International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF)International Ocean Institute (IOI), India

Forging Unity:Coastal Communities and the Indian Ocean’s Future

Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India9 to 13 October, 2001

Conference Proceedings

International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF)27 College Road, Chennai 600 006, India.

Forging Unity:Coastal Communities and the Indian Ocean’s Future

Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Conference held atIIT Madras, Chennai, India, 9-13 October 2001

Edited byK.G. Kumar

Layout and LATEX composition bySatish Babu

Body text set in 10pt Palatino

Printed and bound atSri Venkatesa Printing HouseChennai 600 026, India

Published byInternational Collective in Support of Fishworkers27 College Road, Chennai 600 006, IndiaTel:+91-44-2827 5303 Fax: +91-44-2825 4457Email: icsf@vsnl.comWebsite: www.icsf.net or www.icsf.org

Copyright c© ICSF 2003

Recommended contribution: US$15

While ICSF reserves all rights for this publication, any portion of it maybe freely copied and distributed, provided appropriate credit is given.Any commercial use of this material is prohibited without prior permis-sion. ICSF would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication thatuses this publication as a source.

The opinions and positions expressed in this publication are those of theauthors concerned and do not necessarily represent the official views ofICSF.

ii

To the memory of

Elisabeth Mann Borgese (1918–2002)

and

Maizan Hassan Maniku (1953–2002)

iv

Contents

Preface ix

Foreword xi

Message from International Seabed Authority 1Ambassador Satya N. Nandan

Message from IOR-ARC 2D. Dusoruth

The Indian Ocean Conference: An Overview 5ICSF Secretariat

Forging Unity: The Agenda 9John Kurien

Managing the Indian Ocean Fisheries: A Collective Responsibility 11Nita Chowdhury

Ocean Governance and the Village 15Elizabeth Mann Borgese

Indian Ocean Coastal Communities: Sculpting a Vision for the 21st Century 21Maizan Hassan Maniku

Ecosystem Considerations for Managing Marine Fisheries in the Indian Ocean 32E.Vivekanandan

International Instruments for Managing Fisheries in the Indian Ocean 41Rolf Willmann

The SADC Marine Fisheries and Resources Sector Co-ordinating Unit 74SADC Secretariat

Crossing Maritime Borders: The Problem and Solutionin the Indo-Sri Lankan context 76

V.Vivekanandan

Issues Related to Deep-sea Fishermen and Their FamiliesDue to Detention in Foreign Countries 90

Herman Kumara

The Elusive Line that Reduces Fishworkers to Mere Numbers 95Souparna Lahiri

v

Illegal Fishing in Seychelles:A Review of its Implications for a Small Island Developing State 101

Rondolph Payet

Illegal Fishing in Seychelles 109A. Napier

Threats to the Natural Resources of Small-scale Fishermenof North Sulawesi 114

Ronald Z. Titahelu

The Demise of the Traditional Fisher Peoples 116Andrew Johnston

Dilemma of Small-scale Fishers at the Dawn ofIndustrial Fishing in Kenya 118

S. Mucai Muchiri

What Does the Future Hold for Malagasy Coastal Communities?The Role of Traditional Fisheries 122

Felix Randrianasoavina

Illegal Fishing: The Case of Mozambique 128Simeo Lopes and M. A. Pinto

Status and Trends of Tanzania’s Marine Artisanal Fisheries 132Narimman Saleh Jiddawi

Coastal Marine Ecosystem through Community Management 139Pisit Chansnoh

Coastal Area Degradation on the East Coast of India: Impact on Fishworkers 143Venkatesh Salagrama

Coastal Zone Conflicts in Maharashtra 156Ram Bhau Patil

Problems of Fishers of Gujarat 158P.V. Khokhari

Coastal Resource Degradation and User-right Abuse in Bangladesh: An Overview 160Prosanta K. Roy

The EU as a Distant-water Fishing Power 172Michael Earle

EU Interventions in the Fisheries Sector in the Indian Ocean 179Beatrice Gorez

The Social Clause in the Fishery Agreements signed betweenEU and Countries of the Indian Ocean 190

Jean-Marc Barrey

Economic and Social Implications of Multi-Day Fishing in Sri Lanka 192Oscar Amarasinghe

vi

Report of Working Group I 207

Report of Working Group II 212

Vision Statement (English) 214

Vision Statement (French) 218

Vision Statement (Spanish) 222

Appendix 1: Conference Programme 227

Appendix 2: List of Participants 234

Appendix 3: Coastal Area Profiles of Selected Countriesin the Indian Ocean Region 241

Posters 285

Maps 289

vii

viii

Preface

In no other part of the world have there been as many inci-dents of fishermen being killed, fired on, arrested or detained asin the Indian Ocean, consequent to countries of the region adoptingthe 12-nautical mile territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone(EEZ) regime. Nonetheless, these very nations have not recognizedthe gravity of these problems sufficiently enough to deal with themwith alacrity.

In the last decade of the 20th century, according to press reports,about 200 fishermen were shot dead in the region, and hundredsinjured. Since 1998, about 1,600 fishermen have been arrested anddetained. While death by firing was mainly confined to the watersbetween India and Sri Lanka, arrests and detention have been re-ported from all over the Indian Ocean Region. Egyptians arrestedby Eritrea; Eritreans by Yemen, Sri Lankans by Somalia, Seychelles,Maldives and India; Indians by Somalia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Mal-dives and Bangladesh; Pakistanis by Iran and India; Burmese byBangladesh and India; Thais by India, Bangladesh and Myanmar;Indonesians by India and Australia—thus from the Red Sea to theArabian Sea, from the Bay of Bengal to the Indian Ocean, there arehundreds of cases of fishermen being arrested and detained for un-dertaking fishing activities or for just being found drifting in thewaters of other nations. Many incidents are reported from coun-tries with adjacent maritime zones, mostly between countries thatare economically poor.

It was the heart-rending stories of arrested fishermen, whoseonly crime was to fish for a livelihood, the total denial of even nat-ural justice, and the plight of their families that prompted the In-ternational Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) to think oforganizing a conference to highlight these issues. Thus was bornthe Indian Ocean Conference, titled Forging Unity: Coastal Commu-nities and the Indian Ocean’s Future, held at the Indian Institute ofTechnology (IIT) Madras, Chennai between 9 and 13 October 2001.

We conceived the conference as a forum for representatives offishworker organizations, governments, the academic community,and other non- governmental and multilateral organizations to sittogether and discuss the transboundary problems of fishworkers ofthe Indian Ocean Region, so as to come up with solutions. The finalgoal was to arrive at a Vision Statement that would put forth con-crete proposals to influence governments in addressing such dis-tressing problems.

From an Indian Ocean perspective, we also realized, while plan-ning the conference, that the region had sufficient fisheries resourcesthat could be equitably shared amongst the riparian States using se-lective fishing techniques and small-scale fisheries. We, finally, de-cided to maintain a broader focus and discuss not only transbound-ary issues but also other issues that concerned the coastal fishingcommunities of the region.

ix

It took us four years to organize the conference. During thisperiod, the idea of the conference went through several revisions.There were several debates on whether or not the conference shouldaddress only fisheries issues. Although historically an importantocean, we realized that, in the post-colonial era, there has been verylittle contact between the riparian communities of the Indian OceanRegion. We thus considered the conference as an important oppor-tunity to explore the idea of an ‘Indian Ocean community’ by bring-ing together representatives from all frontiers of the Indian Ocean(with the exception of the Middle East). In this sense, the confer-ence was unique, as it attracted people from all around the IndianOcean, from East Africa to Southeast Asia, and from the southernsmall island States in the Indian Ocean to South Asia.

In organizing the conference, we sought the collaboration of theInternational Ocean Institute (IOI), which focuses on the peacefuland sustainable use of the oceans and its resources, through opera-tional centres in Asia and Africa. The late Professor Elisabeth MannBorgese, Founder, IOI, was to inaugurate the conference. In the af-termath of the unfortunate war in Afghanistan, she was unable toinaugurate the conference since she apprehended disruptions in airtravel to India from Europe. We were also unsure how many of theinvited participants would finally attend the conference, but, to oursurprise, all invited participants, except two, were able to partici-pate.

This publication, the Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Confer-ence, is dedicated to the memory of two distinguished persons: Elis-abeth Mann Borgese, a pioneer in international legislation to pro-tect the world’s oceans, who passed away on 8 February 2002, andMaizan Hassan Maniku from Maldives, a member of ICSF and amarine scientist who passionately believed in the idea of an IndianOcean community, who passed away on 13 July 2002.

Sebastian MathewInternational Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF)

28 January 2003

x

Foreword

It is said that 60 per cent of the world’s population lives within60 km of the coastline and that this figure would increase to 75 percent within the next decade or two. Even if these figures are off themark, the fact remains that there is a steady movement of the popu-lation towards the coast. At the same time, there is also a continuingdepletion of the natural resources of the coastal zone and the coastalwaters.

The traditional coastal communities of the world are caught be-tween the two movements: the pressure from the land and the de-pletion of the ocean resources. In particular, the coastal communi-ties of the Indian Ocean are burdened with problems of poverty,unfair competition from trawlers, lack of security, natural disas-ters, scarcity of drinking water, industrial pollution, and so on. Weshould also note that these communities consist of both fishing andnon-fishing groups. While the livelihood of fishers is threatened inmany ways, the lot of the non-fishing communities is even worse insome places.

It is vitally important for the Indian Ocean community to tran-scend narrow political considerations and come together in the strug-gle for a just and equitable world. It is in this context that the Inter-national Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) and the Inter-national Ocean Institute (IOI) organized the conference titled ”Forg-ing Unity: Coastal Communities and the Indian Ocean’s Future”in October 2001. The Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Conferencepresented here reflect both the rich diversity and the striking unityamong the coastal communities of the region.

It is our great regret that two major personalities: Elisabeth MannBorgese, the Founder of the IOI and Maizan Hassan Maniku, the for-mer Director-General of Fisheries Research of Maldives and a mem-ber of ICSF, both passed away since the Conference was held. Thishas been a big loss to the two organizations. We join ICSF in dedi-cating these Proceedings to the memory of these two protectors ofthe Ocean and its resources.

Professor Elisabeth Mann Borgese founded the IOI in 1972 andworked ceaselessly for establishing just ocean governance. Elisa-beth, along with other colleagues, crafted the United Nations Con-vention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) over several years of tortu-ous negotiations. UNCLOS is a landmark international agreementthat takes the side of the developing countries and the small is-lands. Elisabeth was passionate about training professionals fromthe developing countries in ocean affairs, and there are today sev-eral thousand IOI alumni around the world working for the causeof the oceans and the coastal zone. The annual Pacem in Maribusconferences organized by Elisabeth provided a regular forum fordiscussing every aspect of the oceans. In her later years, Elisabethturned her attention to the plight of the coastal communities andpromoted many IOI projects like the Women and the Sea Programmeand the IOI India Eco-villages project. It should be the endeavour of

xi

IOI and ICSF to carry forward the legacy of Elisabeth Mann Borgeseand Maizan Hassan Maniku.

IOI was proud to be associated with ICSF in organizing the In-dian Ocean Conference. We are sure that there is enormous scopefor the two organizations to work together for the betterment of thecoastal communities of the world.

R.RajagopalanInternational Ocean Institute (India)

31 January 2003

xii

Message from the International Seabed Authority

Ambassador Satya N. Nandan ∗

I am happy to note that the International Col-lective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), in collab-oration with the International Ocean Institute (IOI),has organized a conference addressing specific is-sues relating to the Indian Ocean fisheries. Thetheme and the topics chosen for the conference areboth timely and purposeful. With the coming intoforce of the 1982 United Nations Convention on theLaw of the Sea, coastal States have gained juris-diction over large areas of water in their exclusiveeconomic zones, thereby gaining greater opportu-nities to develop large-scale fisheries. As was tobe expected, there has been a significant increasein fish catches with the use of modern trawlers andequipment. Development of intensive fishing hasimpacted on stocks. Its effects are felt by tradi-tional subsistence fishers. In many cases, small-scale fishermen have been displaced and, therefore,have to seek new fishing grounds, competing withlarge commercial fishing vessels. In their searchfor ever-reducing fish, traditional subsistence fish-ers often drift into neighbouring coastal areas andget arrested for illegal fishing. There is, thus, a needto address the issues of conflict and competitionbetween the traditional subsistence fishers and theindustrial fishers, and to reconcile the interests ofboth groups. One management approach would be

to demarcate areas exclusively for traditional fish-ers close to the shore, and license industrial fish-ing outside such areas. Also important is the issueof better co-operation between neighbouring Statesthat share common boundaries, in order to reducethe incidence of illegal fishing and avoid the arrestand imprisonment of fishers.

These problems, apart from their jurisdictionalaspects, have other implications, including the hu-man element of survival of small-scale fishermenin the coastal areas, especially of developing coun-tries. The Indian Ocean Region accounts for a largenumber of small-scale artisanal fishers, who use avariety of craft-gear combinations.

There is a need for effective conservation andmanagement measures. This implies internationaland regional arrangements, better monitoring andcontrol systems, and wider dissemination of in-formation in an easily understandable and user-friendly language.

I am confident that the conference Forging Unity:Coastal Communities and the Indian Ocean’s Futurewill address some of these issues, and the discus-sions will provide useful input for policymakers.

My greetings and best wishes for a successfulconference.

∗Secretary General, International Seabed Authority, Jamaica.

1

Message from IOR-ARC

D. Dusoruth ∗

AbstractA tripartite approach to regional economic programmes and the overall agenda of regional

co-operation made the creation of the IOR-ARC less difficult and more harmonious. IOR- ARCnow has a large constituency and has grown into a big organization. The 19 Member States, thefive Dialogue Partners and the Observer represent a combined population of half the world. Italso represents the single largest market in the world, but, if and only if, it were organized as asingle market, which, however, is not the case.

The IOR countries have the resources, including the vast oceans with their huge marine andfisheries potential, the knowhow and technology, large pools of academics and experts, andthe business opportunities for a fast-track approach of new ideas and strategies to deepen co-operation and integration.

IOR-ARC aspires to be a coherent and solid regional economic grouping, including all its con-stituent bodies— governments, the academic group and researchers, the business forum and civilsociety.

Keywords

Indian Ocean Rim. Mauritius. Oman. Bangladesh. Iran. Seychelles. Thailand. UAE. China.Egypt. France. Japan. UK. Indian Ocean Tourism Organization. WTO.

The creation of the Indian Ocean Rim Associa-tion for Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC) has beena steady march with, inevitably, a long series ofmeetings, touching on a number of issues. Most ofthese meetings were held in Mauritius. There wasalso a very high level of political commitment andconsensus on many fronts.

The tripartite approach to our regional eco-nomic programme and the overall agenda—a bitunique in the history of regional co-operation—made the creation of the IOR-ARC less difficultand more harmonious. The roles of governments,academia and the business sector were to ensure abroadbased agreement on the ‘Indian Ocean Rim’concept.

It was against this backdrop that the IndianOcean Rim Academic Group and the Indian OceanRim Business Forum were created. Let us not forgetthat the Indian Ocean Rim Academic Group has, asone main objective, the promotion of intellectual di-alogue and co-ordinated research in the region.

Following these developments, the Charter es-tablishing the IOR-ARC was adopted in March 1997,and this was a milestone in the history of the orga-nization. By then, we were 14 Member States, andthe activities of our three constituent bodies movedrelentlessly to implement a Programme of Action,cutting across many priority sectors. In the follow-ing two years, the Pilot Co-ordinating Mechanismgraduated into a full-fledged Co-ordinating Secre-tariat.

A Headquarters Agreement between the IOR-ARC and the Government of Mauritius was alsosigned, making provision for the Co-ordinatingSecretariat to enter into contractual obligations andenjoy the facilities, immunities and privileges thatare normally extended to international organiza-tions. Besides, we have adopted the Rules of Proce-dure governing the conduct of the IOR-ARC busi-ness. This mechanism is of vital importance inour decision-making process. These activities have

∗This message from D.Dusoruth, Director of the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC), was read outto the Indian Ocean Conference by Joseph Rondolph Payet, Resource Manager, Seychelles Fishing Authority.

2

gained momentum, and we continue today withadded dynamism.

At the Council of Ministers of the IOR-ARC inJanuary 2000 in Muscat, the Sultanate of Oman, fivenew members were admitted: The People’s Repub-lic of Bangladesh, the Islamic Republic of Iran, theRepublic of Seychelles, the Kingdom of Thailandand the United Arab Emirates. The five DialoguePartners are: the People’s Republic of China, theArab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of France,Japan and the United Kingdom, and one Observer:the Indian Ocean Tourism Organization (IOTO). Wehave, therefore, created the critical mass necessaryfor the Association to meet the challenges broughtabout by globalization and internationalization ofour economies. The IOR-ARC is also being increas-ingly recognized on the international scene.

IOR-ARC now has a large constituency and hasgrown into a big organization. The 19 MemberStates, the five Dialogue Partners and the Observerrepresent a combined population of half the world.It also represents the single largest market in theworld, but, if and only if, we were organized as asingle market. This is, however, not the case.

At present, the level of intra-regional IOR-ARCtrade stands at only 22 per cent. This is notquite encouraging. Notwithstanding this fact, wehave a commitment to the global trade liberal-ization process, consistent with the principles ofthe World Trade Organization (WTO), and to non-discriminatory trade regimes. Besides, there are ap-propriate conditions for us to address new policyobjectives and options, in terms of trade, informa-tion technology, e-commerce, fisheries and commu-nications, to name but a few areas.

The IOR countries have the resources, includ-ing the vast oceans with their huge marine andfisheries potential, the knowhow and technology,large pools of academics and experts, and the busi-ness opportunities to give an additional dimensionto another fast-track approach of new ideas andstrategies to deepen the co-operation and integra-tion process.

We have, at present, more or less completed thisfirst phase of bringing our peoples together in aspirit of friendship and solidarity. There is defi-nitely a sense of belonging, as well as a collectiveidentity.

However, we need to be pragmatic and real-istic. Our economies are immensely diversified,with varying levels of economic and social devel-opment. There are important disparities that weneed to reckon with. But these should not, in anyway, be a deterrent to the objectives that we have

set. The disparities are there and will be there. Butthey should be seen as examples of unity in diver-sity, bearing in mind, obviously, the fact that thesine qua non condition to unity is shared responsi-bilities.

Mention has been made about the first phase ofdevelopments in IOR-ARC. No doubt, there havebeen some realizations and concrete actions takento reach the modest level at which we are today.We are now at a critical juncture to move the co-operation process forward at a faster speed—toaddress our work programmes, to complete ourfeasibility studies and to implement projects. Wehave a wide portfolio of projects undertaken by theIORAG, the IORBF and the Working Group on Tradeand Investment.

We are, at present, discussing the future of theChair and Associate Fellows in Indian Ocean Stud-ies. Besides, there are a number of important meet-ings scheduled for the last quarter of the year. TheRepublic of South Africa is hosting another Groupof Experts Meeting in Technology Enhancement inthe Indian Ocean Region. There is the Group ofExperts Meeting on Fisheries, which has just takenplace in Oman, where we have come up with somerecommendations. It is an undisputed fact and arecognized reality that the fisheries sector shouldtoday occupy a predominant place on the imple-mentation agenda of our work programme. Con-sequently, there has been a clear understanding onthe need to formulate concrete recommendationsfor co-operation in the fisheries sector within theIndian Ocean Rim. Future co-operation in this crit-ical area can include fisheries research and develop-ment, fisheries management, aquaculture and fish-eries trade.

Besides, there has also been a lot of emphasis oninvestment in fisheries, training, joint ventures onfish and fisheries products, the facilitation of fishtrade by reducing trade barriers, and joint promo-tion strategies to promote the fisheries sector.

There should, indeed, be more exchanges, witha view to developing and managing our fisherieson a sustainable basis. As a matter of fact, we haveto discard the conventional concept that the fish-ing industry is a traditional industry that only of-fers employment and income—most of the time atvery low levels—to the rural population. We havea lot more to do to increase production and to up-grade the quality of our products, so that we areglobally competitive and reach a level where ourfishermen, and our population, in general, attaineconomic well-being.

3

Coming back to IOR-ARC, work is also goingon to have a harmonized position among MemberCountries at the next WTO Ministerial Conferencein Doha, Qatar, in November 2001.

IOR-ARC is, at present, engaged in a very im-portant exercise to look into its future orientation.A High-Level Task Force has been appointed bythe Council of Ministers to study, inter alia, thefuture direction of the organization, the organiza-tional structure and funding of the Secretariat, andthe modalities for the interaction of Member Statesand Dialogue Partners. The Terms of Reference(TOR) for the High-Level Task Force will be final-ized at a meeting in Sri Lanka in a week’s time fromnow, and a draft final report of the High-Level TaskForce should be ready for circulation to MemberStates by end December 2001. There will inevitably

be some developments following the adoption ofthe report by the Council of Ministers.

IOR-ARC aspires to be a coherent and solid re-gional economic grouping, including all its con-stituent bodies—governments, the academic groupand researchers, the business forum and civil soci-ety. Our approach to regionalism, since the issuecame on the agenda in 1990, was never to considerit a government-to-government business. We couldhave well relied on our bilateral agreements for thispurpose. IOR-ARC has been designed for all stake-holders to play a proactive role in the process ofregional co-operation and economic integration.

This two-day conference on Forging Unity:Coastal Communities and the Indian Ocean’s Futurebears testimony to this privileged instrument of co-operation that prevails in the Indian Ocean Rim.

4

The Indian Ocean Conference: An Overview

AbstractThis forms the prospectus that was distributed prior to the conference Forging Unity: Coastal

Communities and the Indian Ocean’s Future (the Indian Ocean Conference) as a backgrounder forpotential participants. It outlines the issues that are common to the countries of the Indian OceanRegion (IOR), based on discussions with policymakers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)and fishworker organizations. These include modernization and expansion of fisheries, growingconflicts between large- and small-scale fishers, distant-water access agreements, illegal, unre-ported and unregulated fishing, coastal environmental degradation and regionalization, as wellas initiatives like the rise of the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC). The prospectus also lists the objectives of the conference and gives a profile of expectedparticipants.

Keywords

Indian Ocean. IOR-ARC. Fisheries management. Distant-water access agreements. Coastaldegradation. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU). Tuna. IOTC.

1 Background

The Indian Ocean is the third largest ocean in theworld. Encompassing the body of water betweenAfrica, the Southern Ocean, Asia and Australia, itprovides the earliest evidence of human adaptationto the marine environment. The Indian Ocean, af-ter the Pacific, accounts for the largest number ofcommercial marine species and the largest share offull-time fishers’ population in the world. The In-dian Ocean Region also has the largest small-scale,artisanal fisheries in the world, and the wide va-riety of craft-gear combinations employed to catchhundreds of marine species is the hallmark of theregion, where fish is a culturally important food aswell as a source of employment, income and for-eign exchange. The IOR produces significant quan-tities of fish, both for the domestic and the exportmarkets.

Tuna and tuna-like species form the bulk offish production in the Indian Ocean, with about 19species contributing to about 20 per cent of the to-tal fish catch. According to the FAO, a quarter of theworld’s tuna production is from the Indian Oceanand its adjacent seas. Half the catch is believed tocome from the artisanal and small-scale fisheries,while, in other oceans, most of the tuna catches arenetted by industrial vessels. The region also pro-

duces large quantities of shrimp and cephalopods.While species like tuna, shrimp and cephalopodsare mainly exported, accounting for an importantsource of foreign exchange, smaller pelagics, whichaccount for the bulk of production, are, in general,locally consumed, and form the most importantsource of vital nutrition for the poor.

Between 1950 and 1998, the population of theIOR doubled from under 1 bn to 2 bn. Overthe same period, marine fish production increasedeightfold—from less than 1 mn tonnes to about8 mn tonnes. It is significant that, while the In-dian Ocean population remained at 40 per cent ofthe world total during this period, the share of In-dian Ocean marine fish catch to the world catchincreased from under 5 per cent to about 10 percent. The potential of the fishery to contribute tothe overall well-being of the IOR is, therefore, evi-dent.

Despite this significant increase in fish produc-tion, the open-access nature of the marine fishingground has led to the overexploitation of fisheriesresources within three nautical miles in almost allIOR countries. However, according to the FAO,while most of the fishing areas in the world havereached their maximum potential for capture fish-eries production, there is still potential for produc-tion increases in the eastern and western Indian

5

Ocean, in waters beyond the littoral sea. There is,therefore, a need to ensure that the Indian Oceandoes not follow the example of other ocean ar-eas, with respect to poor resource conservation andmanagement. This implies improvements in inter-national agreements, better quality monitoring andcontrol, supported by improvements in the qualityof data and compatible institutional arrangementsat the national and regional levels.

From a human development point of view, theIndian Ocean has the largest number of peopleliving below the income poverty line of US$1 aday. Madagascar, Mozambique, Kenya, India andBangladesh, for example, have significant sharesof their total populations living below this line.Judged against the Human Development Index ofthe United Nations Development Programme, themost disadvantaged countries in the region areMadagascar, Mozambique, Tanzania, Yemen andBangladesh.

2 Issues

Countries in the Indian Ocean Region share a longheritage of coastal fishing, seafaring and maritimetrading that persists today. As indicated above, ar-tisanal and small-scale fisheries provide the main-stay of the fisheries sector, both in terms of em-ployment and catches. With widespread povertyand underdevelopment in the region, and with sig-nificant dependence on fishery resources for foodand livelihoods, artisanal and small-scale fisheriescould make a vital contribution to the region’s long-term development. However, for this to happen,a number of trends must be addressed and reme-died in ways that promote the sustainability of theIndian Ocean fisheries resources. Also, and nowmore than ever before, some of the fisheries man-agement issues are acquiring a regional dimensionand, therefore, require a ‘community’ approach tomanagement—an approach that involves all na-tions and their principal stakeholders in the IOR.

Based on discussions with some of the key poli-cymakers, NGOs and fishworker organizations, themain issues identified are summarized below.

2.1 Modernization and expansion of fisheries

There is evidence, all over the IOR, of depletionof resources and overcrowding of inshore fish-ing grounds. The increasing availability of small-scale, modern fishing technologies, such as out-board engines, fibre reinforced plastic boats, hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers and

so on, has partially caused fishers in the artisanaland small-scale fisheries in several Indian Oceancountries to move out of their traditional fishinggrounds, and also to fish more intensively in theirown regions.

2.2 Growing conflicts

Previously, conflicts in coastal waters may havebeen exacerbated by large-scale industrial fishingvessels or bottom-trawling units moving into theinshore waters. However, today, there seems tobe a change in the direction of the conflicts. Theyare often precipitated by the artisanal, small-scale(gillnet and longline/handline gear groups) mov-ing out into fishing grounds more usually the pre-serve of large- scale industrial fishing vessels, orinto the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of othercountries. The conflicts have expanded in scopeand scale.

The transborder illegal movement of fishingvessels amongst riparian nations is more pro-nounced amongst the South Asian and SoutheastAsian countries and between the South Asian andisland countries in the Indian Ocean. There are re-ported cases, which are on the increase, of Indianfishing vessels being apprehended in Sri Lanka,Maldives, Pakistan and Myanmar; of Sri Lankanfishing vessels being apprehended in India, Sey-chelles, Somalia and Myanmar; of Pakistani fish-ing vessels being apprehended in India, Oman andIran; and of Thai vessels being apprehended in In-dia, Bangladesh and Myanmar, for fishing illegally.Irrespective of the size, nature and origin of thefishing unit—whether they are small or big, usingdestructive or passive gear, belonging to riparian ornon-riparian nations—countries in the region dealmore stringently with illegal fishing by foreign fish-ing vessels than with irresponsible fishing by theirown domestic fishing vessels.

2.3 Distant-water issues

Under access agreements, joint ventures or licens-ing arrangements, non-riparian fishing (or distant-water) vessels can access tuna and a few other re-sources of the riparian fishing nations in the IOR.In 1998, according to FAO statistics, about 400,000tonnes of fish were caught by non-riparian fishingnations in the IOR. Most of this comprised high-value tuna.

There are, however, no such arrangements atthe regional or bilateral level amongst the ripar-ian nations within the Indian Ocean. A regional

6

mechanism to address conflicts over access to fish-eries resources, as well as fisheries conservationand management issues, is important, taking intoaccount the human dimension associated with fleetmigration between countries in the region.

The absence of agreements or procedures tohandle expeditiously and humanely the problem offishermen arrested for poaching often results in thegross violation of the spirit of the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), whichclearly discourages incarceration as punishment forpoaching.

2.4 External threats: IUU

While addressing the ‘endogenous’ developmentneeds of the IOR in the realm of fisheries, it is alsoimportant to take into account ‘external’ threatsto fisheries in the region. The illegal, unreportedand unregulated (IUU) fishing activities, especiallyby non-riparian nations or fishing entities in theIndian Ocean Region, for example, have signifi-cant implications for the development of fisheriesof the riparian nations, particularly on the statusof targeted and dependent stocks. The conditionsof work of the crew on board these distant-waterfishing vessels raise important labour and human-rights issues.

2.5 Coastal environmental degradation

The health of the marine environment has an im-portant bearing on fisheries management and theallocation of access rights to fisheries resources.The implications of degraded marine ecosystemsinclude a decline in resource productivity andhealth risks to both fishers and consumers. Ma-rine pollution and ineffective coastal area manage-ment impose significant external costs on coastalfisheries, like, for example, mangrove destructionand construction of large dams. The degradationof the marine environment also requires a regionaland community-oriented approach.

3 Regionalization Initiatives: the Riseof the IOR-ARC

The Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC), was formed in 1997 by 14 ri-parian States in the region. The IOR-ARC has as-pirations to become like the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) or the Asia-PacificEconomic Co-operation (APEC). Its aims are: “to

promote sustained growth, balanced development,liberalization and to foster closer co-operation inglobal economic issues and human resources devel-opment”.

At the same time, NGOs from seven IndianOcean countries formed a Civil Society IndianOcean Network (CSIONET). The CSIONET has, asits objective, “sustainable development, economicprogress, participatory democracy and environ-mental equity in the Indian Ocean Region”. TheCSIONET hopes to function as a dialogue partnerwith the IOR-ARC.

A proposal on conservation of fish resourcesin the Indian Ocean Region was approved at theIOR-ARC’s Ministerial Conference held at Muscat,Oman, in April 2001. IOR-ARC also aims at max-imizing the benefits of globalization to the IndianOcean Rim countries. This could lead to an expan-sion of industrial and service-sector activities in thecoastal areas, which will have significant positiveand negative implications for the coastal marine en-vironment and the livelihoods of people who aredependent on it.

At the sectoral level, the establishment of the In-dian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) in 1996, withthe objective of optimum utilization of 16 tuna andtuna-like fish in the IOR, is also highly significant.The IOTC has management powers and it is thefirst of its kind among the regional fisheries orga-nizations under the FAO Constitution. With thelikelihood of the imminent ratification of the 1995UN Fish Stocks Agreements, regional fisheries man-agement organizations (like the IOTC) will becomequite powerful. IOTC already has provisions to al-low NGO participation at its meetings, if membercountries do not object.

4 Objectives

Keeping in mind this background and the array ofissues of consequence to coastal fishing communi-ties, the ICSF is planning to hold an internationalmeeting in Chennai, India from 9 to 13 October,2001, with the following objectives:

• to create an awareness among the partici-pants about the biogeographical and culturalunity of the riparian communities of the In-dian Ocean Region;

• to highlight the importance of sustaining thelivelihoods of the artisanal and small-scalefishing communities dependent on marine

7

fisheries in the emerging context of new de-velopments in fisheries in the Indian OceanRegion;

• to forge greater unity between communitiesto:

– advocate for participatory regional andbilateral arrangements among the ripar-ian nations of the Indian Ocean for ac-cess to, and responsible management of,fisheries resources, consistent with theUNCLOS;

– discuss mechanisms for conflict resolu-tion and conflict reduction in the IndianOcean Region and for humane treatmentof fishworkers; and

– develop a shared Vision Statement forresponsible utilization of fishery andcoastal resources in the Indian Ocean Re-gion.

5 Participants

The conference will invite at least two representa-tives of artisanal fishing communities or fishworkerorganizations from a selected number of countriesin the region. There will also be representatives ofregional and international organizations, as well asnational fisheries agencies.

Following are the countries/organizations fromwhich participants were invited. (The actual par-ticipants are listed in Annex II.)

Southern and Eastern Africa1.Mozambique2.Kenya3.Tanzania4.South Africa

Western Indian Ocean5.Madagascar6.Mauritius7.Seychelles8.Maldives

Southeast Asia9.Indonesia10.Malaysia11.Thailand

South Asia12.India13.Sri Lanka14.Pakistan15.Bangladesh

Australia16.Australia

International Civil Society Organizations17. CSIONET18. Greenpeace International19. WWF20. CFFA

International Trade Unions21. ITF

Multilateral Agencies22.FAO23.BOBP24.EC25.IOR-ARC26.IOTC27.SADC28.ILO29.UNEP

8

Forging Unity: The Agenda

John Kurien ∗

AbstractThis introductory speech situates the troubled context in which the Indian Ocean Conference

was held and the need for togetherness and synergy, drawing on a common labour-oriented andcommunity-centred perspective on fisheries.

Though the Indian Ocean is one of the few oceans with untapped marine resource potential,it is also a region with one of the most poorly managed fisheries in the world. There is a need totake the fisheries out of the hands of the relatively few large companies that control them, andhand them over to the coastal communities of small-scale fishers who are dynamically evolvingnew capabilities.

Such redistribution of resources has to be accompanied by a fundamental change in the ap-proach to management, to ensure that the mistakes of large-scale fisheries are not repeated byirresponsible and destructive small-scale fisheries.

As ‘beacons of the sea’, the communities have a commitment to the sustainable use and pro-tection of marine resources. This involves developing and instituting new mechanisms for com-munities and national authorities to work together.

The Indian Ocean Conference is expected to work towards a ‘shared vision’ for forging afuture for the coastal communities of the Indian Ocean Region.

Keywords

Communities. Oceans. Unity. Fishworker. Samudra. Seafaring peoples. Illegal, unreportedand unregulated (IUU) fishing. Distant-water vessels. Non-selective, destructive fishing practices.Coastal marine commons. Sustainable fisheries. Beacons of the sea.

Prof. Muthukrishnan, Ms. Nita Chowdhury,Prof. Rajagopalan and my esteemed delegatefriends from around the Indian Ocean Region andother parts of the world,

We meet together here in very troubled times. Itwould not be inappropriate to say that one wrongstep by some world leaders can be one big leap intoa very bleak future for humankind. These are thetimes when we are looking for symbols that unitehuman beings and try to reject those that divide us.It is in this context that the purpose of our smallmeeting here attains added significance. We arehere to talk about communities, about oceans andabout the integral need to forge unity. What is com-mon to communities, oceans and the act of forgingunity is that they are all very dynamic and high-light togetherness and synergy, rather than division

and wasteful dissipation of energy. This is the needof the hour, and, in our own little way, this is whatwe are gathered here to do.

For both ICSF and IOI, the issue of communityand oceans has particular significance. The IOI em-phasizes the central importance of the coastal fish-ing communities in harvesting and sustaining theworld’s precious marine environment, and supply-ing a vital source of food to the world’s population.The IOI’s compilation on “Voices of the Oceans”was dedicated to coastal communities who wererightly referred to as an endangered species. ForICSF, a ‘community-based’ approach to develop-ment, with the labouring family unit at the cen-tre, is of prime importance. In this context, men,women and children play complementary roles ofequal importance, now and into the future. The

∗Founder Member, International Collective in Support of Fishworkers and Fellow, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum,Kerala, India. Email: john.kurien@vsnl.com

9

gender-neutral term ‘fishworker’, coined for the1984 Rome Conference, stems from this labour-oriented and community-centred view.

The context of the Indian Ocean or samudra, isalso of crucial importance to both IOI and ICSF. It isin the Indian Ocean that many of the world’s sea-faring and fishing traditions have their origins. Formillennia, seafaring peoples from the Indian OceanRegion have travelled, settled, struggled, traded,fished and interacted. From the Swahili coast to theSaurashtra and Sulawesi coasts, from the Malabarcoast to the Malacca coast, lands separated commu-nities. The oceans brought them together and oftenunited them.

As we meet today, the region is beset by prob-lems that have a negative impact on its coastal com-munities and marine living resources. While the In-dian Ocean is described as one of the few oceanswith untapped marine resource potential, it is also,without doubt, a region with one of the most poorlymanaged fisheries in the world.

The Indian Ocean is riven with illegal, unre-ported and unregulated fishing activities. Fishingcrew on such vessels and other distant-water ves-sels are subject to the most inhumane and degrad-ing treatment. At another level, small-scale fish-ers who find themselves in neighbouring watersare summarily thrown into jail, or worse, shot andkilled.

Meanwhile, coastal resources and the fragilemarine environment are being destroyed by non-selective and destructive fishing practices; en-croached upon and damaged by unplanned touristdevelopments, intensive coastal aquaculture, andchemical pollution from land and sea, to name buta few of the negative externalities.

To a great extent, large-scale fisheries and de-structive fishing practices have ruined the coastaland marine commons. Today, we need to take ourfisheries out of the hands of the relatively few largecompanies that control them, and hand them overto the coastal communities of small-scale fisherswho are dynamically evolving new capabilities.

But let us remember that a change of scale andlevel of technology alone is not sufficient. It isparamount that redistribution of resources has tobe accompanied by a fundamental change in ourapproach to management. We must not allow themistakes of large-scale fisheries to be repeated byirresponsible and destructive small-scale fisheries.

When we talk about non-destructive, selective andresponsible fishing technologies and practices, andco-management of resources, we are really talkingabout ‘reinventing’ sustainable fisheries, and, inone sense, going back, searching for our roots, to beable to move into a brighter future. This needs newprocesses and new institutions. It also needs a newvision. We need to chart out how the transforma-tion process should take place, and, once achieved,how we can sustain and share our resources equi-tably.

