Chapter Vlll

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

A 1- pmmUgc of world's humsn population lives on c o ~ or

eslmirrt utu, which ha1 population, that is heavily dependent on

naturJ resources for their livelihood. For example. nearly 70% of the

pop~lition in Southeast Aria depends on coastal wetlands resources (Plurly

and Chur, 1988). Human inhabitants l ~ v ~ n g rn the coastal villages of the

developing counviu utili?~ the coastal wetlands for their livelihood. Though

coastal subsislmcc economies In man) developrng countries are heavily

dependent upan products and ecosystem services generated by mangrove

forests, they are generally underestimated (Sacnger et al., 1983; Lal, 1990;

Barbier, 11994.

Fisbcry production controls major share of the marketed products from

unexploilod mangrove forest (Ham~lton et al.. 1989). Robertson and Blaber

(1992) reponed that species r~chness among fishes is as high as nearly 200

species in mangrove dominated estuaries In Auslralia and in India. Mangroves

provide vital nursery areas for many commercially important shrimp

and crab species throughout the troptcs (Macnac. 1974: Dall el al.. 1990).

Dall cl rl.. (1990) rcponcd that the penaied shrrmps are the most imponant

resources nol only in terms of total value of catch but also of value per unit

crick for coast4 fuhtria. Mangrove crab fauna is one of the major ecological

a d economic inrpc#turcc (Macnae. 1974; Macintosh, 1982; Matthcs and

h p W k y , 19811). Molluscs arc largely sessiic in nature and also constitute

an importmt in fishery products (Hamilton and Snedaker, 1984).

ThcI m u a p v e ecosystem offers not only ecoiogrcal but also economic

a d rocid fW&as. Only &w reports are available on the role of Pondichcrry

W Y O I m ~ d t o f u h q rmurWS 8Jld their economic gains. Abwnm

ofmmnomic h tends to underestimate the vdue of mangrove emsystem

( ~ d a e k . 1999; Kahircsan and Rajendiran. 2002) and also limit the designs

fa oanst~ltioa Of 0tker IMnagCfflCnt schemes. While subsistence &penden=

on mrngroves is essential for social suslainability. mangrove related commercial

generates great pressure on resources ((ilaser. 2003). Ronnback

(1999) argues that any economic analysis trying to estimate the value of

mangroves for fishery resources without recognizing their contribution to

subsistence economics will be incomplete. Failure to take the non-marketed /

commercirrl fish and shell fish into account is often a major factor failing in policy

decisions due to overexploitation of mangroves (Barbier. 1994).

Our contemplation in understanding the importance from local

perspective is for designing an action plan for conservation, management and

implementation involving the local communities to protect and develop this

ecosystem for future.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TO determine the extent of socio-fishery economic impact around this

We& a series of interviews w~th local leaders and other key informants was

Gonducttd initially. Since there was no data available on this aspect of study a

qUcstionnaire was developed. Prior to that an inventory of local mangrove

fishcry products extracted from this ecosystem has been prepared.

Tbc q w s t i o n d r c contains a series of questions, framed after thorough

*wrtions wbile surveying the ecosystem (Appendix I). Through a series

Qfpmmnai interviews a questionnaire (semi-structured) was applied on male

rad fern& midents of different age ranges and tben utilized to estimate the

-ic mcisacy of tbis mangrove ecosystem. For the questionnaire the

penoms living in mangrove-adjacent residential areas and who were seen

using the ecorystcm products were concentrated upon. Persons like those

above 40 ywrr of age in adjacent residential areas, fish farm owners, and

farm in-charge were considered as important informants because it was

expected that they possess better information/knowledge than the general

group of respondents.

Several open-ended questions were posed to the respondents related to

the fdlowing:

Meaning of the term mangrove. Names of the mangrove trees existing, Nature of existence of mangrove trees. Importance and existence value of mangrove trees, Observation of changes after emergence or in due course of development of the mangrove, Utilization of mangrove products (fisheries etc.), Their desire and plans if any to protect the existing mangroves.

Similarly to the other target group - fishermen were questioned to

retrieve information on the following: For how many years were they engaged in fishing activities. What are the resources they collect? How much do they collect per day? Do they know the names and types of the species they collect? What is the time period (per day) invloved in collecting the resources? Where do they sell and for how much? W m they dependent only on fishing?

In addition to collecting information on these questions, the respondents

were ulrcd to provide their perspective in developing the ecosystem and what

ate d l the measures they plan and suggest to improve and protect the same.

Tbeir responses. reactions and observations were documented. For the

a n d w i ~ ai ecoooaaic a ~ i e l r c ~ by fishery products alone, the catches

were weigbd, sizes rad species were recorded directly at the site. Market

prices (in Rupees) for different fishery products were made use of to

fheir daily income and the results were expressed in terms of

production per unit area.

