nestinggrounds.

Regional co-operation is essentialto ensure that turtlesare protected atdifferent stages intheir life cycles.

Marine turtles havealso beenfundamental to theculture of coastalsocieties formillennia.

Fiji has alreadyjoined the “Year ofthe Turtle” eventwith a renewed effortto protectendangered seaturtles within thecountry’s waters. Fijicurrently has a five-year moratoriumwhich bans thecommercial harvestand sale of sea turtles,but the sale andconsumption of turtlemeat is still common.

Other WWF activitiesto mark the Year ofthe Sea Turtleinclude: declaringDerawan Island, oneof the the biggestgreen and hawksbillturtle rookeries inSouth-East Asia as aMarine ConservationArea; monitoring andprotecting nestingsites in and aroundKenya’s KiungaMarine NationalReserve; satellitetagging of marineturtles in Vietnam;introducing circlehooks to tuna fleets inthe Philippines tosignificantly reduceturtle bycatch; and

establishing a jointresearch partnership(betweenMadagascar,Switzerland andFrance) on marineturtles in theSouth-West IndianOcean.

In jail

22 Filipino fishermenhave been in jail inPakistan since lastweek after allegedlybeing caught fishingin Pakistan’s waters.

The Philippinesembassy inIslamabad has notestablished theFilipinos’ identitiesbecause Pakistan’sMinistry of Interiorhas not allowed anyembassy official tovisit them, an officialsaid.

Consul GeneralMaria AgnesCervantes said the 22Filipinos werecrewmembers of theChinese fishingvessel Chen ShuiSung, which hadreportedly strayedinto Pakistan’s waterson March 30.

The Pakistani navybrought thefishermen and theirvessel to shore anddetained 16 of themin Landi Prison. Therest were placedunder heavy guardon their ship,Cervantes said.

SAMUDRA Report No. 43 November 2006 51

Dawn did not break slowly, as it does on land. The skyturned pale, the first stars disappeared, and I went onlooking, first at my watch, and then at the horizon. Thecontours of the sea began to appear. Twelve hours hadpassed, but it didn’t seem possible. Night couldn’t be aslong as day. You ought to have spent the night at sea,sitting in a life raft and looking at your watch, to knowthat the night is immeasurably longer than the day. Butsoon dawn begins to break, and then it’s wearying to knowit’s another day.

— from The Story of a Shipwrecked Sailor by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

;

tCSF is an international NGOworldng on ISSU8S f1at conc:emflShworl<ers the WOIkl oYer It ISin status wiltllhe Economic andSocial Council oI1he UN and ison LO'S Special list of Non·GoverrvnentaJ InternationalOr·ganizations. It aI90 has liaisonStatus Vtrth FIoO. Reglst8fed InGeneva, ICSF has oflices inChemaI, nm. and Brussels,BeI!Jlm. As agktlaIl'llIlWOIt ofcommunity organIZ81S,teachers. technicians, resaardlers and soercasts, ICSf'SactMies l\f1Cl:IIlllbS l'lll;lniI)rIng and research, exdiangBand trailing, t8mp11P andadIon, as well as 1XlImllD:a·11MS.~ Report inv~es

conUinJlions and responses.CorrespolldeBce Should be addressed to the Cll&nnai office.

Tile opinions and ~bons

expressed in the articles are!hose oIlhe allthors concernedand do not necessaIiy represent the olfiaaI Yl8WS of ICSf

SolMDtIo Report ca"I new be a>cessed en ICSf'S home PIlI! onthe World WIde Web alhtlp:llwww.i:sf.net orht1p:/1www.lcsf.org

Published byChandrika Sharma for

International CoRectlve In Supporl of F!$hwoI1<.ers27 College Road, Chennal600006.lndla

Telephone (91) 44-2827 5303 Facsimile (91) 44·26254457Email: icsfOvsnl.com

lCSf Brussels Office;244 Chaussee deWalerIoo, Brussels 1060, BeIgMrn

TtIIphone (32) 2 ·6525201 Fascinle (32) 2· 654 0407EmaI: t:mnoOllsc8i.be

Ed"lled by

KG """"

-bysalish Babu

COVltl"

Song of waterMixed medIa on canvas by Dl\anaraJ Koozhara

Photographs courtesy 01Brian O'Riordan, Charles Menzies, Deepa Koztusseri

Chandrika Sharma. $afada l..ahaf1gIr, SebastJan Mathew, KG KumarAsNsh KoIharl, The Generall.baries, The Universit1 of Texas al AustI'l

_~of

The SlarO'*le, An!aIa News, Cholu\, YIlITIBn Tmes,Panda.org. ManIa S1andarO Today. Bemama. Korea Tmes

Printed atNagaraj and Coo'pny Pvt. Uti. ChemaI

Documents

INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT OF FISHWORKERS