In such a scenario, the role and responsibili-ties of both the communities and the nation-Statesneeds to be carefully defined. What role shouldthe State play? Given its jurisdiction over the re-sources and marine territories, the State has a fun-damental responsibility to ensure that access to re-sources is fair and equitable. The communities, onthe other hand, as the ‘beacons of the sea’, have acommitment to its sustainable use and protection.The merging and sharing of these mutual concernsis the only way forward.

This means developing and instituting newmechanisms for communities and national author-ities to work together. Instituting such changes re-quires clarifying what we mean by ‘community’and the respective roles and responsibilities of theactors in the community: the unions, the producerorganizations and other representative bodies. Italso requires a rethink of community structure andthe respective roles of the men and women in thecommunity and the family.

Over the next five days, we will be looking atthese and other issues, analyzing the problems, andsharing our concerns. We will also be working to-wards a ‘shared vision’ for forging a future for thecoastal communities of the Indian Ocean.

It is a daunting agenda that we have ahead.It is certain that we will not be able to develop ablueprint for action. Nor do we need one. What ismore important is that we make the first step in theright direction. That is the big leap in our mindsetsthat we are challenged to make together.

Your presence here is adequate proof that youare willing to put behind the many social, cultural,religious and nationality differences that separateus, and accept this challenge of coming together toforge unity.

Thank you for making this possible.

10

Managing the Indian Ocean Fisheries:A Collective Responsibility

Nita Chowdhury ∗

AbstractThe third largest ocean in the world, the Indian Ocean and its adjacent seas have the most

number of active fishermen in the world, about 15 mn. After the Pacific, the Indian Ocean hasthe largest number of commercial marine species and the largest share of full-time fishers in theworld. In fish diversity too, the Indian Ocean is second only to the Pacific. However, therehas been a progressive decline in fish production in the Indian Ocean, probably due to climaticconditions.

Countries in the Indian Ocean Region face considerable difficulties in the development andmanagement of their marine fishery resources. Though they share a heritage of coastal fishing,seafaring and maritime trade, some of the fisheries management issues have now acquired aregional dimension and, therefore, require a community approach to management.

There is a need to create awareness about the biogeographical and cultural unity of the ripar-ian communities of the region, to highlight the importance of sustaining the livelihoods of theartisanal and small-scale fishing communities, and to forge greater unity between communities.As small fishing vessels have significantly improved their range of operations, governments inthe Indian Ocean Region should start negotiating fisheries agreements with each other. They alsoneed to adopt international fishery and related Conventions and Agreements.

The export of fish and fish products is very important for many developing countries in theregion, but the greatest denial of market access for these products in the future could come fromfood safety standards.

Efforts should be made to harmonize rules, regulations and procedures in environmental pro-tection, capture fisheries enforcement and quality assurance of fish and fishery products for do-mestic consumption and export.

Keywords

Indian Ocean. Capture fisheries. FAO. Fishing pressure. Territorial sea. High seas. Maritimetrade. Riparian communities. Conventions. Agreements. Bay of Bengal Programme. FAO Codeof Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Non-tariff trade barriers. MSC. Environment and labourstandards.

Prof. Muthukrishnan, Deputy Director, In-dian Institute of Technology, Chennai; Prof. R.Rajagopalan, Centre Director, International OceanInstitute Operational Centre, Chennai; Dr. JohnKurien, Centre for Development Studies, Thiru-vananthapuram; Mr. Sebastian Mathew, Execu-tive Secretary, ICSF; distinguished delegates fromthe Indian Ocean Rim countries and other parts ofthe world; distinguished scientists and fisheries ad-

ministrators from Chennai; distinguished membersof the press; ladies and gentlemen, I am indeed de-lighted to be here at the inauguration of the Inter-national Conference on the Indian Ocean—ForgingUnity: Coastal Communities and the Indian Ocean’sFuture. Delighted really, because, for one reason,this conference is being held in the beautiful coastalcity of Chennai, the gateway to the south of Indiaand part of the legendary Coromandal coast, and,

∗Joint Secretary, Fisheries, Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Agriculture, KrishiBhavan, New Delhi 110 001, India.

11

for another, it is being held at a time when fish-eries management has become very complex andthe livelihood support to coastal fishing communi-ties is being threatened.

As we are aware, the oceans cover three-fourthsof the surface of the earth. In the history of hu-mankind, we have enjoyed the benefit of the oceansin various ways, such as food, water, weather andmaritime transportation. The Indian Ocean, thethird largest ocean in the world, and its adjacentseas have the largest number of active fishermenin the world, about 15 mn. After the Pacific, theIndian Ocean accounts for the largest number ofcommercial marine species and the largest share offull-time fisher population in the world. In fish di-versity too, the Indian Ocean is second only to thePacific. Between 1950 and 1998, the population ofthe Indian Ocean Region doubled to 2 bn. Marinefish production increased eightfold, to about 8 mntonnes. India stands as the biggest producer of fishin the Indian Ocean Region and it also accounts forthe largest number of fishworkers.

However, with respect to marine capture fish-eries, the trends in recent years have been disturb-ing. The global capture fisheries production de-creased from a figure of 86 mn tonnes in 1996 and1997 to 78 mn tonnes in 1998 (The State of WorldFisheries and Aquaculture, p. 142, FAO, 2001). TheIndian Ocean is no exception to this progressivedecline in fish production. The decline appears tohave been caused by climatic conditions. Recent re-views on the state of world marine resources by theFood and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO) have also shown that, among themajor fish stocks, an estimated 44 per cent are fullyexploited and have reached, or are very close to,their maximum catch limit, with no room expectedfor further expansion. About 16 per cent of the ma-rine resources are overfished and another 6 per centappear to be depleted, with a resulting loss in totalproduction, not to mention the social and economiclosses derived from the uncontrolled and excessivefishing pressure.

A close perusal of the reports published bythe FAO and other agencies shows that the IndianOcean countries face considerable difficulties in thedevelopment and management of their marine fish-ery resources for a host of reasons. The fisheryresources are diverse, as are the fishery technolo-gies and systems. Artisanal and small-scale fisher-men operate from thousands of landing places dis-persed along the coast, and live within socially andculturally disparate communities, in an unrivalledmosaic of cultural and ethnic fabrics. The pressure

on the environment is both cumulative and com-plex, and grows as the resources are rapidly deplet-ing. There are also escalating conflicts between dif-ferent user groups, such as those relying on coastalresources for their livelihoods and those interestedin further industrial expansion.

I would like to flag some of the major issues thatwould require the attention of this conference dur-ing its deliberations over the week.

The seas have historically performed two im-portant functions: first, as a medium of communi-cation, and, second, as a vast reservoir of resources,both living and non-living. Both these functionshave stimulated the development of legal rules.The seas were, at one time, thought capable of sub-jection to national sovereignties. However, the free-dom of the high seas became a basic principle ofinternational law, although not all seas were char-acterized thus. It was permissible for a coastal Stateto appropriate a maritime belt around its coastlineas territorial waters, or territorial sea, and treat it asan indivisible part of its domain. Gradually, therecame a shift in the law of the sea towards the en-largement of the territorial sea, coupled with thecontinual assertion of jurisdictional rights over por-tions of what were regarded as high seas, reflectinga basic change in emphasis in the attitude of Statesto the sea.

Although countries in the region share a longheritage of coastal fishing, seafaring and maritimetrade, today, more than ever before, some of thefisheries management issues have acquired a re-gional dimension and, therefore, require a ‘commu-nity’ approach to management. Modernization andexpansion of fisheries, growing conflicts, distant-water matters, external threats and coastal environ-mental degradation are some of the issues that needimmediate attention. This conference on the IndianOcean fisheries, could not, therefore, have come ata more appropriate time. A time when there is aneed to create an awareness about the biogeograph-ical and cultural unity of the riparian communitiesof the Indian Ocean Region, to highlight the impor-tance of sustaining the livelihoods of the artisanaland small-scale fishing communities, and to forgegreater unity between communities.

At various international forums, concern hasbeen expressed about the overexploitation of im-portant stocks, damage to ecosystems, economiclosses and issues affecting fish trade. All these havethreatened the sustainability of fisheries. The 19thSession of the FAO Committee on Fisheries, heldin March 1991, recommended that FAO should de-velop the concept of responsible fisheries and elab-

12

orate a code of conduct toward this end. The Codeof Conduct for Responsible Fisheries finally cameinto being on 31 October 1995 at the 28th session ofthe FAO Conference in Rome.

The Code is global in scope. It is directedtoward members and non-members of FAO, fish-ing entities, different organizations involved withissues of fishworkers, fishers, people engaged inthe processing and marketing of fish and fisheryproducts—in short, all concerned with conserva-tion of fishery resources and management and de-velopment of fisheries. The Code is voluntary, butcertain parts of the Code reflect, and include, majorarticles and provisions from a number of global UNConventions and Agreements.

The 1990s have witnessed many other interna-tional agreements and accords relating to the in-tentions of the international community to achievesustainable fisheries and to which most of the In-dian Ocean countries have been parties. Theseagreements represent milestones in internationalefforts over many years and include Chapter 17 ofAgenda 21 of the UN Programme of Action, whichincludes programmes relating to coastal areas andthe oceans; the 1992 International Conference onResponsible Fishing (held in Cancun, Mexico) andthe 1993 Agreement to promote compliance withInternational Conservation and Management Mea-sures by fishing vessels on the high seas.

The Indian Ocean countries need to adopt theinternational fishery and related Conventions andAgreements (for example, the UN Fish StocksAgreement, and Compliance Agreement). It is alsoin our strategic interest to do so. Due to the strad-dling and migratory nature of valuable stocks liketuna, it is also important to take active part in re-gional fisheries bodies that will help to widen theuse of our national research and technical expertisein the region. Our fishery policies have, thus far,kept us as an insular region. This may have beenbased on sound reason in earlier times, but it canbe counterproductive in the emerging globalizingscenario.

According to FAO, the value of world fisheryproduct exports in 1998 stood at US$49 bn. Thedeveloping countries contributed to 48 per cent ofthe total. The export of fish and fish products isthus very important for many maritime develop-ing countries in the region. While about 40 per centof global fish production enters international trade,only about 6–8 per cent of forest products enter in-ternational trade. The net foreign exchange earn-ings of developing countries in 1997 from fish andfish products stood at about US$16 bn, which, ac-

cording to FAO, is more significant than the com-bined net export earnings from coffee, tea, rice andrubber.

However, in the fast-developing internationalscenario of trade and food security, non-tariff tradebarriers are likely to play a major role. In thiscontext, I may mention the initiatives of the Ma-rine Stewardship Council (MSC), a joint initiativeof the World Wide Fund for Nature and the multi-national giant, Unilever, which focuses on sustain-able fishing. The MSC was launched in early 1996mainly with the purpose of designing and imple-menting market-driven incentives for sustainablefishing. It is still unclear, or too early to say, howthe market will respond to such initiatives, but, inthe light of growing interest in linking environmentand labour standards to international trade, thesedevelopments could be seen as an opportunity aswell as a matter of concern. Environmental andlabour standards could complement the standardsfor food safety, which are strictly adhered to in theUS, EU and the Japanese markets. In fact, the great-est denial of market access for fish and fish prod-ucts from developing countries in the future couldbe under the mantle of food safety standards. Iwould urge the participants of this conference todiscuss these issues and arrive at some strategy tosafeguard the interests of the small-scale fishwork-ers in the region.

As small fishing vessels have significantly im-proved their range of operations, governments inthe Indian Ocean Region should start negotiat-ing fisheries agreements with each other. Thisalso brings out the fact that fishing at sea has be-come one of the most dangerous occupations in theworld. The data gathered from countries that keepaccurate records show that occupational fatalitiesin the fishing industries of those countries far ex-ceed the overall national averages. I am told thatthe Bay of Bengal Programme, in association withthe FAO, is now holding a regional workshop onthis issue. The fact that many factors contributeto the accidental international movement of fish-ermen across boundaries must also be recognized.It may be worthwhile to adopt a judicious mix ofcompassion, recognition of traditional rights anddevelopment of legal regimes to facilitate the for-mal movement of small-scale fishing vessels, whichcould contribute significantly to resolve the prob-lems in the Indian Ocean Region.

The importance of small-scale fisheries—50 percent of the tuna production in the Indian OceanRegion comes from this sector—must be recog-nized. Governments should, on behalf of the small-

13

scale fishing industry, negotiate fisheries agree-ments with other countries in the Indian Ocean Re-gion. A level playing field should be created toallow the small coastal nations to enjoy the fruitsof the Indian Ocean. Access arrangements shouldbe subject to licensing requirements. As for tradi-tional rights, there are legal measures to accommo-date such fishing rights that fall outside national ju-risdiction. Successful fisheries agreements can benegotiated between countries with excess capacityin small-scale fisheries, such as Sri Lanka and India,and with other countries such as Seychelles, Mada-gascar, Mozambique and Somalia. These are someof the issues that the regional fisheries bodies likethe Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and the Bay ofBengal Programme, as inter-governmental organi-zations, will need to address.

Fish is a highly perishable food, requiringproper handling and processing, if it is to be uti-lized in a cost-effective and efficient way for thebenefit of those who rely on it for nutrition or in-come. FAO estimates that up to 20 mn tonnes offish are wasted by being discarded at sea imme-diately after being caught. Globally, the demandfor fish is growing, whereas many natural fisheriesare already heavily exploited or overexploited. The

extra demand for fish in the future could be met,in part, by reducing post-harvest losses, increasingthe share of underutilized species, and increasingproduction from aquaculture.

The existing national fisheries management in-stitutions should be strengthened in order to carryout these important tasks more effectively. Effortsshould also be made to harmonize rules, regula-tions and procedures in environmental protection,capture fisheries enforcement as well as in qual-ity assurance of fish and fishery products for do-mestic consumption and export. At the subre-gional and regional levels, national efforts couldbe strengthened through the subregional/regionalfishery bodies. The framework for regional co-operation is already in existence in the region, bothwithin and outside the framework of the UN sys-tem, and it should be further strengthened.

In conclusion, I, once again, thank the organiz-ers of this conference for inviting me to this func-tion, and I wish you all a highly productive weekof deliberations, and hope that the output of theconference will have some positive impacts on thelivelihood security of the millions of small-scalefishers who weather the perils of the sea to ensureour nutritional security.

14

Ocean Governance and the Fishing Village

Elisabeth Mann Borgese ∗

AbstractOcean governance is based on both a legal and an institutional framework, through legal and

paralegal instruments and specialized agencies and programmes of the United Nations. Such aninstitutional framework must be comprehensive, consistent, trans-sectoral or multidisciplinary,participational and bottom-up rather than top-down.

Following Gandhi’s vision of the oceanic circle, we can project a global social order originatingfrom the individual through the village and the community of villages, where the outermostcircumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to it and willalso derive from this, its own strength. This keynote address to the Indian Ocean Conferenceviews the role of the fishing village in such a global context.

Rather than rely solely on science, we need to rely on intuition, native wisdom and experi-ence, ethics and equity, all of which can be enhanced through blending with modern science andtechnology, if they can be grafted onto indigenous technology, which would make it socially andenvironmentally sustainable.

In anthropological terms, the fishing village is one of the oldest forms of social organization,based on a lifestyle that reflects a special relationship between humans and the ocean. To facethis ocean, fishing activities have to be co-operative, not competitive, and the distribution of thecommon resource has to be equitable, for were it not, co-operation would disintegrate.

Community-based co-management is emerging in many parts of the world, and may take asmany forms as there are villages, depending on culture, existing institutional infrastructure andstages of development. To be truly integrated, it must comprise all village activities. Towards thisend, this address proposes that the municipal council of a coastal village or town elect a MarineResources Council.

Village empowerment through integrated coastal management and community-based co-management is today the best countervailing force against market-driven globalization.

Keywords

Ocean governance. UNCLOS. UNCED. IMO. IOC. Oceanic circle. Fishing village. Native wis-dom. Indigenous technology. Common property resource. Community-based co- management.Integrated coastal management. Ecosystem-based fishery. Marine Resources Council.

I.It is with deep regret that I have decided to can-

cel my trip to India and my personal participationin your important conference. It certainly is notfear that keeps me from visiting your part of theworld at this time. It is the concern that, consid-ering the terrible uncertainty overhanging every-thing, including international air traffic, I wouldrisk remaining stuck at some airport, which wouldforce me to cancel a series of other obligations, andI would hate to have to do that. Our agendas are

full, and we all intend to continue to work for whatwe believe, although sometimes this is very diffi-cult. Who cares about dying corals when peopleare butchering one another?

Just recently, I came across a beautiful passagethat answered this question:

...Dead corals are the victims of the in-justices we continue to ignore, of greed,of selfishness and of the abdication ofmoral and ethical responsibility. It is an

∗Founder and Honorary Chairperson, International Ocean Institute, University of Malta, Malta.

15

act of genocide against the corals andso against species who depend on them,including, ultimately, humans. Thecoral polyp’s own world mirrors the hu-man experience—the cries for freedomfrom foreign debt, poverty, starvation,the cries to change lifestyles, not the cli-mate, the cries to stop burning fossil fu-els. To ignore the death of coral reefsis, I believe, to ignore the cries of manyof the world’s people of today, at theperil of our future generations and ourplanet.

(S. Rayner, Mapping institutional diversityfor implementing the Lisbon Principles,Ecological Economics, 31, 259-274, cited in

Azfar Bin Mohamad Mustafar, OceanGovernance, thesis for Master of Science in

Maritime Affairs, World MaritimeUniversity, 2001.)

The International Ocean Institute (IOI) has notonly done voluminous work on the theory of oceangovernance, but it has also been deeply and prac-tically involved in action to enhance the realizationof this theory:

• At the level of the local community, we areworking with villages and trying to con-tribute to improving their livelihoods.

• At the national level, many of us are advis-ers to governments on the issues of marinepolicy; and many of our Operational Centreshave conducted training courses for coastalmanagers for their governments.

• At the regional level, we are heavily involvedin the process of revitalization of the UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP) Re-gional Seas Programme, that is, the expan-sion of its scope and its functions, includ-ing capacity-building through education andtechnology co-operation and transfer.

• At the global level, IOI has been instrumentalin the establishment of the General Assem-bly’s Consultative Process (UNICPOLOS), aswell as in the evolution of the InternationalSeabed Authority.

The essence of our theoretical work on oceangovernance can be summarized as follows:

First, ocean governance is based on a legal frame-work consisting of the United Nations Convention

on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, the Constitu-tion for the Oceans), enhanced and kept up-to-dateby the Conventions, Agreements, Protocols, Pro-grammes and Codes adopted by the UN Confer-ence on Environment and Development (UNCED)in Rio de Janeiro, 1992, and in its wake. All of thesemore recent legal and paralegal instruments haveimportant oceanic dimensions.

Second, to implement laws, regulations andagreements, an institutional framework is needed.This framework is quite comprehensive, consist-ing of the Specialized Agencies and Programmes ofthe UN, in particular, the Intergovernmental Mar-itime Organization (IMO), the IntergovernmentalOceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC), theFood and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO), UNEP, with its Regional Seas Pro-grammes, and half a dozen others.

Other important components of this institu-tional framework are the institutions created byUNCLOS, that is, the International Seabed Author-ity; the International Tribunal for the Law of theSea, the Commission on the Limits of the Continen-tal Shelf, and the Meeting of States Parties.

Third, there are the institutions created in thewake of UNCED, that is, the Secretariats of the Cli-mate and Biodiversity Conventions and the Co-ordinating Office for the Global Programme of Ac-tion for the Prevention of Pollution from Land-based Activities (GPA).

Fourth, there are three institutions, created bythe UNCED process, intended to streamline andhold the whole system together: The Subcommit-tee on Oceans and Coastal Areas of the Administra-tive Committee on Co-ordination (ACC/SOCA), theCommission on Sustainable Development (CSD),and, above all, the Consultative Process of the Gen-eral Assembly (UNICPOLOS).

Last but not least, there is the whole nongovern-mental sector and civil society, comprising localcommunities, major groups or stakeholders, suchas science and industry as well as nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs). This whole institu-tional framework is as yet somewhat amorphousand poorly co-ordinated raw material or buildingblocks for an architecture yet to be designed.

A vision, however, already exists. It has beenevolving since the days of UNCED, the BrundtlandCommission and its 1987 Report, Our Common Fu-ture. There is today universal agreement that thisinstitutional framework must be comprehensive,consistent, trans-sectoral or multidisciplinary, andparticipational, bottom-up rather than top-down:

16

• ‘comprehensive’ means that it must reachfrom the local level of the coastal communitythrough the levels of provincial and nationalgovernance to regional and global levels of in-ternational organization;

• ‘consistent’ means that regulation anddecision-making processes and mechanismsat all levels of governance must be compati-ble;

• ‘trans-sectoral’ or ‘multidisciplinary’ meansthat activities in the ocean environment can-not be considered separately, sector by sector,but must be seen as interactions; and

• ‘participational’ means that regulation mustnot be imposed by central or federal govern-ments, only to be ignored or flouted by lo-cal communities whose livelihoods dependon the ocean, but that these communitiesmust be involved in the making of regula-tion and management. Thus, the notion of co-management is gaining ground globally.

In my two most recent books (Ocean Governanceand the United Nations, 1996, and The Oceanic Cir-cle, 1998), I have tried, by way of illustration, todesign such a system in some detail. My inspira-tion came from Gandhi’s magnificent vision of themajesty of the oceanic circle, projecting a global so-cial order reaching from the individual through thevillage and the community of villages to the globallevel, where the outermost circumference will notwield power to crush the inner circle but will givestrength to it and will also derive from this, its ownstrength.

I want to view the role of the fishing village inthis global context.

II.

We all know that the fishing industry is in somesort of crisis in most parts of the world. A new pat-tern of population distribution has resulted fromthe largest migration in human history: the mi-gration from inland areas towards the coast, andfrom the village to the sprawling mega-city. Over60 per cent of the world’s population now residesin coastal areas, including coastal mega-cities; andthis proportion of a growing world population isexpected to rise to 80 per cent during this cen-tury. The coastal area has become the world’s mostdensely populated area. At the same time, it is alsothe world’s most vulnerable area, exposed, as it is,

to floods, storms, tsunamis and other natural orman-made disasters.

Obviously, this new pattern of population dis-tribution is putting unbearable pressure on coastaloceans. Physical erosion of coastlines, chemicalpollution of coastal waters and habitat destruc-tion are phenomena common to most coastal areas.Technological development aggravates the prob-lems. Industrialized hunting is a contradiction interms. Modern trawlers, longliners, drift-nets—50km long or even longer—scoop up the living sub-stance of the oceans faster than it can be repro-duced. The competitiveness of the Western mar-ket system does the rest, setting up the industryin an unfair competition with the inshore tradi-tional fishers and resulting in perversities such asthe by-catch problem. Thus, shrimp trawlers in theCaribbean—just to use an example—bring up 12kg of unwanted by-catch for every kg of shrimp.While shrimp fetches a high price, the by-catch,whether dead or dying, is unceremoniously thrownback into the sea. And this in a world where almosthalf of the population is undernourished or starv-ing.

Finally, there is climate change, and we do notreally know what it does to the ocean’s productiv-ity, nor do we understand how its impact interactswith the impact of human activities. We know thatclimate change has decimated life in the oceans atvarious times in geological history, long before hu-mans appeared on the scene. On some occasions,the great dying in the oceans went hand in handwith increased productivity and the emergence ofmany new species on land. It is not too surpris-ing, therefore, that recent imagery taken from satel-lites indicates a greening of some land, not by wayof geographic expansion but by intensification andextension of the growing season.

We know so little. If Western scientists, until re-cently, could boast that their mathematical modelscould calculate and project the limits of sustainableyield, they know today that they cannot. The be-haviour of complex systems is not linear and pre-dictable. The more data you add to the model, thegreater the uncertainty it will produce.

Fisheries constitute extremely complex systems,comprising biological, chemical, physical, meteo-rological, social, economic, technological, culturaland legal factors, among others. To place the fish-ing village into this context is a rather dauntingtask.

Rather than depend only on science, we needto rely on intuition, on native wisdom and experi-ence, on ethics and equity—all of which, however,

17

can be enhanced through blending with modernscience and technology, if they can be grafted ontoindigenous technology, which would make it so-cially and environmentally sustainable.

III.

Many problems, which cannot be solved in alarge-scale context, can, instead, be solved at thelevel of the local community. The small commu-nity facilitates forms of direct democracy, with thefull participation of all stakeholders; it is easier tocreate a sense of individual and collective respon-sibility, a feeling of commonality of interests. InGandhi’s sense, the village—which may also be adistrict of a mega-city—is the real core of gover-nance. It might be a community, ideally, of notmore than 3,000 people—roughly the number ofpeople an individual gets to know during a life-time, no matter whether (s)he lives in a village andnever moves from it, or whether (s)he is a jetsetterand keeps moving around the globe.

If the village does not function properly, the na-tion will not function, the region will not function;the global community will not function.

In anthropological terms, the fishing village isone of the oldest forms of social organization, basedon a lifestyle that reflects a special relationship be-tween humans and the ocean. The ocean is bothbenign, a provider of food, and antagonistic, a de-stroyer of human life or even of the village in itsentirety. The human being is so small and helplessin confronting the mighty ocean in fear, awe, rever-ence, if also in a spirit of mythmaking and supersti-tion. To face this ocean, fishing activities have to beco-operative, not competitive, and the distribution ofthe common resource has to be equitable, for were itnot, co-operation would disintegrate.

A common resource, co-operatively managedand equitably distributed, will not be destroyed,whether by overfishing, which is a consequenceof competition, or by pollution, which is a waste.Wisdom, accumulated by the village through cen-turies or even millennia, will inspire self-regulationto prevent both.

Fishing, on which the fishing village depends,is not the only activity required for the sustainabil-ity of the village. There must be builders, foodprocessors, metal workers, gardeners, agricultur-ists, animal husbanders, cooks, scientists, educa-tors, doctors, traders, artists and spiritual leaders.Fishing activities must find their place among allthese other activities and be harmonized with themin what is now called horizontal integration.

Nor can the village stand alone. Developmentsbeyond its control, from the hinterland as well asfrom the ocean, may interfere and frustrate the ap-plication of its wisdom and self-regulation. Its de-cisions, therefore, must be harmonized with the de-cisions of larger communities, comprising more vil-lages, at the provincial, national and internationallevel. This is what today is called vertical integra-tion.

Horizontal integration plus vertical integra-tion give rise to a system, which today is calledcommunity-based co-management. It is emerg-ing in many parts of the world, including the In-dian Ocean Region. It may take as many forms asthere are villages, and the form it will take dependson culture, existing institutional infrastructure andstage of development, but its general features couldbe articulated as follows:

1. The municipal council of a coastal village ortown shall elect a Marine Resources Coun-cil, composed of 15 representatives of the portauthority, shipowners, fishing associations,maritime industries, the tourist board, coast-guard, research institutes, NGOs, consumerco-operatives and the insurance industry.

2. The Marine Resources Council shall deliber-ate on all matters affecting the sustainable de-velopment of marine resources, the protec-tion of the marine and coastal environment,research and training in ocean affairs, andshall prepare legislation thereon for the Mu-nicipal Council.

3. The Marine Resources Council shall pre-pare short-term (one-year) and medium-term(five-year) plans for sustainable resource de-velopment and the protection of the marineenvironment, and submit them, through theMunicipal Council, to the Provincial Govern-ment.

4. The Marine Resources Council shall be re-sponsible for the local implementation ofChapter 17 of Agenda 21 and the Global Pro-gramme of Action (GPA).

5. The Marine Resources Council shall meet asoften as necessary.

6. Municipalities, through their Marine Re-sources Councils, shall co-operate withintheir provinces and with municipalities of

18

neighbouring provinces as well as with mu-nicipalities of neighbouring countries affect-ing their common ecosystems. Appropriateprovincial, national or international encoun-ters shall be arranged for this purpose.

7. A forum comprising representatives of lo-cal communities and provincial and nationalgovernments shall be established for joint de-liberation and decisionmaking on ocean andcoastal issues.

IV.

Integrated coastal management, embodied incommunity-based co-management structures, willserve a number of purposes:

• It will enhance self-regulation and self- en-forcement of fisheries.

• Self-regulation and self-enforcement in an in-tegrated ecosystem-based fishery will elimi-nate the by-catch problem. In an ecosystem-integrated fishery, the problem simply doesnot arise. While technological improve-ments, such as turtle excluder devices (TEDs),can reduce the capture of protected species,a village-centred, co-operative, ecosystem-integrated fishery need not be strictly species-targeting. By-catch of fish not fit for humanconsumption can be processed by the villagecommunity for fish feed in aquaculture, fish-meal or fertilizers.

• The coastal zone includes, on the seawardside, the entire exclusive economic zone(EEZ), out to its 200-nautical mile limit.Coastal villages could declare trawling aswell as longlining as destructive fishing prac-tices, and, through the co-management sys-tem, press for their elimination from the EEZ.This would be the only effective way to elimi-nate the conflict between inshore and offshorefishers, which, in many cases, is a conflict be-tween indigenous fishers and multinationalcompanies.

• Community-centred co-management will fa-cilitate co-operation between scientists andfishers (through horizontal integration). Fish-ers thus may participate in fisheries research,encouraging the blending of modern scienceand traditional wisdom.

• Co-operation between local communities andnational governments in common decision-making forums (vertical integration) will fa-cilitate the blending of indigenous technol-ogy, contributed by the local community,and high technology, contributed through na-tional governments, into so-called ecotech-nology, which should be socially and environ-mentally sustainable.

• To be truly integrated, coastal management,through community-based co-management,must comprise all village activities. It is notrealistic to separate marine and coastal activi-ties from others, including agriculture, fresh-water management, building, women’s or-ganization, education, public health and fi-nancial administration—anything that con-tributes to the well-being of the village com-munity.

• Horizontal integration will include, inter alia,local branches of international oil companiesamong the stakeholders, in locations wherethere is drilling for hydrocarbons. In thecontext of contemporary management theory,multinational companies, too, tend to decen-tralize and to delegate much more decision-making power to their various branches. Thelocal offshore oil manager has a stake in vil-lage consensus and harmonization of con-flicts of uses. This may contribute to the miti-gation of conflicts between the hydrocarbonindustry, fisheries and tourism, at the locallevel.

• You will have noted that, in the horizontalintegration among the stakeholders, I haveincluded the insurance industry. This wasnot done casually. Coastal managers and theinsurance industry have a common interestin risk reduction and poverty alleviation incoastal areas. The future of the insurance in-dustry, in fact, depends today on making thecoastal zone insurable. At the same time, theinsurance industry can make major contribu-tions to integrated coastal management. Wehave elaborated on this elsewhere. Here itmay suffice to just mention these contribu-tions under the following headings: (1) trans-fer of advanced risk assessment technologies;(2) advice on building standards and zoning;(3) technology and coastal engineering riskassessment; (4) community training in disas-ter preparedness and response; and (5) assis-

19

tance in introducing micro-mutual insuranceschemes, linked to micro-loan schemes (likeBangladesh’s Grameen Bank experiment).

• Integrated coastal management must con-tribute to the alleviation of poverty and theraising of living standards in coastal villages,including fishing villages, or it will not besustainable.

• Village empowerment through integratedcoastal management and community-basedco-management inserts itself into the globalsociopolitical trend towards decentralizationand increased local autonomy (often drivenby cultural, including religious, linguistic and

ethnic factors), within a broader global trendtowards unification within larger than na-tional, often regional, organizations, drivenby ecological, economic and technologicalfactors.

• Village empowerment through integratedcoastal management and community-basedco-management is today the best countervail-ing force against market-driven globalization,which makes the rich, richer and the poor,poorer. This has reached the limits of toler-ability. Building a better way of ocean gov-ernance, starting from the fishing village, willcontribute to building a better world.

20

Indian Ocean Coastal Communities:Sculpting a Vision for the 21st Century

Maizan Hassan Maniku ∗

AbstractOver the second half of the last century, the political and economic changes that have occurred

within the Indian Ocean Region have drawn international attention to its emerging potential. TheIndian Ocean Region is quite unique in many ways; it is a tropical ocean, with a multitude ofancient cultures, political structures and both complementary and competing economies. Thisrecently realized potential would offer the Indian Ocean coastal States, international parties andWestern countries a multiplicity of opportunities to develop close links and bilateral trade rela-tions within and outside the region.

This paper tries to outline the rich diversity that has shaped the Indian Ocean communitiesover the millennia, and looks at fisheries resources as a commodity, and assesses its impact oncoastal communities, specifically of the Maldives, in achieving sustainable livelihood assets inthe future.

In the recent past, alternative forms of governance have proliferated, from local to globalscales. Regions and communities have emerged with considerable control over their own affairs,though still constrained by the impacts of decisions taken by the highly industrialized coun-tries. Globalization has taken national and regional resources to the international agenda, andhas transformed their values to economic gains.

Global governance needs to be based on a federation of regions that effectively foster co-operation, security and environmental health, through new channels of communication, educa-tion and the democratic process, undercutting any reappearance of authoritarianism. In sculptinga vision for the 21st Century, Indian Ocean coastal communities need to take full advantage ofthis new paradigm.

Keywords

Indian Ocean Region. History. Maldives. Fisheries resources. Sustainable livelihood assets.Coastal communities. Policy reform.

1 Historical Perspectives

The Indian Ocean Region has had ancient foun-dations for intra-regional trade for at least 4,000years, through a complex network of maritimetrade routes, linking earliest civilizations in theMediterranean, the Gulf littoral, South Asia andChina. This has led to the cross-fertilization ofcultures, ideas, beliefs, ethnic technologies, politicsand economies (Map 1).

Maldives lies on the crossroads linking the seatrade routes between Southeast Asia/China andthe east African coastline. History reveals that the

Maldives have had a number of differing ethniccontacts with the Indian Ocean Rim countries, dat-ing as far back as the 5th Century AD (Maniku1988; Mills 1970; Gray, 1882).

It has been tentatively suggested (Forbes, 1982)that the Maldives (and Seychelles) may haveplayed a key role as mid-ocean staging posts in theIndonesian migrations to eastern Africa and Mada-gascar, thought to have occurred during the 4th and5th Centuries AD. Of more certain significance tothe whole of Africa has been the trade in Maldiviancowries (Cypraea moneta), the tiny shells once used

∗Director (Retd.), Fisheries Research and Development, Male, Maldives.

21

Figure 1: Indian Ocean: Five Island Countries

22

as a medium of exchange in Bengal, China, South-east Asia, and throughout large parts of Africa.

As early as the mid-9th Century AD, the Mal-dives islands were known to the Arab merchant Su-laiyman as a producer of cowries, Although thereare no indications of a direct trade in cowries witheast Africa, it is known that large quantities ofthese shells were taken to the ports of southernArabia as ballast in Arab dhows, crossing the In-dian Ocean from Southeast Asia by way of the Mal-dives. These cowries must have been re-exportedto Africa via Sinai, or directly to ports such as Mo-gadishu, Lamu, Malindi, Mombasa, Zanzibar andKilwa.

Trade in cowries lasted more than 700 years.The profits attached to the cowrie trade were sub-stantial. Ibn Batuta, who visited Maldives in1343-4 and again in 1346 (and who was him-self also involved in some cowrie trading) recordsthat cowries sold at Male for between 400,000 and1,200,000 to the gold dinar. Seven years later, thissame traveller saw Maldivian cowries sold at theKingdom of Mali in West Africa, at 1,150 cowries toa gold dinar.

Interaction with the Indian Ocean Rim countrieshave been, to a large extent, limited to the monsoonwinds as well as the transport of pottery betweenChina and the Persian Gulf communities. Thus,

seafarers, merchants as well as travellers have in-teracted in various atolls at various periods. Due tothe nature of the monsoon and the currents in theIndian Ocean, most of the Arabs travellers had con-tacts with the northern atolls, while the SoutheastAsians visited the southern atolls. This aspect isstill visible within the communities of these regionsof the Maldives. During these contacts, whichcould last up to a full monsoon, exchange of goods,ideas and culture developed micro-communities insmall lowlying islands within a larger atoll systemto the macro-level of a State or an independent na-tion called the Maldives (Maloney 1980; Bell 1940).

The unique ocean space occupied by the Mal-dives archipelago provided favourable conditionsfor maintaining a regularity of trade and transport;thus, Maldives became a major player in this his-torical trade. The cultural contacts developed fish-eries, agriculture and manufacturing, as well astrade. Skills in repairing seagoing craft were highlydeveloped, due to the repairs done on these vesselsby the craftsmen of the atolls. This craftsmanshipis still noteworthy, compared to that prevailing inother coastal States in the Indian Ocean Region.

These contacts greatly influenced those commu-nities that began to emerge with collective ideas—religious and political—as well as their arts andcrafts, transforming them to be adaptive to the local

Figure 2: The Eight Circuits of the 13th Century World System (from Abu-Lughod, 1989:34)

23

environment. Ethnic technologies were developedto cater to the influx of traders. Processing of tunameat was well documented by Chinese travellersduring the 12th Century (Mills, 1970; Bell, 1940).

Due to such early contacts in ancient timeswith the world’s earliest urban civilizations—in theMiddle East, the Gulf lttoral, along the east Africancastline, and in South and Southeast Asia—linkedby sea-borne commerce, the Indian Ocean was athriving network of trade and community links. Bythe time Maldives embraced Islam during the mid-12th Century AD, it had developed a unique formof governance, highly adapted to the archepelagicconditions of the Maldives. Each atoll had highlydeveloped autonomous governance, whereby theresources were shared within the immediate com-munity as well as the State.

Along with trade, peoples and ideas spreadacross the Indian Ocean, leading to a cross-fertilization of cultures and technologies. FromSouth Asia, Hinduism and Buddhism spread toSoutheast and East Asia. Similarly, from the 7thCentury, Islam spread across the Indian Ocean andhas been vital to the integration of eastern Africaand Southeast Asia into an Indian Ocean economicand cultural world, which stretched from the SouthChina Sea to the South African coast.

