Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299348882

AModelPerformaforBenchmarkingFisheriesCo-OperativesInvolvedwithFisheriesandAquacultureinInlandWaterBodies

RESEARCH·MARCH2016

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.4879.2728

READS

9

1AUTHOR:

KoushikRoy

CentralInlandFisheriesResearchInstitute

18PUBLICATIONS0CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,

lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.

Availablefrom:KoushikRoy

Retrievedon:28March2016

Model Performa For Benchmarking Fisheries Cooperatives Roy (2015) - Unpublished

A MODEL PERFORMA FOR BENCHMARKING FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVES

INVOLVED WITH FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE IN INLAND WATER

BODIES

Koushik Roy

Senior Research Fellow. ICAR- Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore.

koushik.roy.89@gmail.com

Introduction

Cooperative fishery management assigns management rights, formally or informally, to a

group of users. Assigning rights to groups rather than individuals can be advantageous, given

the shared, common-pool nature of fish stocks. Managing fisheries by delegating authority to

an association of users, often organized as a cooperative, is gaining increased attention.

Evidence from developed country fisheries managed by cooperatives indicates that

coordination gains can be substantial (Deacon, 2012). In order to provide sincere support to

fishermen and to develop fisheries sector, it is essential to organize techno-financially

feasible and professionally managed fisheries cooperative societies (Nair et al., 2007). As a

well known fact, the cooperatives are the only answer for creating a forum through which the

technology for self sufficiency and income generation could be transferred to the fishers. The

fishery cooperatives represent one of the weaker sections of the society. There is need to

revitalize and strengthen fishery cooperatives in the country besides development linkages

among different tires of fishery cooperatives (Planning Commission - Government of India,

2001).

This article showcases a model performa for benchmarking the potential fisheries

cooperatives involved in inland waters for quantitatively assessing their suitability and

viability which can be used by the government or competent authorities in rendering

technological and/or financial assistance.

Performa

1. Name of the organization:

2. Office Address:

1

Model Performa For Benchmarking Fisheries Cooperatives Roy (2015) - Unpublished

3. Type: Cooperative/ Self Help Group/ Partnership firm (tick appropriate)

4. Year of establishment: [ ] (Calculate, Experience = Current year - Year of Estd.)

5. Area under management: hectares. (can be used for SWOT analysis)

6. No. of beneficiaries: (for assessing popularity/ social significance)

Initially Now

If Now > Initially, signs of positive social significance and therefore assign high priority.

*NOTE: Record the number of beneficiaries for the last 5 years. It will be required for

segment No. 13 and 14.

7. Average Annual Turnover: (Take average of last 5 years of the official record)

Value (in Rs/USD) Volume (in Kg)

*NOTE: The interviewer shall obtain last 5 years data on value and volume from official

record.

8. Trend of Annual Turnover: (Based on graphical analysis of official record, last 5

years)

Value (in Rs) Volume (in Kg)

Increasing / Decreasing / Consistent Increasing / Decreasing / Consistent

*NOTE: The interviewer shall obtain last 5 years data on value and volume from official

record. In either case, construct a spline curve graph and plot the median value of the data set

over the graph as a line. Count the number of peaks above the line (A) and below the line (B).

If A>B, assort increasing. If A<B, assort decreasing. If A=B, assort consistent.

9. Peak season: (for GIS map/ modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and creation of

time series data for future references)

From (Month) To (Month) Duration (No. of months)

10. Lean season: (can be proposed for banning of all fishing activities/ closed season)

From (Month) To (Month) Duration (No. of months)

2

Model Performa For Benchmarking Fisheries Cooperatives Roy (2015) - Unpublished

11. Months of significance: (for GIS map/ modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and

creation of time series data for future references)

Maximum Value (in Rs) obtained in the

month

Maximum Volume (in Kg) obtained in the

month

12. Adoption of responsible fisheries: (for fisheries policymakers w.r.t. scientific

utilization or conservation of a particular water body)

S. No. Responsible Fishing Policies Implemented?

(if Yes, TICK)

1. Mesh Size Regulation (for sparing fingerlings or juveniles)

2. Fishing Units (No. of crafts) Restriction

3. Impose of Maximum catch limit

4. Observation of Closed season (zero fishing activities)

5. Demarcation for Closed area (restricted access for fishing)

*NOTE: If 3 to 5 ticks obtained out of 5, then assign ‘Undertaking Responsible Fishery’.

If 1 to 2 ticks obtained out of 5, then assign ‘Undertaking Partly Responsible Fishery’.

If 0 ticks out of 5, then assign ‘Practicing Indiscriminate Fishery’.

13. Number of fishermen: (for deriving thematic maps on dependencies on fisheries as

primary/ secondary sources of livelihood, socio-economic significance of peak and

lean seasons, strength of the organisation and human engagement potential of the

water body)

Total fishermen No. of active fishermen during

peak season/ peak month

No. of active fishermen during

lean season/ lean month

14. Infrastructure index: (for purposes of grading the organisation and assigning

priority to the water body; for GIS map/ modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and

creation of time series data for future references)

A. Number of landing centres (under organisation) =

3

Model Performa For Benchmarking Fisheries Cooperatives Roy (2015) - Unpublished

B. Number of crafts used (under organisation) =

C. Number of gear per fisherman (under organisation) =

Infrastructure index = 𝐴 + 𝐵 + 𝐶

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

15. Number of markets covered: [ ] (for estimation of geographical outreach)

*NOTE: For estimation of geographical outreach, identify the on-map location of the

markets at first. Find out the distance of the markets from the landing centre(s) and calculate

an average.

16. Per capita share of beneficiaries: (for purposes of grading and assigning priority to

the organisation; for GIS map/ modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and creation

of time series data for future references)

Per capita share = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 (𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑠.)

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠

*NOTE: If the total no. of beneficiaries has changed over the last 5 years, then take the

average (last 5 years). For average annual turnover (in Rs.), refer segment no. 7.

17. Productivity index: (for purposes of grading the organisation and assigning priority

to the water body; for GIS map/ modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and

creation of time series data for future references)

Productivity index = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 (𝑖𝑛 𝐾𝑔)

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠

*NOTE: If the total no. of beneficiaries has changed over the last 5 years, then take the

average (last 5 years). For average annual turnover (in Kg), refer segment no. 7.

18. Socio-Economic index: (for socio-economic impact assessment; for GIS map/

modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and creation of time series data for future

references)

Socio-economic index = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 + 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 (𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑠.)

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

4

Model Performa For Benchmarking Fisheries Cooperatives Roy (2015) - Unpublished

*NOTE: If the total no. of beneficiaries has changed over the last 5 years, then take the

average (last 5 years). For average annual turnover (in Rs.), refer segment no. 7.

Disclaimer

The author takes full responsibility in declaring that the present performa is an intellectual

creation of the author himself and is not part of any ongoing/completed project and/or

assigned work of ICAR-CIFRI, Barrackpore in any form whatsoever. The performa has not

been adopted from anywhere.

References

Deacon, R.T. 2012. Fishery Management by Harvester Cooperatives. Review of

Environmental Economics and Policy, 6 (2): 258-277. doi:10.1093/reep/res008

Nair, S.R., Pandey, S.K., Sharma, A. and Salim, S.S. 2007. An Evaluation of the Business

Performance of Fishery Cooperative Societies in Vasai Taluka of Thane District,

Maharashtra. Indian Cooperative Review, January (2007) 224-233pp.

Planning Commission - Government of India. 2001. Report of the working group on fisheries

for the tenth five year plan. TFYP working group Sr. No. 16/2001

5