RESll LTS AND DISCUSSION

Results obtained through Ihe lntervlews are presented I n different stages.

Firstly, the primary knowledge of the local people about the existence of this

mangrove ecosystem is presented. Secondly, their differential perception

towards developing the mangrove and finally, the~r perceptions for better

m a q u m t t pnaices.

From among the total 205 respondents, 62.43% and 37.57% were males

and females nspcctively. About 68.29% of the total respondents were educated

(Table 8.1). Among the villages, respondents from Thengaithittu were the

maximum (42%). Since Pondicherry mangrove ecosystem encircles the village

Thengaithittu, it was assumed that respondents would have better knowledgel

information on their surrounding environment. 76 respondents above the age

of 40 years were categorized into a separate group for gathering information of

their knowledge on this ecosystem. 63.2% and 36.8% were the male and

females respectively among the >40 years age respondents. Out of this 76

respondents, 2 1 male respondents were fishermen fishing around this mangrove

ecosystem. Totally 2 1 W of tbe respondents constitute fishermen communit~.

Among the respondents 48.8% know and 52.2% do not know about

tk8 tarm 'mangrove'. Only 13.7% of the respondents know the names of

Table 8.1 a n d a . Ipc-VouP and literacy status of total respondents of tbe study area.

mangrove trees. On questions related to awareness on the existing mangrove

trees. 57.5% out of the total respondents say it was planted. 38.5% say it

was naturally grown and about 4% mentioned that the existence i s both

natural and by plantation. The afforestation program conducted during 1995 and

1997 did not create any information to the local people as to which agency1

department has undertaken the afforestat~on work and for what.

T-1 . r k r of mrpodcr~b

Only 46% of the respondents know the rmportance and the existence

value of this mangrove ecosystem that exists near thelr village (Table 8.2).

I t was interesting to note varied answers from the local people regarding the

importance and existence values Exactly 50% of the respondents buy fishery

products extracted from this mangrove, The other 50% refused the consumption

of fish products from this mangrove due to the mixing of sewage discharge

into these waters. The responses obta~ned fall in to the negative and positive

categories in relation to felling (clearing) and protection of this mangrove.

Out of 205 rtspondents, only 9.2% people do not feel the need to protect

the existing mangrove because according to them no tree from this mangrove

is of my ~ m m e r c i J gain. The respondents of this group have no howledge on

this mryrove cmrytcm. On Ihc other hand few among them vgucd i t would

be wmtc on money and time if any action plans were to be implemented to

128

Mak 62.43%

F d 37 57%

Ape lmup

B ~ b w 40 y+ers 63.0

Aknc 411 years 3 7 O o

Lirtclaq

Echucd 68.2%.

Uneduc;ud 3 1 7 140

A

protect them mangrove trees.

However they dm expressed the following: siiw the place where the trees are growing i s swampy, emits bad odour, maintaining mangrove trees is not good.

Table 8.2 Respondent's perception on importance, existence and changes of mangrove ecosystem in Pondicherry region.

Because they grow in sewage-polluted waters these trees are not of any value to humans.

Tbc mangrove trees and its surrounding environment encourages

mosquito breeding besides dense growth of trees provide suitable

plm for criminals to hide. It would be a threat to the public and t8e brrer sboaM be felled.

During nigbt time snakes, large bees and bugs enter the nearby houses and thus i s a risk to the people These trees give refuge to these &qemt.s mido and hence should be felled.

However, the percentage of respondents who wish to protect this

mangrove is higher, even those without much know ledge regarding mangrove

wish to protect them. Though 46% have knowledge regarding the importance

and existence vdue of mangroves. about 50.7% of the respondents perceived

the changes around their surround~ng environment only after the emergence

of mangrove. Even though 68.3% of total respondents were educated, 70%

of them only were well aware of the changes occurring in due course

of development. The other informants were young and fall in the age group

of below 40 years. About 75% of tbese young respondents were very c l w

about the importance of the mangrove ecosystem existing here. Some of the

important changes observed by the respondents other than fishermen

and their suggestions were listed below:

A cooler environment exisls under the shades of these trees so more t m s of this kind must be planted wherever land is suitable.

Different kinds of birds visiting this mangrove are seen during dawn and dusk. The tangled and projecting roots protect the birds from human interference, hence these trees must be protected.

Enormous number of crabs (Fiddler crabs) were seen below the trees rad therefore these trees should be protected to enhance the crab population or otherwise these bcautifuly colored crabs would disappear.

The leaves of the tree and especially the seeds (of Rhirophora) arc pleasant to look at and growing these trees would be like a green wall d l anwnd the waterway.

S ~ W this plras bas tcsnic value, the water way cut be developed ofmdCGtarwim.