The coming of the Europeans during the 15th–16th Centuries has been a significant period for theold countries to become new nations (Bell, 1931). Alargely self-contained, self-sustained, tightly inter-woven economic and political and cultural identitybegan to unravel.

Following the process of colonization, the nat-ural resource base of nations had to accommodatethe extra demands placed on them. Arab domina-tion of the cowrie trade between the Maldives andeast Africa was taken over by the Portuguese andthen by the Dutch.

During the 16th and early 17th Centuries, Mal-divian cowries were shipped in bulk to the westcoast of India, often on board Maldivian vessels,and then re-exported in European ships to both theeast and west coasts of Africa. During the latterhalf of the 17th Century, the Maldivian cowrie tradewas largely routed through Sri Lanka, which hadfallen under Dutch control. This trade continued tofuel the slave trade that was expanding on the westcoast of Africa. By the middle of the 18th Century,when the West African slave trade was at its peak,the Dutch had taken full control of the cowrie tradefrom the Maldives. Due to this change of hands andthe market, Maldivian cowries made less impacton the east coast of Africa, which started its own

cowrie trade. By the 19th Century, even thoughZanzibar and some of the small coastal States haddeveloped a cowrie industry, it was short-lived,mainly because of the small size of the cowrie com-pared to the cowries of the Maldives. This tradecontinued until about 1921, when it was replacedby the rupee.

The impact of Europe remained relativelymuted until fundamental changes in the North At-lantic began to alter the balance between Europeand the economies of the Indian Ocean Region. Eu-ropean interest in the region was initially focusedon the spice, tea and pepper trade. Europe had littleto offer the peoples of the region in terms of tradinggoods and technology until well into the 17th Cen-tury. The rise in demand in Europe and Europeansettlements in the Americas for large quantities ofgoods for mass consumption—mostly textiles andtea—during the 18th Century changed the focus ofEuropean commercial activity in the Indian OceanRegion, thus greatly increasing the profitability ofthe trade.

European commercial interest changed fromrelatively small quantities of the exotic to largequantities of goods for mass consumption. Thisincrease in European demand coincided with adecline in the power of indigenous empires andStates, and with the worldwide spread of Euro-pean rivalry, primarily between France and Britain.Thus, the Indian Ocean became an arena for Euro-pean economic and military competition, which ledto various European powers carving out territorialempires in the region. By the turn of the 19th Cen-tury, the region was beginning to be integrated intothe world economy. The age-old economic insu-larity of the region was destroyed, dislocating thecoastal communities from their own larger nationalidentities, due to the demand for raw material in-land rather than from the marine and coastal en-vironment. Thus, the regional economies were re-structured to service extra-regional economic im-peratives.

In this process, regional commercial groups andinterests either vanished or were incorporated intoEuropean economic and political structures. Euro-pean superiority in communication technology, fi-nance and military power undermined the politi-cal and economic independence of the States of theregion, the majority of which were absorbed intothe European Commonwealth. Rights of propertywere with the colonial empires.

The establishment of these empires did not in-hibit the movement of peoples across the ocean.New dimensions were added by the movement of

24

trade, merchants, bureaucrats, military personnel,settlers, slaves and large settlements of Chinese inSoutheast Asia and, to a large extent, in the IndianOcean Rim countries.

Following World War II, European colonial em-pires collapsed but Cold War rivalry and nNuclearsuperiority replaced their military presence in theregion. In economic terms, the colonial experi-ence resulted in the Indian Ocean Region being in-tegrated into the world economy as a peripheralsupplier of raw materials destined for the indus-trialized North. The economic self-sufficiency thatexisted with a rich resources management strat-egy was reduced to an economic and technolog-ical dependency. Resources, which were sustain-able livelihood assets of the coastal communities,became commodities in the international market.

By the middle of the last century, three develop-ments became particularly significant, both for theMaldives as an island nation and for coastal fishingcommunities at large, namely:

• loosening of the colonial powers, which ledto the formation of a formal structure amongnations and the birth of the United Nations.While trying to regain their national iden-tities, most countries have institutionalizedmanagement and economic development tothe core government machinery.

• The social and cultural heritage of the Mal-dives, being not only historic and rich in it-self, had a considerable development assettoo in its rich coral reefs and large marineresources. Maldives has never been an “iso-lated traditional society facing the modernworld” but rather it has a successful historyof adapting to changing international condi-tions, while upholding its national integrityagainst external influences. With the collapseof the cowrie trade, which survived over 750years, Maldives adapted its dried-fish tunafor the Sri Lankan market. With the devel-opment of the international tuna market, theshift of fish markets from neighboring SriLanka towards Japan and other Western na-tions, and the development of a highly suc-cessful marine tourism, all point to this flexi-bility (Fitzgerald, 1984).

• The process of geographic groupings has re-sulted in the evolution of region-based orga-nizations, which has dismantled a numberof historical trade links. This has created anumber of trade barriers and customs regula-

tions, hindering that resource from becominga commodity.

These aspects have had long-lasting effects inrestructuring towards globalization. With thestrengthening of the regional and international or-ganizations, community development and man-agement of natural resources that have existed atthe national levels have been globalized (SIDS Con-ference, 1994). Prescriptions for efficient manage-ment of the resources have been developed with-out proper review of the traditional systems thathave evolved in various communities, thus pro-moting the concept of uneven development, whichis rooted in the central process of capitalist devel-opment. It does incorporate, but goes beyond, theproblems of depletion to include the valuation anddevaluation of resource-based complexes, resultingfrom technological and other sociological changes.

2 Development Concepts and RegionalEconomies

The development of regional economies and theemergence of economic powers in Southeast Asiaas well as in Europe, the Middle East and the Amer-icas seem to sustain world trade. Small islandsand coastal communities had to undergo signifi-cant socioeconomic and cultural changes. Naturalresources depletion became a reality, and funda-mental as well as ideological changes are being de-manded. The main result is institutionalizing intolarger regional and international, ecological andeconomic processes (Pomeroy, 1994). Modern com-munities are being structured by global conven-tions, thus significantly altering the relationshipsboth within communities and among nations. Thishas now become the mainstream of this dynamictransition.

Thus, geographic regionalization cannot be con-sidered a unified concept, as it cannot, by itself, bethe organizing principle for a new global economicorder. Regionalism does not answer how tradeshould be conducted among regions (Saeed, 1995).In the process of evolving regional co-operation,over the years, numerous institutions and groupshave been created in the Indian Ocean Region. Bythe turn of this century, an overwhelming numberof regional groupings and bodies were established.It is hard for a small island nation to co-ordinateefforts, apart from managing the nation internally.If the nation were to reap the benefits of interna-tional financing, these small communities, whichmake up the nation, have to be vigilant.

25

Despite the global effort of reducing povertyand social deprivation, the economic indices havenot changed in any phenomenal manner, whetherin the case of marine resources or otherwise. Inter-nal and political tensions have deepened within thesame decade. Economically, the coastal communityof the Indian Ocean Region inhabited by more thana billion people is one of the poorest in the world.

The region encompasses economies as large asthat of India, and as small as those of the Sey-chelles and the Maldives. The growth of theseeconomies does not reflect a true picture that willjustify that all the sustainable livelihood assets arebeen catered for (Ashley 2000). Such variations andimbalances in the sizes of the economies have hin-dered regional co-operation. Perhaps more strikingis the uneven performance of various sectors of in-dividual economies. Even where growth has beenachieved, such uneven performances have raisedconcern over the allocation of resources across sec-tors within a nation as well. This aspect is well il-lustrated in the sharing of marine resources bothextractively and non-extractively between the fish-ery and tourism industries, respectively.

Against this background, in sculpting a visionfor the 21st Century for the coastal communitiesof the Indian Ocean Region, the sustainable utiliza-tion of resources has will forge the way for unifyinga larger and more concerted effort within the na-tions of the region to achieve the sustainable liveli-hood assets. For the Indian Ocean countries, his-torically, marine resources can be clearly definedas the coastal resources, making up the bulk ofthe resources, and the tuna resources, which haveemerged as an international commodity in recentyears.

For Maldives, however, tuna haS remained acoastal resource satisfying the domestic demand ofprotein supply, while the surplus is processed forexports. This historical trade flourished well intothe 1970s, until the Japanese and American seinersstarted to lose grip of the tuna trade with the estab-lishment of UNCLOS, the establishment of the EEZsand the collapse of the Pacific and the Atlantic tunafishery.

During the early 1970s, the major tuna produc-tion in the Indian Ocean was from the Maldives,with over 70 per cent of the skipjack caught in Area51 (FAO data collection) coming from the Maldives.With the introduction of the distant-water fleet intothe Indian Ocean, the dominance of tuna produc-tion changed. By 1990, the Maldives’ share of pro-duction was reduced to 29 per cent and by the endof the century, to a mere 11 per cent of the total pro-

duction. At present, the Indian Ocean tuna catchesamount to 900,000 tonnes, while the Maldives’ pro-duction has been increasing at a slow pace, from30,000 tonnes in the mid-1970s to about 100,000tonnes at present. At present, the western IndianOcean Area 51 contributes to most of the total tunacatches, and has thus become a major internationaltuna fishing ground.

Major catches are being taken by the distant-water Fleet, 47 per cent by purse-seines and 24 percent by longlines, with the major species targetedbeing juvenile yellowfin (34 per cent), skipjack (24per cent) and bigeye (11 per cent). Twenty-five percent of the world tuna production comes from theIndian Ocean, of which artisanal fisheries catch al-most 50 per cent (Zamorov 1998). Thus, tuna stocksin the Indian Ocean have been fully integrated intothe world commodity trade. The recent importancelaid to the tuna stocks by the distant-water fleetsthat have gained rights under the UNCLOS has ledto the formation of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commis-sion in 1996, with the aim of fully utilizing the In-dian Ocean tuna stocks.

The focus on exploiting upper trophic-levelspecies such as tuna has a strong impact on thecomposition of the pelagic ecosystem in the IndianOcean. There is a suggestion that the skipjack pop-ulation is gradually replacing yellowfin and big-eye tuna, especially when large-scale fishery is tar-geting juvenile yellowfin and bigeye stocks. Thus,species replacement issues may occur, as they do indemersal fish populations. This issue will remaina major concern if the tuna fisheries of the IndianOcean are to be sustainable (Zamorov 1998). His-torical perspectives on tuna fisheries in the otheroceans have illustrated this phenomenon. There isa strong feeling that using selective gear is more de-sirable than industrial purse-seine fisheries in theIndian Ocean, especially in those countries withlarge coastal communities who depend on thisstock for their livelihood.

Until the 1970s, Japan had a complete monopolyin the South Pacific; however, with the collapse ofthe tuna industry in the Atlantic and the west coastof the United States (US), the US fleets as well asthe Korean and Taiwanese fleets began competingin the EEZs of the Pacific Island countries. By themid-1980s, increased access fees exacerbated the al-ready severe economic problems experienced bythe Japanese fleet. More boats were forced out ofthe fleet and into the Indian Ocean. During the1980s, the countries’ initial strategy for generatingeconomic benefits from their tenure rights was to

26

charge a resource rent in the form of a license fee,for access to the waters, by the distant-water fleets.

When UNCLOS III was being negotiated, manyassumed that it would drastically redistribute in-come from the world’s fisheries (Pontecorvo, 1988).This however, was not the case; analysis showedthat even though these countries gained legal ju-risdiction over some of the largest tuna stocks inthe world, they encountered tremendous obsta-cles when they attempted to convert those tenurerights into concrete economic gains. Forum Fish-eries Agency could be considered a success in orga-nizing and mobilizing co-operation among the Pa-cific Island Countries (PICs); however, they wereunable to compel the distant-water fishing nations(DFWN)to pay them more than a nominal fee.

During the 1980s, the initial strategy of generat-ing economic benefits from tenure rights by charg-ing a resource rent in the form of a license fee for ac-cess to the waters was sufficient for those States forwhich tuna stocks were not their immediate con-cern; but this strategy did not prove economicallyviable in a longer-term perspective. When thesePICs tried to develop their own tuna industries,they were disadvantaged by being located at theraw material end of the commodity chain (Schur-man 1998).

In the Indian Ocean, a similar situation was en-countered in the early 1980s when the French andthe Spanish fleets moved in. Maldives is one coun-try that has tried to develop its own tuna industry.To date, the country has invested over US$150 mnin its domestic tuna industry, mainly through itsdomestic, State-owned enterprises. To date, the op-erations have been running at a loss. Maldives hasbeen cautious about operating joint ventures, dueto their failures in other regions. This has been thecase in the other countries in the Indian Ocean Re-gion as well. Most of the investments have been alosing proposition, and have cost the governmentsscarce public funds, while yielding little in terms offinancial payoffs.

What could be the reasons? Most significantwas the fact that the tuna industry had moved intoa phase of high competition and low profitabilityby the time the developing countries decided to en-ter the world tuna market.

Canneries have lost their profitability without acomplete tie-up with raw material trading, whichhas become the only significant component in thetuna business. Virtually all firms involved in rawmaterial trading have become multinational cor-porations and trading companies with long histo-ries in the industry. Tuna has become one of the

commodities that they were able to cross-subsidizethrough the sale of other products, when tunaprices sank too low to render profits. What thecoastal States have is tuna, so they concentratedon its harvesting and transshipment. By investingin boats and gear, the coastal States were dump-ing their funds into the most competitive, risky andlow-profit part of the commodity chain.

The other problem was the lack of skills re-quired to start up and operate large-scale, commer-cial fishing ventures. Coastal States had to dependon outside consultants, advisers and potential busi-ness partners to help them determine the kind ofinvestments they should make. It has been a chal-lenge to most of these States even to evaluate theadvice, due to the lack of agreement among the ex-perts in the fields of fishing technology, fisheriesmanagement and socioeconomics.

Another obstacle was the problem of securinglegal access to the neighbouring EEZs, while the tar-get species are highly migratory. Thus, unlike theDWFNs, the coastal States could not resort to ille-gal fishing in each other’s EEZ’s because it wouldmean breaching the contract of solidarity amongthe group. There was also the bureaucratic obsta-cle.

UNCLOS became a burden to most of the coastalstates of the Indian Ocean. They were placed in aprecarious position of managing a vast expanse ofthe ocean called the EEZ, while the majority of thesecommunities were concentrating on the coastal re-sources for their livelihoods. The limited capacityof an international treaty on property rights to al-ter the distribution of income from the world’s fish-eries was needed. Even though the coastal commu-nities gained legal access to the fishery resources,they encountered the constraint of enormous polit-ical and economic power inequalities when they at-tempted to convert those tenure rights into concreteeconomic gains.

Schurman (1998) suggests that much of the op-timism about international treaties leading to in-creased international equity is unwarranted. Thevariables that critically mediate the relationship be-tween property rights and income distribution areeconomic and political.

External aid has been another driving force,which has been driven by colonial and postcoloniallegacies. These external financing mechanisms hada major influence on the way States pursued invest-ment in the industry.

The Pacific lessons reveal the limits of movingsuccessfully into a global industry from the rawmaterial end of the commodity chain. Since the

27

coastal States owned the rights to the resource onwhich this industry is based, they were inclinedto invest in resource extraction. However, the re-source extraction is the least profitable and thehighest-risk segment of the global tuna business.

With regard to the coastal resources utilization,the picture is much bleaker. The resources, whichwere once the livelihood assets of the immedi-ate population, became an important commodityas well. Due to the economic benefits that havebeen attached to the stocks, coastal communitieswere under pressure by growing population aswell as growing international demand. This ledto the development of a number of fisheries de-velopment and management concepts without theproper identification of the resource rights of thecommunities.

The WHAT Commision (2000) is convinced thatclearly defined and enforceable rights are the foun-dations on which effective fisheries governanceneeds to be built upon. The difficult issues thatarise in the transition process to rights-based man-agement, the importance of sound and transpar-ent scientific advice and the application of thesemanagement strategies within national jurisdic-tions and the high seas have been elaborated andhave become the main focus of a number of semi-nars and conferences. They finally suggest a WorldFisheries Summit to elaborate the problems iden-tified, particularly those affecting the coastal com-munities, whose livelihoods depend on these re-sources, and to find solutions to these problems.

Fisheries cannot be considered in isolation any-more, because fisheries need to take into considera-tion both the well-being of human communities aswell as the ecosystem. This implies conservationof ecosystem structures, processes and interactionsthrough sustainable use. This aspect is now widelyaccepted by the fisheries management institutionsworldwide, but there is a growing uncertainty as tohow to implement an effective ecosystem manage-ment system in reality.

The United Nations Convention on Environ-ment and Development (UNCED or the Rio EarthSummit) and the development of the Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD)can be considered themost important milestones that will shape human-ity’s economic and social development. For the firsttime, the earth’s biological resources have been rec-ognized as a global asset of tremendous value tothe present and future generations. The CBD wasinspired by the world community’s growing com-mitment to sustainable development. It representsa dramatic step towards the conservation of biolog-

ical diversity, the sustainable use of its components,and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits aris-ing from the use of genetic resources.

3 Discussions

Of all the concepts that have emerged in the past20 years in management of resources, none is morecompelling than that of sustainability. The definitereason for this is the growing recognition that hu-manity is currently on an unsustainable path of de-velopment. The need to preserve these resourceswas first put on the international policy agendaby the Bruntland Commission, which also formu-lated the classic definition of sustainable develop-ment, more than 10 years ago. The same goal hasguided other international policy exercises, notablythe Earth Summit in 1992 and the recent negotia-tions on climate in Kyoto.

While these concepts are still in the formativestages among the intellectual elite, coastal commu-nities, like the majority of the masses in the ThirdWorld, have to depend on the values and socioe-conomic arrangements of the industrial era, andthey continue to evolve without major disconti-nuities. Competitive markets and private invest-ments still remain the engines of economic growthand wealth allocation. The globalization of productand labour markets continues to rule, catalyzed byfree-trade agreements, unregulated flows of capi-tal and advances in information technology. Thenation-State remains the dominant unit of gover-nance, while transnational corporations dominatean increasingly borderless economy.

Consumerism and possessive individualism en-dure as the primary motives underlying humanbehaviour; consumer culture permeates all soci-eties via electronic media, reducing diversity, de-spite fundamentalist, ethnic and nationalistic back-lashes. The consumption patterns and productionpractices of the developing regions converge to-ward those of the highly industrialized countries.

Due to the growing socioeconomic inequal-ity, increased morbidity and reduced access to re-sources, social tensions become widespread and in-tense. International dissatisfaction aggravates dueto widening disparities between regions as well asgrowing economic competition and the progres-sive decline in development assistance. Peoplein rich countries increasingly fear that their well-being is threatened by factors they associate withpoor countries, including migration, terrorism, dis-ease and global environmental degradation. As

28

such, tensions increase, and the incidence of violentconfrontation rises, sparked by longstanding ethnicand religious differences, politically motivated ter-rorism, struggles over scarce resources, competingnationalism and commercial conflicts.

If this process is to continue, several destabiliz-ing risks can be identified. Firstly, the cumulativeloads on Earth’s biogeochemical cycles and ecosys-tems could exceed natural assimilative capacities.This is shown by the sharp increase in carbon diox-ide emissions, habitat destruction, biodiversity lossand the accumulation of toxic chemicals in the en-vironment.

Secondly, heightened pressure on the natural re-sources leads to economic and social disruptionsand conflicts. Already diminishing resources lead-ing to the collapse of the fisheries are depriving mil-lions of people of their primary resources.

Finally, social and geopolitical stresses threatensocioeconomic sustainability. The persistence ofpoverty on a large scale and the continuing inequal-ity between and within nations undermine socialcohesion and stimulating migration, thus puttingstress on international security systems. A break-down in sociopolitical stability could, in turn, pro-vide the necessary conditions for authoritarianism,flaring regional, ethnic and religious conflicts, lead-ing to a suppression of democratic institutions.

Thus, it is necessary to identify a major policyreform, which would assume strong measures atall levels of government within the context of cur-rent values and institutional structures. Such a pol-icy reform should try to achieve rapid economicgrowth, greater distributional equity, and manage-ment of resources and serious protection of envi-ronmental quality.

Governments, businesses and the general pub-lic are becoming increasingly aware of this worsen-ing social polarization and conflict.

A new international polity needs to emergearound these concerns, as there is widespread feel-ing that life has lost much of its meaning. Theconviction is that reliance on the profit motive toguide the economy has been environmentally andsocially costly and those governments have becometoo weak. These processes are slowly crystalliz-ing into a worldwide ferment of untold millionssearching for new ideals, meaning and forms of ex-istence. Young people around the world are discov-ering a new collective identity in a new idealism,which is directed toward creating a global commu-nity. The Internet has become the tool for this newconsciousness, helping to forge a sense of unity.

In sculpting a vision for the 21st Century, it will,therefore, be essential to work from the bottom upas well as from the top down, that is, to considerthe local, national and regional implications alongwith global implications. The global perspective,of course, is indispensable. It enables us to identifythe forces that increasingly shape and constrain de-velopment everywhere. For example, an adequatestrategy for sustainable development within theconfines of a shared stock requires a detailed analy-sis geared to the specific circumstances, and an ap-preciation of the ways in which larger forces can in-fluence local environmental, demographic and eco-nomic conditions.

4 Conclusion

Against this background, some of the broad chal-lenges the coastal communities have to face duringthe 21st Century relate to:

• the vast disparity that exists in technology be-tween the North and the South;

• the vast number of international and regionalorganizations dealing with similar issues,leading to duplication of scarce resources;

• lack of co-ordination and co-operation amongsectoral agencies, which also leads to duplica-tion and misuse of scarce resources;

• the vastness of the waters within the juris-diction of most of the coastal States, whichdrains scarce human and financial resourcesfor management, monitoring, control andsurveillance;

• lack of an integrated, multidisciplinary ap-proach in marine science, fisheries, marinetourism and marine surveillance;

• lack of co-ordination among governmentagencies in delivering effective extension pro-grammes;

• lack of understanding of the traditional rightsof the coastal resources in relation to coastalcommunities by the fisheries and resourcesmanagement agencies; and

• lack of a unified language for communicationamong the coastal communities of the IndianOcean Rim countries.

If sustainable development is to contribute ina major way to development theory and practice,there will have to be much more effort devoted to

29

research on these themes. It is important to iden-tify and explore key research themes, which standout, especially in relation to economic developmentprocesses. Biological diversity and global warmingare novel elements for most national institutionscatering to the coastal communities of the region.They herald a new style of international contact,which will characterize the 21st Century.

Defining new development and managementpriorities under the new world order is starting toslip from the tight grasp of bureaucrats and politi-cians, into a broad, well-informed coalition of inter-est groups, which is demanding a new generationof development thinking focused on sustainabilityand responsibility, respecting cultural diversity andideologies. Most countries face exceedingly diffi-cult times, because they have to contend with struc-tural adjustment programmes, population growth,economic stagnation and the still hazy issues re-lated to international property rights in the biodi-versity domain, and the sharing of transboundaryresources.

Hence, the power to change is still dominatedby the inability of the international community toeffectively act upon the many disparities and trans-gressions of human and environmental rights. Sus-tainable development thinking, therefore, cannotignore the pragmatic problems of implementationand the realities of the divided world. Socioeco-nomic and cultural diversity cannot be ruled out.

The 21st Century will have to initiate majorstructural adjustments and sustainable develop-ment initiatives, as the two likely themes thatwould dominate the discussions for coastal com-munities to reap the full benefits from their imme-diate marine resources.

5 Reviews

1. Ashley,C. & K. Hussein. 2000. Develop-ing Methodologies for Livelihood Assessments.Working Paper 129. London. ODI.

2. Bell, H. C. P. 1931. The Portuguese at the Mal-dives. Jour. of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon.Vol. 32, No. 84, pp. 76–124.

3. Bell, H. C. P. 1932. Excerpta Maldiviana. Jour-nal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon, Vol.XXXII, No. 85.

4. Bell, H. C. P. 1940. The Maldive Islands:Monograph on the History, Archeology and Epig-raphy. Ceylon Government Printing Press,Colombo. (Reprinted 1985 in Male.)

5. Berkes, F. 1996. Social systems, ecological sys-tems and property rights. In Hanna, S. S.,Folke, C. and Maler, K. G. (Eds.). Rights to Na-ture: Ecological, Economic, Cultural and PoliticalPrinciples of Institutions for the Environment. Is-land Press, Washington DC.

6. CSD. 1998. Biodiversity Resources in SmallIsland Developing States. Sixth Session, 20April–1 May 1998.

7. FAO. 1992. CANCUN Declaration: Interna-tional Conference on Responsible Fisheries,Cancun, Mexico.

8. FAO . 1994. Technical Papers: Technical Con-sultation on the Code of Conduct for Respon-sible Fisheries, Rome.

9. FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fish-eries. FAO, Rome.

10. FAO. 1996. Precautionary Approach to Cap-ture Fisheries and Species. Technical Guide-lines for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome.

11. FAO. 2001. Ecosystem Management: http://www.Refisheries2001.0rg/sidur/ecosystem/ecosystem.htm

12. Fitzerald, E. V. K. 1984. Planning for Social De-velopment: Programme of Participation and Co-operation with Member States. Restricted As-signment Report PP/1981– 1983/3/3.4/03.UNESCO, Paris.

13. Gallopin, G. C., and Raskin, P. 1998. Windowson the future: global scenarios and sustain-ability. Environment Vol. 40, pp. 6–12.

14. Gray, A. 1882. Ibn Batuta in the Maldives andCeylon. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Cey-lon.

15. Green, Jeremy and Devendra, Somasiri. 1993.Maritime Archeology in Sri Lanka: the Galle Har-bour Project. Archeological Department of SriLanka, Central Cultural Fund, Western Aus-tralian Maritime Museum, Post-graduate In-stitute of Archeology, University of Kelaniya.

16. Hollup, O. 2000. Structural and sociocul-tural constraints for user group participationin fisheries management in Mauritius. MarinePolicy Journal Vol. 24, pp. 407–421.

17. Maloney, C. 1980. People of the Maldive Islands,Orient Longman, Madras, India.

30

18. Maniku, H. A. 1988. Archeology in Maldives:Thinking on New Lines. NCLHR, Male.

19. Maniku, M. H. 1994. Management of Ma-rine Resources–Meeting the Needs of DevelopingCountries. Paper presented at the Conferenceof Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Envi-ronment and Sustainable Development.

20. Mills, J. V. G. 1970. The Overall Survey of theOcean’s Shores. Translated from a 1433 Chi-nese text edited by Feng Ch’eng-Chun, withintroduction, notes and appendices. Cam-bridge, England.

21. Pomeroy, R. S. (Ed.) 1994. Community Man-agement and Common Property of CoastalFisheries in Asia and the Pacific. Concepts,Methods and Experiences. ICLARM ConferenceProceedings.

22. Promaco. 1995. Executive Summaries of Sev-eral Consultants’ Background Working Pa-pers prepared for the International Forum onthe Indian Ocean Region (IFIOR), Perth, Au-tralia.

23. Ruddle, Kenneth. 1998. External Forcesand Change in Traditional Community-based

Fishery Management Systems in the Asia-Pacific Region. Maritime Anthropological Stud-ies. Vol. 7, pp. 1-2.

24. Saeed, A. 1995. SAARC and New Realities inthe Indian Ocean Region. Paper presented atthe International Seminar on “Regional Eco-nomic Trends and South Asian Security” or-ganized by the Regional Center for StrategicStudies, Colombo and held on October 17–20,1995 at Bandos, Maldives.

25. Schurman, R. A. 1998. Tuna Dreams: Re-source Nationalism and the Pacific Islands’Tuna Industry. International Organization Jour-nal. Vol. 37(1), pp.93–119.

26. UNEP. 1994. Convention on Biological Diver-sity. Text and Annexes. UNEP/CBD/94/1.

27. WHAT. 2000. Governance for a Sustainable Fu-ture: Fishing for the Future. A Report by theWHAT Commision. Russel Press Ltd., England.

28. Zamorov, V. V. and Romanov, E. 1998. ThePelagic Food Web of the Western IndianOcean. http://www.cordis.lu/inco2/src/acprep12.htm

31

Ecosystem Considerations for Managing Marine Fisheriesin the Indian Ocean

E. Vivekanandan ∗

AbstractThe fisheries management approach of several countries, including those in the Indian Ocean

Region, has been generally on a species-to-species basis. It has been realized now that this ap-proach has severe limitations, especially for tropical, multispecies fisheries. While the under-standing that fish and other living aquatic resources are integral parts of their ecosystems is notnew, this idea has not been put into practice in managing stocks, especially for marine fish. Re-shaping the management strategies by involving all the stakeholders in such an ecosystem ap-proach is expected to yield short-term and long-term benefits.

Keywords

Fisheries management. Ecosystem approach. Tropical multispecies fisheries. Fish stock as-sessment. Trophic interactions. Marine food webs.

1 Fisheries in the Ecosystem Context1

Fish stock assessment models provide scope fordetermining maximum sustainable yields so thatmanagement options can be advocated for remov-ing surplus production. Surplus production is thetotal weight of fish that can be removed by fish-ing without changing the size of the population.Several surplus production models have been ad-vanced in the last century for temperate fish stocks(Schaefer, 1954; Thompson and Bell, 1934), and,with a few modifications, for tropical fish stocks(Pauly, 1979; Sparre and Venema, 1992) to deter-mine the species biomass and maximum yields,and to evolve fisheries management options. How-ever, when fishing is examined in an ecosystemcontext, the rationale for harvesting surplus pro-duction is ambiguous (National Marine FisheriesService, 1998). Marine ecosystems are compactand are effective in capturing energy, cycling nu-trients and producing biomass. Several researchers(for example, Hilborn and Walters, 1992) doubtwhether any of the biomass is truly surplus to anecosystem.

Fishing induces ecological and biologicalchanges on prey-predator interactions, growth,mortality and reproduction among the fish stocks.In short, fishing alters the structure and functionof marine ecosystems (Dayton, 1998). In turn, fishstocks cannot be understood and quantified fullywithout a thorough knowledge of their associatesin the sea, especially of their prey and predators,their habitats, and also of the dynamics of physi-cal and chemical oceanography. The understand-ing that the fish and other living aquatic livingresources are integral part of their ecosystems isnot new. However, this idea has not been put intopractice, especially for the marine fish stocks.

The management approach of several countries,including those in the Indian Ocean Region, to avery large extent, has concentrated on a species-to-species basis. It has been realized now that the tra-ditional management approach has severe limita-tions, especially for the tropical, multispecies fish-eries. Most of the developing countries in the west-ern Indian Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean experi-ence constraints in effectively managing their ma-rine fisheries (Devaraj and Vivekanandan, 1997);

∗Madras Research Centre of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, 68/3 Greams Road, Chennai 600 006, India. Email:evivekanandan@hotmail.com

1The views presented here by the author are purely personal and they need not necessarily reflect the views of the organization herepresents.

32

concentration on species-by-species managementapproach in the multispecies environment andweak implementation instruments have severelyrestricted effective management of the resources(Vivekanandan, 2001). Nevertheless, fisheries havecontinued because they provide food, livelihoodand economic benefits to the communities and con-tribute to the balance of payment to several coun-tries bordering the Indian Ocean.

Unlike the situation that existed two decadesago, the present-day computer technologies makeit possible to quantify the functions of the ecosys-tem and adopt a better approach for the man-agement of exploitation on an ecosystem-by-ecosystem basis. What is required now is a holis-tic view of fishery exploitation and managementas a real and integral part of the marine ecosystem(Langton and Haedrich, 1997).

2 Uniqueness of the Environment ofthe Indian Ocean

The relationship between the environment of theIndian Ocean and fisheries in the region is deter-mined primarily by the uniqueness of the northernIndian Ocean. The northern Indian Ocean, togetherwith its two major bays, the Arabian Sea and theBay of Bengal, is landlocked in the north due tothe existence of the Asian continent. This morpho-logical uniqueness of the Indian Ocean is primar-ily responsible for the differences in the geological,physical, chemical and climatic conditions of theecosystems, compared to those of the other oceansin similar latitudes, as outlined below:

1. The Asian continent separates the northernIndian Ocean from the deep reaching verti-cal convection areas of the Arctic Seas andthe cold climate regions of the northern hemi-sphere.

2. The continent is large enough to affect theocean climatologically by causing the season-ally changing monsoons, the southwest andnortheast monsoons.

3. The seasonally changing monsoons, in turn,reverse the oceanic circulation over the north-ern parts.

4. Connected with this seasonally changing cir-culation are various upwelling areas, whichoperate only during one season, the south-west monsoon season, which is in contrast

to all the other major upwelling areas in theworld (Wyrtki, 1973).

5. The northern Indian Ocean areas are thelargest regions with the lowest oxygen con-centration in the entire open oceans of theworld.

6. Another outgrowth is the formation of highsalinity waters in the Arabian Sea from theeven more highly saline Red Sea and PersianGulf.

These factors influence large differences in thebehaviour and functions of the ecosystems of theIndian Ocean from those of the other oceans; andbetween the ecosystems within the Indian Ocean.A succession of dynamic links in the food chain be-tween the phytoplankton, zooplankton, planktonfeeders and carnivores takes place. It is importantto estimate the efficiency of transfer of energy fromprimary production to tertiary production and un-derstand at which trophic level one is harvestingthe various ecosystems of the Indian Ocean.

3 Trophic Interactions: A KeyConsideration for EcosystemManagement

When stress is applied to an ecosystem, it is initiallydifficult to notice the changes in its structure andbehaviour. However, beyond a critical threshold,the system begins to deteriorate rapidly and theimpact becomes conspicuous (Holling and Meffe,1996). Fishing is perhaps the earliest stress appliedto the marine ecosystem. The oldest fishing imple-ments so far identified are harpoons, found in theterritory of the Congo (ex-Zaire), and dates back90,000 years (Stringer and McKie, 1996).

For centuries of early stages of development,fisheries tended to use highly selective gear, andtheir effect on ecosystems probably resembled theeffect of natural predation (Stergiou, 1999). Thefishing pressure exerted by modern industrial fleetsdiffers radically from natural predation and hasdetrimental effects on the trophic web (the networkthat represents the predator-prey interactions of anecosystem). The effects are detrimental mainly forlong-lived, late-maturing species (Parrish, 1998),leading to the phenomenon now known as “fishingdown marine food webs”.

Pauly et al. (1998) and Pauly (1999) haveshown that landings from global fisheries haveshifted from large piscivorous fish toward small in-vertebrates and planktivorous fish in the last five

33

decades, especially in the northern hemisphere.They demonstrated that the networks of flows ofmatter (=biomass) are affected directly by fishing,which removes predatory fish, or competes withthem for their prey, in either case affecting the ma-rine food webs. The results on the analysis of globaldata are striking: there is a gradual decline in themean trophic level of fish landings of about 0.1 perdecade (from 3.3 in 1950 to 3.1 in 1994).

Fishing down food webs also occurs in theAntarctica and the freshwater systems around theworld, where the catch has strongly reduced nearlyto herbivore level. In the tropical belt also, a similartrend was observed in the Gulf of Thailand (Chris-tensen, 1998). Initially, fishing down the food webyields higher catches, but below a certain trophiclevel, which may vary between ecosystems, fur-ther decline in the trophic levels leads to decreas-ing catches. This trend is generally perceived as in-dicating a serious problem and the present trendcould lead to widespread fisheries collapses.

There are extensive studies on the stomach con-tent of fish in the Indian Ocean Region, where hun-dreds of fish of many species have been sampledover several decades. Some multispecies predator-prey models have been developed, but, generally,these models are better at explaining the effects thattrophic relationships might have had, rather thanpredicting future patterns and variations. One suchevidence on the effect of trawling on the tropho-dynamics has been obtained for the Bombay duck(Harpodon nehereus) along the northwest coast ofIndia. In the 1950s, prior to the introduction oftrawlers, the major diet of the Bombay duck com-prised the penaeid and nonpenaeid prawns, andcannibalism was insignificant (Bapat et al., 1952).With the intensification of trawling, the abundanceof prawns reduced and the Bombay duck has re-sorted to cannibalism. In the 1980s and 1990s, thesmaller Bombay duck contributed 30 per cent to thediet of the larger ones (Devaraj and Vivekanandan,M.S.).

4 Components of an Ecosystem-basedApproach to Fisheries Management

According to the National Marine Fisheries Ser-vice (1998) of the US, an ecosystem-based approachshould take into account the following four aspects:(i) the interaction of a targeted fish stock with itspredators, competitors and prey species; (ii) the ef-fects of weather and hydrography on fish biologyand ecosystem; (iii) the interaction between fish

and their habitats; and (iv) the effects of fishingon fish stocks and their habitats, especially howthe harvesting of one species might have an im-pact upon the other species in the ecosystem. TheNational Research Council of the US (National Re-search Council, 1999) advocated one more aspect tothis approach, that is, recognizing humans as com-ponents of the ecosystems they inhabit and use,thereby incorporating the users of the ecosystem inthe approach.

The marine fish landings in the Indian OceanRegion increased from about 1 mn tonnes in 1948to nearly 8 mn tonnes in 1996 (Fig. 1). However,the eightfold increase masks a series of problems,which the fisheries in the Indian Ocean Region arefacing today. Fisheries in the Indian Ocean areperhaps the most poorly managed, compared withthose of the other oceans. The reasons are biologi-cal, social and economic complexities.

In the tropical belt of the Indian Ocean, the fish-eries exploit hundreds of species, and the landingsin major landing centres regularly include about200 species belonging to about 50 groups everyday–though a few, sometimes only two or three,may contribute to 50 per cent of the catch (for ex-ample, the oil sardine along the southwest coast ofIndia, and the round scad in the Gulf of Thailand).Each of these 50 groups is unique in the marineecosystem and also in the fisheries.

