Assessing the governability of capture fisheries in the Bay of Bengal - a conceptual enquiry

This paper contributes to the theory of interactive governance, which is one branch in the scientific discipline of governance studies, by exploring the application of the governability concept to the capture fisheries of the Bay of Bengal. It focuses on two aspects of governability: the definition of system boundaries, and the application of governability criteria. The focus with regard to the latter is on ‘representation’. Two possible definitions of a system-to-be-governed are explored: an ecological definition on the basis of Large Marine Ecosystems (LME), and a social definition based on the jurisdiction of non-governmental fisher councils. The conclusion is that the boundaries of governance systems for natural resource management are arbitrary, and various delineations have competing strengths and weaknesses. Although interactive governance theory provides useful insights for understanding the issues at hand, the operationalization of its conceptualization of governability is, however, hampered by ambiguity in the definition of criteria. Analysis suggests that ‘representation’ as an indicator of governability is most usefully interpreted as ‘level of attunement’ rather than simply as the mirroring of characteristics of the system-to-be-governed in the governing system

Review of community-based ICM: best practices and lessons learned in the Bay of Bengal, South Asia

Conclusions and recommendations of the report were based upon eighteen case studies of community-based Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) in Bangladesh, India, Maldives and Sri Lanka. These include empowerment of coastal communities; failure of imposed fishery co-operatives; and the application of territorial use rights in fisheries(TURF)

Report of inception workshop on globalisation and seafood trade legislation: The impact on poverty in India

DFID’s Post Harvest Fisheries Research Programme seeks to develop strategies and management systems to improve post harvest utilisation of fish in ways that will make an impact on lives of poor producers, processors, traders and consumers. “Globalisation & Seafood Trade Legislation – The Impact On Poverty In India” is the title of a project funded by DFID under the Post Harvest Fisheries Research Programme (PHFRP). Prior to finalisation of the project proposal, the collaborators – the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), Catalyst Management Services (CMS) and South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies (SIFFS) – decided to meet with various possible stakeholders and key informants. An inception workshop was organised in Visakhapatnam, India, on 21 and 22 June 2001, of which this document is the record. The workshop started with a series of presentations including one on a related PHFRP project – “Changing Fish Utilisation and Its Impact on the Poor in India” by Integrated Marine Management Ltd (IMM). That was followed by identification of key issues. Against the background of these key issues, further short presentations were made (by selected workshop participants with relevant knowledge), based on which a shortlist of researchable issues was produced. Finally, it was agreed that no conclusive statements could be made on researchable issues and specific research sites for the fieldwork, given the limited information available. By end of October 2001, the research collaborators (SIFFS, CMS and NRI) will produce literature reviews to make full use of secondary information sources available to generate ideas about the key research issues and to avoid duplication of previous work. In addition, it was felt vital that fieldwork research activities should be co-ordinated and linked to the related PHFRP project “Changing Fish Utilisation and Its Impact on the Poor in India”. The key findings and recommendations from the scoping studies, conducted in the selected states of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Orissa, should feed into the final formulation of research issues and sites, to ensure integration and linkages given the limited resources available. The workshop ended with agreement among project collaborators on the ways forward, especially with regard to the literature reviews and initial fieldwork, to be finalised by the end of October 2001): a) Report on the Workshop (CMS, with inputs from NRI and SIFFS); b) An overview of international seafood legislation (NRI); c) A literature review of globalisation and sustainable livelihoods, with particular reference to the fishery sector (NRI); d) An analysis of trends in Indian seafood exports and trends in major markets (NRI); e) A review of the 1997 EU import ban on shrimp exports from India (SIFFS); f) Indian actions and re-actions to external Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary regulations and legislation, including a history of fish inspection in recent times (SIFFS); g) A review of export supply chains in Andhra Pradesh (SIFFS); h) A review of export supply chains in Kerala (SIFFS); and i) A review of export supply chains in Orissa (CMS). On completion of these studies, further detailed fieldwork will be undertaken in three selected states, beginning in Andhra Pradesh, followed by fieldwork in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, Kerala

Report on final workshop on globalisation and seafood trade legislation: the effect on poverty in India. 23-24 January 2003, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India (NRI report no. 2721)

This report presents the proceedings and findings of a workshop held in the Green Park Hotel, Visakhapatnam from 23 to 24 January 2003. It was attended by participants (36 in all) representing a cross section of the fisheries industry from producer organisations, NGOs, government organisations and private companies involved in the fish export industry of India. (See appendix 1 ). The report outlines the results of the research project on "Globalisation and Seafood Trade Legislation – The Impact on Poverty in India" funded by the Post Harvest Fisheries Research Programme (PHFRP) of the Department for International Development (DFID). The workshop considered the status of the export industry in Kerala, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh and the effect that export legislation is having on livelihoods of the poor in these three states. The discussion of the issues raised is given in the main body of the report (section 2) with summaries of the presentations in the Appendices 3- 5