Only laocotty tAast Irrrallnne baCs an facing thnst by rxt. Govanment g h M taka strioat -ion against those who cut these trees, otherwi~ the existing 1- trees would also disnppear soon

A luge rtction of thew people consider that Govenment should involve local cmmuaity in their plans on mangrove management like nfonr(rsion. plantations and protection of mangrove resources

I t is made clear that the felling of the trees in large numben by

the dwellers was recent. Mangrove wood is used as domestic cooking fuel

by the locd community. Mangrove wood is collecred during summer and dry

seasons. stored and used for cooking throughout the year. I t was

observed wound the area that in few croplands the Avrcennro murina poles

were used as a support in bitter guard (Plate 8.la and b) plantations. In many

places, mangroves pdcs wen used to build platform for thatching coconut fronds

since the users experienced that this mangrove poles do not decay and

deterimte faster, but stand for longer periods than the other tree poles.

In the present study, it was observed that youngsters. elders, women

and their children above 15 years of age were engaged in fishing activities.

I t is to be mentioned here that persons below 13 years of age have not been

included in this study, because they only help their parents in collecting the

mollusks. 43 fishermen out of the total population go for regular fishing,

and among them 35 an males and 8 are females. Among the 43 people. 37

wert o b m e d to be fishing regularly at the study area. Fishermen from nearby

villages differ in numbers- an 6.97% from Vambakeerapalayam, 18.60% from

M~nra6rplldram. 13.95% fmm Thengaithittu, 23.25% from Veerampattinam

~ 3 ~ m ~ o m ~ ~ 0 f b w r i d # n e n h a n v m b d r e a t p l l a y s m ,

vecfmpll)ifarm md A f i ~ k ~ p p a m are engaged in fin fishing (Table 8 3 ) .

~ h c y pnha firhi* (PM) only dwing monooon when they can be caught

in abundance. P r m collection is only by head picking, being collected by

all fcmde and cvtn by UMNt mclk f i ~ h e n c n . They collect clams, mussels and

oysters whenever they occur in abundance (Plate 8.21, b, c and d),

Freshwater fishes like c q s etc. were caught in these waters before the mouth of tbe river was opened for larger ships to enter.

Decrease in fish catch is observed whenever dredging work is undertaken at the mouth. Dredging work has been intensive since the last two yean and the catch has dso decreased since the last two years.

Larger fishes could be trapped in shallow regions where decaying branches ue seen. Smaller (juveniles) fishes are available near or under mangrove m.

Prawns an available in abundance only immediately after rains.

Different fishes with beautifully colored spots (Scorophagus argus) appeared in these waters only after the emergence of the mangrove trees.

Ofien, the surrounding flora and fauna are closely interwoven with

the economy, social and cultural life of the people dwelling near the

ecosystems (Glascr, 2003). In the present study the 43 individuals with fishing

as their occupation belong to 40 families. 86% of fishermen ofour study area,

arc mostly dependent on this mangrove ecosystem for their daily sustenance.

A diverse ranae of mangrove subsistence products is being collected

from this mangrove ecosystem. These subsistence products are molluscs.

Ctustrccms, food fishes etc. Fishermen collect fishes, crabs, pmwns, musscis,

C I ~ S . asd oysters. Women md children also collect some of these

mangrove products their drily subsistence Though crab and mussel fetches

a good cash income. generally their small catches of crabs and musslcs are

used to meet their fd requirements and as such i t serves as an important

poverty alleviation function in the rural household economy Locally

captured fishes, crustaceans and mollusk specres associated w~th this

mangrove and their market value has been presented in Table 8.4

The above mentioned prices were applicable only when caught in

abundance m d sold species wise, otherwise the fishermen sell all fishes mixed

together quoting any assumed price basing on the type and size of the fishes.

Table 8.4 Locally captured finfish and shellfishes and their market value.

i I

Fdrryprod-

FlltbLr~

Sk-kr

Specks lam

h ham,.^ chrmos h g 1 1 cephulus 7lkrpw mt>.wim hiru E t m p h sunrtensu Slkrgo sthumu (qufhuIu o r a r l o r ~ ~ f,ut~unus u ~ m n m o ~ ~ ~ t k r r w . 4 m /ello (irm./ikunen/t,sur dtulr mute 1 , r e c ~ t h w spp.

Penanrr monodon Pemcus s e m ~ ~ k u l t ~ r .%yIIu sermra P o r t w q p . Perm v wdrr ~nodmw d Me~lrrr C'lirhon qp.