Viviparity, low fecundity, slow growth, longlife span of shark; schooling, high fecundity, fastgrowth, short life span of clupeids; transoceanicmigration of tuna; sex transformation by groupers;amphibiotic estuarine and marine habitation, highfecundity, fast growth, short life span of penaeidprawns; and semelparity in a few cephalopodsare examples of a few diverse life pattern strate-gies adopted by the economically important fishgroups.

Fisheries in the tropical oceans exploit thesegroups regardless of their uniqueness. It is com-mon that several of these diverse groups are landedin a single trawl haul.

A single trawl haul in the tropical belt of theIndian Ocean lands, on average, 40 to 60 species;some of them are in a state of overexploitation, oth-ers in an underexploited state and the rest are opti-mally exploited.

Now the question is how to manage these di-verse fish stocks, which are in different states ofexploitation? Should the management option con-centrate on the dominant species, and hope thatthe ecosystem will somehow adjust to managementmeasures aiming to generate high catches of that

34

species? Or should the option try to consider ‘eco-logical redundancies’, that is, group the fishes intoguilds of similar species or similar states of ex-ploitation and try to manage the guilds as if theywere single species?

These uncertainties are an enigma for evolv-ing effective management priorities for the mul-tispecies fisheries. It is believed that ecosystem-based fisheries management will not be ambiguousin providing answers for these questions.

5 Plan for Ecosystem-based FisheriesManagement

As fisheries management expands its focus fromtarget fish stocks to the ecosystem, the main im-plication of the ecosystem-based fisheries manage-ment is the need to cater to the well-being of theecosystem as well as the communities. While itis a major conceptual advancement, the practicalproblems raised by this recognition are immense.There is still uncertainty on how to implement aneffective ecosystem-based management system inpractice. Nevertheless, there are pragmatic ways tobegin implementation of ecosystem-based fisheriesmanagement and to deal with complex interactionsof human institutions and societies.

Amongst the immediate steps that should betaken by the countries bordering the Indian Oceanin moving towards ecosystem-based fisheries man-agement are the following:

(i) Ecosystem classification and zonation Theecosystems supporting fisheries in the IndianOcean Region vary markedly, and the status ofexploitation in each ecosystem and the way inwhich fisheries are managed within them will alsovary according to their individual characteristics.Hence, the management options such as optimiz-ing craft and gear combinations should be differentfor these two diverse zones. The structure, functionand processes that occur between, as well as within,ecosystems should be considered for delineatingthe ecosystems. The delineation should considerhuman/institutional components and their interac-tions too.

Zonation of the coastal areas into smaller andmanageable levels may be useful for effective im-plementation. An indicative outlay of the zonationalong the 8,129 km coastline of India could be asfollows: (a) Gulf of Kutch ecosystem; (b) Saurash-tra coast; (c) south Gujarat coast; (d) north Ma-harashtra coast; (e) south Maharashtra coast; (f)Konkan coast; (g) north Kanara coast; (h) southKanara coast; (i) Calicut-Cochin coast; (j) Cochin-

Figure 1: Rationale for the application of an ecosystem approach for managing fisheries in the Indian Ocean

35

Kanyakumari coast; (k) Wadge Bank; (l) Gulf ofMannar; (m) Palk Bay; (n) Coromandel coast; (o)Pulicat Lake; (p) north Andhra-south Orissa coast;(q) Chilka Lake; (r) Bhitarkanika; (s) north Orissa-West Bengal coast; (t) Sundarbans; (u) Andaman &Nicobar Islands; and (v) Lakshadweep Islands.

(ii) Develop ecosystem modelling Modelling isan essential scientific tool in developing ecosys-tem approaches for fisheries management. Food-web-based models could examine factors that af-fect primary productivity and their interaction withall components of the ecosystem. As a measureof the state of exploitation of the world’s aquaticecosystem, Pauly and Christensen (1995) estimatedhow much primary production was required tosustain the global fisheries in 1988-1991. The resultsshowed that, globally, some 8 per cent of aquaticprimary production was appropriated by the fish-eries, and that there was considerable variationbetween resource system types: for open-oceanfisheries, only 2 per cent was required, while up-welling, shelves and freshwater systems requiredan order of 25 to 35 per cent primary production.For sustaining the coastal fisheries, it is suggestedthat only one-third of the total primary productioncould be used since a good part of it (over half)can be expected to fall out to the sediment (Chris-tensen, 1999). It may be concluded that the ‘avail-able’ primary production of the oceans, especiallyin the coastal waters, is fully utilized by humans.

Models such as ECOPATH (Polovina, 1984;Pauly and Christensen, 1995) have provided in-sights into some fundamental ecosystem questions.ECOPATH, with the recently incorporated ECOSIMsoftware system, is designed to describe the trophicfluxes and variables in ecosystems. By using thissoftware, more than 100 ecosystem models havebeen published, and another 50 are in progress.Considering the need to gain an insight into thefunctioning of the trophic food web for the Indianfish stocks, Vivekanandan et al (2001) gathered theavailable information and constructed a biomassbudget for the southwest coast of India for theyears 1994-1996, using ECOPATH. For this purpose,the ecosystem along the southwest coast was cat-egorized into 11 ecogroups, based on the feedinghabits and ecological niches of the species/groups:large predators, medium predators, large zooben-thic feeders, demersal feeders, mesopelagic feed-ers, molluscan feeders, zooplankton feeders, phy-toplankton feeders, zooplankton, phytoplankton,detritivores and detritus.

The analysis resulted in the following conclu-sions:

1. The annual average catch of the large andmedium predators, demersal feeders and de-tritivores exceeded the respective estimatedharvestable biomass, and hence, the exploita-tion of these groups should be restricted.

2. There is scope for increasing the catches oflarge zoobenthic feeders and the planktonfeeders.

3. Gear employed for the exploitation of demer-sal resources are being used excessively.

4. Gear employed for the exploitation of pelagicresources, such as the pelagic and midwatertrawls, are underutilized or unutilized.

5. Though the ecosystem analysis demandslarge number of input parameters, the anal-ysis is useful for understanding the ecosys-tem and for evolving suitable managementoptions.

(iii) Setting objectives and options for eachecosystem In consultation with all legitimatestakeholders and interest groups, objectives mustbe agreed upon for each ecosystem. Objectivesshould include both long-term and short-termgoals to increase the biodiversity as well as thebiomass, and should cover biological, ecological,economic, social and institutional issues. Someof the considerations for ecosystem-based fisheriesmanagement are given in Table 1.

For instance,

1. The short-term objective of a coral reefecosystem should be the protection of the reefand its dependent fauna and flora, and thelong- term objective should be to rebuild andextend the reef area.

2. The objective of the mangrove ecosystem isto protect the plants and nurseries, and, if re-quired, to launch afforestation programmes.Some of these ecosystems in the Indian OceanRegion have already been declared as marineprotected areas (MPAs), but the present sys-tem does not look so promising. Less than0.3 per cent of the area in the Indian OceanRegion lies within MPAs, but a much smallerfraction of that is currently protected fromfishing.

36

Type of Ecosystem Components ManagementOptions

Type of FishingRegulation

I. Critical Ecosystem Coral Reefs; Sponges;Mangroves

Marine Protected Ar-eas; Coral rebuilding;Mangrove afforesta-tion

Fishing ban alto-gether

II. Vulnerable ecosys-tem

Declining fish stocks;Concentration of vul-nerable/ endangeredspecies

No-fishing zone; Re-source enhancementprogrammes like sea-ranching

Fishing ban alto-gether; Alternativelivelihoods likemariculture

III. Polluted ecosys-tem

Bioaccumulation ofpollutants

Ecowatch; Evolvestandards for wastedischarge; Imple-ment polluter-paysprinciple

Fishing and market-ing of fish with pollu-tant loads to be pre-vented

IV. Estuaries, lagoonsand backwaters

Nurseries; Closure ofbar mouth

Seasonal closure offishing

Ban on all forms offishing during sea-sons of spawner andjuvenile abundanceand closure of barmouth; Regulatemesh size

V. Open coastal wa-ters

Combination ofunder- and overex-ploited stocks

Seasonal closure ofmechanised fishing;Area demarcation formechanized & tradi-tional craft; Limitedentry; Part of areaas no-fishing zoneeither on rotation orpermanently

Regular but con-trolled fishing; Pre-cautionary approach;Alternate livelihoodslike mariculture.

VI. Far-sea/deep-sea Mostly under- andunexploited stocks

Atlas on areas ofresource abundance;Devise economi-cally viable craftand gear; Regionalco-operation

No restriction for thepresent; Local fishingcommunities deserveencouragement

Table 1: Considerations for Ecosystem Management

37

3. The objectives for an urbanized/industrializedecosystem should be to set standards for ef-fluent discharge, and regularly monitor thepollutant load in the coastal waters and in thebody components of the organisms.

4. The objectives for sustaining the ecosystemof open waters should encompass a com-bination of technical measures, closed areasand seasons, input and/or output controls,and a suitable system of access rights for allusers. The system and functioning of thecoastal open-water ecosystem differ betweenone zone and another. For instance, the Ker-ala coast (southwest coast of India) experi-ences upwelling during the southwest mon-soon (June to September), abundant supplyof phytoplankton and zooplankton, and, con-sequently, the fishery is dominated by thesmall pelagics such as sardines, whitebaitsand Indian mackerel (49.7 per cent of thelandings). On the other hand, the Saurashtracoast (northwest coast of India) experienceswinter cooling and sinking during Novemberto February, and, consequently, the fishery isdominated by the demersals (57.2 per cent ofthe landings) such as sciaenids, flatfish, rib-bonfish, etc.

5. The concept of a no-fishing zone in the openwaters is gaining importance in several re-gions. The idea behind a no-fishing zone isto ban altogether all forms of fishing in se-lect areas. The idea is simple. If the fishare protected from fishing, they live longer,grow larger and produce an exponentially in-creasing number of eggs. It is observed thatadult fish tend to remain in the protected ar-eas, while their larvae help replenish adja-cent fisheries. Overall (multispecies) levels ofbiomass per unit area can double in two yearsand quadruple in the years of closure.

6. In the Californian reserves, the reproductiveoutput of two rockfish species was estimatedto be two to three times as great as in thefished areas. On the west coast of the US,the reproductive output of the lingcod in areserve in Puget Sound was 20 times greaterthan outside, and for the copper rockfish 100times greater. These no-fishing zones showedaverage increases of 91 per cent in the numberof fish species present (Roberts, 1999). Theseincreases occurred within two years of start-ing the protection scheme. Crucially, the ben-

eficial effects spilled over into areas wherefishing was still permitted. In St. Lucia,for example, a third of the country’s fishinggrounds were designated no-fishing area in1995. Within three years, commercially im-portant fish stocks had doubled in the seasadjacent to the reserves.

7. There is strong evidence to suggest that re-serves will work even better in the tropics.However, there is no direct experience of re-serves in the tropical regions of the IndianOcean, barring marine sanctuaries to pro-tect coral reefs and mangroves. Consider-ing that the concept of no-fishing zone is agood strategic tool, fisheries managers in thecountries bordering the Indian Ocean shouldstart working on the questions of how muchof the fishing grounds should be placed inreserves, how many are needed, and wherethey should be.

8. There seem to be three principles that gov-ern no-fishing zones. According to the firstprinciple, both biological and economic bene-fits can be maximized through closures rang-ing between 20 and 40 per cent of the fish-ing grounds. Recently, the American Associ-ation for the Advancement of Science, alongwith about 100 scientists, called for 20 percent of the world’s oceans to be declared asno-fishing zones by the year 2020 (Roberts,1999).

9. The second principle is based on the expecta-tion of maximization and equitable distribu-tion of benefits through a subdivision of the20 per cent reserve area to represent both bio-geographic and ecological diversities withinthe reserves.

10. The third principle stems from the questionwhether the derivation of maximum benefitsis from the permanent reserves or from rota-tional reserves. Considering the location offishing villages in close proximity to one an-other in the countries bordering the IndianOcean, the selection of areas for no-fishing,and the logistical, economic, political and so-cial implications of dislocating and rehabili-tating the fishers to fishing areas away fromthe reserves call for extreme care in plan-ning. Perhaps alternate livelihood sources inthe form of ecofriendly mariculture in the no-fishing zone could be considered.

38

11. Resource enhancement programmes such assea-ranching or installation of artificial reefsmay be implemented in a few specific ecosys-tems.

12. The fishing communities are dispersed allalong the coastline in the countries border-ing the Indian Ocean, and they are depen-dent on marine ecosystems that are close tothem. The nature of the ecosystems is an im-portant determinant of many cultural char-acteristics, including the social and economicorganization and the fishing gear and tech-nologies that are utilized. They develop inti-mate, detailed and function-oriented knowl-edge about the marine ecosystems. Theyare also easily vulnerable to resource deple-tions. The question is, how are the countriesprepared to adopt ecosystem-based fisheriesmanagement? The ecological considerationsdo not expect the halt of traditional, locallybased management systems. However, thetraditional community-based approach willhave to be reinvented, within the specific cul-tural, social and economic constraints of eachcountry. Foremost among these is the require-ment to involve all stakeholders.

6 Conclusion

Reshaping management strategies by involving allthe stakeholders in an ecosystem approach is ex-pected to yield short-term and long-term bene-fits. Some of the decisions like no-fishing zonesmay demand rehabilitation of the communitiesto alternate sites or livelihood opportunities. Acarefully planned protocol and implementation ofecosystem-based fisheries management within a lo-gistic time frame is expected to contribute to theprotection of marine biodiversity and fisheries.

References

1. Bapat, S.V., Banerji, S.K., and Bal, D.V. 1952.Observations on the biology of Harpodon ne-hereus. Journal of the Zoological Society of India,Vol. 3, pp.341-356.

2. Christensen, V. 1998. Fishery-inducedchanges in a marine ecosystem: insight frommodels of the Gulf of Thailand. Journal of FishBiology, Vol. 53, pp. 128-142.

3. Christensen, V. 1999. Ecosystem modelingand the challenge of ecosystem-based man-

agement. ACP-EU Fisheries Report, Vol. 5, pp.25-29.

4. Dayton, P.K. 1998. Reversals of the burden ofproof in fisheries management. Science, Vol.279, pp. 821-822.

5. Devaraj, M., and Vivekanandan, E. 2001. Ma-rine Fisheries of India: Principles and Practices(ms).

6. Hilborn, R., and Walters, C.J. 1992. Quantita-tive Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynam-ics and Uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, NewYork.

7. Holling, C.S., and Meffe, G.K. 1996. Com-mand and control, and the pathology of nat-ural resource management. Conservation Biol-ogy, Vol. 10, pp. 328-337.

8. Langton, R.W., and Haedrich, R.L. 1997.Ecosystem-based management. In Bore-man, J., Nakashima, B.S., Wilson, J. A.,and Kendall, R.L. (Eds), Northwest AtlanticGroundfish: Perspectives on a Fishery Collapse.American Fisheries Society, Maryland.

9. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998.Ecosystem-based fishery management: a re-port to the US Congress by the EcosystemPrinciples Advisory Panel. http.//www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reports.htm .

10. National Research Council. 1999. SustainingMarine Fisheries. National Academy Press,Washington DC.

11. Parrish, R.H. 1998. Life history strategies formarine fishes in the late Holocene. In Du-rand, M.H., Cury, P., Mendelssohn, R., Bakun,A., Roy, C., and Pauly, D. (Eds.) Global versusLocal Change in Upwelling Areas. Serie Collo-ques et Seminaires. ORSTOM, Paris.

12. Pauly, D. 1979. Theory and management oftropical multispecies stocks: a review withemphasis on Southeast Asian demersal fish-eries. ICLARM Study Review, Vol. 1, p. 35.

13. Pauly, D. 1999. Fishing down marine foodwebs, as an integrative concept. ACP-EU Fish-eries Research Report, Vol. 5, pp. 4-6.

14. Pauly, D., and Christensen, V. 1995. Primaryproduction required to sustain global fish-eries. Nature, Vol. 374, pp. 255-257.

39

15. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J.,Froese, R., and Torres Jr. F. 1998. Fishingdown marine food webs. Science, Vol. 279,pp. 860-863.

16. Polovina, J. J. 1984. Model of a coral reefecosystem. I. The ECOPATH model and its ap-plication to French Frigate shoals. Coral Reefs,Vol. 3, pp. 1-11.

17. Roberts, C. M. 1999. Marine protected areasas strategic tools. ACP-EU Fisheries ResearchReport, Vol. 5, pp. 37- 43.

18. Schaefer, M. B. 1954. Some aspects of the dy-namics of population important to the man-agement of commercial marine fisheries. Bul-lettin of IATTC, Vol. 1, pp. 26-56.

19. Sparre, P., and Venema, S. C. 1992. Introduc-tion to tropical fish stock assessment. FAOFisheries Technical Papers, Vol. 306, p. 376.

20. Stergiou, K. 1999. Fisheries impacts on ma-rine ecosystems. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Re-port, Vol. 5, pp. 29-30.

21. Stringer, C., and McKie, R. 1996. African Ex-odus: the Origins of Modern Humanity. HenryHolt, New York.

22. Thompson, W. F., and Bell, H. 1934. Biologicalstatistics of the Pacific halibut fishery: Effectof changes in intensity upon total yield, andyield per unit gear. Report of the InternationalFisheries Commission, Vol. 8, p. 48.

23. Vivekanandan, E. 2001. Sustainable coastalfisheries for nutritional security. In Pan-dian, T. J. (Ed.) Sustainable Indian Fisheries,National Academy of Agricultural Sciences,New Delhi.

24. Vivekanandan, E., Pillai, V. N., Srinath, M.,and Kurup, K. N. 2001. Ecosystem analysisof fish biomass along the southwest coast ofIndia. Report for the ADB RETA 5766 Project,ICLARM, Penang.

25. Wyrtki, K. 1973. Physical oceanography ofthe Indian Ocean. In Zeitzschel, T. (Ed.) Bi-ology of the Indian Ocean, Chapman and Hall,London.

40

International Instruments forManaging Fisheries in the Indian Ocean

Rolf Willmann ∗

AbstractThis paper sets out with a brief review of the status of marine fishery resources and the prin-

cipal fisheries management issues in the Indian Ocean Region. It then presents important inter-national instruments for fisheries management and, in general terms, reviews progress in theirimplementation. The term ‘international’ is defined broadly to also encompass the conventionsof regional or sub- regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs). The paper focuses onfisheries management in the conventional sense of making optimum use of the fishery resources.Instruments addressing the protection of fish habitats from pollution and degradation are alsoaddressed but in less detail.

Keywords

Fisheries management. Fish habitats. Pollution. Overfishing. Habitat degradation. Eco-labelling. Migratory and straddling fish stocks. Regional fisheries management organizations.International instruments for fisheries management. Rio Declaration. Agenda 21. Conventionon Biological Diversity. UNCLOS. Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the MarineEnvironment from Land-based Activities (GPA).

Contents1 Introduction 42

2 The Status of Marine Fisheries Resources in the Indian Ocean Region 432.1 Western Indian Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.2 Eastern Indian Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3 Fisheries Management Issues in the Indian Ocean Region 45

4 Main Factors Causing Overfishing and Habitat Degradation 484.1 Open access, subsidies and lack of gainful employment opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484.2 Complexity of integrated management of coastal zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5 International Management Instruments 495.1 The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982 Convention) . . . . . . . . 505.2 Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525.3 The 1995 Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

∗Senior Fishery Planning Officer,Fishery Policy and Planning Division, Fisheries Department,Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations (FAO), Rome. Email: rolf.willmann@fao.org

41

5.4 The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545.5 The Compliance Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565.6 The International Plans of Action (IPOAs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5.6.1 All State responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585.6.2 Flag State responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585.6.3 Port State measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585.6.4 Internationally agreed market-related measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

5.7 Instruments relating to fish trade, subsidies and ecolabelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595.7.1 Trade and environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595.7.2 Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595.7.3 Ecolabelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.8 Provisions of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625.8.1 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625.8.2 The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) . . . . . . . . 635.8.3 Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization (WIOTO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635.8.4 Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5.9 The Global Plan of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment (GPA) . . . . . . . . . 635.10 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

6 Conclusion 65

7 References 65

Annex 1: Convention on the Law of the Sea—Overviw 67

Annex 2: Text of selected Articles of the 1982 UNCLOS 69

Annex 3: Summary of the main contents of the Rio Declaration 71

Annex 4: Summary of the main provisions of the GPA 73

1 Introduction1,2

The aim of this paper is to present important inter-national instruments for the management of IndianOcean fisheries. The term ‘international’ is definedbroadly to also encompass the conventions of re-gional or sub-regional fisheries management orga-nizations (RFMOs).

The focus of the paper is on fisheries manage-ment in the conventional sense of making opti-mum use of the fishery resources. The protection offish habitats from pollution and degradation is alsoaddressed but in less detail. Instruments cover-ing maritime safety, labour and human rights stan-dards and international trade are not considered,except for those provisions that might have directrelevance for fisheries management.

The paper will only occasionally, and as a mat-ter of example, refer to the management of specificfisheries in the Indian Ocean Region for the sim-ple fact that this region is so vast and diverse inclimatic and environmental conditions, fishery re-sources, technological levels and scales, and nutri-tional, economic, social and cultural importance offisheries.

It will, however, briefly describe the current sta-tus of marine resources in the region and review, ingeneral terms, the principal fisheries managementissues and how these affect, in particular, small-scale artisanal fisheries and fishing communities.The bulk of the paper is devoted to summariesor excerpts of international instruments and somecommentaries and notes on their history.

1The views expressed in this paper are those of the author. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO), nor any of its Members.

2Nothing in this paper implies the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the FAO concerning the legal status of anycountry, territory, city, or area or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

42

2 The Status of Marine FisheriesResources in the Indian OceanRegion

For statistical purposes, FAO has divided theworld’s oceans into several statistical areas. Sta-tistical Area 51 covers the western Indian Ocean,i.e. the area between the east coast of Africa andthe west coast of India. Statistical Area 57 coversthe eastern Indian Ocean, i.e. the area betweenthe east coast of India and the west coast of Aus-tralia. The following account of the status of ma-rine fisheries resources in these two areas has beenextracted from FAO’s regular reporting exercise.3

2.1 Western Indian Ocean

The western Indian Ocean area has a surfacearea of 30 mn sq km, and encompasses regionswith greatly differing fishery resources character-istics. The Northwest Arabian Sea contains areas ofnearly continuous upwelling (off the Oman coast)and thus extremely high productivity, as well as ar-eas with seasonal upwelling also resulting in pe-riods of high productivity, as off the coast of Iranand Pakistan in the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea.This monsoon-induced upwelling extends to thewest coast of India. The Persian Gulf, a shallow,enclosed area characterized by warm saline watershas fisheries characteristic only to that area, while,in the Red Sea, narrow continental shelves and anenclosed nature also create unique fisheries situa-tions. The Gulf of Aden and Somali coast are alsomonsoon-driven upwelling areas that experienceseasons of high productivity. Area 51 also containssome small oceanic islands, the Seychelles, Mau-ritius, Maldives and the Comoros, that have theirown characteristic fisheries reflecting their oceanicor near-oceanic features. Further to the south,South Africa has fisheries of a temperate and sub-Antarctic nature.

The total marine capture fishery catches in thewestern Indian Ocean increased at a compoundedannual average growth rate of 3.8 per cent froma 1970 catch of about 1.5 mn tonnes to nearly 3.9mn tonnes in 1999.4 The catch in the early 1950samounted to about 0.5 mn tonnes. India is by farthe biggest fishing nation in the western IndianOcean Region with a west coast catch of 1.78 mntonnes, equal to 46 per cent of this Statistical Area

in 1999. This is followed by Pakistan, with 474,000 tonnes (12 per cent) and Iran with 244 thou-sand tonnes (6 per cent). The rest of the catch inthe western Indian Ocean Region is made up ofa large number of countries, each of about half ofthem contributing less than one per cent of the to-tal catch and each of the other half, more than oneper cent but less than 4 per cent. Countries whoseshare is above one per cent include Egypt, France,Maldives, Madagascar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Spain,Taiwan (Province of China), Tanzania, United ArabEmirates, and Yemen. About 10 per cent of the totalcatch is taken (i.e. reported) by non-coastal coun-tries, and comprise principally of tuna and tuna-like species, in particular skipjack and yellowfintuna.

The growth of the total catch has remainedfairly stagnant from 1993 onwards, after an annualgrowth rate of about 6 per cent in the 1980s. Thestrong growth in the 1980s, to a substantial part,was contributed by the rapid expansion of the catchof tuna and tuna-like species of nearly 20 per centper annum. Small pelagic species have depicted,on average, a slight growth trend of 1.4 per cent perannum during the last three decades. As the abun-dance of small pelagic species is heavily influencedby climatic and oceanographic conditions, stronginter-annual fluctuations are typically observed ofthese species. In contrast, the catches of demer-sal species (redfishes, croakers, drums, etc.) haveincreased relatively steadily since 1950 at a rate ofnearly 4 per cent per annum, with particularly largeincreases since the early 1980s coming from variousspecies of croakers and drums.

Catches of large pelagics, principally tuna andtuna-like species, have increased relatively steadilysince the 1950s, with large increases in skipjackand yellowfin tuna being reported in the 1980s be-cause of the expansion of large- scale purse-seineand longline fisheries by mostly vessels of long-distance fishing nations, including France, Spain,Japan, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan (Provinceof China). Relatively small-scale fishing vessels ofSri Lanka and the Maldives have also contributedsignificantly to higher tuna catches. The growthhas slowed down since the mid-1990s as raw ma-terial prices for canned tuna have experienced asharp decline to an uneconomic low level of be-low US$400 per tonne because of over-supplies.This decline was arrested and prices re-bounded

3FAO, 1997. Review of the state of world fishery resources: marine fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 920. Rome, FAO. 1997.173 p. The chapter on the western Indian Ocean has been prepared by Ross Shotton and the chapter on the eastern Indian Ocean byPurwito Martosubroto. The data were updated and the text revised, as appropriate, by the author of the current paper.

4If not otherwise indicated, growth rates refer to compounded annual averages.

43

to around US$800 in this millennium, largely be-cause of a concerted action taken by the WorldTuna Purse-Seine Organization to reduce catchesby large purse-seiners.

While total crustacean catches appear to havebeen relatively constant since the early 1970s, thecatches of high-value penaeid shrimps have in-creased sharply since the mid-1980s, but stablizedin more recent years as stocks are fully fished. Alarge part of the shrimp catch is exported to, pri-marily, Japan, USA and countries of the EuropeanUnion (EU).

From a relatively small catch of less than 9000tonnes in 1970, the production of squids and cuttle-fish increased strongly by nearly 10 per cent per an-num to a high of nearly 150,000 tonnes in 1997, andthen declined to 116,000 tonnes in 1999. Squids andcuttlefish are also important internationally tradedproducts.

2.2 Eastern Indian Ocean

The eastern Indian Ocean includes the Bay of Ben-gal in the north, the Andaman Sea and the north-ern part of the Malacca Straits in the east, and thewaters around the west and south of Australia. Themain shelf areas include those of the Bays of Bengaland Martaban and the narrower shelf areas on thewestern and southern sides of Indonesia and Aus-tralia. Most of the coastal fisheries are concentratedin these shelf areas and are the main fisheries in theregion. The resources range from typical tropicalspecies found in the northern part of the area totemperate species in the waters of the southern lat-itudes west and south of Australia.

The fisheries of the eastern Indian Ocean arecharacterized by increased fishing pressure, espe-cially in inshore areas. The coastal areas off the eastof India, the west of Thailand and the south coastof central Java are good examples of areas wherefishing pressure has kept increasing. Knowledge ofthe fish stocks is generally poor and managementactions taken have usually been on an ad hoc basis,in most cases with little scientific backup.

The total catches in the eastern Indian OceanRegion increased nearly fourfold, from 1.13 mntonnes in 1970 to 4.32 mn tonnes in 1999. Tuna andtuna-like species, squids and cuttlefish, red fishes,mackerels and jacks increased at higher averagegrowth rate than the 4.8 per cent per annum re-ported for the total catch. There has been only aslight drop in the average growth rate in the 1990sto 4.2 per cent, higher than the 3.8 per cent per an-num reported in the 1980s.

Catches of five countries (India, Indonesia,Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand) account for overfour-fifth (85 per cent) of the reported catch in 1999.The absence of Bangladesh as a major marine fish-ing nation, despite a large population, is due toits historical focus on the large freshwater fisheryresources. The catches of Australia made up lessthan 3 per cent of total catches by weight, but con-tributed a much higher proportion in terms of theireconomic value.

Thailand, with an average growth rate of 11per cent, and Indonesia, with 9.4 per cent per an-num, showed, by far, the fastest expansion in ma-rine catches in the eastern Indian Ocean Region, butthe growth rate has slowed down in the 1980s and1990s to below 9 per cent, in the case of Thailand,and below 7 per cent, in the case of Indonesia. No-table is the strong growth in Sri Lanka’s catches inthe 1990s, with 4.4 per cent per annum, after stag-nating catches in the 1980s. This has been largelydue to a more than doubling of tuna and tuna-likecatches in the 1990s with the introduction of the so-called multi-day boat fleet.

Six major species groups dominate the catch;these include redfishes, small pelagics, mackerels,jacks, tunas and tuna-like species, and shrimps.Over one-third of the total catch is reported asmiscellaneous fishes, principally comprising smallfishes and juveniles of some high-valued fishes.Although the continued increase of catch of thisgroup may indicate the increase in fishing pressureand of unselective fishing practices, the relativelyhigh figure is partly also caused by poor and in-complete statistical recording in several countries.

Most of the catch from coastal fisheries is usedfor local consumption. Fish is generally consid-ered an affordable source of protein by most peo-ple in the region. Shrimp and tuna are the main ex-port commodities. Overexploitation of shrimp re-sources in coastal waters has reduced the amount ofexports from capture fisheries, and, in many coun-tries in the region, there is a growing tendency forexports to come from the aquaculture sector. Whilethe majority of tuna catches are from coastal fish-eries, skipjack and yellowfin tuna, which form themajor part of the tuna exports, are caught offshore.During the last decade, some countries have devel-oped offshore fishing for tuna, notably longlining,in the case of Indonesia, and purse-seining, in thecase of Thailand.

The main fisheries in the southern part of theeastern Indian Ocean are the fisheries off the westand southwest coast of Australia. The lobster fish-ery is one of the important fisheries in this area.

44

In general, the fisheries have been relatively steadysince the 1980s, except for tuna catches that expe-rienced a worrying decline from a high of some20,000 tonnes in the mid-1980s to less than one-third that amount in more recent years. In responseto the decline, Australia, Japan and New Zealandco-operated in the Commission for the Conserva-tion of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) to achievebetter fisheries management.

3 Fisheries Management Issues in theIndian Ocean Region

Unsurprisingly, being of such a vast and diverse na-ture, this region depicts the full range of fisheriesmanagement problems that have become a perva-sive feature of the world’s fisheries during the lastseveral decades. They include:

Biological overexploitation of many coastalfishery resources, especially valuable, bottom-dwelling finfish resources. The extent of biologicaloverexploitation is camouflaged, to some degree,in aggregate catch figures by ecosystem changes asthe biomass decline of long-lived species is sub-stituted by more short-lived species that have agreater resilience to high levels of fishing effort.

Excessive fleet sizes are pervasive in the regionand estimated, at the global level, in the order of 30to 40 per cent. The extent of overcapacities in anyspecific fishery is usually directly related to the po-tential of the fishery resource to generate resourcerent. The amount of potential rent, as a share ofthe value of the catch, can be as high as 70 percent and as low as zero. The share is primarilyinfluenced by the abundance of the resource, themarket price of the species and harvesting costs,which, in turn, are influenced by how easily the re-source can be exploited with the available fishingtechnologies. As many fisheries in the region con-tinue to be open-access, i.e. no effective controlsare in place to limit the growth of fishing capac-ity and fishing effort or to limit catches through aquota regime, the high resource rent potential man-ifests itself initially in high returns to the owners offishing vessels. This high profitability attracts newentrants into the fisheries as well as incites current

operators to invest in technological improvementsof fishing craft and gear, causing the fishing powerto augment. The capacity and effort expanding in-vestments commonly continue to take place untilthe time when the fishery has become unprofitableand crew incomes have dropped to a low level.

Discarding in commercial fisheries has attractedconsiderable attention over the last decade as partof the debate on the appropriate utilization of theworld’s fisheries resources.5 Discarding is too of-ten seen solely as the result of careless fishing. Ingeneral, however, it results from a number of fac-tors, the nature of which is biological (the multi-species nature of the resources), technological (thedifficulty of developing 100 per cent selective gearand practices, and economic (unprofitable holdingand conserving of catches of low or no commer-cial value). However, there appears to remain alarge scope for shifting from largely unselectivebottom trawling to other types of gear. In the ab-sence of specific and effective regulatory provisionsor economic incentives to discourage discarding,the problem is known to become potentially wors-ened by management through individual transfer-able quotas (ITQs) of multi- species fisheries andquota-induced high- grading in single species fish-eries.6 With the exception of some Australian fish-eries, no individual quota management regime hasbeen established in the region.

The impact of discarding is a complex issue, de-pending on local situations and demand, qualityand commercial potential value of the discards, ortheir impact on system productivity. In general,however, discarding is considered both a waste ofresources and a threat to biodiversity. In view of thefull or overexploitation of many wild fish stocks,discarding has caused particular concern for theavailability of fish to large numbers of poorer con-sumers in developing countries to whom fish is amajor source of their animal protein supplies. Thefood security implications have been underlined inthe 1996 Kyoto Conference and the adopted KyotoDeclaration on the sustainable contribution of fish-eries to food security.7

Low profits or even losses and low crew in-comes are typically observed in fisheries that havebeen subject to open access and heavy fishing pres-

5United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions 49/118 of the Forty-ninth Session of the UNGA of 1994 and 50/25 of theFiftieth Session of the UNGA of 1995 were concerned with fisheries by-catch and discards and their impact on the sustainable use ofthe world’s oceans and seas. The matter was also considered at the 22nd Session of the Committee on Fisheries, Rome, Italy 17-20March 1997 based on a paper by the FAO Secretariat (COFI/97/Inf.7).

6A comprehensive discussion is provided in Pascoe, Sean. 1997. By-catch Management and the Economics of Discarding. FAOFisheries Technical Paper No. 370.

7Report of the International Conference on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security, Kyoto, Japan, 4-9 December1995.

45

sure for a prolonged time. Precipitous collapses inoverall catches, however, have not been observedin the tropical fisheries of the Indian Ocean Region,possibly because of biomass substitution effects. Asa consequence, no sharp drops in fishing activitiesor in employment as a result of biological and eco-nomic overfishing have been observed in the re-gion.

Conflicts among fishers using different types offishing gear and different scales of fishing technol-ogy are pervasive in unmanaged or badly man-aged fisheries. These are especially common be-tween small-scale fishers using boat-seine and en-circling nets, hooks-and-line and gillnets, and smalland medium-sized industrial trawlers and purse-seiners that operate in near-shore waters and ex-ploit the same species as the small-scale sector.Apart from direct competition over scarce fishstocks, the active nature of the industrial opera-tions can cause damage to artisanal fishing gear.Reports of severe and often fishing conflicts in theIndian Ocean Region were more common in the1970s and 1980s but appear to have declined in bothfrequency and severity since then. While conflictscontinue to be pervasive in the region, the lowerincidence of violent conflicts may be attributableto measures taken by governments to avoid the di-rect interaction between industrial and small-scalefisheries through the establishment of reserved in-shore areas for small-scale fishers (e.g. Malaysia),the placement of artificial reefs in near-shore wa-ters to detract from the use of active fishing gear,especially bottom trawl (e.g. Thailand), as well asthe banning of trawl gear in certain areas (e.g. In-donesia). The level of conflict may also have de-clined with the increasing adoption of motorizedfishing craft by small-scale fishermen that allow notonly the adoption of similar active fishing gear (e.g.small-scale trawls and purse-seines) but also forthe extension of the range of fishing activities intodeeper and more offshore waters. The increasedrange of fairly small-scale fishing vessels has re-sulted, during the last decade, in a growing numberof incidents of small-scale fishers accidentally, or in-tentionally, entering the exclusive economic zones(EEZs) of foreign countries. Not infrequently, thesefishers have become subject to arrest and have, attimes, been held for prolonged periods.

Competition over migratory fish stocks, espe-cially tuna and tuna-like species, is not confined tofleets of a single country but pits the interests of

vessels of long-distance fishing nations in the In-dian Ocean Region against those of small-scale fish-ers who have exploited these stocks for centuries,as is the case of the traditional pole-and-line fish-ery for skipjack tuna in the Maldives. In the par-ticular case of the skipjack fishery, while stocks stillappear to be in a fairly healthy state, the massiveexpansion of industrial purse-seine production inthe 1990s has caused a surreptitious drop in aver-age sales prices, making the traditional technology,though greatly modernized in recent years, unprof-itable. While the recent action taken by the WorldTuna Purse-Seine Organization has led to reducedskipjack and small yellowfin tuna catches and a re-covery of average sales prices, the average produc-tion and collection costs per tonne of the Maldivianpole-and-line fishery compare unfavourably withthose of the large-scale industrial purse- seiners.

While there is still insufficient information for arigorous stock assessment of yellowfin tunas, theIndian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), workingparty on tropical tuna, considered that total catchesof yellowfin tuna appear to have reached a plateau,and may now be at, or approaching, maximumsustainable yield (MSY) for the current fishing pat-tern. It noted that the recent trend of increased fish-ing pressure on juvenile yellowfin from purse-seinefishery on drifting objects may decrease the sustain-able yield of the stock.8

Bigeye tuna, and especially southern bluefintuna, are the two species that cause the greatestmanagement concern among the highly migratorytuna species in the Indian Ocean Region. They canbe found throughout the world’s southern oceans,spending most of their lives in cold waters (indeep waters and southern waters) where they arecaught as adults, with longlines, primarily for salein the high-priced Japanese sashimi market (havinga preference for fatty flesh that serves the animalsas insulation against the cold water). As juveniles,they can be captured in more surface tropical andsub-tropical waters. Southern bluefin tuna breedin the Indian Ocean’s warm waters, south of Java,Indonesia, from where they migrate as juvenilessouth down the west coast of Australia. When theyare 40-50 cm long (they can grow up to 2 m longand weigh 200 kg), they move either east, throughthe Great Australian Bight, towards New Zealand,or west, through the Indian Ocean, towards SouthAfrica9.