Justice at Sea: Fishers’ politics and marine conservation in coastal Odisha, India

This is a paper about the politics of fishing rights in and around the Gahirmatha marine sanctuary in coastal Odisha, in eastern India. Claims to the resources of this sanctuary are politicised through the creation of a particularly damaging narrative by influential Odiya environmental actors about Bengalis, as illegal immigrants who have hurt the ecosystem through their fishing practices. Anchored within a theoretical framework of justice as recognition, the paper considers the making of a regional Odiya environmentalism that is, potentially, deeply exclusionary. It details how an argument about ‘illegal Bengalis’ depriving ‘indigenous Odiyas’ of their legitimate ‘traditional fishing rights’ derives from particular notions of indigeneity and territory. But the paper also shows that such environmentalism is tenuous, and fits uneasily with the everyday social landscape of fishing in coastal Odisha. It concludes that a wider class conflict between small fishers and the state over a sanctuary sets the context in which questions about legitimate resource rights are raised, sometimes with important effects, like when out at sea

Not Available

Not AvailableThis publication is based on an assessment of fish and fishing gear loss from selected gillnet and trammel net fisheries of India. It presents information on the types, causes and levels of losses, as well as technological, social, environmental and policy options to reduce losses from fishing and post-harvest operations. A secondary data review provided a preliminary understanding of fish and gear losses in India. Data from state governments, fishers cooperative societies, and community centres was used to address some knowledge gaps. Research teams undertook primary data collection in 12 locations, and 583 fishing vessels were surveyed. Respondents in group and key informant interviews included vessel captains, crew, fish vendors and auction agents. Women respondents were interviewed where available. The study found that gillnet fisheries were characterized by sizeable losses of both fish and gear, with a number of causes being highlighted. The combined loss of fish and nets amounted to almost one third of a motorized vessel owner’s income, and was significantly higher than the household’s expenditure on fishing, household maintenance, quality-of-life costs (healthcare, etc.), loan servicing, or leisure activities. Conclusions seek to locate the fish and gear losses in the wider fisheries and macroeconomic context, and emphasize the need to address them as part of broader and holistic development and management agendas. This publication will be of interest to technical specialists and extension agents concerned with loss and waste prevention and reduction, and to those wishing to learn more about the topic and conduct similar research.Not Availabl

Not Available

Not AvailableThis publication is based on an assessment of fish and fishing gear loss from selected gillnet and trammel net fisheries of India. It presents information on the types, causes and levels of losses, as well as technological, social, environmental and policy options to reduce losses from fishing and post-harvest operations. A secondary data review provided a preliminary understanding of fish and gear losses in India. Data from state governments, fishers cooperative societies, and community centres was used to address some knowledge gaps. Research teams undertook primary data collection in 12 locations, and 583 fishing vessels were surveyed. Respondents in group and key informant interviews included vessel captains, crew, fish vendors and auction agents. Women respondents were interviewed where available. The study found that gillnet fisheries were characterized by sizeable losses of both fish and gear, with a number of causes being highlighted. The combined loss of fish and nets amounted to almost one third of a motorized vessel owner’s income, and was significantly higher than the household’s expenditure on fishing, household maintenance, quality-of-life costs (healthcare, etc.), loan servicing, or leisure activities. Conclusions seek to locate the fish and gear losses in the wider fisheries and macroeconomic context, and emphasize the need to address them as part of broader and holistic development and management agendas. This publication will be of interest to technical specialists and extension agents concerned with loss and waste prevention and reduction, and to those wishing to learn more about the topic and conduct similar research.Not Availabl

Frenemies : marine turtle conservation and economic development in the Rushikulya Coast, Eastern India

The discourse on biodiversity conservation often presents this domain as an antithesis to economic development. However, in practice, the relation between conservation and development is far more complex because conservationists possess limited powers and must give serious consideration to the economic aspirations of others in any given region, such as local communities and industries. Moreover, conservationists are themselves a heterogeneous group with diverse ways of working. Therefore, although the relation between conservation and development is often described in binary terms such as conflict—co-operation, this does not adequately capture the nuances and dilemmas of actual conservation practice. In this article, I present an ethnographic study of marine turtle conservation in Rushikulya (eastern India), to argue that the relation between the two domains is essentially ambivalent and uncertain and hence, best understood as one of being ‘frenemies’ i.e. friendly enemies, rather than as allies or antagonists. From fieldwork conducted over three years (2012–2015), I describe how actors in both domains opportunistically borrow tools and concepts from each other, which blurs the boundaries between them and results in both connections and contestations. To conclude, I suggest we need more ethnographic studies to understand the realities of practice and provoke reflection on current approaches to both conservation and developmen