Market price (Rs.kg,

301- 25/- 201- 301- 201- 251- 751- 1 51- 2% 201- 201-

75- 1001- 75- 1001- 50-751-

30/- IS/- 151- 151-

Their 4lrBob $4- d i n 8 to rclpoa md is good during summer md

&a ma#lo~a r&wileb aik -iewin& tbey mentioned Ebcir minimum catch

per dry, it ~ 8 8 o b ~ ~ d that acb fishermen caches a minimum of 1.5 kg, of

fisher if ttny spmd orit hour for fishing. Thrwgh interviewing them, it was

retrieved fhd they spend m 8VcrILge of two and half hours per day and b u d

on this the 8 V C m g C catch per day for cach fisherman would be 3.2 kg

(Plate 8.3). As mcntiond in Chapter V. oAcn though Mullet dominates

the toul catch, however all fishes put together their earning would come to

Rs. 40Rg Based on these observations our calculation of earnings for cach

fishmnm is nearly Rs. 125 per day The other dwellers do collect prawn, crabs

and mollusks etc daily depending on the demand in market. I0 to 15 kg of

bivalves could be collected daily by each fisherman, on an average 8 kg of

bivalves arc collected by each fisherman per day. At least to an average of 6

people were seen collecting daily. The total fishery catch pcr unit area is

presented in Table 8.5. The overall picture presents an aspetric economic

outcome.

Cumulatively their earnings come to Rs. 17.31 hdd through fishery

alone. The value is much less than that reported by Kathiresan and Rajendiran

(2002). They reported Rs. 8.9Jhald and Rs. 53.9lhdd through selling

'hk 8.5 Estimate of total fisheiy products at the study site.

shcllfisk m d finfish rtspcctivcl) collected from this mmgrove. Whee

compued to that of Picbavuam mangrove the value is much lower, when

the reported eunint was Rs. 603.6hdd a d Rs. 154.61hr/d through shell

fishing arid finfishing rcspccttvely (Kathiresm a d Rajendiran. 2002).

5 1 % of &crease in fisher of Pondickrry mrngroves hm been reported in our

present study. Though 70 families of fishcrmcn h.d been reported from

Pondichcq maqrove (liuhitena and Rrjcndim. 2002). only 43 mdividwls

belongs to 40 families were observed to be fishing in our prcscat study.

This may be one of the reason for the estrmrted value to be low. The coas~ant

disturbancer a dK mouth might be the ocher reason for this low fish ptoduclion

(Chapter IX). Th- our ~ n ~ w i c w fishermen dso W c d m dK dcw~rscd

availrbility of fiohcl. Some of dw fishcry products collcctcd by Roa-drpmdtat

fidmmcn hrJ b n excluded from evdwion becaw Ulcy c o n s u ~ w ~ ~ y

cdkct. This tcwlcs in a low estimation of the fishcv te~~unxs a the P-nt

mdy site.

OIktdm*rt&m

~ f M i q ) n c l i o o i s ~ w a D u y r r r a * c i a r a t v J l ~ l r v d ,

~ ~ i s s k m is a mq~itdd hen my OW for fishing. it w r rev mran t w i y 137

t b e p a a c t i a f f o f ~ c ) . ~ o f r & p w p k i n t B c v i l l ~ h n t s o r v ~ i a b d

t&tdrGowmwnPir-Wfbir~m.Riorrothrtnoslrchwerrtrn

hd been Wen by my lkiwtmW 8nd institution to c o n m e this emerging

Ecological knowlcdgc md perception of changes in the muby

ecosystem is an important determinant for sustainability. A quite number of

~porcGnu possessed knowledge on the imporI8nce md sustained exiowna

of the mangrove. Young respandents at all the v i l l ~ e s p f e r to prolect

the mangroves UKI they were well awuc about the sunolnding clirnrtic

changes a f b emcqcncc of tkis aungrovc ecosystem. However tb- tbt

Pmcnl study estimrte of production per unit uca is lower, it is qilia

imp- to conrider the livelihood security through sustainable management

of this mangrove rcsourceS especially for those dependent on natural

resources for their livelihood. Valuation studies at local level have proved

useful in highlighting the economic importance of conservation. Based on

these estimated, values aggregale values for similar wetlands elsewhere in

tropics could be predicted. The total production value might receive the

attention of policy makers and the public to conserve these ecosystems.

Such information can be utilized to direct critical decisions to allocate

resources betwcen production and utilization. The contribution of subsistence

fisheries to total catch should be estimated because, there is a significant portion

of the fishery products that have been consumed and hence are non-marketed

and not evaluated. Exempting this portion would however result i n

undemtimuion. Thus further work is required to document reliable catch data

for a complete economic valuation, to ensure equity in benefit sharing,

empowering communities while ensuring community accountability besides

providing enabling policics and institutional support.

Internally generated information should be embedded into formal

local Governmen1 stucrures. Ecological sustainability should be balanced with

economic benefit and vice versa. To scale up action research. capacit). building

is required at all levels, starting from fishermen to farmers to researchers to

monitoring organisalions.