8IOTC. 2000. Report of the 5th Session of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, Victoria, Seychelles, 11-15 December 2000. Victoria,Seychelles.

9Deere, C.L. 2000. Net Gains: Linking Fisheries Management, International Trade and Sustainable Development. IUCN, Washington DC

46

IOTC’s working party on tropical tuna statedthat the status of bigeye tuna should be consid-ered uncertain but of concern.10 More serious is thecondition of the southern bluefin tuna stock whosebiomass is reported to be “well below the minimumlevel recognized internationally as acceptable forsupporting sustainable utilization”.11

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fish-ing activities have become a pervasive problem inmany of the world’s oceans. Whereas IUU fish-ing occurs, or has the potential to occur, in allcapture fisheries, both in marine and inland wa-ters, it has raised particular concern with regardto fisheries on the high seas for highly migratoryand straddling fish stocks as well as pure high-seasstocks, i.e. fishery resources whose entire life cy-cle is within waters outside of national jurisdictions(i.e. EEZs).12 The IOTC estimated that, in 1996, IUUfishing amounted to nearly 100,000 tonnes in the In-dian Ocean, i.e., 10 per cent of all reported landingsof tuna and tuna- like species. IOTC reported thatthis figure might be an underestimate.

IUU fishing is often associated with the activi-ties of so-called “flag-of- convenience” (FoC) ves-sels. FoC vessels, through re-flagging, can avoidthe need to adhere to the rules and regulationsof their original flag State or those that the flagState is committed to enforce under the provi-sions of regional fisheries management organiza-tions (RFMOs). Even where no intentional re- flag-ging has occurred, RFMOs experience difficulties inapplying responsible fisheries management mea-sures to the vessels of non- Parties, particularlythose on the fishing vessel registers of so-called“open register” States. This has resulted in vari-ous proposals, ranging from making efforts to en-courage such non-Parties to join the regional fish-eries bodies and/or comply with their manage-ment measures, to implementing bans of varioussorts against them, such as denying port access,banning imports of fish, outlawing trans- ship-ments, etc.13

In the Indian Ocean, the problem of IUU fish-ing is especially pronounced among a large numberof small (less than 100 GT/24 m) longline vessels,based more or less permanently in Indian Oceanports, which report neither to their flag authori-

ties, nor to those of the countries where they arebased. There is a growing fear that the long-linefishery for especially bigeye tuna may overexploitthis high-value stock. This, and low economic re-turns, or even losses, have recently prompted Japanto unilaterally reduce by 20 per cent its distant-water longline fleet. The benefits from this movemight accrue to IUU fishing fleets if measures arenot taken to constrain their activities. Similarly, be-cause of the migratory nature of the target species,the aspirations of coastal countries to enter this fish-ery could be compromised.14

Degradation of the marine habitat is causedby man-made environmental changes which havetoxic or otherwise damaging effects such as wa-ter pollution, impairment of coral reefs, removal ofmangroves, smothering of seagrass beds, etc. Thesechanges adversely affect, respectively, the produc-tivity and abundance of resources and the qualityof fish as a consumer good. Globally, it is estimatedthat 90 per cent of the world’s fish production isdependent on critical coastal zone habitats at sometime in the life cycle. Critical habitats include estu-arine areas, coral reefs, mangrove forests and otherwetlands, tidal flats and seagrass beds, which pro-vide essential nursery and feeding areas for manycoastal and oceanic aquatic species.

The geographic origins of damaging habitat im-pacts can reach far inland, not infrequently strad-dling national boundaries, and their sources com-monly include many different economic activitiessuch as different industries, agriculture, forestry,and human settlements. These effects also arisefrom within the fisheries sector through inappro-priate siting of fish and shrimp ponds in mangroveareas, high stocking densities, excessive feedingand inappropriate use of chemicals in coastal aqua-culture, as well as the use of destructive or unselec-tive fishing methods in marine fisheries, includingexplosives, poison, and excessive bottom-trawling.Furthermore, a worldwide concern is the adverseimpact of global warming on, especially, coral reefs.

Social disruption typically occurs in coastal ar-eas where there is intense competition over scarcenatural resources as a consequence of rapid de-velopment of an unplanned and unregulated na-ture. Social disruption is felt mostly at the local

10IOTC. 2001. op.cit.11CCSBT (1998b) Report of the Resumed Fourth Annual Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna,

Canberra, Australia, 19-21 February, 1998. p.1.12Doulman, D. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing: Mandate for an International Plan of Action. Paper submitted to the

Expert Consultation on IUU Fishing, Sydney, Australia, 15–19 May 2000.13Bray, K. 2000. A Global Review of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. Paper submitted to the Expert Consultation

on IUU Fishing, Sydney, Australia, 15–19 May 2000.14Bray, K. (2000) Op. cit.

47

level and can take the form of displacement of tra-ditional community-based activities in agriculture,forestry and fisheries; marginalization of residentresource users and non-resource users due to in-creasingly inequitable distribution of income; de-creasing employment opportunities, with shifts to-wards unskilled and seasonal labour; migration to-wards urban centres; and deteriorating nutritionaland health conditions of people.15

4 Main Factors Causing Overfishingand Habitat Degradation

4.1 Open access, subsidies and lack ofgainful employment opportunities

At the origin of the pervasive nature of overfish-ing and excess harvesting capacities are, on the onehand, the open-access condition that continues togovern many of the Indian Ocean marine fisheriesand, on the other hand, the direct and indirect sub-sidization of fisheries, which worsens the conse-quences of market failure associated with open ac-cess. While the progressive establishment of EEZssince the mid-1970s has created the necessary in-stitutional condition for the control of access overmost marine fishery resources, governments have,first, encouraged the building up of fishing capac-ity in the name of “development” and, after hav-ing inadvertently developed an overcapacity, en-countered serious political, economic, social andcultural difficulties to effectively restrict access andcontain or reduce expansion of fishing capacity andfishing effort. At the heart of these difficulties is theneed to reduce and contain the number of peoplewho are employed in capture fisheries and who de-rive their livelihoods from them. In most countriesof the Indian Ocean Region, this need stands in con-trast to a still rapidly growing population, which, inmany instances, can neither be gainfully employedin agriculture nor absorbed at the required rate inindustry or the service sector. In some countries,there continues to be an inflow of labourers fromagriculture into the marine fisheries sector, as thelatter offers higher incomes and acts as employerof last resort. Globally, employment in fisheries hasgrown in the period 1970 to 1990 by two and a half

times to nearly 30 mn persons and has increasedmore rapidly than the population as a whole andmore rapidly than employment in agriculture16.

While mobility into fisheries is frequently highand rarely restricted, there are several hurdles thatimpede labour mobility from fisheries into othersectors of the economy. The level of educationamong fishing communities is often below averageand they have a distinct maritime culture and tradi-tion. The maintenance of this tradition has becomean issue in its own right, which has attracted sup-port from the public at large and which may partlyexplain the substantive amounts of subsidies chan-nelled into fisheries. Other reasons for subsidiza-tion include poor economic performance of fleetsexploiting overfished stocks; the desire to re-deployexcess capacities into third countries through fish-ing agreements; poverty and marginalization of ar-tisanal fisheries in some regions, especially in Southand Southeast Asia; maintenance of fishing em-ployment in remote coastal areas; and promotionof offshore and long-distance fisheries as a meansto reduce fishing pressure from coastal waters.

4.2 Complexity of integrated management ofcoastal zones

The intricate management issues in the coastal zoneare caused by complex human-nature interactions,multiple and interdependent resource use patternsand market failures, especially in the form of costexternalities, i.e. the imposition of costs by aneconomic activity on other resource users, with-out carrying the burden of—or paying a price for—this action. Cost externalities are pervasive wherethere is an unregulated or unco-ordinated use ofState and common-property resources and wherewell-defined property rights over coastal resourcesare absent or impossible or undesirable to estab-lish and enforce. Integrated management efforts ofcoastal areas are often hampered by high costs ofacquiring essential management information, thecomplex nature of establishing an effective regu-latory framework requiring strong interagency co-ordination and stakeholder participation, and thedifficulty of attaining high compliance with man-agement rules and regulations.17

15Barg, U., P. Martosubroto and R. Willmann. 1998. Towards Sustainable Coastal Management: Selected Issues in Fisheries andAquaculture. In, Entwicklung und lndlicher Raum. Jahrgang 32. Heft 2/98. pp. 3-7.

16Garica, S.M. and R. Willmann. 1999. Responsible Marine Capture Fisheries: Main Global Issues and Solutions. Mimeo. FAO.Rome

17Willmann, R. 1997. Fisheries Management Within the Framework of Integrated Coastal Area Management. In, Proceedings ofthe South Asian Workshop on Fisheries and Coastal Area Management–Institutional, Legal and Policy Dimensions, Chennai, India,26-29 September 1996, International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), Chennai, India.

48

5 International ManagementInstruments18

At the conclusion of UNCLOS in 1982, it had beenassumed, implicitly at least, that the adoption of ex-tended jurisdiction in international law would leadto a significant improvement in the way in whichthe world’s marine fisheries resources were man-aged and utilized. However, the 1991-1992 FAOanalysis19, drawing together data and related fish-eries information in a novel way, showed that suchexpectation from the “new economic order” in fish-eries had not been generally realized. Moreover,the FAO study provided, for the first time, a globalassessment of the poor economic performance ofworld fisheries. This analysis, widely quoted in theinternational fisheries press and literature, has be-come a benchmark and has stimulated a large num-ber of further studies20, 21, 22. It also has providedimpetus to a range of initiatives at global, regionaland national levels to improve fisheries manage-ment and to make the necessary adjustments in in-stitutional arrangements and incentive structuresto encourage responsible fisheries.

The 1991-92 FAO analysis was undertakenagainst a background of a series of preparatorymeetings for United Nations Conference on Envi-ronment and Development (UNCED) that served topromote broad international awareness and con-cern about the manner in which many of theworld’s natural resources were being used. In May1992, one month prior to UNCED, the InternationalConference on Responsible Fishing was convenedin Cancun by the Government of Mexico, in col-laboration with FAO. The Conference had its rootsin the 1991 Nineteenth Session of the FAO Com-mittee on Fisheries (COFI) which recommended, in-ter alia, that the concept of responsible fishing bedeveloped and that an instrument to this effect beelaborated.23

The Conference adopted the Cancun Declara-tion, which provided input to the UNCED processand gave impetus to the elaboration of the Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries.

In combination, the 1991 Session of COFI, theCancun Conference and UNCED led to the launch-ing of the following three international and com-plementary fisheries initiatives:

1. the 1993-95 United Nations Conference on Strad-dling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory FishStocks (UN Fish Stocks Conference), which led tothe opening for signature in December 1995 of theUN Fish Stocks Agreement;

2. the 1992-93 negotiation of the legally bindingCompliance Agreement, which was adopted inNovember 1993 by the Twenty-seventh Session ofthe FAO Conference; and

3. the 1993-95 negotiation of the Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries, and its adoption by consen-sus in October 1995 by the FAO Conference.

The UN Fish Stocks Conference is one of sev-eral international activities with relevance to fish-eries pursuant to the 1992 UNCED (or Rio Confer-ence) and its two principal outcomes: (1) Rio Dec-laration and (2) Agenda 21. Others include the 1995Global Programme of Action for the Protection ofthe Marine Environment from Land-Based Activi-ties (GPA), adopted in Washington in 1995, and the1995 Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Bio-logical Diversity. The latter is the outcome of thesecond Conference of the Parties to the Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD). CBD was opened forsignature at the Rio Conference and entered intoforce in 1993.

A feature of all recent international negotiationprocesses, including the UN Fish Stocks Conferenceand the Code negotiations, is the broad interest

18If not otherwise specified, this section draws heavily upon the following two papers: Willmann, R. 1997. International Instru-ments on Fisheries and of Relevance to Fisheries. Paper presented at the first meeting of the World Forum of Fish Harvesters andFishworkers, New Delhi, India, 17–21 November 1997. (op. cit.)

19FAO 1993. Marine Fisheries and the Law of the Sea: A Decade of Change (Special chapter (revised) of The State of Food andAgriculture 1992), FAO Fisheries Circular No. 853.

20Doulman, D. 1998. the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: the Requirement for Structural Change and Adjustment in theFisheries Sector. FAO. Rome. (http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/agreem/codecond/codecon.htm )

21Garcia S.M. and C. Newtonne. 1997. Current Situation, Trends and Prospects in World Capture Fisheries. In E.K. Pikitch, D.D.Huppert, and M.P. Sissenwine (Eds). Global Trends: Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 20. Bethesda.Maryland. USA: 3-27

22Grainger Richard. and Serge M. Garcia (1996) Chronicles of Marine Fishery Landings (1950-1994): Trend Analysis and FisheriesPotential. FAO Fisheries Technical paper, 359:51 p.

23It should be noted that while the 1991 Session of COFI focused on responsible fishing operations, because of the concern withselectivity of fishing operations (inter alia the dolphin-tuna, shrimp-turtle, and large-scale pelagic driftnets problems), the CancunConference broadened the concept to the more holistic concept of responsible fisheries, of which responsible fishing operations wereonly a part, (Doulman, op. cit.)

49

of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in fish-eries and marine issues, their high technical com-petence and their influence on the drafting of pro-visions important for their constituencies, and theirfocus on protection of migrants and specific cate-gories of workers such as seafarers including fish-workers, and others.

Before discussing these recently concluded in-ternational instruments, it appears appropriate torefer first to the possibly most innovative and com-plex international instruments ever negotiated inhuman history, the 1982 United Nations Conven-tion on the Law of the Sea (1982 Convention),which formally entered into force not until 16November 1994, i.e. one year after the minimumnumber of 60 States had deposited their instru-ments of ratification or accession. The 1982 Con-vention was innovative in several aspects (e.g. theintroduction of an international dispute settlementmechanism), and set important precedents for thenegotiation procedures of complex internationalagreements in other areas.

5.1 The 1982 United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea (1982 Convention)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea was opened for signature on 10 December 1982in Montego Bay, Jamaica. This marked the culmina-tion of more than 14 years of negotiations and workinvolving participation by more than 150 coun-tries, representing all regions of the world, all legaland political systems and the spectrum of socioeco-nomic development. The 1982 Convention embod-ies and enshrines the notion that all problems ofocean space and ocean resources are closely inter-related and need to be addressed as a whole.24 Anoverview of the 1982 Convention is given in Annex1 as prepared by the Division for Ocean Affairs andthe Law of the Sea, United Nations Office of LegalAffairs (UN/DOALOS).

The two key ‘fisheries’ articles of the 1982 Con-vention are Article 61 Conservation of the living re-sources and Article 62 Utilization of the living resourceswhich are reproduced in Annex 2. There are sev-eral principles contained in them, including forcoastal countries to ensure the conservation of theliving resources and to promote their optimum uti-lization. The conservation objective is expressedby the requirements (i) to determine the total al-lowable catch (TAC) in the EEZ, (ii) guided by thebest available scientific evidence to avoid overex-

ploitation of target species and of associated or de-pendent species, (iii) maintain or restore harvestedpopulations at levels which can produce the max-imum sustainable yield, and (iv) to exchange rele-vant scientific information with all States and orga-nizations interested in the resources.

The principal idea in promoting the objectiveof optimum utilization of the living resources isthat those States that do not have the required fish-ing capacities should make available surplus fish-ery resources to other States, in particular to land-locked and geographically disadvantaged develop-ing States of the same region25, and to those Stateswhose nationals have habitually fished these re-sources. In practice, Articles 69 and 70, specifyingthe respective rights of land-locked and geograph-ically disadvantaged States vis-a-vis such surplus,were hardly ever applied.

The interpretation of what in fact amounts to“surplus” remains contentious until today becauseof the ambiguity of the text and the real practicaldifficulties of measuring the abundance of fisheryresources and the size of fishing capacities. Theambiguity of the text results from two specific for-mulations: (a) in Article 61(3), the desirable stocklevel is given as the one producing the maximumsustainable yield but with the suffice “as qualified byrelevant environmental and economic factors, includingthe economic needs of coastal fishing communities andthe special requirements of developing States. . . ”; and(b) Article 62 (3), with reference to allocating a partof the total allowable catch (TAC) to other States: Ingiving access to other States to its exclusive economiczone under this Article, the coastal State shall take intoaccount all relevant factors, including, inter alia, the sig-nificance of the living resources of the area to the econ-omy of the coastal State concerned and its other nationalinterests. . . ‘’

Not unexpectedly, it has proven impractical formost coastal States, especially in the tropics andsub-tropics, to determine the TAC by species andassess for each of them that part which is in surplusof the State’s own harvesting capacity. Further-more, even if the difference could be determinedbetween the TACs and domestic harvesting capac-ity, the exploitation of the surplus by a foreign fleetwould usually affect the economic performance ofthe local fleet. This results from the fact that, formost fish stocks, the catch per unit of fishing effortdeclines as total aggregate fishing effort increases.Therefore, even though the domestic fleet may still

24UN, 1983; see also the Internet site http://www.un.org/Depts/los/losconv1.htm .25Note that this does not apply to land-locked and geographically disadvantaged developed States.

50

be able to take the same amount of catch, its prof-itability would be reduced by the harvesting activ-ities of a foreign fleet and, wherever a sharing sys-tem prevails, the income of crew members wouldalso decline.26

At the time when the Convention was signed inDecember 1982, the reference in it to a target stocksize that can produce the maximum sustainableyield (MSY) was subject to critique by not only fish-eries economists but also fisheries biologists. Froman economic point of view, at the stock size produc-ing MSY, a fishery may already show serious signsof economic overfishing. From a biological pointof view, fishing at the MSY level not only increasesthe instability of the ecosystem but also neglectsspecies interactions (Garcia et al. 1986;196). In ad-dition, given the inherent uncertainties in estimat-ing stock abundance, a precautionary approach toresource conservation may require targeting stocksizes higher than those producing MSY.27 The ideaof precaution was subsequently incorporated intothe UN Fish Stocks Agreement discussed furtherbelow.

Article 61 (3), however, taken by itself, may beinterpreted more literally in that a State can allowharvesting activities which reduce stock size belowthe MSY level for economic and socioeconomic rea-sons, such as to provide employment and income tofishing communities. Such an interpretation, apartfrom its short-term outlook, could hardly be takento justify the allocation of surplus resources to for-eign fishing vessels. It may also be seen to runcounter to the coastal State’s basic obligation ex-pressed in paragraph (2) of the same Article not toendanger by overexploitation the maintenance ofthe living resources in the EEZ. Today, the prevail-ing view of fisheries biologists is that any form ofbiological overfishing entails a risk to the mainte-nance of the concerned fish stock.

Article 62 (4) provides certain elaborations onthe conditions that may be placed upon foreignfishing vessels harvesting the surplus resources ina coastal country’s EEZ. These may include licens-ing for fees and other forms of remuneration; de-termining the species and fixing quotas; regulatingharvesting seasons, areas and methods; requiringthe conduct of research and training and the place-ment of observers on board of fishing vessels; lay-ing down the terms and conditions for joint ven-tures, requiring the catch to be landed in domes-tic ports; and specifying the information to be sub-

mitted. While most fisheries agreements betweencoastal and foreign fishing States contain some ormost of these provisions, in practice, it has of-ten been difficult to ensure compliance by foreignfishing fleets with the laws and regulations of thecoastal country as prescribed in Article 62 (4). Thedifficulties of enforcement of laws and regulationsare, however, one may add, rarely specific to for-eign fishing but apply equally to domestic fleets.

Article 73 discusses specifically the enforcementof fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal Statein its EEZ. It is of particular significance in viewof the human hardship that has been created bythe seizure of vessels and crew, which were foundto fish illegally in countries’ EEZs. While law en-forcement requires deterrence, Article 73 (2) and (3)require States to promptly release arrested vesselsand their crew upon the posting of reasonable bondor other security and that penalties for violations offisheries laws and regulations in the EEZ may notinclude imprisonment and, in the absence of agree-ments to the contrary, no form of corporal punish-ment. In practice, the arrests of foreign fishermenfor extended periods of time, analogous to impris-onment, have been observed in the Indian OceanRegion as well as elsewhere.

Part VII (Articles 86-120) and Part XII (Articles192-237) of the 1982 Convention deal with high seasand the protection and conservation of the marineenvironment respectively. Article 87 specifies themeaning of the freedom of the high seas and Articles116 to 120 address the conservation and manage-ment of the living resources of the high seas. Theimplementation of these Articles by countries andregional fisheries organizations will be facilitatedand strengthened by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement(see below).

The provisions of Part XII on the protection ofthe marine environment are of a general nature buthave, over the years, been complemented by morespecific legal instruments, including conventionsnegotiated under the aegis of the International Mar-itime Organization (IMO) and guidelines such asthe 1985 Montreal Guidelines for the Protection ofthe Marine Environment from Land-based Sourcesof Pollution (see below).

In summary, the 1982 Convention has been amilestone in human history by setting a precedentfor the creation of complex international rules, in-cluding dispute settlement mechanisms and the as-signment of rights over resources, which, formerly,

26On this point and other aspects of surplus assessment, see the 1986 article in Marine Policy of the following three eminent fisheriesscientists: S. M.Garcia, late J.A.Gulland and E. Miles.

27See FAO, 1996, for details on the precautionary approach to fisheries.

51

were “global commons” through a peaceful nego-tiation process. The latter has itself created highlyvaluable insights on the conditions needed for suc-cessful bargaining, which has had a direct bear-ing on many subsequent international and regionalnegotiations in various areas, including trade andpeace.

5.2 Rio Declaration and Agenda 21

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environ-ment and Development (UNCED), also called theEarth Summit or the Rio Conference, has probablybeen the largest international conference ever orga-nized in human history. Except for the Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD), the Rio Conferencehas not resulted in any binding international agree-ment. The Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment proclaims 27 principles addressed toStates, individuals, groups and the internationalcommunity in general. A summary of the maincontents of each principle is given in Annex 3.

The second main outcome of UNCED is Agenda21, a blueprint for action for global sustainabledevelopment into the 21st Century. It comprisesfour main sections addressing (1) the social andeconomic dimensions (international co-operation,combating poverty, changing consumption patters,demographic sustainability, human health and set-tlement; integration of environment and develop-ment in decision- making); (2) conservation andmanagement of resources for development (i.e. at-mosphere, land resources, combating deforesta-tion and desertification, managing fragile ecosys-tems, sustainable agriculture and rural develop-ment, conservation of biodiversity, sound manage-ment of biotechnology, protection of oceans, seas,coasts and their living resources; (3) strengthen-ing the role of major groups (i.e. women, chil-dren and youth, indigenous people, NGOs, localauthorities, workers and their trade unions, busi-ness and industry, scientific and technological com-munity, farmers); and (4) means of implementa-tion (financial resources, technology and know-how transfer, science and education, awareness cre-ation, capacity-building, international legal instru-ments and arrangements, information for decision-making).

The full title of Chapter 17, Section 2, reads:“Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, includ-ing enclosed and semi-enclosed seas and coastalareas and the protection, rational use and devel-opment of their living resources”. It comprisesseven programme areas dealing with (a) integrated

coastal and marine management, (b) marine envi-ronmental protection, (c) sustainable use and con-servation of marine living resources of the highseas, (d) sustainable use and conservation of ma-rine living resources under national jurisdiction,(e) critical uncertainties for the management ofthe marine environment and climate change, (f)strengthening international, including regional, co-operation and co-ordination and (g) sustainable de-velopment of small islands. The emphasis of pro-gramme area (a) is on strengthening integratedplanning and co-ordinating mechanisms for thesound management of multiple-use resources andfor conflict resolution and prevention.

Area (b) addresses the three principal sourcesof marine pollution: (i) land-based activities whichare responsible for about 70 per cent of pollution,and (ii) maritime transport and (iii) dumping at sea,each of which contributes about 10 per cent. The1995 Global Programme of Action for the Protec-tion of the Marine Environment from Land-basedActivities (GPA), adopted in Washington in 1995,is a direct follow-up to this part of Agenda 21and based on the 1985 Montreal Guidelines for theProtection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Sources of Pollution. A summary of the spe-cific objectives and targets of GPA are given in An-nex 4. The International Maritime Organization(IMO) addresses pollution from maritime transportand dumping.

Programme area (d) lists some of the importantproblems faced in the management of living re-sources under national jurisdiction including over-fishing, unauthorized fishing by foreign vessels,ecosystem degradation, overcapitalization and ex-cessive fleet sizes, non-selective fishing gear, in-creasing competition between artisanal and large-scale fishing and between fishing and other typesof activities. There has been considerable influ-ence by non-governmental organizations, includ-ing those advocating the interests of fishworkers,on the objectives and the management-related ac-tivities listed in this programme area. States arecalled on to take into account traditional knowl-edge and interests of local communities, small-scaleartisanal fisheries and indigenous people in de-velopment and management programmes. Theyshould ensure the sustainability of small-scale ar-tisanal fisheries by integrating their concerns intodevelopment planning and, where appropriate, en-courage representation of fishermen, small-scalefishworkers, women and local communities and in-digenous people. The rights of small-scale fish-workers and the special situation of indigenous

52

people and local communities are specifically ac-knowledged, including their rights to utilizationand protection of their habitats on a sustainable ba-sis.

Programme area (e) addresses research needson the impact of atmospheric and climatic changeson the marine environment and living resourceswhile programme area (f) spells out the specialproblems and needs of small island States and howthey should be addressed. The main internationalfollow-up to the latter was the United NationsSmall Island Conference held in Barbados in 1994.

Chapter 15 of Agenda 21 is entitled “Conser-vation of Biological Diversity” and its primary ob-jective is to support the implementation of theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD). As theearth’s oceans, seas and coasts are major reposito-ries of biodiversity, the 2nd Conference of the Par-ties to CBD held in 1995 in Jakarta, Indonesia, dealtspecifically with marine and coastal biodiversity.The main outcome of this Conference, the JakartaMandate, calls on governments to introduce inte-grated coastal area management, establish marineand coastal protected areas, ensure that coastal andmarine resources are used within sustainable limitsand mariculture practices are sustainable, and pre-vent the introduction of, and support the eradica-tion of, alien species that threaten ecosystems, habi-tats or native species.

5.3 The 1995 Agreement on theConservation and Management ofStraddling Fish Stocks and HighlyMigratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish StocksAgreement)

The impetus for the need to strengthen the imple-mentation of the 1982 Convention provisions withrespect to fishing on the high seas arose because ofserious concern in the late 1980s over driftnet fish-ing on the high seas, initially in the South Pacificregion. The issue was discussed in the UN Gen-eral Assembly, which adopted Resolution 44/225on Large pelagic driftnet fishing and its impact on theliving marine resources of the world’s oceans and seas.FAO was directed in the resolution to convene anexpert consultation on the matter. In it, and insubsequent inter-governmental consultations, thewider issues of the management of high seas fish-eries came to the fore, which then found expres-

sion in a specific recommendation on this matter inChapter 17 of Agenda 21.

Pursuant to this recommendation, the GeneralAssembly of the United Nations (UNGA) convenedin 1992 the UN Fish Stocks Conference with the fol-lowing terms of reference: (1) identify and assessexisting problems related to the conservation andmanagement of straddling fish stocks and highlymigratory fish stocks; (2) consider means of im-proving fisheries co-operation among States and(3) formulate appropriate recommendations.28 TheConference held five substantive and one organi-zational session between April 1993 and August1995. Remarkable was the large attendance of non-governmental organizations representing environ-mental, fishworkers, industry and other related in-terests.

Hayashi (1996) has categorized the contributionof the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to the 1982 Con-vention into three aspects: (1) facilitation of im-plementation of the Convention; (2) strengtheningof the Convention regime and (3) development ofgeneral or framework rules set out in the Conven-tion. Regarding the first point, the Agreement pro-vides in, for example, Article 5, a number of specificways how States may fulfil their obligations un-der the 1982 Convention to conserve and managehighly migratory and straddling fish stocks. Theseinclude some innovations to the 1982 Convention,such as the application of the precautionary ap-proach, the requirement of States to take measuresto prevent or eliminate not only overfishing butalso excess fishing capacity and the duties to pro-tect biodiversity and take into account the interestsof artisanal and subsistence fishers.

The Agreement strengthens the 1982 Conven-tion provisions on the collection and sharing of in-formation and expands its dispute settlement pro-visions to all States, whether or not they are partiesto the Convention (Hayashi 1996:55-56).

The most significant contribution of the UN FishStocks Agreement is in those areas where it furtherdevelops the 1982 Convention rules and principles.The precautionary approach was unknown in fish-eries at the time the Convention was signed in 1982.Since about the mid-1980s, it has become increas-ingly adopted in national and regional legal instru-ments addressing primarily environmental aspects(Hayashi 1996). The approach calls in Article 6, in-ter alia, for taking explicitly into account uncertain-ties related to the size of fish stocks and the impact

28Detailed reviews of the structure, process and outcome of the Conference can be found in Doulman (1995) and Hayashi (1996),on whose writings this section is largely based.

53

of fishing on them and the laying down of precau-tionary reference points.

Among the most notable innovations intro-duced by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement is the no-tion of compatibility of conservation and managementmeasures adopted in EEZs and on the high seas asdetailed in Article 7. The scientific basis of compat-ibility is the biological unity of fish stocks and, thusthe need to apply coherent management measuresthroughout their geographic range of exploitation.Article 7 requires coastal and long-distance waterfishing nations to “agree upon the measures neces-sary for the conservation of these stocks” and, pendingreaching such agreement, to enter into provisionalarrangements of a practical nature. If no agreementcan be reached within a reasonable period of time,any of the concerned States may invoke the disputesettlement procedures provided through the 1982Convention (Hayashi, 1996).

Another innovation of the UN Fish StocksAgreement is that it obliges States whose fleets ex-ploit highly migratory and straddling fish stocks toeither join existing regional fisheries organizationsor to adopt the conservation and management mea-sures instituted by them. Where no such regionalorganization or arrangement exists, States are re-quired to establish new ones. Hayashi (1996:58)notes that “[T]he combined effect of these provi-sions is to exclude those States which are not mem-bers of the existing regional organization or do notagree to apply its measures from conducting fish-ing operations for the straddling stocks and highlymigratory stocks in the area concerned, thus deny-ing their freedom to fish on the high seas.”

The Agreement lays down more stringent flagState duties than contained in the 1982 Conven-tion. In principle, no State is authorized to per-mit vessels flying its flag to fish on the high seasif it is not able to exercise effective control overthem. This includes ensuring the compliance of itsfleets with management measures agreed upon byregional fisheries organizations and the investiga-tion and sanctioning of violations.

In respect to enforcement, the UN Fish StocksAgreement goes even further by permitting anymember State of a regional fisheries organizationto board and inspect any fishing vessel in order toensure compliance with adopted conservation andmanagement measures.29 It also introduced thenew concept of “port State enforcement” , which

gives the port State the right to inspect catch, fish-ing gear, log books, etc. of a foreign fishing vesselwhich uses voluntarily its ports or offshore termi-nals.

The special requirements of developing Statesare acknowledged in Article 24 which mentions,in particular, in paragraph 2(a)“. . . the nutritional re-quirements of their populations or parts thereof;” andin paragraph 2 (b): “the need to avoid adverse impactson, and ensure access to fisheries by, subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fishers and women fishworkers, aswell as indigenous people in developing States, partic-ularly small island developing States. . . ”

In conclusion, the UN Fish Stocks Agreementstrengthens and facilitates the implementation ofthe management and conservation provisions ofthe 1982 Convention applicable to straddling andhighly migratory fish stocks. Its historic and rev-olutionary dimensions result from innovations inseveral important areas, including the concept ofcompatibility, obligations towards regional fish-eries organizations and the monitoring and en-forcement powers by non-flag and port States(Hayashi, 1996).

5.4 The Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries30

The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries(Code) was adopted by the FAO Conference at its28th Session in 1995. It was negotiated over a pe-riod of two years in five formal sessions with the ac-tive participation of many of FAO’s member Statesand important national and international fisheriesNGOs representing environmental, industry andsmall- scale fisheries and fishworkers interests.

The initial impetus for the concept of responsi-ble fishing can also be traced back to the large-scalepelagic driftnet fishing issue and the discussion ofit at the 1991 FAO Committee on Fisheries. How-ever, it was the Declaration of Cancun that pushedforward the idea of a Code and called on FAO to ini-tiate the process of its elaboration. This declarationemanated from a meeting at Cancun on responsi-ble fishing hosted by the Government of Mexico inMay 1992.

The Code, thus, was negotiated in parallel to theUN Fish Stocks Agreement and, in fact, certain for-mulations of the Code reflect the outcome of the ne-gotiations at the UN Fish Stocks Conference. The

29It appears that in particular this provision of Article 21 (1) currently impedes some countries to ratify the UN Fish Stocks Agree-ment. Entry into force requires 30 ratifications or accessions. As of September 2001, 29 such ratifications/accessions had been receivedby the Depositary.

30See Edeson (1996) for a brief review of the Code.

54

Code, however, is far more encompassing than theAgreement. Its voluntary nature has enabled it tocover much more than could have possibly beenincluded in a legal binding instrument such as theAgreement.

Articles 1 to 6 describe the Code’s nature andscope, its objectives and relationship with otherinternational instruments, directions for its imple-mentation, monitoring and updating, the specialrequirements of developing countries, and generalprinciples. The substantive technical part com-prises Articles 7 to 12: Fisheries Management, Fish-ing Operations, Aquaculture Development, Inte-gration of Fisheries into Coastal Area Management,Post- Harvest Practices and Trade, and FisheriesResearch.

The Code is global in scope and directed to-ward all States and fishing entities, subregional, re-gional and global organizations, whether govern-mental or non-governmental, and all persons con-cerned with the conservation of fishery resourcesand the management and development of fisheries.Its objectives are very far-reaching and ambitious,including the establishment of general principlesand standards of conduct for responsible fisheriesand, inter alia, the establishment of specific princi-ples and criteria for the elaboration of national poli-cies. It specifies policy objectives such as the contri-bution of fisheries to food security and food qual-ity, giving priority to the nutritional needs of localcommunities.

Article 6 encapsulates the “philosophy” of theCode in a set of general principles. The most sig-nificant contents of a few selected paragraphs aresummarized below:

Paragraph 6.1 establishes that the right to fishcarries with it the obligation to do so in a respon-sible manner. With regard to the objectives of fish-eries management, responsible fisheries is under-stood to include the maintenance of the quality, di-versity and availability of fishery resources in suffi-cient quantities for present and future generationsin the context of food security, poverty alleviationand sustainable development (see 6.2). It also in-cludes the protection from destruction, degrada-tion, pollution and other significant human impactsof all critical fisheries habitats in marine and freshwater ecosystems, such as wetlands, mangroves,reefs, lagoons, nursery and spawning areas (6.8).

Paragraph 6.13 calls on States to facilitate con-sultation and the effective participation of industry,

fishworkers, environmental and other interestedorganizations in decision making with respect tothe development of laws and policies related tofisheries management, development, internationallending and aid.

Paragraph 6.18 recognizes the important contri-butions of artisanal and small-scale fisheries and re-quests States to protect the rights of fishers and fish-workers, particularly those engaged in subsistence,small-scale and artisanal fisheries. Where appro-priate, States should give them preferential accessto traditional fishing grounds and resources in thewaters under their national jurisdiction.

The substantive contribution of NGOs andINGOs to the Code negotiation process can begauged from the fact that first drafts of some of theabove summarized provisions were originally sub-mitted by representatives of these organizations.31

Many of the paragraphs of Article 7, “FisheriesManagement”, and Article 8, “Fishing Operations”,reflect the text of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement butextends their application to areas of national juris-diction including implicitly to inland fisheries.

While adhering to the general principles of sus-tainability enshrined in UNCED’s Agenda 21, theCode’s Article 9, “Aquaculture Development”, isan innovation in an international instrument. Itprovides comprehensive guidance for the devel-opment, planning, management and operation ofaquaculture in a sustainable and responsible man-ner.

Article 10, “Integration of Fisheries into CoastalArea Management”, is also innovative by empha-sizing the protection of fisheries interests and theadequate representation and participation of suchinterests in the decision- making processes for inte-grated coastal management.

Article 11, “Post-Harvest Practices and Trade”,establishes the needed link between the conserva-tion and management of fisheries resources andtheir utilization and trade. While its main tenor isto promote the further liberalization of trade in fishand fishery products, it contains several importantprovisos such as that trade “should not compromisethe sustainable development of fisheries. . . ” (11.2.2)and that States, aid agencies, multilateral developmentbanks and other relevant international organizationsshould ensure that their policies and practices related tothe promotion of international fish trade and export pro-duction do not result in environmental degradation or

31The contribution of NGOs and INGOs to both the Code negotiations and the UN Fish Conference has been well analysed in aspecial issue of DEEP (Development Education Exchange Papers) published by FAO and produced by the International Collective inSupport of Fishworkers (ICSF).

55

adversely impact the nutritional rights and needs of peo-ple for whom fish is critical to their health and well beingand for whom other comparable sources of food are notreadily available or affordable” (Paragraph 11.2.15).

Article 12, “Fisheries Research”, in addition tounderlining in general terms the relevance of asound scientific basis for the conservation, manage-ment and utilization of fishery resources, also listscertain specific areas where research may producedesirable results.

These include studies on the selectivity of fish-ing gear, the environmental impact assessmentof new types of gear prior to their introduction,and investigation and documentation of traditionalfisheries knowledge and technologies, in particularthose applied to small-scale fisheries.

The FAO Fisheries Department is actively pro-moting the widespread application of the Code.For this purpose, it has developed a comprehen-sive mid-term strategy in support of the implemen-tation of the Code.

This is in line with the mandate received fromthe Conference at the time when the Code wasadopted in 1995, requesting the Organization tomake provision in its Programme of Work and Bud-get to:

• provide advice to developing countries in im-plementing the Code;

• elaborate an inter-regional programme for ex-ternal assistance to support the implementa-tion of the Code;

• elaborate technical guidelines in support ofthe implementation of the Code, and

• monitor and report on the Code’s implemen-tation.

The Conference also urged FAO to strengthenregional fishery bodies so that they might dealmore effectively with fisheries conservation andmanagement, the Code’s primary objective.

The technical guidelines in support of the im-plementation of the Code so far published by theFAO Fisheries Department focus on fishing opera-tions, the precautionary approach to capture fish-eries and species introductions, integration of fish-eries into coastal area management, fisheries man-

agement, and aquaculture development. Othertechnical guidelines are under preparation.

5.5 The Compliance Agreement32

The Compliance Agreement is an integral compo-nent of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fish-eries. However, the Agreement, when it comes intoforce, will have a different legal status to that of theCode in that the Agreement will be a legally bind-ing international instrument.

So far, 20 acceptances have been received. Itwill enter into force on the date of receipt by theDirector-General of FAO of the twenty-fifth instru-ment of acceptance.

The Compliance Agreement provides an instru-ment for countries to deter the reflagging of ves-sels by their nationals as a means of avoiding com-pliance with applicable conservation and manage-ment rules for fishing activities on the high seas.

It seeks to ensure that there is effective flag Statecontrol over fishing vessels operating on the highseas. This would require, inter alia, that Partiesto the Agreement maintain a register of vessels tofish on the high seas and that all vessels engaged insuch fishing operations are authorized to do so.

Moreover, the Agreement requires that certainrecords concerning the physical characteristics ofthe vessels and their ownership and operational de-tails be maintained by the Parties as part of theirflag State responsibilities.

Furthermore, Parties are obligated to exchangeinformation maintained on their respective regis-ters through FAO and other appropriate global, re-gional and sub-regional fisheries management or-ganizations.

Even though the Compliance Agreement hasnot yet entered into force, some of its elements arealready being adopted by countries as their respec-tive fisheries legislation is revised and other policychanges implemented concerning national autho-rizations for vessels to fish on the high seas.

FAO is continuing to promote the acceptance ofthe Agreement so that it might be brought into forcewith minimal delay.33

32This section is based on Doulman 1998. Op. Cit.33As part of the follow-up to the Compliance Agreement, FAO has continued to monitor reflagging. The number of vessels re-

flagged in the period 1994/1997 has increased to nearly 3 per cent of the fleet per year (vessels over 100 GT), however the vastmajority of these have been normal transactions involving a change of ownership. Only about 15 per cent of the reflagging involvea change to a ”flag of convenience”. Nevertheless, the number of vessels flagged under open registers or ”flags of convenience” hasremained at around 5 per cent of the total fleet.

56

5.6 The International Plans of Action(IPOAs)34

As the first priority, following the adoption of theimportant recent international agreements referredto above was in their effective and rapid implemen-tation. COFI, at its 23rd session in 1999, adoptedthree international plans of action (IPOA) aiming at:

• reduction of incidental catch of seabirds inlongline fisheries;

• conservation and management of sharks; and

• management of fishing capacity.

Subsequently, at its 24th session, COFI adoptedthe International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deterand Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and UnregulatedFishing.

All four IPOAs are voluntary, have been elab-orated within the framework of the Code of Con-duct and call for greater regional and internationalco-operation with respect to research and develop-ment; situation assessments; exchange of relevantdata and information through appropriate chan-nels including regional fisheries management or-ganizations (RFMOs) and through FAO; and edu-cation, training and public awareness creation. Inapplying the IPOAs, States are asked, where appro-priate, to develop a national plan of action (NPOA).Similarly, RFMOs are requested to develop plans ofaction for their area of competence. As all the IPOAsand NPOAs are in furtherance of implementing theCode, reporting on their progress at internationallevel has been made an integral part of countries’regular biennial reporting to FAO on their imple-mentation of the Code of Conduct.

Greater details on the two most widely appli-cable, and perhaps most relevant IPOAs, are givenbelow.

The IPOA on management of fishing capac-ity asks States, through NPOAs as well as RFMOsthrough regional plans, to achieve worldwide,preferably by 2003 but not later than 2005, an ef-ficient, equitable and transparent management offishing capacity (Paragraph 9 (ii)). Moreover, it re-quires, preliminary assessments of fishing capacityat the regional level within RFMOs, or in collabora-tion with them, and at the global level (in collabo-ration with FAO) in respect to transboundary, strad-dling, highly migratory and high-seas fisheries, as

well as the identification of regional or global fish-eries and fleets requiring urgent measures (Para-graph 15). Among other urgent actions, it lists, in-ter alia, the following:

1. support to FAO in the organization of a tech-nical consultation to be held as early as pos-sible on the definition and measurement offishing capacity (Paragraph 12);

2. the establishment of national, regional andinternational records of fishing vessels in-cluding of those fishing on the high seas asforeseen within the Compliance Agreement(Paragraphs 16-18);

3. as part of NPOAs, States should progressivelyeliminate all factors including subsidies andeconomic incentives and other factors whichcontribute directly or indirectly to the build-up of excessive fishing capacity (Paragraph25);

4. States should recognize the need to deal withthe problem of those States which do not ful-fil their responsibilities under internationallaw as flag States with respect to their fishingvessels and support multilateral co-operationto ensure that such flag States contribute toregional efforts to manage fishing capacity(Paragraph 33);

5. States should promote, with the assistance ofFAO, the exchange of information about thefishing activity of fishing vessels that do notcomply with conservation and managementmeasurers of RFMOs (Paragraph 35);

6. States should ensure that no transfer of capac-ity to the jurisdiction of another State shouldbe carried out without the express consentand formal authorization of that State. (Para-graph 37);

7. States should, in compliance with their dutiesas flag States, avoid approving the transferof vessels flying their flag to high seas areaswhere such transfers are inconsistent with re-sponsible fishing under the Code of Conduct.(Paragraph 38).

The IPOA to prevent, deter and eliminate IUUfishing should be implemented by all States either

34The full text of the IPOAs can be found on the FAO web site as follows: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/ipa/ipae.asp

57

directly, in co-operation with other States, or indi-rectly through relevant regional fisheries manage-ment organizations or through FAO and other ap-propriate international organizations. The full par-ticipation of stakeholders in combating IUU fish-ing, including industry, fishing communities, andnon-governmental organizations, should be en-couraged (Paragraph 9.1).

While the scope of the IPOA is broad andshould address factors affecting all capture fish-eries, the history of its origin clearly points to high-seas fisheries as its primary focus. In its submis-sion to the 23rd Session of the FAO Committeeon Fisheries (COFI) requesting the elaboration ofan IPOA, the Government of Australia noted thatIUU fishing took place mainly on the high seas,in contravention of management efforts by compe-tent Regional Fisheries Management Organizations(RFMOs). The submission cited as an example thecase of Patagonian toothfish, for which estimatesindicated that up to 100,000 tonnes had entered in-ternational trade in 1996- 97, around four times thelegal catch level established by the Convention forthe Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Re-sources (CCAMLR).

The IPOA calls for a comprehensive and inte-grated approach, building on the primary respon-sibility of the flag State but using all available ju-risdiction in accordance with international law, in-cluding port State measures, coastal State mea-sures, market- related measures and measures toensure that nationals do not support or engage inIUU fishing (Paragraph 9.3). The following listssome of the significant responsibilities and mea-sures that States should take to prevent, deter andeliminate IUU fishing. Of particular interest is theinclusion of trade measures to attain compliancewith internationally agreed upon fishery manage-ment and conservation rules.

5.6.1 All State responsibilities

All States should co-operate to identify those na-tionals who are the operators or beneficial own-ers of vessels involved in IUU fishing (Paragraph18). States should, to the extent possible in theirnational law, avoid conferring economic support,including subsidies, to companies, vessels or per-sons that are involved in IUU fishing (Paragraph23). States should discourage their nationals fromflagging fishing vessels under the jurisdiction ofa State that does not meet its flag State responsi-bilities (para 19). States should undertake com-prehensive and effective monitoring, control and

surveillance (MCS) of fishing from its commence-ment, through the point of landing, to final desti-nation (Paragraph 24).

5.6.2 Flag State responsibilities

A flag State should ensure, before it registers a fish-ing vessel, that it can exercise its responsibility toensure that the vessel does not engage in IUU fish-ing (Paragraph 35). Flag States should avoid flag-ging vessels with a history of non-compliance, ex-cept under certain conditions (Paragraph 36.1)

Flag States should deter vessels from reflaggingfor the purposes of non-compliance with conserva-tion and management measures (Paragraph 38) in-cluding denial to a vessel of an authorization to fishand the entitlement to fly that State’s flag, to pre-vent “flag hopping” (Paragraph 39). Prior to allow-ing a vessel port access, States should require fish-ing vessels and vessels involved in fishing-relatedactivities seeking permission to enter their ports toprovide reasonable advance notice of their entryinto port, a copy of their authorization to fish, de-tails of their fishing trip and quantities of fish onboard, with due regard to confidentiality require-ments, in order to ascertain whether the vessel mayhave engaged in, or supported, IUU fishing (Para-graph 55).

5.6.3 Port State measures

Where a port State has clear evidence that a ves-sel having been granted access to its ports has en-gaged in IUU fishing activity, the port State shouldnot allow the vessel to land or transship fish inits ports, and should report the matter to the flagState of the vessel (Paragraph 56). States shouldconsider developing within relevant regional fish-eries management organizations port State mea-sures building on the presumption that fishing ves-sels entitled to fly the flag of States not parties toa regional fisheries management organization andwhich have not agreed to co-operate with that re-gional fisheries management organization, whichare identified as being engaged in fishing activitiesin the area of that particular organization, may beengaging in IUU fishing (Paragraph 63).

5.6.4 Internationally agreed market-related measures

States should take all steps necessary, consistentwith international law, to prevent fish caught byvessels identified by the relevant regional fisheriesmanagement organization to have been engaged in

58

IUU fishing being traded or imported into their ter-ritories.

Trade-related measures should only be used inexceptional circumstances, where other measureshave proven unsuccessful to prevent, deter andeliminate IUU fishing, and only after prior consulta-tion with interested States. Unilateral trade-relatedmeasures should be avoided (Paragraph 66). Trade-related measures to reduce or eliminate trade in fishand fish products derived from IUU fishing couldinclude the adoption of multilateral catch docu-mentation and certification requirements, as well asother appropriate multilaterally-agreed measuressuch as import and export controls or prohibitions(Paragraph 69).

States should take measures to ensure thattheir importers, transshippers, buyers, consumers,equipment suppliers, bankers, insurers, other ser-vices suppliers and the public are aware of thedetrimental effects of doing business with vesselsidentified as engaged in IUU fishing,. . . and shouldconsider measures to deter such business (Para-graph 73). Similarly, States should take measures toensure that their fishers are aware of the detrimen-tal effects of doing business with importers, trans-shippers, buyers, consumers, equipment suppliers,bankers, insurers and other services suppliers iden-tified as doing business with vessels identified asengaged in IUU fishing. . . (Paragraph 74).

There are several other provisions that aimat improving the information flow and exchangeamong countries, RFMOs and international organi-zations, in particular FAO, in order to establish theidentity and level and nature of activities of ves-sels that engage in IUU fishing. Other provisionsaim at improving the traceability of fish and fisheryproducts from the place (or stock) of capture rightthrough to its end use.

5.7 Instruments relating to fish trade,subsidies and ecolabelling

5.7.1 Trade and environment35

The relation between trade, environment, and man-agement has been a focus of international debatein recent years in the World Trade Organization(WTO), specifically in its Committee on Trade andEnvironment, as well as in various forums onfisheries and conservation. The debate has three

main components: (a) the impact that expandingtrade, in the wake of liberalization, may gener-ate on resources through incentives to increase ex-tractive pressure; (b) the ways in which interna-tional WTO rules, as agreed upon in the Uruguayround, could be used to facilitate the effective im-plementation of multilateral environmental agree-ments (MEAs) and, hence, improve environmentaland resources conservation; and (c) the modifica-tions which might be needed in WTO rules, or intheir interpretation or application, to achieve com-patibility with MEAs.

The extent of trade liberalization of fish andfishery products as a consequence of tariff reduc-tions agreed upon in the Uruguay round have beengenerally less than with other types of products.Nevertheless, fish trade has expanded dramaticallyduring the last two decades reaching above US$50bn in 1998. The exports of mostly higher valuedspecies by developing countries to northern mar-kets has grown greatly in recent years and makea significant contribution to foreign exchange rev-enues. The aggregate net surplus of fish trade bydeveloping countries is estimated at US $17.6 bn in1996.36

Economic theory suggests that expanding fishtrade and, hence, increasing demand and higherprices will provide incentives to individual fish-eries entrepreneurs to increase their efforts to pro-duce greater supplies.

However, as most conventional high-value re-sources are already fully or over-exploited, theincreased effort may not translate into sustainedhigher catches and supplies but in further degrada-tion of the high-value resource base and increasedpressure on less intensely exploited stocks of lowervalue. Such pressure will also provide incentivesto increase aquaculture of high-value (carnivorous)species and, as a consequence, may boost fur-ther the production of fishmeal. Therefore, in theabsence of effective fisheries management, tradeexpansion might worsen the present state of re-sources.

5.7.2 Subsidies

One avenue towards better managed fisheries,which has received great international attentionin recent times, is the phasing out of direct and

35A recent comprehensive discussion of the relationship between trade and sustainable development in fisheries is provided byDeere, C. L. (2000). Net Gains: Linking Fisheries Management, International Trade and Sustainable Development. IUCN. WashingtonDC.

36SOFIA 1998. op. cit.

59

indirect subsidies to marine capture fisheries37.Such phasing out would amount to what has beencalled in trade and environment debates as a “win-win” policy; international trade would benefit fromcreating an equal playing field as competition-distorting subsidies are curbed, while the environ-ment would benefit from reducing the economic in-centive to overinvest and overharvest. This policy,however, will obviously make certain sections ofpeople and entrepreneurs worse off than if thesesubsidies were to continue, at least in the shortand medium term. Strong political opposition is,therefore, to be expected against policies that oftenwould lead to bankrupting the more fragile fisheryoperators and, in some developing countries, fur-ther impoverishing artisanal fishing communities38

in rural and peri-urban areas with little or no alter-native sources of livelihood.39

A usual argument, when the issue is debated inFAO, is that there are “good” as well as “bad” subsi-dies: good ones are those that help to improve fish-eries management (for example, for decommission-ing of excess fishing capacities), while bad ones arethose that create incentives for excess capacity andoverexploitation. It is notable that both trade ex-pansion and bad subsidies create similar incentivesfor excess investments and that effective fisheriesmanagement could provide a solution in both in-stances. However, the competition-distorting effectof subsidies would still prevail.

Notable has been the call by the USA, Aus-tralia, Iceland, New Zealand and the Philippines,at the occasion of the WTO High-level Meeting onTrade and Environment, Geneva, 16-17 March 1999,that the new round of global trade negotiationsshould seek to eliminate harmful government fish-eries subsidies. The agenda for these negotiationsis likely to be set at the next WTO Ministerial Meet-ing, scheduled to take place in Doha, Qatar, 9-13November 2001.

5.7.3 Ecolabelling40

Ecolabelling is a further approach to establisha higher congruence between trade and sustain-ability objectives, whose application to fisherieshas recently got a lot of international attention.The potential usefulness of ecolabelling schemesto create market-based incentives for environ-mentally friendly products and production pro-cesses was internationally recognized at UNCED,where governments agreed to “encourage expan-sion of environmental labelling and other environ-mentally related product information programmesdesigned to assist consumers to make informedchoices”41. Consumers are provided with the op-portunity to express their environmental-ecologicalconcerns through their choice of products. The con-sumers’ preferences are expected to result in priceand/or market share differentials between ecola-belled products and those which either do not qual-ify to be ecolabelled or those whose producers donot seek to obtain such labelling. The label is ob-tained through a certification process based on aset of criteria (i.e. the desired standard). Potentialprice and/or market share differentials provide theeconomic incentive for firms to seek certification oftheir product(s).

In fisheries, there has been a rapid increase inecolabelling initiatives in recent years. The first andmost well known initiative in the field of marinecapture fisheries has been the establishment of theMarine Stewardship Council (MSC), now an inde-pendent organization, by the World Wide Fund forNature (WWF) and Unilever. While the numberof marine fisheries currently covered is still verysmall, and the scheme’s expansion into the areaof aquaculture is currently the subject of investiga-tion, MSC has given the impetus for a range of sub-sequent intitiatives. These include the following:

• an aquaculture ecolabelling scheme pro-moted by the Global Aquaculture Alliance, a

37Further to earlier references, see in particular Schorr, David (1998). Towards Rational Disciplines on Subsidies to the FisherySector. A Call for New International Rules and Mechanisms. WWF-US. Washington.

38It is notable, in this context, that the most powerful opposition might be coming from quarters of the shipbuilding industry andnot from fisheries, which are not often well organized and politically forceful.

39In an editorial in the journal SAMUDRA Report, December 1998, entitled “What price subsidies?”, Sebastian Mathew lists severalreasons why there is often a legitimate need to continue, at least in the short term, with current subsidy schemes for small-scale labourintensive fisheries. SAMUDRA Report is published by the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), Chennai, India.

40This section is largely based on the FAO Secretariat paper FI:EMF/98/2 Issues Related to the Feasibility and Practicability ofDeveloping Globally Applicable, Non-discriminatory Technical Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Products from Marine Capture Fish-eries produced for the FAO Technical Consultation on the Feasibility of Developing Non-discriminatory Guidelines for the Ecola-belling of Products from Marine Capture Fisheries, Rome, Italy, 21- 23 October 1998, the report of this consultation and on documentFI:MM/99/3: What role for ecolabelling of fish and fishery production in support of responsible fisheries? prepared by the FAOSecretariat for the Ministerial Meeting on the Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Rome 10-11 March1999.

41Paragraph 4.21 of Agenda 21.

60

recently-formed NGO representing primarilyfirms with interests in shrimp aquaculture.

• as part of the activities of the Nordic Council(a permanament co-operation arrangementamong the Scandinavian States), in mid-2000,a working group proposed the establishmentof a voluntary, consumer-driven scheme formarine capture fisheries with State authori-ties establishing criteria, which can then beused by private bodies and NGOs to ecolabelproducts.

• the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) assignsa label for aquarium fish. It brings to-gether representatives of the aquarium indus-try, hobbyists, conservation organizations,government agencies and public aquariums.MAC aims at conserving coral reefs by cre-ating standards and educating and certifyingthose engaged in the collection and care of or-namental marine life from reef to aquarium.

• at COFI 2001, Rome, February 2001, the Orga-nization for Promotion of Responsible TunaFisheries (OPRT), a Japan-based and sup-ported NGO bringing together the tuna in-dustry, traders and others, announced thelaunching of a tuna ecolabelling pilot projectfocusing on products produced from longlinefisheries for the Japanese sashimi market.

If applied to marine capture fisheries, the goalof ecolabelling would be to achieve certain specificfisheries management objectives. These objectivesfind expression in the criteria underlying certifica-tion standards.

The setting of fisheries management objectivesand the establishment of the institutional and le-gal framework within which such objectives canbe achieved (or not) are, in principle, the prerog-atives of States, as clearly established in the UN1982 Convention and the other international instru-ments discussed above.

These instruments, however, establish also prin-ciples and objectives for conservation and manage-ment of marine fisheries resources, which are re-ferred to by the tenants of ecolabelling, togetherwith poor performance of conventional fisherymanagement, to justify their initiatives.

During the 1997 and 1999 sessions of COFI andthe 1998 session of the COFI Sub-committee on FishTrade, a large majority of governments recognizedthe potential positive role of consumer choice butexpressed concern about the MSC initiative. Whilemany governments criticized the initiative for hav-ing failed to consult adequately with governments,industry, fishworkers and other interest groups, de-veloping countries have voiced concern that ecola-belling schemes could create new barriers to trade,especially for their products and those produced bysmall-scale fisheries.

The question of whether, and how, the GATTTechnical Agreement on Barriers to Trade (TBT)applies to ecolabelling programmes has been dis-cussed in WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environ-ment (CTE) in 1996. One of the main issues of con-tention is the applicability of the TBT agreementto so-called non-product-related production meth-ods and processes (PPMs). The report notes that“[M]any delegations expressed the view that thenegotiating history of the TBT Agreement indicatesclearly that there was no intention of legitimizingthe use of measures based on non- product-relatedPPMs under the TBT Agreement, and that volun-tary standards based on such PPMs are inconsis-tent with the provisions of the Agreement as wellas with other provisions of the GATT.”

As ecolabelling schemes in marine capture fish-eries would commonly encompass criteria andstandards for non-product-related PPMs, one mayconclude that there exists a discrepancy betweenthe mandate given by Agenda 21 and the GATT TBTor, at least, its interpretation by many governments.However, notable is the ruling of a GATT arbitrationpanel from which one may infer that voluntary eco-labelling schemes are not, in principle, in contra-vention of existing WTO trade rules, irrespective oftheir coverage of production process and methods(PPMs), which are unrelated to a product’s charac-teristics.42.

Whatever the scheme, the basic WTO princi-ple of non-discrimination needs to be respected,and labelling requirements and practices shouldnot discriminate—either between trading partners(most-favoured nation treatment should apply), orbetween domestically-produced goods or servicesand imports (national treatment).43

42In its ruling on the GATT-illegality of import restrictions adopted by the United States of America on tuna caught in associa-tion with dolphin, a GATT arbitration panel upheld the US voluntary “dolphin safe” tuna labelling scheme because any competitiveadvantage conferred by the label depended on the free choice by consumers to give preference to tuna carrying the “dolphin safe”label. The panel argued that “[T]he labelling provisions did not make the right to sell tuna or tuna products, nor the access to agovernment-conferred advantage affecting the sale of tuna or tuna products, conditional upon the use of tuna harvesting methods.”(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 1991. United States –Restrictions on Imports of Tuna. GATT-Document. DS21/R. Geneva.)

43See WTO’s web site for details. (www.wto.org).

61

5.8 Provisions of Regional FisheriesManagement Organizations (RFMOs)

All the recent international instruments relatingto marine fisheries presented above stress, in par-ticular, the important role of RFMOs in fisheriesmanagement. This appears to be in contrast withtheir overall achievement, as reflected by the poorstate of many marine fisheries resources. There areover 30 RFMOs operating worldwide, nine of whichwere established under the FAO Constitution and24 under international agreements between threeor more contracting parties. Their mandates, mem-bership and participation, decision-making proce-dures, modes of operation and outcomes have beensubject of discussion in a recent meeting convenedby FAO in Rome, 11-12 February 1999. In back-ground documents made available to the partici-pants, the FAO Secretariat noted, among the factorshindering progress in the effectiveness of RFMOsthe failure by some States to accept and implementrelevant international instruments, a lack of will-ingness by some States to delegate sufficient re-sponsibility to regional bodies and the lack of en-forcement of management measures at both na-tional and regional level.

Fisheries management decision-making is verycomplex because it is not simply a technical pro-cess but involves the taking of decisions on theregulation of access and allocation of resources(with significant impact on wealth distribution andlivelihoods), as well as the enforcement of regula-tions. Others have international implications suchas monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) oftransboundary stocks or those stocks that are adja-cent to national jurisdictions. At the regional level,such decisions have profound political implicationsand touch upon national sovereignty, explainingthe reluctance of member States to delegate anysupra-national responsibilities to such simple ad-ministrative mechanisms. The tendency of manyRFMOs to take decisions by consensus leads to de-cisions on a minimum- common denominator andthe “too little, too late” syndrome stressed by manyanalysts in the last two decades.

5.8.1 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)

IOTC is probably the most important RFMO in theIndian Ocean Region. It was established under Ar-ticle XIV of the FAO Constitution and the Agree-ment entered into force in March 1996. Member-ship is open for both coastal States and non-coastalStates whose vessels exploit species covered by the

Agreement in the Indian Ocean, essentially tunaand tuna-like species. The main objectives, func-tions and responsibilities of the Commission in-clude the following:

1. promote co-operation among its Memberswith a view to ensuring, through appropriatemanagement, the conservation and optimumutilization of stocks covered by this Agree-ment and encouraging sustainable develop-ment of fisheries based on such stocks;

2. keep under review the conditions and trendsof the stocks and to gather, analyze and dis-seminate scientific information, catch and ef-fort statistics and other data relevant to theconservation and management of the stocksand to fisheries;

3. encourage, recommend, and co-ordinate re-search and development activities in respectof the stocks and fisheries covered by thisAgreement. . . having due regard to the needto ensure the equitable participation of Mem-bers of the Commission in the fisheries andthe special interests and needs of Members inthe region that are developing countries;

4. adopt, on the basis of scientific evidence, con-servation and management measures, to en-sure the conservation of the stocks covered bythis Agreement and to promote the objectiveof their optimum utilization throughout theArea;

5. keep under review the economic and so-cial aspects of the fisheries based on thestocks covered by this Agreement, bearing inmind, in particular, the interests of develop-ing coastal States.

The Commission has the power to adopt, by atwo-third majority, management measures that arebinding on its Members. Since its inception, IOTChas established several working parties to fulfil itsmandate including on data collection and statistics,tropical tunas, and on tagging. In a series of reso-lutions adopted at past sessions, IOTC seeks to im-prove its information base on tuna catches and thestatus of tuna stocks and the number and activitiesof tuna fishing vessels, including those by flag-of-convenience vessels in the Indian Ocean region. Italso actively seeks to prevent, deter and eliminateIUU fishing through measures such as the refusal bycontracting and non-contracting parties the landingand transhipment of tuna catches by FoC vessels,to inform their general public not to purchase tuna

62

harvested by such vessels, and urges their manu-facturers and other concerned business people toprevent their vessels and equipment being used forFoC longline fisheries.

One area of critical importance that does not yetform part of the Agreement is a control and inspec-tion scheme. In a resolution (99/03), IOTC resolvesto establish the adoption of a scheme at its sessionin 2001, based on earlier proposals made with re-gard to the details of such a scheme at its interses-sional meeting in Yaizu, Japan, in March 2001.44

5.8.2 The Commission for the Conservation of South-ern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)

CCSBT members comprise Australia, Japan andNew Zealand and its convention came into force inMay 1994.45

CCSBT’s main objective is to ensure, through ap-propriate management, the conservation and opti-mum utilization of southern bluefin tuna. It haspreviously set a global TAC, but not since 1997,since when individual countries have voluntarilyrestricted to commercial catch levels in 1997. CCSBThas too endorsed guidelines for certain types offishing gear to reduce incidental mortalities of seabirds (especially albatross).

Individual countries have imposed restrictionsof their own vessels to avoid fishing in breedinggrounds and taking juvenile fish. Each countryundertakes its own data collection and monitoringprogrammes. CCSBT recently agreed to develop ascientific research programme to seek to reduce un-certainties in stock assessment.

A dispute among the parties of CCSBT hasresulted in one of the few fisheries cases beingbrought before the International Tribunal for theLaw of the Sea. Australia and New Zealand askedthe Tribunal in 1999 for an injunction to preventJapan to continue its three-year experimental fish-ery for southern bluefin tuna, with the aim of im-proving stock assessment. In August 1999, the Tri-bunal issued an Order in which it decided that Aus-tralia, Japan and New Zealand should refrain fromconducting an experimental fishing programme,unless agreed among the Parties and unless thecatch is counted against the national quotas.46

5.8.3 Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization(WIOTO)

The membership of WIOTO is entirely confined, inaccordance with its convention that entered intoforce in 1994, to coastal countries whose territoryis principally in the western Indian Ocean Region.Its current membership comprise Comoros, India,Mauritius and Seychelles. WIOTO has no regula-tory powers but aims at increased co-operation andco-ordination on matters concerning:

• harmonization of policies with respect to fish-eries;

• relations with distant-water fishing nations;

• fisheries surveillance and enforcement;

• fisheries development; and

• reciprocal access to EEZs of other members.

With the formation of IOTC , the activities ofWIOTO appear to have largely ceased.

5.8.4 Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission(SWIOFC)

Two intergovernmental consultations have takenplace in 2001 on the establishment of SWIOFC in or-der to obtain agreement on the objectives, structureand area of competence of this envisaged RFMO. AsIOTC covers tuna and tuna-like species, it is self-evident that SWIOFC would address the manage-ment and conservation of non-tuna species. Openareas for further negotiations relate to whetherits objectives should encompass fisheries develop-ment concerns in addition to those of conservationand management, its geographical area of compe-tence, and if the Commission should be establishedunder the constitution of FAO or as an independentorganization.

5.9 The Global Plan of Action for theProtection of the Marine Environment(GPA)

The GPA was adopted in November 1995 by the In-tergovermental Conference to Adopt a Global Pro-gramme of Action for the Protection of the Marine

44Further details can be obtained from IOTC’s website: www.seychelles.net/iotc/45Southern bluefin tuna is also exploited by vessels from Indonesia, South Korea and Taiwan (Province of China).46For details on this case, the reader may consult the following: Maguire, J.J. 2000. Southern Bluefin Tuna dispute. In, Nordquist,

M.H. and J. N. Moore (eds.). 2000. Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Mar-tinus Nijhoff Publishers. The Hague/Boston/London. pp. 201-224. Wolfrum, R. 2000. The role of the International Tribunal for theLaw of the Sea. In Nordquist, M.H. and J. N. Moore (eds.). op. cit. pp. 369-385.

63

Environment from Land-based Activities (Wash-ington, October-November, 1995). The GPA is in-tended to address the fact that about 80 per centof all marine pollution is caused by human ac-tivities on land leading to disposal in rivers andthe coastal ecosystem of: urban and other sewage;inadequately treated waters from industries; dis-charges of nutrients of phosphorus and nitrogenused in agriculture, and finally, concentrations ofheavy metals and persistent organic pollutants.

The GPA aims at preventing the degradationof the marine environment from land-based activ-ities by facilitating the realization of the duty ofStates to preserve and protect the marine environ-ment. More specifically, the GPA aims at identifi-cation and assessment of problems, identifying thenature and severity of problems caused by marinepollution on food security and poverty alleviation;public health; ecosystem health and biological di-versity; and economic and social benefits and uses.It should also help assessing the severity and im-pacts of contaminants as well as the physical alter-ation, destruction, or otherwise of ocean habitats,and identify the point and non-point sources of pol-lution. Finally, it should also help identifying crit-ical areas that are affected or particularly vulnera-ble, such as coastal watersheds, shorelines, estuar-ies and their drainage basins, and habitats of en-dangered species.

A wide range of actions, mainly at nationallevel, are foreseen under the GPA including:

• adaptation or development of regional andnational action programmes;

• regional and global assessments on the im-pact of land-based activities on the marine,coastal and associated freshwater environ-ment;

• organization and operation of a clearing-house, prepared to respond to requests for as-sistance;

• mobilization of financial resources; and

• awareness building.

There are several action plans in the In-dian Ocean Region of UNEP’s Regional Seas Pro-gramme that address marine pollution and inte-grated coastal zone management, including thosefor eastern Africa and southern and eastern Asia.47

5.10 The Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD)

Since UNCED, there has been a growing recognitionthat biological diversity is a global asset of tremen-dous value. The initiative that led to the estab-lishment of the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) started in UNEP in 1988. The Convention wasopened for signature on 5 June 1992 at UNCED andentered into force on 29 December 1993. Inspiredby the world community’s growing commitment tosustainability, the CBD represents an important stepforward in the conservation of biological diversity,the sustainable use of its components, and the fairand equitable sharing of benefits arising from theuse of genetic resources through in situ and ex situconservation. It has, therefore, an obvious impacton the global regulatory context in which fisheriesoperate and on the way fisheries will be perceivedin the global environmental arena.

Following the establishment of the CBD, the FAOCommission on Genetic for Food and Agriculture(previously only concerned with plants) has broad-ened its mandate to cover also aquatic resources,and linkages between the CBD and the Code ofConduct requirements are considered in FAO inthat ambit.

The “Jakarta Mandate on Marine and CoastalBiological Diversity” (CBD-JM), adopted by theConference of the Parties of the CBD in 1995, pro-vides a new global consensus on the importance ofmarine and coastal biological diversity, and reaf-firms the critical need to address the conservationand sustainable use of marine and coastal biologi-cal diversity. Within the CBD-JM, five thematic is-sues have been identified: integrated marine andcoastal area management; marine and coastal pro-tected areas; sustainable use of marine and coastalliving resources; mariculture and alien species.

From a species-diversity point of view, coralreefs are probably among the most valuable ma-rine habitats. They are essential to fisheries produc-tion in most small island countries and are in seri-ous decline globally, as well as in the Indian OceanRegion. The International Coral Reef Initiative(ICRI) promotes the protection and restoration ofreef environments through national developmentand management plans, capacity building, betterresearch and monitoring. Its support in the Indian

47For details, see UNEPs web site at: www.unep.ch/seas/rshome.html

64

Ocean Region includes mapping through GIS, sta-tus assesments, establishment of marine protectedareas and integrated coastal area management. 48

6 Conclusion

Significant progress has been made during the lasthalf century in binding international legal instru-ments and voluntary codes and plans of actionsand initiatives to improve the management of fish-eries and protect the marine and coastal environ-ment. As with all legal instruments and codes,domestic or international, their ultimate effect de-pends on their enforcement by the State and volun-tary adherence by individuals and public and pri-vate organizations. Both enforcement by the Stateand voluntary adherence will be furthered by peo-ple becoming aware of the contents of these agree-ments and acting on it individually and in associa-tions.

Considering the still very low average percapita incomes in many of the coastal countries ofthe Indian Ocean Region and the daunting human,technological and financial resources required forimproved management of the marine environmentand fisheries, it is obvious that much greater re-sources have to be made available for these tasks bythe international community. A special responsibil-ity in this regard appears to fall on those countriesthat, in the past and present, have been among themajor beneficiaries of the natural resources abun-dance in the Indian Ocean Region. Having saidthat, one should hasten to add that much could beachieved in terms of improved fisheries manage-ment and the conservation of the marine environ-ment by coastal countries themselves adopting bet-ter policies and regulatory frameworks.

7 References49

1. Barg, U., P. Martosubroto and R. Willmann. 1998.Towards Sustainable Coastal Management: Selected Is-sues in Fisheries and Aquaculture. In, Entwicklungund lndlicher Raum. Jahrgang 32. Heft 2/98.

2. Bray, K. 2000. A Global Review of Illegal, Unreportedand Unregulated (IUU) Fishing. Paper submitted tothe Expert Consultation on IUU Fishing, Sydney,Australia, 15—19 May 2000.

3. CCSBT. 1998. Report of the Resumed Fourth An-nual Meeting of the Commission for the Conserva-tion of Southern Bluefin Tuna, Canberra, Australia,19-21 February, 1998.

4. Deere, C. L. 2000. Net Gains: Linking Fisheries Man-agement, International Trade and Sustainable Develop-ment. IUCN. Washington D.C.

5. Doulman, D. 2000. Illegal, Unreported and Unreg-ulated Fishing: Mandate for an International Plan ofAction. Paper submitted to the Expert Consulta-tion on IUU Fishing, Sydney, Australia, 15–19 May2000.

6. Doulman, D. 1998. The Code of Conduct for Respon-sible Fisheries: The Requirement for Structural Changeand Adjustment in the Fisheries Sector. FAO. Rome.

7. Doulman, D. J. 1995. Structure and Processof the 1993-1995 United Nations Conference onStraddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory FishStocks. FAO Fisheries Circular, No. 898. Rome.

8. Edeson, W.R. 1996. The Code of Conduct for Re-sponsible Fisheries: An Introduction. In The Inter-national Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 11,No. 2, pp. 97– 102. Kluwer Law International.

9. FAO. 1998. The State of World Fisheries and Aquacul-ture 1998.

10. FAO. 1997. Review of the State of World FisheryResources: Marine Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circu-lar, No. 920. Rome, FAO.

11. FAO. 1996. Precautionary Approach to CaptureFisheries and Species Introduction. Elaborated bythe Technical Consultation on the PrecautionaryApproach to Capture Fisheries (Including SpeciesIntroduction). Lysekil, Sweden, 6–13 June 1995.FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries,No. 2. p. 54.

12. FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.Rome.

FAO 1993. Marine Fisheries and the Law of the Sea:A Decade of Change.Special Chapter (revised) ofThe State of Food and Agriculture 1992, FAO Fish-eries Circular, No. 853.

FAO. 1981. Marine Fisheries in the New Era of Na-tional Jurisdiction. In The State of Food and Agricul-ture 1980, pp. 83–129.

13. Fontaubert, A. C., Dowes, D. R., and Agardy, T. S.1996. Biodiversity in the Sea. Implementing the Con-vention on Biological Diversity in Marine and Coastal

48More details on the status of coral reefs in the Indian Ocean Region and elsewhere can be found at the fol-lowing web site: www.ogp.noaa.gov/misc/coral/sor/sor indian.html; more details on ICRI can be found here:www.environnement.gouv.fr/icri/index.html

49Not included are materials downloaded from various Internet sites as indicated in the text.

65

Habitats. Centre for International EnvironmentalLaw and The World Conservation Union. Gland,Bonn, Washington.

14. Garcia, S. M. and Willmann, R. 1999. ResponsibleMarine Capture Fisheries: Main Global Issues and So-lutions. (mimeo.) FAO. Rome.

15. Garcia, S. M. and Newton, C. 1997. Current Situa-tion, Trends and Prospects in World Capture Fish-eries. In Pikitch, E. K., Huppert, D. D., and Sis-senwine, M. P. (Eds.) Global Trends: Fisheries Man-agement. American Fisheries Society Symposium,20. Bethesda. Maryland. USA.

16. Garcia, S., Gulland, J. A., and Miles, E. 1986. TheNew Law of the Sea, and the Access to SurplusFish Resources. Bioeconomic Reality and ScientificCollaboration. In Marine Policy, July 1986, pp. 192–200.

17. Grainger, Richard, and Garcia, Serge M. 1996.Chronicles of Marine Fishery Landings (1950-1994): Trend Analysis and Fisheries Potential. FAOFisheries Technical Paper, No. 359. p. 51.

18. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 1991.United States—Restrictions on Imports of Tuna.GATT-Document. DS21/R. Geneva.

19. Hayashi, M. 1996. The 1995 Agreement on theConservation and Management of Straddling andHighly Migratory Fish Stocks: Significance for theLaw of the Sea Convention. In Ocean and CoastalManagement, Vol. 29, Nos 1–3, pp. 51–69. ElsevierScience Ltd.

20. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. 2001. Report ofthe 5th Session of the Indian Ocean Tuna Com-mission, Victoria, Seychelles, 11–15 December 200.Victoria, Seychelles.

21. Interim Secretariat for the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity. 1994. Convention on Biological Di-versity. Text and Annexes. Geneva.

22. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers(Ed.). 1995. Responsible Fisheries. DevelopmentEducation Exchange Papers (DEEP). October. FAO.Rome.

23. Maguire, J. J. 2000. Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute.In Nordquist, M. H. and Moore, J. N. (Eds.) 2000.Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. Martinus NijhoffPublishers. The Hague/Boston/London.

24. Mathew S. 1995. Managing the High Seas. UNConference on Straddling Fish Stocks and HighlyMigratory Fish Stocks. In Responsible Fisheries.Development Education Exchange Papers (DEEP), Oc-tober, 11-13. FAO. Rome.

25. Nandan, S. 1987. The Exclusive Economic Zone: aHistorical Perspective. In Essays in Memory of JeanCarroz. The Law and the Sea. FAO. Rome.

26. Pascoe, S. 1997. By-catch Management and theEconomics of Discarding. FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper No. 370.

27. Schorr, David. 1998. Towards Rational Disciplines onSubsidies to the Fishery Sector: A Call for New Interna-tional Rules and Mechanisms. WWF-US. Washington.

28. United Nations. 1983. The Law of the Sea. OfficialText of the United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Sea with Annexes and Index. New York.

29. United Nations. 1992. Agenda 21: Programme ofAction for Sustainable Development. Rio Declarationon Environment and Development. Statement of FirstPrinciples. New York.

30. United Nations Environment Programme. 1995.Global Programme of Action for the Protection ofthe Marine Environment from Land-based Activi-ties. Nairobi.

31. Willmann, R. 1997. Fisheries Management withinthe Framework of Integrated Coastal Area Man-agement. In Proceedings of the South Asian Work-shop on Fisheries and Coastal Area Management—Institutional, Legal and Policy Dimensions, Interna-tional Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF),Chennai, India.

32. Willmann, R. 1997. International Instruments onFisheries and of Relevance to Fisheries. Paper pre-sented at the first meeting of the World Forum ofFish Harvesters and Fishworkers, New Delhi, In-dia, 17–21 November 1997.

33. Wolfrum, R. 2000. The Role of the International Tri-bunal for the Law of the Sea. In Nordquist, M.H.and J. N. Moore (Eds.) 2000. Current Fisheries Is-sues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. TheHague/Boston/London.

34. Wright, A., and Doulman, D. J. 1991. Drift-netFishing in the South Pacific: From Controversy toManagement. In Marine Policy, September 1991.pp. 303-337. Butterworth- Heinemann Ltd.

66

Annex 1Convention on the Law of the Sea—Overview50

The United Nations Convention on the Law ofthe Sea (full text) comprises 320 articles and nineannexes, governing all aspects of ocean space, suchas delimitation, environmental control, marine sci-entific research, economic and commercial activi-ties, transfer of technology and the settlement ofdisputes relating to ocean matters.

The Convention entered into force in accor-dance with its article 308 on 16 November 1994, 12months after the date of deposit of the sixtieth in-strument of ratification or accession.

Some of the key features of the Convention arethe following:

• Coastal States exercise sovereignty over theirterritorial sea which they have the right to es-tablish its breadth up to a limit not to exceed12 nautical miles; foreign vessels are allowed“innocent passage” through those waters;

• Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed“transit passage” through straits used for in-ternational navigation; States bordering thestraits can regulate navigational and other as-pects of passage;

• Archipelagic States, made up of a group orgroups of closely related islands and inter-connecting waters, have sovereignty over asea area enclosed by straight lines drawn be-tween the outermost points of the islands; allother States enjoy the right of archipelagicpassage through such designated sea lanes;

• Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ)with respect to natural resources and certaineconomic activities, and exercise jurisdictionover marine science research and environ-mental protection;

• All other States have freedom of navigationand overflight in the EEZ, as well as freedomto lay submarine cables and pipelines;

• Land-locked and geographically disadvan-taged States have the right to participate onan equitable basis in exploitation of an ap-propriate part of the surplus of the living re-sources of the EEZ’s of coastal States of thesame region or subregion; highly migratory

species of fish and marine mammals are ac-corded special protection;

• Coastal States have sovereign rights over thecontinental shelf (the national area of theseabed) for exploring and exploiting it; theshelf can extend at least 200 nautical milesfrom the shore, and more under specified cir-cumstances;

• Coastal States share with the internationalcommunity part of the revenue derived fromexploiting resources from any part of theirshelf beyond 200 miles;

• The Commission on the Limits of the Conti-nental Shelf shall make recommendations toStates on the shelf’s outer boundaries when itextends beyond 200 miles;

• All States enjoy the traditional freedoms ofnavigation, overflight, scientific research andfishing on the high seas; they are obligedto adopt, or cooperate with other States inadopting, measures to manage and conserveliving resources;

• The limits of the territorial sea, the exclu-sive economic zone and continental shelf ofislands are determined in accordance withrules applicable to land territory, but rockswhich could not sustain human habitation oreconomic life of their own would have no eco-nomic zone or continental shelf;

• States bordering enclosed or semi- enclosedseas are expected to cooperate in managingliving resources, environmental and researchpolicies and activities;

• Land-locked States have the right of access toand from the sea and enjoy freedom of transitthrough the territory of transit States;

• States are bound to prevent and control ma-rine pollution and are liable for damagecaused by violation of their international obli-gations to combat such pollution;

• All marine scientific research in the EEZ andon the continental shelf is subject to the con-sent of the coastal State, but in most casesthey are obliged to grant consent to otherStates when the research is to be conducted

50This overview is taken verbatim from the following Internet site: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/losconv2.htm

67

for peaceful purposes and fulfils specified cri-teria;

• States are bound to promote the developmentand transfer of marine technology “on fairand reasonable terms and conditions”, withproper regard for all legitimate interests;

• States Parties are obliged to settle by peacefulmeans their disputes concerning the interpre-tation or application of the Convention;

• Disputes can be submitted to the Interna-tional Tribunal for the Law of the Sea estab-lished under the Convention, to the Interna-tional Court of Justice, or to arbitration. Con-ciliation is also available and, in certain cir-cumstances, submission to it would be com-pulsory. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdic-tion over deep seabed mining disputes.

68

Annex 2Text of selected Articles

of the 1982 United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea

Article 61Conservation of the living resources

1. The coastal State shall determine the allow-able catch of the living resources in its exclu-sive economic zone.

2. The coastal State, taking into account the bestscientific evidence available to it, shall en-sure through proper conservation and man-agement measures that the maintenance ofthe living resources in the exclusive eco-nomic zone is not endangered by overex-ploitation. As appropriate, the coastal Stateand competent international organizations,whether subregional, regional or global, shallco-operate to this end.

3. Such measures shall also be designed tomaintain or restore populations of harvestedspecies at levels which can produce the max-imum sustainable yield, as qualified by rele-vant environmental and economic factors, in-cluding the economic needs of coastal fishingcommunities and the special requirementsof developing States, and taking into ac-count fishing patterns, the interdependenceof stocks and any generally recommendedinternational minimum standards, whethersubregional, regional or global.

4. In taking such measures the coastal State shalltake into consideration the effects on speciesassociated with or dependent upon harvestedspecies with a view to maintaining or restor-ing populations of such associated or depen-dent species above levels at which their repro-duction may become seriously threatened.

5. Available scientific information, catch andfishing effort statistics, and other data rele-vant to the conservation of fish stocks shallbe contributed and exchanged on a regularbasis through competent international orga-nizations, whether subregional, regional orglobal, where appropriate and with participa-tion by all States concerned, including Stateswhose nationals are allowed to fish in the ex-clusive economic zone.

Article 62Utilization of the living resources

1. The coastal State shall promote the objectiveof optimum utilization of the living resourcesin the exclusive economic zone without prej-udice to article 61.

2. The coastal State shall determine its capacityto harvest the living resources of the exclu-sive economic zone. Where the coastal Statedoes not have the capacity to harvest the en-tire allowable catch, it shall, through agree-ments or other arrangements and pursuant tothe terms, conditions, laws and regulationsreferred to in paragraph 4, give other Statesaccess to the surplus of the allowable catch,having particular regard to the provisions ofarticles 69 and 70, especially in relation to thedeveloping States mentioned therein.

3. In giving access to other States to its exclusiveeconomic zone under this article, the coastalState shall take into account all relevant fac-tors, including, inter alia, the significance ofthe living resources of the area to the econ-omy of the coastal State concerned and itsother national interests, the provisions of ar-ticles 69 and 70, the requirements of devel-oping States in the subregion or region inharvesting part of the surplus and the needto minimize economic dislocation in Stateswhose nationals have habitually fished in thezone or which have made substantial effortsin research and identification of stocks.

4. Nationals of other States fishing in the ex-clusive economic zone shall comply with theconservation measures and with the otherterms and conditions established in the lawsand regulations of the coastal State. Theselaws and regulations shall be consistent withthis Convention and may relate, inter alia, tothe following:

69

(a) licensing of fishermen, fishing vesselsand equipment, including payment offees and other forms of remuneration,which, in the case of developing coastalStates, may consist of adequate compen-sation in the field of financing, equip-ment and technology relating to the fish-ing industry;

(b) determining the species which may becaught, and fixing quotas of catch,whether in relation to particular stocksor groups of stocks or catch per vesselover a period of time or to the catch bynationals of any State during a specifiedperiod;

(c) regulating seasons and areas of fishing,the types, sizes and amount of gear, andthe types, sizes and number of fishingvessels that may be used;

(d) fixing the age and size of fish and otherspecies that may be caught;

(e) specifying information required of fish-ing vessels, including catch and effortstatistics and vessel position reports;

(f) requiring, under the authorization andcontrol of the coastal State, the con-duct of specified fisheries research pro-grammes and regulating the conduct ofsuch research, including the sampling ofcatches, disposition of samples and re-porting of associated scientific data;

(g) the placing of observers or trainees onboard such vessels by the coastal State;

(h) the landing of all or any part of the catchby such vessels in the ports of the coastalState;

(i) terms and conditions relating to jointventures or other co-operative arrange-ments;

(j) requirements for the training of person-nel and the transfer of fisheries tech-nology, including enhancement of thecoastal State’s capability of undertakingfisheries research;

(k) enforcement procedures.

5. Coastal States shall give due notice of con-servation and management laws and regula-tions.

70

Annex 3Summary of the main contents of the 27 principles of the Rio Declaration on

Environment and Development

• Principle (P) 1 places human beings at thecentre of concerns for sustainable develop-ment.

• P 2 asserts the sovereignty of States to exploittheir own resources according to their policyobjectives but places on them the obligationto cause no damage to the environment ofother States beyond the limits of national ju-risdiction.

• P 3 States the right to development and P 4demands that environment protection formsan integral part of development.

• P 5 calls on States and all people to collabo-rate in the eradication of poverty and P 6 de-mands that special priority be given to devel-oping countries, particularly the least devel-oped and most environmentally vulnerable.

• P 7 calls on States to co-operate in en-vironment conservation and acknowledgesthe special responsibility borne by devel-oped countries because of their burden onthe global environment and the technologicaland financial resources they command.

• P 8 asks States to reduce and eliminate unsus-tainable patterns of production, consumptionand to promote appropriate demographicpolicies.

• P 9 promotes international co-operation incapacity-building and knowledge and tech-nology transfer.

• P 10 promotes broad-based participation indecision-making, the free flow of informationand access to the judicial and administrativeproceedings.

• P 11 calls on States to enact effective environ-mental legislation.

• P 12 asks States to promote a supportive andopen international economic system and re-frain from using environmental measures asarbitrary barriers to trade.

• P 13 requires States to develop national lawand to co-operate in the development of in-ternational law regarding liability and com-

pensation of victims of pollution and environ-mental harm.

• P 14 calls on States to discourage the transferto other States of substances that cause seri-ous harm.

• P15 requires States to widely apply the pre-cautionary approach, i.e. the lack of full sci-entific certainty shall not be used to postponecost-effective measures to prevent serious orirreversible environmental damage.

• P 16 calls on national authorities to promotethe internalisation of environmental costs, i.e.the polluter should bear the cost of pollution.

• P 17 requests the undertaking of environmen-tal impact assessments for proposed activitiesthat are likely to have significant environmen-tal impacts.

• P 18 and P 19 commit States to give early no-tification of emergencies, disasters, etc. andof other activities resulting in transboundaryenvironmental impacts and call on the inter-national community to help States afflicted bydisasters and emergencies.

• P 20 urges the full participation by womenin environmental management and develop-ment.

• P 21 asks that youth be mobilized to forge aglobal partnership.

• P 22 requires States to recognize and dulysupport the identity, culture and interests ofindigenous people and enable their effectiveparticipation in achieving sustainable devel-opment.

• P 23 requires the protection of the environ-ment and natural resources of people underoppression, domination and occupation.

• P 24 calls on States to protect the environmentin times of armed conflicts.

• P 25 recognizes the interdependence and in-divisibility of peace, development and envi-ronmental protection.

71

• P 26 commits States to resolve all environ-mental disputes peacefully and P 27 requiresall States and people to co-operate in good

faith and in a spirit of partnership in the ful-filment of the principles of this declaration.

72

Annex 4Summary of the main provisions of the 1995 Global Programme of Action

for the Protection of the Marine Environmentfrom Land-Based Activities (GPA)

GPA identifies nine source categories and setsspecific objectives and targets to be met by Stateswithin given time frames. With regards to sewage,States are expected to establish by the year 2000waste treatment and disposal quality criteria, objec-tives and standards based on the nature and assim-ilative capacity of the receiving environment. Bythe year 2025, all sewage, waste waters and solidwastes should be disposed of in conformity withnational and international environmental qualityguidelines.

Emissions and discharges of persistent organicpollutants should be reduced or eliminated, givingimmediate attention to the identification and intro-duction of substitutes for such substances. Cleanerproduction processes are to be introduced to reduceor eliminate hazardous by-products and wastes as-sociated with production, incineration and com-bustion, e.g. dioxins, furans, hexachlorobenzeneand polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Further,best environmental practice for pest control in agri-culture and aquaculture should be promoted.

A further objective is to reduce or elimi-nate emissions and discharges of radioactive sub-

stances, of heavy metals, and of oil (hydrocarbons),in order to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollutionof the marine and coastal environment.

Another source category are nutrients. The ob-jective of the Action Programme is to identify ma-rine areas where nutrient inputs are causing or arelikely to cause pollution, to reduce nutrient inputsinto the areas identified and to reduce the numberof marine areas where eutrophication is evident.This is an area of particular interest since agricul-tural practices are a source of nutrient enrichmentof coastal waters. Agricultural activities and defor-estation contribute also to another category affect-ing the marine environment: sediment mobiliza-tion.

Litter threatens marine life through entangle-ment, suffocation and ingestion and is widely rec-ognized to degrade the visual amenities of marineand coastal areas. The target is that by the year2025 States should provide all urban areas with ad-equate waste collection, disposal and treatment ser-vices.

73

The SADC Marine Fisheries and Resources SectorCo-ordinating Unit

SADC Secretariat

AbstractThe Marine Fisheries and Resources Sector Co-ordinating Unit of the Southern African De-

velopment Community (SADC) aims to co-ordinate promotional efforts in the food, agricultureand natural resources sector. Its activities include monitoring, control and surveillance, maintain-ing a regional fisheries information system and the Benguela Environment Fisheries Interactionand Training programme (BENEFIT) to enhance the science capability required for optimal andsustainable utilization of marine living resources.

Keywords

South Africa. Namibia. SADC. Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). Regional fisheriesinformation system. Benguela. BENEFIT project.

1 Introduction

The marine fisheries and resources sector is co-ordinated by the Republic of Namibia, follow-ing a Southern African Development Community(SADC) Council of Ministers’ decision in 1991. ThePermanent Secretary of the Ministry of Fisheriesand Marine Resources (MFMR) of Namibia leadsand chairs the meetings of SADC marine fisheriessenior officials, while the Minister of Fisheries andMarine Resources of Namibia chairs the SADC Sec-toral Committee of Ministers of Fisheries.

The Sector Contact Points, through which theSector Co-ordinating Unit (SCU) is co-operating atthe grassroots level, are designated for each of theeight coastal Member States.

The SCU is subjected to co-ordination by theFood, Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR)within SADC.

The policy objectives of the SADC marine fish-eries and resources sector are based on the FANRoverall policy objectives, which are to:

• raise production, and improve processingmethods, marketing and distribution of fishand fish products;

• protect and enhance marine and coastal envi-ronments, control pollution and avoid harm-ful effects on other natural resources;

• provide training and assistance to promoteprofitable operations at all levels from arti-sanal to industrial;

• strengthen and develop small-scale and arti-sanal fisheries and the economies of coastalfishing communities in an integrated and sus-tainable manner, and fully involve the peoplein development programmes and in decision-making processes; and

• base all development projects for the marinefisheries sector on sound, scientific analysisof resources and their sustainability, educatefisherfolk and coastal people at all levels inenvironmental and resource awareness andinvolve them in management systems anddecisionmaking.

2 Mandates of the SCU

The SCU is responsible for both promoting and co-ordinating the functions of the sector. There are dif-ferent functions.

Some of the co-ordinating functions are to:

• organize, where appropriate, sectoral minis-ters’ committee meetings to assess and ap-prove new policies and projects;

74

• give sectoral contact points guidance onproject cycle management and periodicallyevaluate their performance, as part of theprogress report;

• assess project proposal from member States,using the approved selection criteria to en-sure that the project confers greater benefitsto the region;

• mobilize resources for the implementation ofthe sector’s programmes and projects;

• co-ordinate the implementation of pro-gramme/projects by both public and privatenational agencies, with the assistance of sec-toral contact points;

• organize, where necessary, donor conferencesfor mobilization of funds for major pro-grammes and follow-up on the consequentpledged support;

• represent and present the SCU at workshops,meetings and seminars; and

• liaise with other sectors in the implementa-tion of projects that require a joint approach.

Promotional functions are to:

• provide essential regional leadership in thedevelopment of the sector;

• generate donor interests in the sector’s pro-gramme of action and follow up these in-terests with the view to make them concretepledges of support;

• assist sectoral contact points in identifyingprojects with greater regional benefits; and

• project the role of the sector within the re-gional economy on the basis of consultationwith sectoral contact points.

3 Activities of the SCU

The activities of the SCU include monitoring of theimplementation of programmes and projects of the

sector in the region. Below are some of the projectsthat are currently being implemented and managedby the SCU:

• Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS)

The main objective of this project is the im-provement of fisheries resources. The projectaims to improve the national institutional ca-pacity for efficient, cost-effective and sustain-able MCS and to establish and enhance effec-tive regional co-operation on SADC and fish-eries management.

Activities include, inter alia, training of fish-eries staff, designing and operating effectiveMCS operational systems, cost control andmonitoring of MCS effectiveness.

• Regional Fisheries Information System (RFIS)

The objective of the project is to improvethe sustainable utilization of SADC’s fish-eries resources to contribute to the nationaleconomies, development objectives and sus-tainable livelihood of coastal communities.Its purpose is to provide timely, relevant, ac-cessible, usable and cost-effective informa-tion to improve the management of the ma-rine fisheries resources in the region.

The activities undertaken include buildingartisanal fisheries decision support systems,giving support to regional marine fisheriesenvironmental information systems for theBenguela Current region, and support fish-eries information management systems forother regional organizations to promote thesustainable exploitation of shared marine re-sources.

• Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction andTraining Programme (BENEFIT)

The BENEFIT project aims at developing theenhanced scienctific capability required foroptimal and sustainable utilization of marineliving resources.

75

Crossing Maritime Borders: The Problem and Solutionin the Indo-Sri Lankan context

V.Vivekanandan ∗

AbstractThe number of incidents of firing at Indian fishing boats in the Palk Bay by the Sri Lankan

Navy and the consequent loss of lives has been a serious issue in Tamil Nadu, India for the pastmany years. An equally important issue associated with this has been the arrest of Indian fish-ermen at sea and their subsequent detention in jails by the Sri Lankan authorities. At times, theresentment of the fisherfolk of Rameswaram and neighbouring villages in Tamil Nadu has boiledover, leading to demonstrations and even violent protests. Less publicized in India has been theregular arrest and detention of Sri Lankan fishermen by the Indian authorities for crossing themaritime border. However, this is an important issue in Sri Lanka itself and many fisherfolkorganizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from that country have been contact-ing NGOs and fisherfolk organizations in India to seek help in the release of arrested Sri Lankanfishermen.

The problem of fishermen crossing borders is a serious one on the Indo-Sri Lankan maritimeborder. It has led to great deal of suffering among the fisherfolk of both countries. Both govern-ments are treating the problem without acknowledging the real causes behind it. The problemsneed to be squarely faced and creative solutions found so that national interests as well as fisher-men’s livelihoods are protected.

Keywords

India. Sri Lanka. Indo-Sri Lanka maritime boundary. Maritime border. Historic waters.International boundary line. Territorial waters. Territorial sea. Exclusive economic zone. Bordercrossing. Equidistance. Palk Bay. Tamil Nadu. Rameswaram. Gulf of Mannar. Mandapam.Adam’s Bridge. Kachchativu. Maritime Zones of India (MZI) Act. Alliance for Release of InnocentFishermen (ARIF). Forum for Human Dignity. World Forum of Fishworkers.

1 Introduction

1.1 The problem

The number of incidents of firing at Indian fish-ing boats in the Palk Bay by the Sri Lankan Navyand the consequent loss of lives has been a seri-ous issue in Tamil Nadu for the last many years.An equally important issue associated with this hasbeen the arrest of Indian fishermen at sea and theirsubsequent detention in jails by the Sri Lankan au-thorities. At times, the resentment of the fisher-folk of Rameswaram and neighbouring villages hasboiled over, leading to demonstrations and even vi-olent protests. Less publicized in India has been the

regular arrest and detention of Sri Lankan fisher-men by the Indian authorities for crossing the mar-itime border. However, this is an important issue inSri Lanka itself and many fisherfolk organizationsand NGOs from that country have been contactingNGOs and fisherfolk organizations in India to seekhelp in the release of arrested Sri Lankan fishermen.

2 Historical Evolution of the Problem

India and Sri Lanka share a long and commonhistory, with considerable interaction between thecoastal communities of both nations. However, to

∗Chief Executive, South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies (SIFFS), Trivandrum, India, and Convener, Alliance for Releaseof Innocent Fishermen (ARIF). Email: vivek@siffs.org

76

understand the historical evolution of the particu-lar problem at hand, a quick look at the geographi-cal aspects is vital.

2.1 The geographical aspects

The island nation of Sri Lanka lies off the south-east coast of India, with the northern part of theisland being at the same latitude as the southernpart of Tamil Nadu, India’s southernmost State.The maritime boundary between the two countrieswere settled through two Agreements in 1974 and1976, even before the Law of the Sea was negotiatedat the United Nations, and India declared its 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). TheIndo-Sri Lanka maritime boundary cuts throughthree different seas: the Bay of Bengal in the north,the Palk Bay in the centre, and the Gulf of Man-nar (which opens to the Indian Ocean) in the south.The 1974 Agreement between Indira Gandhi andSrimavo Bandaranaike, the then Prime Ministers ofthe two countries, was for the Palk Bay, which wastermed as the ‘historic waters’. The 1976 Agree-ment was for the Bay of Bengal and the Gulf ofMannar.

The maritime boundary (or InternationalBoundary Line or IBL as it is called by the coast-guard and navy) is uncomfortably close to theshores of both countries in the Palk Bay, wherethe maximum distance between the two countriesis only around 45 km, and the minimum is just 16km between Dhanushkodi on the Indian coast andThalaimannar on the Sri Lankan coast. A crossingof the IBL would imply entry into the territorialwaters (12 nautical miles or 22 km) rather than theEEZ. The distances between the Indian coast andthe Sri Lanka coast are much longer in the Bay ofBengal and the Gulf of Mannar. As far as the Gulfof Mannar is concerned, except for a few of thecentres like Mandapam, south of Rameswaram, thedistances are considerable. As far as the Bay ofBengal is concerned, except for centres close to Pt.Calimere (Kodikarai), the distances to Sri Lanka arequite considerable.

Some remarks about the Palk Bay are warrantedat this point. The bay is a shallow system withthe depth not increasing beyond 50 m at any point.The southern end of the bay is narrow and the so-called Adam’s Bridge that connects Dhanushkodiand Thalaimannar acts as a barrier to the Gulf ofMannar. This ridge between Dhanushkodi andThalaimannar makes it difficult for larger vesselsto cross over from the Bay to the Gulf and viceversa. This makes the Palk Bay a distinctly differ-

ent ecosystem and the fish resources and stocks aredifferent from that of the Gulf.

2.2 Historic contacts

The fishermen communities on either side of thePalk Bay are Tamil-speaking and have common ori-gins. Further, the Bay is a common fishing groundfor fishermen of both countries. It is, therefore,not surprising that there has been close contactbetween the fishermen of both countries for cen-turies. There has also been a free movement ofgoods across the bay before independence, whichdid not completely stop after independence. Dur-ing the colonial period, both countries were underthe administration of the British, and this ensuredthat the free intercourse that existed prior to colo-nization was not disrupted. The coming of inde-pendence and the creation of two modern nationStates did not alter the picture substantially as faras the coastal fishermen were concerned. The freemovement of men and material continued acrossthe Palk Bay. The two events that affected this andprogressively led to the current situation were the1974 Agreement between India and Sri Lanka onthe maritime border in the Palk Bay and the start ofthe civil war in Sri Lanka in 1983.

2.3 The pre-1974 scenario

As mentioned earlier, there was a great deal of con-tinuity in the relationship between the fishermenon either side of the Palk Bay, even after indepen-dence. But some of the developments during thisperiod are worth mentioning. Up to the 1940s, theRameswaram Island was only a seasonal base formigrant fishermen from the Gulf of Mannar side.Only a small group of cast-net fishermen perma-nently resided on the island. The parava fisher-men from the Gulf would come with their fishingequipment during the lean season in the Gulf andbase themselves in the island, putting up tempo-rary huts. It is only after independence that the par-ava fishermen started settling down permanently inRameswaram.

The changes in the post-independence periodwere essentially related to technological changes.In the beginning, the fishing craft of the Bay onboth the Indian and Sri Lankan sides were non-motorized, with a predominance of kattumarams.A variety of traditional nets made of natural fibreswere in use. The boat-seine (thattumadi) was an im-portant gear for the parava fishermen who went af-ter the shoaling fishes in an operation that needed

77

two kattumarams. Kachchativu, a small, uninhab-ited island (which has no water source) was of spe-cial significance for the fishing operations. It is lo-cated around two-and-a-half hours sailing distancefrom Rameswaram. In an era of non-motorizedfishing, it was very useful as a base to exploit thefishing grounds that were difficult to cover in dailyoperations. Seasonally, the Rameswaram fisher-men would put up huts and stay there for up toa week, conducting fishing operations. The is-land was ideal for drying the fish and nets. Thefishermen from Mannar would also come and fishfrom Kachchativu, and both had an excellent un-derstanding. It is worth noting that the two groupsused different fishing gear (the boat-seine, in thecase of the Rameswaram fishermen, and gill-nets,in the case of the Mannar fishermen) and had verylittle competition between them.

Kachchativu was also a place of annual pilgrim-age to the St. Antony’s church, which was underthe ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Jaffna.Fisherfolk from both sides of the Palk Bay wouldturn up in large numbers for the annual feast.

An important development in the early 1960sthat led to friction between the two groups of fish-ermen was the introduction of nylon nets in SriLanka. Finding the nylon nets much superior, theRameswaram fishermen began to feel envious oftheir brothers across the Bay. Things became seri-ous when some Indian fishermen started stealingthe nylon nets at night when they were set at sea.This resulted in a clash and the first reported firingby the Sri Lankan Navy on Indian fishermen. Theproblem was, however, transient in nature and gotresolved once the Indian fishermen also acquirednylon nets, which soon became easily available inIndia also. The nylon nets gave a boost to gill-netting, especially with large drift-nets. This, inturn, led to the Tuticorin vallams (canoes), whichare solidly built and have greater carrying capac-ity, becoming more popular and replacing a part ofthe kattumaram fleet of Rameswaram.

The late 1960s saw another gear conflict erupt-ing. This was due to the introduction of smallmechanized trawlers (32-footers) on the Indian sidein 1967. The trawlers created conflicts with arti-sanal fishermen on both sides of the bay. This prob-lem also got resolved (at least as a source of conflictbetween the fishermen of the two countries) whenthe Sri Lankan fishermen acquired trawlers too.However, it must be understood that the trawlerproblem is a permanent one in India, with constantconflicts between the mechanized trawlers and theartisanal fishermen.

Thus, the pre-1974 period was one of a long his-tory of close contact between the fishermen on ei-ther side of the Bay. Towards the end, however,new technological developments had led to someconflicts, which got resolved when the new tech-nologies became accessible to both groups.

2.4 The 1974 and 1976 Agreements

In 1974, the Prime Ministers of India and Sri Lankamet to decide on crucial issues between the twocountries that had been hanging fire for long. Themost important issue that affected the relationshipbetween the two countries was that of the ’State-less Tamils’, the large number of people from TamilNadu who had gone to work on the tea plantationsof Sri Lanka during the British period and whowere refused citizenship by independent Sri Lanka.The other pending problem had been the absenceof a mutually agreed upon maritime boundary be-tween India and Sri Lanka. This boundary problemwas related to differences on the status of Kachcha-tivu. Since the 1920s (well before independence!),the Sri Lankan side had been staking claims onthe island, while India (represented by the MadrasPresidency) was convinced that it belonged to In-dia.

The Government of India (GoI) saw theKachchativu problem as a minor irritant and themandarins in Delhi felt that a ’barren rock’ in mid-sea was not worth fighting for with a friendly coun-try. The problem of the Stateless Tamils was themore serious one and all diplomatic energies wereconcentrated on that problem. Whether the conces-sions made by the Sri Lankans on the problem ofthe Stateless Tamils were satisfactory or not can bedebated. However, the GoI felt satisfied enough toconcede Kachchativu to Sri Lanka. As a result, aboundary in the Palk Bay was agreed upon, withKachchativu going to the Sri Lankan side.

The extent to which the fishing interests weretaken into account by either government is difficultto assess. Even for Sri Lanka, the main reason forseeking Kachchativu appears to have been a suspi-cion of untapped petroleum resources in the Bay.However, the fishermen on either side do not ap-pear to have played any role in the negotiations andtheir opinions were never sought.

It is, however, worth noting that the 1974 Agree-ment has two special clauses that appear to protectthe interest of Indian fishermen. Article 5 states:

Subject to the foregoing, the Indian fish-ermen and pilgrims will enjoy access to

78

visit Kachchativu as hitherto and willnot be required by Sri Lanka to obtaintravel documents or visas for these pur-poses.

Article 6 is even more significant, as it states:

The vessels of Sri Lanka and India willenjoy in each other’s waters such rightsas they have enjoyed therein.

While Article 5 relates to the continuing use ofKachchativu for pilgrimage and for drying nets andfish, Article 6 appears to grant Indian fishermen theright to continue fishing in the Palk Bay as before(even though fishing is not explicitly mentioned).

The Dravidian parties of Tamil Nadu (theDravida Munnetra Kazhagam or DMK was inpower) had strongly criticized the Agreement andthe DMK members had walked out of the Indianparliament in protest. However, they were unableto make much impact on the GoI’s thinking on thematter.

In 1976, another Agreement was signed be-tween India and Sri Lanka on the boundary in theBay of Bengal and the Gulf of Mannar. Both theseboundaries were non-controversial, with no dis-puted island in the picture. The well-accepted prin-ciple of equidistance was adhered to.

Probably the most important event that actuallydeprived the Indian fishermen of their right to fishin the Palk Bay was an exchange of letters betweenIndia and Sri Lanka in 1976. In March 1976, the For-eign Secretary of India wrote to his counterpart that

“...the fishing vessels and fishermen ofIndia shall not engage in fishing inthe historic waters, the territorial seaand the exclusive economic zone of SriLanka nor shall the fishing vessels andfishermen of Sri Lanka engage in fish-ing in the historic waters, territorial seaand the exclusive economic zone of In-dia, without the express permission ofSri Lanka or India, as the case may be...”

The contents of this letter, apparently, are alsobinding on the GoI and constitute an Agreement.The Minister of External Affairs, Y. B. Chavan,stated this categorically in Parliament:

“Consequent to the signing of theAgreement, there was also an Exchangeof Letters ...This Exchange of Lettersalso constitutes an Agreement between

the two countries...Both countries haveagreed that after the determination ofthe maritime boundary, fishing vesselsand fishermen of one country shall notengage in fishing in the waters of theother...”

Thus, through an exchange of letters, the GoIhad more or less given away the benefit that Ar-ticle 6 of the 1974 Agreement appeared to grant tothe Indian fishermen (despite some ambiguity in itswording).

2.5 1974 to 1983: some trouble, but businessas usual

The Agreement of 1974 and the exchange of lettersin 1976 did not lead to any significant change in theactivities of the fishermen. It was business as usual.If anything, the fishing operations in the Bay onlyfurther intensified as a result of the expansion ofthe fleet of trawlers on both sides. The nylon netrevolution had lead to an increase in gill-netting onthe Indian side and the number of vallams also in-creased as a result. Motorization of the vallams us-ing single-cylinder diesel engines also took place,increasing their range of operations. The nylon netusage also meant that Kachchativu’s significance asa centre for drying nets was lost. With increasedmechanical propulsion, the need of Kachchativu asa base for fishing and fish drying was also reduced.

However, the Sri Lanka authorities did attemptto restrict fishing by Indian vessels on the basis ofthe Agreement. In this, they were obviously hand-icapped by the limitations of their navy. The SriLankan Navy, prior to the civil war, was a nomi-nal entity and had very little capacity to undertakepatrolling. Small vessels with handguns would oc-casionally stop Indian vessels and direct them tothe Sri Lanka shores for interrogation and, subse-quently, release them after a few hours. A signifi-cant fact was that, on such occasions, the Sri Lankaauthorities would seize the fish and the nets. Often,the violations were by Indian trawlers and trawlnets would be seized. The Indian fishermen at-tributed this, in part, to the fact that trawling wasstill developing in Sri Lanka, and the seized Indiannets would find their way to Sri Lankan boats.

There seems no evidence that the Indian author-ities had taken any steps to restrict the fishing ves-sels of Sri Lanka similarly. The Indian Coastguard,with a mandate to protect India’s EEZ, came into be-ing only in 1979, and if any action had to be taken,it was possible only after that.

79

2.6 The civil war and its consequence

The start of the civil war in 1983 completely alteredthe nature of the problem, and produced tragic con-sequences for the fishermen. The Liberation Tigersof Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which had open supportfrom various political organizations in Tamil Naduprior to the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) op-erations (and even after), was receiving suppliesfrom the Tamil Nadu coast. The LTTE also devel-oped its own naval wing called the ’Sea Tigers’,which mounted deadly attacks at times on the SriLankan Navy. The Sri Lankan Navy had to ex-pand its fleet and intensify patrolling to counterthis threat. Innocent Indian fishermen have becomevictims of the war and many incidents have oc-curred in the last 15 years wherein Indian fisher-men have been shot dead and many more whereinIndian fishermen have been taken into custody bySri Lankan authorities and kept for months in de-tention in Sri Lanka.

Despite the mechanization of fishing and mo-torization of artisanal vessels, navigation is entirelybased on fishermen’s traditional skills and, in theabsence of charts, it is difficult for the fishermento pinpoint their location at sea. Modern commu-nication equipment is non-existent and the fisher-men normally do not know even the rudiments ofsignalling. This means that a patrol vessel cannotfind out from a distance whether a vessel is a gen-uine fishing vessel or not. This increases chancesof misidentification at night and shooting by jitterynaval personnel.

From 1983 to 2001, 105 fishermen have beenkilled in firing by the Sri Lanka Navy, 286 fisher-men injured and hundreds of fishermen arrested.Though the number of firings has come down sinceJanuary 1997, the problem still remains intractable.

2.7 The affected area and fishermen

The Palk Bay is clearly the most affected area, asfar as Indian fishermen are concerned. This is un-doubtedly due to the earlier mentioned proximity.Even in the Palk Bay, the most affected place isthe Rameswaram Island (in Ramanathapuram Dis-trict), which is extremely close to Sri Lanka. Hereboth the mechanized boats (all using trawl nets)and the traditional canoes (Tuticorin-type vallams,with or without motors) can easily cross the IBL andget into trouble. Over 75 per cent of incidents in-volving shooting and arrest of fishermen by the SriLankan Navy relate to the Rameswaram Island.

As far as the rest of the Palk Bay is concerned,Jagadapattinam, an important mechanized land-ing centre in Pudukottai District, is the next af-fected centre, which has reported occasional inci-dents of shooting and arrest of Indian fishermenby the Sri Lankan Navy. Kottaipattinam, anothermechanized boat centre, is also at times affected.Jagadapattinam and Kottaipattinam are around 32km from the IBL.

Nagapattinam District also has a part of itscoastline in the Palk Bay and a few incidents affect-ing centres of that district have also been reported.Kodikarai (Point Calimere), the northern end of thePalk Bay on the Indian side, is just 24 km from theIBL.

As far as the Bay of Bengal is concerned, it isgenerally unaffected but for the southern extremeof the coast close to the Palk Bay. Some fishingcentres of Nagapattinam District and Karaikal (inthe Union Territory of Pondicherry) have also, inthe past, recorded incidents involving Indian fish-ermen and the Sri Lankan Navy.

As far as the Gulf of Mannar is concerned, ifthere is a problem, it is essentially on the north-ern end, south of Rameswaram. Boats from Man-dapam that go fishing in the Gulf of Mannar havechances of reaching or crossing the IBL and henceare sometimes affected. Further down the coast,there are virtually no recorded incidents involvingthe Indian fishermen and the Sri Lankan Navy.

It must, however, be mentioned that the Ara-bian sea coast has had some incidents of artisanalfishing craft drifting to the Sri Lanka shores due toengine failure or natural causes in view of the deep-seagoing aptitude of the Kanyakumari fishermenand the risks they take. These incidents, of course,do not normally involve shooting or arrests.

To sum up, the affected area is essentiallythe Rameswaram-Mandapam area, with most in-cidents taking place in the Palk Bay and a few inthe Gulf of Mannar. Jagadapattinam, Kottaipatti-nam and a few other centres of the Palk Bay are alsooccasionally affected. A few fishing centres on thesouthern end of the Bay of Bengal have also beenaffected.

The type of fishing vessel that gets affected isnormally the small mechanized trawler (32-42 foot-ers) that dominates the fishing in the affected ar-eas. In Rameswaram Island, however, even the tra-ditional canoes from the Pamban area are amongthose affected, in view of the proximity to the IBLand the use of large drift-nets. Occasionally, onehears of kattumarams also being affected. Both themechanized boats and the vallams have a five-man

80

crew, while the kattumarams have just one or twopersons on board. While the fishermen on vallamsand kattumarams are locals, the crew of mechanizedboats might come from distant centres and may, attimes, include fishermen from castes not tradition-ally involved in fishing.

2.8 Crossing the border: fisheriescompulsions

The closeness of the IBL to Rameswaram has beenalready discussed. When this fact is combined withthe lack of proper equipment on board the Indianvessels, one may believe that this explains the in-evitability of accidental border crossing by the In-dian fishermen. However, such a scenario onlyprovides a partial picture. Fishing vessels cross-ing over by mistake cover only a small percentageof the cases. The vast majority of border cross-ings is intentional and involves travelling deepinto Sri Lankan waters. It is an open secret thatRameswaram fishing vessels, especially trawlers,find good fishing grounds only on the Sri Lankanside and, therefore, do most of their fishing on thatside. Fishing takes place in Indian waters only inthe season for oil sardines, when most trawlers dopair trawling with pelagic trawl nets. Prawns, themainstay of the trawler fleet of Rameswaram, aremainly obtained in the Sri Lankan waters. Every al-ternate day, around 500 Rameswaram trawlers rou-tinely cross the IBL into Sri Lankan waters to con-duct fishing operations.

Behind this routine incursion into Sri Lankanwaters lie the following factors:

1. the limited trawling grounds available on theIndian side;

2. the growth of the trawler fleet atRameswaram to a level that has depleted theIndian grounds, so much so that its survivaldepends on fishing in Sri Lankan waters; and

3. the virtual collapse of the fishing operationson the Sri Lankan side of the Palk Bay dueto the civil war, leaving the fishing groundsopen to the Indian vessels without any com-petition.

The growth of the Rameswaram fleet and theincrease in fish landings after the civil war startedin 1983, provide validation for the above analysis.A. J. Vijayan has termed it “unnatural growth inthe midst of severe constraints” in his report, AnOverview of the Marine Fisheries and Fishers in and

around Rameswaram. The table from his report (Ta-ble 1) is revealing:

While the landings of Tamil Nadu increasedduring the 16 years under analysis, the growth ofthe fish landings in Palk Bay has been very signifi-cant and higher than for the other regions of TamilNadu. This is undoubtedly due to the additionalfish resources and grounds tapped by the Palk Bayboats in the Sri Lanka waters due to the decline offishing effort on the Sri Lankan side.

An important conclusion one can arrive fromthis analysis is that the Sri Lankan authorities arenot strict in restricting Indian fishing vessels andthat the few vessels captured each year are not nor-mally for fisheries violations. The various incidentsof capture and shooting are related to the situationcreated by the civil war that is still raging. Onlywhen the civil war ends will the fisheries issuescome to the fore.

2.9 The problems of Sri Lankan fishermen

It is worth noting that the above historical back-ground is not of much consequence in understand-ing the problem of Sri Lankan fishermen arrested inIndian waters. This problem appears to have differ-ent origins altogether and needs to be analyzed sep-arately. It is significant that the fishermen arrestedby the Indian Coastguard do not come from thePalk Bay area, which is the area affected by the civilwar. The phenomenon of Sri Lankan fishermencaught in Indian waters is also mostly a post-1990phenomenon, long after the Indian Coastguard andthe Maritime Zones of India (MZI) Act of 1981 cameinto existence. (This act deals with foreign fishingvessels in Indian territory.)

2.10 The affected area and fishermen in SriLanka

As mentioned, the Sri Lankan boats and fishermenregularly captured by the Indian Coastguard do notcome from the Palk Bay, which is close to the IBL,but from other areas. The state of fishing, as well asthe plight of the fishermen in the Palk Bay areas ofSriLanka, is pathetic. The civil war has meant thatthere are severe restrictions on fishing, and fuel formechanized operations is unavailable. Wheneverthey go fishing, the Sri Lanka vessels set out forshort distances and come back soon. Similar is thecase of fishermen on the war-affected east coast. Itis only on the western coast (south of Mannar) andthe south coast that fishing is normal and fisheries

81

Table 1: Coastal Regionwise Estimation ofMarine Fish Production in Tamil Nadu

Year Coromandalcoast (35.0)*

Palk Bay(27.0)*

Gulf of Man-nar (32.0)*

West Coast(6.0)*

Total(100.0)*

1980-84 57,850 (24.3)** 59875 (25.2) 66,559 (27.9) 53,858 (22.6) 238,1421984-88 51,196 (20.5) 66,848 (26.7) 69,386 (27.8) 62,535 (25.0) 249,9651988-92 67,527 (23.3) 101,116 (34.9) 87,948 (30.3) 33,265 (11.5) 289,8561992-96 92,780 (28.6) 118,890 (36.7) 84,158 (25.9) 28,450 (8.8) 324,278

* per cent share of Tamil Nadu’s coastline** per cent share of Tamil Nadu catches in bracketsSource : S. Durairaj et al, Dept. of Fisheries, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, March 1997.

development has been taking place during the civilwar period.

The fishing vessels of Sri Lanka can be broadlycategorized into non-motorized craft, motorizedcraft and mechanized (multi-day) boats. The non-motorized craft are kattumarams, outrigger canoes(oru) and small canoes (vallam). The motorizedcraft are small 18-foot fibreglass reinforced plastic(FRP) boats with outboard motors (OBMs), whichoperate a variety of gear in the coastal waters. Themechanized vessels are essentially 40-50 foot ves-sels (wooden and FRP), that go deep into the oceanfor long voyages of 2-3 weeks, operating longlinesand gill-nets for offshore pelagic resources like tunaand pelagic sharks.

On the western and southern coasts, non-motorized fishing has become marginal in mostplaces as the artisanal fishermen have shifted to theFRP motorized craft, which the government pro-moted with subsides during the 1960s and 1970s.These FRP boats are used with many small gill-netsand handlines for coastal fishing on the continentalshelf. With Sri Lanka being a small island countrywith a narrow continental shelf, it is no wonder thatthe limit to fisheries development was being felt inthe early 1980s itself. The artisanal fishermen ofthe west coast used to migrate during the lean sea-son to the north and east before the civil war. Thisstopped after 1983, and the fishing pressure has,therefore, increased in the shelf areas of the west-ern and southern coasts. The government, awareof the dangers of this, has promoted a new classof vessels that can fish in the deeper waters andgo after untapped resources. These vessels called’multi-day fishing boats’ are 40-50 foot vessels withgood insulated fish-holds and have the capacity forstaying up to a month at sea. Almost all of themhave good navigation aids like the Global Position-ing System (GPS) and navigational charts. They are

also equipped with radio equipment that enablesthem to communicate with other vessels at sea aswell as their home base. The fishing methods arepassive and most vessels use a large drift-net incombination with a pelagic longline. The fishingis entirely in the deep sea, and mainly for tuna andshark.

It is the growth of this multi-day fishing boatfleet that has contributed to the problem of SriLankan fishermen getting caught by the IndianCoastguard. Except for the rare FRP boat that driftsaccidentally towards the Indian coast in the Gulfof Mannar, the Sri Lankan vessels captured are allmulti-day fishing boats, which are found operatingin the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. A num-ber of them are caught near the Andamans and theLakshwadeep Islands. It is worth mentioning thatthe Sri Lankan boats are caught even as far as in theMaldives and Seychelles.

The current fleet strength of multi-day fishingboats is around 1,500 and they are spread over halfa dozen landing centres on the west and southerncoasts of Sri Lanka. The government provides upto 50 per cent subsidy for these vessels and thefleet is still growing. In the early phase, the ves-sels were smaller and the ownership was with ar-tisanal fishermen who graduated from FRP boats.But now the size is increasing and even 60-footers,each costing over Rs50 lakhs (nearly US$100,000),have made their entry, and are owned by rich en-trepreneurial fishermen. There are clear indicationsthat this large fleet cannot survive on just the tunaand shark resources of Sri Lanka’s EEZ and have tonecessarily poach in other waters for survival. It isinteresting that these vessels often make a beelinefor island territories, where there is an aggregationof tuna resources.

The Indian Coastguard is very strict in theimplementation of the MZI Act, and Sri Lankan

82

fishing vessels inside India’s EEZ are caught andhanded over to civilian authorities on shore.

Thus, it is the multi-day vessels from the westand south coasts of Sri Lanka that are caught inIndian waters, and it is worth noting that theyare manned by traditional, predominantly Sinhala,fishermen.

2.11 Concluding observations on theproblem of IBL crossing

It will be obvious from the above detailed history ofthe problem that the crossing of the IBL by the SriLankan and Indian fishing vessels are rarely due tohonest mistakes or unavoidable reasons like enginefailure, natural causes, etc. By and large, the IBLcrossing is deliberate and meant for better fishingopportunities. In both cases, the respective gov-ernments (of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka) have ac-tively promoted the development of fishing fleetsthat cannot fish profitably in their own grounds andwhose economics depend on ’poaching’ in foreignwaters.

3 Fate of Captured/Arrested Fishermen

The fate of fishermen captured/arrested whenfound beyond the IBL of their respective countriesvaries considerably, as both countries have differ-ent approaches to the problem and the internal sys-tems of managing such problems differ substan-tially. The administrative structures, legal systemand political dynamics are all different, leading todifferent results.

3.1 Indian fishermen in Sri Lanka

As discussed earlier, the Indian fishermen cross theIBL in large numbers routinely in the Palk Bay andare generally ignored by the Sri Lankan Navy. Itis only on certain occasions that they are caught,normally for security-related concerns. It shouldbe understood that the primary task of the SriLankan Navy is related to the civil war, and thelarge number of fishing boats are a major distrac-tion as well as an impediment to achieving mili-tary goals. The Sri Lankan side has controlled thisproblem by severely curbing fishing operations inthe north and east. There are times when fishingis completely prohibited for the Sri Lankan fisher-men in the affected areas. At other times, there arevery strict regulations on durations and distancesfor fishing. The loss of livelihoods and incomes of

the fishermen in the north and east, and the acutedistress caused by this is one of the untold storiesof our time. Such restrictions on the Indian boatsare not feasible and practical, given the Indian situ-ation. At the time of the IPKF operations, the optionof banning/regulating fishing was seriously con-sidered by the Indian Navy and Coastguard, butgiven up as impractical, due to the large numberswhose livelihoods would have been affected andthe high political costs of such an action.

A major problem at sea is the difficulty in distin-guishing between genuine fishing boats and thosethat are involved in nefarious activities. The ab-sence of communication and signalling systems onboard the Indian vessels, and the difficulty in dis-tinguishing Indian fishermen from Sri Lankan fish-ermen (all Tamils), create conditions for genuinefishing boats to be apprehended by the Sri LankanNavy. The unpredictability of the LTTE and fearof its methods have also led to a policy of ’shootfirst, question later’. Analyzing the incidents of fir-ings and capture reveals the following reasons at-tributed by the fishermen themselves for their oc-currence:

1. suspicious behaviour on the part of Indianfishing boats when approached by Sri Lankannaval vessels, which, in turn, might stemfrom fear of the intentions of the Sri LankanNavy.

2. mere trigger-happy response on the part ofSri Lankan naval personnel at times of ten-sion.

3. venting of anger on Indian vessels in retalia-tion for LTTE actions.

Once again, it must be emphasized that the cap-ture of Indian fishing vessels is a rare event inthe overall scheme of things, but even these rareevents have tragic consequences and vitiate the at-mosphere. The frequency of such incidents alsotends to fluctuate from time to time and may havesome connection with the course of the civil war inSri Lanka. Table 2 gives the number of firings andcasualities over the years.

The actual number affected is likely to rise byaround 10 per cent, if incidents outside the PalkBay are also accounted for. Since 1998, the numberof incidents has gone down. This is attributed bythe Coastguard to the various discussions betweenthe Indian and Sri Lankan naval authorities, as a re-sult of which the Sri Lankan Navy has been askedto restrain itself when dealing with Indian fishingvessels.

83

Table 2: Incidents Involving Death or Injuryto Fishermen in the Palk Bay

(1983 – 2000)Year No. of No. of Fishermen Boats Sunk

Incidents Killed Missing Injured1983 2 51984 4 1 51985 33 4 871986 2 21987 4 3 41988 4 1 71989 2 51990 11 6 371991 17 13 181992 7 231993 8 8 51994 10 8 81995 10 6 131996 31 7 12 20 51997 15 13 2 11 11998 4 6 11999 7 7 22000 5 2 3Total 176 85 14 276 6

Source: Computed from information provided by the Asst. Director of Fisheries, Rameswaram

The actual incidents of shooting recalled by thesurvivors are harrowing and heart-rending. In oneof the incidents, the lone survivor escaped as hewas covered with others’ blood and was given upfor dead.

Those who survived and those who were takeninto custody without being shot at are then sent toSri Lanka’s nearest port and handed over to the lo-cal police. The main centres where they are takenare Kankesanthurai, Mannar, Vavunia and Jaffna,depending on where they are caught. In manycases, the fishermen are kept in military custody fora day or two, until arrangements can be made tohand them over to the police. One has to remem-ber that a war is being fought in the areas wherethe fishermen are taken into custody.

3.2 From arrest to release: the process

In some instances, the boat and crew are released ina few days, after a mere enquiry, without chargingthe fishermen. In such cases, if the boat is in goodcondition, the fishermen may straightaway returnby sea to Rameswaram. However, once charges aremade, they are then taken to the court at Anurad-hapura. In the first few weeks, the fishermen might

be shunted from location to location and kept inmore than one jail. Normally, after they are pro-duced in the Anuradhapura court, they are takento jails in the west and south of the country. One ofthe jails where most fishermen are kept is the Ka-lutara prison, south of Colombo. The charges arenormally for illegal entry into Sri Lankan territory.Quite often, the charges may be under the Preven-tion of Terrorism Act.

The actual court case and the entire litigationprocess vary considerably from case to case. TheImmigration Department and the Attorney Gen-eral’s office are normally the two government de-partments that are concerned with the cases. Ifthe pressure from the Indian side is strong enough,the cases are often withdrawn or compromised sothat the fishermen can be released. In the last fouryears, local NGOs who are in touch with IndianNGOs have intervened with legal assistance andhave helped to expedite the release in many cases.While there may be, in some cases, genuine reasonsto suspect smuggling and other nefarious activities,in most cases, the actual charges need not necessar-ily indicate the real situation. In some cases, wherethe charges (true or false) are serious and require

84

punishment, the fishermen have been let off withnominal fines of a few thousand rupees per head.

Once the cases are withdrawn or settled, thefishermen are then taken to the Mirihana camp inColombo, where foreigners of all nationalities arekept until they are repatriated. It is an open-aircamp, with considerable freedom of movement. In-mates who have been there for months may evengo outside for a cup of tea or to buy some per-sonal articles. Once in the camp, it is for the In-dian government and the Indian High Commissionin Colombo to work out details of repatriation. Forlong, the fishermen would be flown to the north ofSri Lanka and taken to the places where their boatsare in custody. From there, they are allowed to sailback to India. Another variation of this used to bethe taking of the fishermen by a naval vessel andtransfer to the vessels of the Indian Navy or Coast-guard at mid-sea. Quite often, the fishermen wouldreturn to India after months in Sri Lanka, only to beconfronted with the problem of getting their boatsback. There have been years when getting the boatback has been extremely difficult and many a boathas been damaged beyond salvage. Generally, afterconsiderable amount of negotiations between theIndian and Sri Lankan authorities, the order for tak-ing the boat back is received. Then, a large groupof Indian fishermen is permitted to sail across to SriLanka and bring back the boat in custody, after thenecessary repairs.

In the last couple of years, the transfer of the re-leased fishermen from Mirihana camp to the northof Sri Lanka and the mid-sea transfer of fishermenhave more or less stopped. This appears to be dueto security problems and the unwillingness of theSri Lankan authorities to spare the necessary aero-planes and naval vessels. Hence, in recent times,the fishermen have to be sent by commercial flightfrom Colombo to Trivandrum, which is the near-est Indian airport. The Indian High Commissionissues a temporary passport and buys the fisher-men air tickets and sends them home. The expensefor the air ticket is normally treated as a loan to thefishermen. This is just for the record and no fish-erman ever repays the loan. Perhaps if they haveto approach the passport office in India for a per-manent passport, they may be asked to repay theloan. Once back in India, the fishermen will thenhave to work to get the boat back from wherever itis anchored in the north of Sri Lanka.

The total time involved can vary considerablyfor the entire process to take place. The lucky fish-ermen are those who are released in a few days,without having to go through the entire process.

For the rest, the process may take a few weeks ormany months. With the exception of fishermenwho are sentenced for smuggling or other offences,the time spent by an Indian fisherman before he isfree ranges from three months to a maximum of oneyear.

Some fishermen who have spent time in the SriLankan police stations and prisons have had bit-ter experiences. In the initial enquiry after capture,third-degree methods are often used. This is un-doubtedly due to the war situation and the suspi-cion that Sri Lankan military or police have of In-dian fishermen abetting the LTTE. Even in the reg-ular prisons, the fishermen have, at times, facedproblems. There are many hardcore LTTE cadresin some of the prisons and Indian fishermen mayget caught in the tensions that exist between the jailauthorities and the Tamil militants.

3.3 Sri Lankan fishermen in India

As explained in the previous section, the SriLankan fishermen who end up in Indian prisonsare entirely from the west and the south, with a fewfrom the east of Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan fish-ermen from the north and the northeast are neverinvolved in this process, as a rule. Inevitably, it isthe multi-day fishing boat that is captured in Indianwaters. In some seasons, the arrests are mostly inthe Gulf of Mannar, while, in other months, it takesplace in the Arabian Sea. Some boats, especiallythose from the east, are captured in the Bay of Ben-gal. Another area of arrest is near the AndamanIslands.

The Indian Coastguard tries to strictly imple-ment the MZI Act and captures Sri Lankan boatsthat are clearly in the Indian EEZ. Given the vast-ness of the ocean and the difficulty of identifyingsmall boats, it is quite likely that only some of theboats that enter the Indian waters are actually cap-tured by the Indian Coastguard. The Coastguardis, however, very strict and there is no question ofsending back the Sri Lankan boats. The boats arecaptured, the fishermen arrested and brought to thenearest Coastguard base. On shore, the fishermenand boats are promptly handed over to civilian au-thorities. Tuticorin, on the Gulf of Mannar coast,and Kochi (Cochin), on the Arabian coast, are themost common centres where the arrested fishermenare brought. The Thermalnagar Police Station inTuticorin and the Cochin Harbour Police Station arenormally the police stations that take charge of thefishermen. After preliminary enquiries, the fisher-men are produced before the designated court for

85

MZI offences in Ramanathapuram or Cochin, as thecase may be. They are then remanded until a fi-nal decision is taken. The fishermen are periodi-cally brought to the court and remanded until theIndian authorities decide to release the fishermenor to prosecute them. Normally, the charges are forviolating the MZI Act, Passport Act and Foreigners’Act.

Once in the Indian jail, it takes a long time be-fore the authorities take a decision on the fate ofthe fishermen. India’s federal set-up ensues thatboth the State and Central governments have toco-ordinate between themselves to take a decision.While it is the Home Department that takes up thematter on behalf of the State government, at thecentral level, the Ministries of Home, External Af-fairs and Agriculture are all involved in decidingthe course of action. The State Government has tomake the necessary enquiries about the bona fidesof the fishermen and then send a report to the cen-tral government. If all the three central ministriesgive their ‘no objection’, the cases are withdrawnand the fishermen sent back home.

Despite the charges made under the variousActs, it is the Maritime Zones of India Act of 1981(MZI) that is the most relevant Act. Seven courtshave been designated all over India to handle of-fences under the MZI and these include the courts atCochin and Ramanathapuram. The MZI providesfor punishing the owner or the skipper of any for-eign fishing vessel found illegally fishing in India’sEEZ. The crew, as such, are not punishable, but theowner or skipper can be punished with a hefty fine.The boat and its contents can also be confiscated.The punishment is more severe, with provision forimprisonment in the case of vessels that are foundwithin the territorial waters.

Until 1999, the general approach of the Govern-ment of India has been to release the fishermen andthe boat without entering into prosecution. Afterascertaining that the fishermen are bona fide andno other criminal offence is involved, the State Gov-ernment is advised to withdraw the cases and sendthe fishermen back with their boats. The fact is thatIndia and Sri Lanka are friendly countries with anexcellent bilateral relationship. This has obviouslybeen the reason for not prosecuting the fishermenand punishing them according to the provisionsof the MZI Act. This is in stark contrast to whathappens on the Indo-Pakistan border, where fisher-men, once arrested, are kept in jail for years and arestrictly prosecuted as per the MZI Act.

However, the withdrawal of cases is a long,cumbersome process involving a great deal of red

tape. It is rare for an arrested Sri Lankan fishermanto go back within three months. Often, the wholeprocess can take up to a year. The Sri Lankan HighCommission in India, as well as NGOs in India,have been taking up the issue with the concerneddepartments in an attempt to expedite the process.In Tamil Nadu, the State Government has even setup an inter-departmental committee to look intocases against foreign fishermen and expedite thecases. However, the time factor still remains a ma-jor problem on the Indian side. It is extremely un-fortunate that fishermen are held up to a year inprison on remand for offences that are not pun-ishable with imprisonment, or for offences that theGovernment of India is not ready to prosecute.

Over the last year or so, the problem has becomemore complicated with the Ministry of Agriculture,which deals with MZI offences, insisting on prose-cuting the skippers. Earlier, all fishermen on themulti-day fishing boats were treated as a homoge-nous group and no distinction made between thecrew and skippers. But now, one of the fishermenin charge of the operations, but who is otherwiseno different from the others in terms of work orqualification, is prosecuted and punished. In onecase, the Cochin court gave orders for confiscationof the boat and the payment of a fine of Rs100,000(around US$2,000). As it was beyond the capacity ofthe fishermen to pay the fine, he had to undergo sixmonths imprisonment. This has raised a numberof legal issues, especially since the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) specif-ically prohibits the incarceration of fishermen whoare found poaching.

Thus, the Sri Lankan fishermen who are ar-rested in Indian waters face the process of a longand uncomfortable stay in India. While there are noother risks like those faced by the Indian fishermenin Sri Lanka, the time period for returning home ismuch longer and can lead to demoralization.

3.4 Efforts by NGOs

The increasing number of arrests on both sides hasled various NGOs concerned with the fishermen’swelfare to get involved in the process. On the In-dian side, a trade union and NGO initiative led tothe formation of the Alliance for Release of Inno-cent Fishermen (ARIF). ARIF is a loose network oftrade unions, NGOs and fishermen’s associationsthat is equally committed to the release of bonafide fishermen from India as well as Sri Lanka. Onthe Sri Lankan side, there is no particular organi-zation or network that takes up the issue. How-

86

ever, there are a number of actors who get involvedand take effective action. While the Forum forHuman Dignity gets involved in providing legalassistance to Indian fishermen, other NGOs, tradeunions and fishermen’s organizations get involvedin providing various kinds of information and sup-port. Since Sri Lanka is a much smaller countryand most things get decided at Colombo, the SriLankan NGOs are more effective in getting Indianfishermen released than the Indian NGOs in gettingSri Lankan fishermen released. The last three tofour years have seen a great deal of action from theside of NGOs and they have acquired considerableknowledge and information about the nature of theproblem. Both the governments have recognizedthe useful role played by the NGOs and often usetheir help. The governments have their own lim-itations in getting involved in court cases againsttheir nationals in other countries. They also do nothave much capacity for providing humanitarian as-sistance when their nationals are in the jails of othercountries. Thus, the NGOs come in handy even forthe governments, in many situations.

4 Short-term and Long-term Solutionsfor the Problem

It is very clear that the fishermen of both sides havevarious compulsions to cross over and fish in thewaters of the neighbouring country. It can be evenargued that, in the case of the Palk Bay, the fisher-men have been unjustly deprived of fishing rightsthey have traditionally enjoyed. The arrest of fish-ermen leads to considerable suffering for the af-fected households and also has significant local po-litical repercussions in both India and Sri Lanka. Itis, therefore, essential that both the governmentsevolve creative solutions to tackle this particularproblem.

A major hurdle for finding solutions is the lackof understanding of the causes for border crossingat the policy-making levels of both countries. Offi-cially, both countries seem to subscribe to the myththat fishermen are crossing the border at sea due toignorance or due to accident. That there are strongfisheries compulsions to cross the borders is notappreciated sufficiently. Moreover, it needs to beunderstood that these fisheries compulsions are, inturn, the result of the fisheries development poli-cies pursued by both the governments. Only if thisreality is squarely faced can practicable solutionsemerge.

There are a number of options to solve the prob-lem associated with border crossing by the fisher-men of both countries. Which option is preferabledepends on the policy that appeals to the two coun-tries. The following are some of the options that canbe considered:

Option 1: Free access

This option is discussed first as it has been pro-posed by many fishermen’s organizations like theNational Fishermen’s Forum (NFF) and the WorldForum of Fishworkers (WFF). The idea is thatfishermen of South Asia should have the freedomto fish in each other’s waters. Most fishermen’sgroups are ready for such a solution, as thereseems to be very little animosity between fishermenacross borders. The small fishermen of Tamil Naduand Kerala who encounter the multi-day fishingboats of Sri Lanka in the Arabian Sea do not seethem as outsiders, but even exchange rations withthem. In fact, the same small boats might be readyto capture and burn an Indian trawler, as the fish-ing method is considered harmful to the interest ofthe small fishermen.

On the Sri Lankan side, such a free-access pol-icy actually exists in the Palk Bay. Close linguis-tic and ethnic ties between fishermen on both sidesensure that such an open-access policy is not a bigproblem. It should, however, be understood thatthe Sri Lankan fishermen in the Palk Bay are cur-rently unable to properly fish, on account of thecivil war. They are, in fact, unhappy with the large-scale trawling that is done in their waters by Indianvessels. It is possible that if fishing restrictions onSri Lankan fishermen are removed, there may be aclash of interest between the Indian and Sri Lankanvessels.

A major objection to this option is that it can en-danger the fish resources if no restriction is placedon the number of units or type of fishing gear. Also,the governments may not feel comfortable, giventhe security concerns that exist in South Asia.

Option 2: Returning fishermen without anylitigation

This is perhaps not much different from the first op-tion, except that it does not involve the formal le-galization of border crossing by fishermen. It is alsoclose to the actual position that both governmentshave been taking in most cases. Sri Lanka hassent back many groups of fishermen without charg-ing them in a court of law. India, until recently,

87

has been routinely sending back Sri Lankan fish-ermen without actually prosecuting them. Whatboth governments seem to be mainly interested in,is to know whether the concerned fishermen aregenuine fishermen and whether there are any othersecurity-related problems. If this is so, then this canbe formalized, and mechanisms developed for thequick release and return of the fishermen. All thatis needed is that the local police ensure that the fish-ermen are bona fide, and seek permission to returnthe fishermen from one nodal agency or authorityin the country. Fishermen could be sent back withina week or two if this can be agreed upon, substan-tially reducing the loss of income and other suffer-ing they have to otherwise undergo.

This solution also has the defect that it does notconsider the possible dangers to the fish resources.However, it is something that can be useful in theshort term, until better approaches can be workedout. If resource monitoring is done simultaneously,the governments can step in with appropriate reg-ulations at the right time.

Option 3: Strict enforcement, but with ahumane approach

If the governments are unwilling to allow resourceexploitation by the fishermen of the neighbouringcountry, and wish to be strict in enforcing the lawsregarding poaching, it can be done in a lot moresimple and humane manner. For example, the fol-lowing could be a typical scenario in this option:

Once a group of fishermen is brought to shorefor poaching, the local police should establish thatthe group was only involved in fishing and is madeup of bona fide fishermen. Once this is established,the crew, against whom no punishment is possiblein the national as well as international laws, shouldbe repatriated without any delay. This whole pro-cess should not take more than a week or two, at themost. Subsequently, the skipper is charged and pre-sented in a court of law. If he pleads guilty, no elab-orate trial is called for and a clear set of graded finescan be enforced. For a first-time offence, the finecould be Rs20,000. For a second offence, it couldbe Rs50,000 and, in the case of the third time, theboat may be confiscated. In the case of the first-and second-time offences, the boat may be confis-cated only if the fine is not paid. In no case shouldthe skipper be punished with imprisonment, as theskippers are only ordinary fishermen.

This is an eminently practical solution, butwhether this requires changes in the laws of the twocountries needs to be carefully studied. However,

a problem is that this solution may result in an un-equal situation. While the Indian Coastguard maybe able to apprehend the poachers and take the nec-essary action, the Sri Lankan Navy may not be in aposition to enforce its law in the Palk Bay, wherepoaching by Indian vessels normally takes place.For one, the civil war is its priority rather thanprotection of fish resources. Secondly, the large-scale incursion of Indian vessels makes enforce-ment tricky and the political fallout in Tamil Naduand the consequent impact on Indo-Sri Lankan re-lations, unpredictable. Let us not forget that publicopinion in Tamil Nadu has considerable influenceon Indo-Sri Lankan relations and the Sri Lankangovernment may be loath to spoiling relations withIndia for the sake of fish resources in the Palk Bay,as long as the civil war is in progress.

Option 4: Reciprocal access

Given the reality of the Palk Bay situation and thevirtual impossibility of enforcing any rules in thecurrent situation, Sri Lanka could formally allowIndian vessels to fish on its side of the Palk Bay,making a virtue of necessity. It could, in turn, askfor reciprocal access to its multi-day fishing boatsin the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Mannar and per-haps the Bay of Bengal. The formula could be that if500 Rameswaram boats are regularly fishing in thePalk Bay, Sri Lanka could also be allowed to sendaround 500 multi-day fishing boats into Indian wa-ters. The actual ratio will have to be thrashed out,if this concept is acceptable. This option will in-volve some kind of licensing or accreditation to fish(without charging a sizeable fee), after the numbersof boats have been fixed for both sides.

This option is a serious one and could be the ba-sis of a workable arrangement. It may be of par-ticular interest to the State of Tamil Nadu on theIndian side, as its problems will get solved. For theSri Lankans, it is a reasonable solution, at least untilpeace returns to its north and northeast of the coun-try. Sri Lanka’s problems may not be fully solvedif most of its 1,500-strong multi-day fishing fleetis not accredited as part of the reciprocal arrange-ment. The part of the fleet that fails to get accom-modated may be forced to continue as ’poachers’.Some amount of fleet control will have to be exer-cised by both India and Sri Lanka.

88

Option 5: Separate management regimes foreach ecosystem

From a purely fisheries perspective, it makes littlesense in having the same approach to the four dif-ferent seas: the Palk Bay, the Gulf of Mannar, theBay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. There are differ-ences in fish resources and their levels of exploita-tion. The Palk Bay is, more or less, a shallow seawith a practically closed ecosystem. The fishing isentirely restricted to the continental shelf. Shrimpand other demersal species are the main targets,and trawl is the dominant gear. In the other seas,the situation varies according to the depth and re-gion. It is, therefore, meaningful to have separatemanagement regimes for each sea, taking into ac-count the specificities of resources, their current ex-ploitation, technological options, fishermen inter-ests, etc.

In the Palk Bay, the narrowness of the sea makesseparate resource management by India and SriLanka, on their respective sides of the IBL, an im-possibility. From a pure resource management per-spective (ignoring the civil war and politics), onlya joint management by India and Sri Lanka can en-sure proper exploitation and conservation. A jointsystem of regulation and management is called for,including restrictions on fleet size, gear regulations,etc. Solutions, like each country’s fleet fishing onalternate days, need to be considered. However, allthis is perhaps meaningless at the moment and willhave to wait for peace to return to Sri Lanka. Un-til then, the status quo may have to be maintained(that is, freedom for the Indian fleet to fish in theBay).

In the other seas, the distances are vast and,despite tuna and shark being common oceanicresources, independent management regimes arepractical. In any case, it is the Indians who willhave to open up their seas to the Sri Lankans, atleast until a deep-sea fleet emerges in India. In-

dia could enter into an Agreement with Sri Lanka,providing licences to a specified number of multi-day fishing boats in each sea, taking into accountthe resources available and India’s scope for ex-ploiting them. It needs to be understood that, withthe exception of the Thoothoor fishermen of TamilNadu’s Kanyakumari District, India does not havethe skill to tap the resources beyond the continen-tal shelf, unlike the Sri Lankans. India has alwayslooked towards large-scale technologies from dis-tant countries (European countries, Taiwan, Thai-land, etc.) for exploiting its deep-sea resources andhas, time and again, run into resistance from itsown fishermen for such policies. It needs to lookat the relatively small-scale and passive technologydeveloped by Sri Lanka as a better alternative thatwill cause less harm to its resources and arouse lessanger from its fishermen. India could safely pro-vide licences to the Sri Lankan fleet without endan-gering its resources. A reasonable fee of Rs100,000-200,000 could be charged per year per boat for fish-ing in Indian waters.

India could even promote joint ventures (JVs)between fishermen of both countries as alternativeto the JVs that are usually between large corpora-tions. Some of the adventurous fishermen in Indiacould learn many things from the Sri Lankans andlay the foundation for India’s own deep-sea fleet,with appropriate indigenous technology.

5 Conclusion

The problem of fishermen crossing borders is a seri-ous problem on the Indo-Sri Lankan maritime bor-der. It has led to great deal of suffering amongthe fisherfolk on both sides. Both governments aretreating the problem without acknowledging thereal causes behind the problem. The problems needto be squarely faced and creative solutions found sothat national interests, as well as fishermen’s liveli-hoods, are protected.

89

Issues Related to Deep-sea Fishermen and Their FamiliesDue to Detention in Foreign Countries

Herman Kumara ∗

AbstractIncreasingly, deep-sea fishing vessels from Sri Lanka cross borders and get arrested by the

navy or coastguards of other countries. In addition to Maldives, Bangladesh and India, SriLankan fishermen have also been detained by countries as far away as Thailand, Diego Garcia,Australia, Seychelles and Myanmar.

This paper examines the main causes of such detention, and its economic and social effects.The paper also proposes measures that may be adopted, by institutions such as governments andnon-governmental organizations (NGOs), to mitigate the difficulties caused by detention of SriLankan fishermen in other countries.

Keywords

Exclusive economic zone. National Fisheries Solidarity (NAFSO). Thailand. Diego Garcia.Australia. Seychelles. Myanmar. Maldives. Bangladesh. India. UNCLOS. South Indian Federa-tion of Fishermen Societies (SIFFS). Trivandrum District Fishermen Federation (TDFF). Associa-tion for Release of Innocent Fishermen (ARIF). World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP). Transbor-der issues. South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC). South Asian Free TradeAssociation (SAFTA).

1 Introduction

It is a growing trend for deep-sea fishing vesselsfrom Sri Lanka to cross borders and get arrestedby the navy or coastguards of other countries. Atthe same time, the deep-sea fishermen, as well asthe small boats, operate in their own exclusive eco-nomic zones (EEZs).

Very importantly, those vessels operate withinthe contiguous zone of Sri Lanka. This is a veryimportant factor that explains why foreign vesselscome into Sri Lankan waters, while Sri Lanka’sown deep-sea fishing vessels are moving aroundthe world for fish.

One of the main activities of National FisheriesSolidarity (NAFSO) is to secure the release of thefishermen arrested in the neighbouring countries.NAFSO has worked with the families of the arrestedfishermen, as we recount in this report.

2 The present situation

Sri Lankan fishermen are moving all over the worldand getting arrested in distant waters. Thailand,Diego Garcia, Australia, Seychelles and Myanmarare some of the countries they have been caught in,besides Maldives, Bangladesh and India.

Table 1 lists the figures of fishermen arrested,boats captured and fishermen repatriated for thepast six years.

Recent experience with captured boats and ar-rested fishermen in India has been frustrating. Lastyear, 155 fishermen were arrested and 30 fishingvessels captured by the Indian Coastguard or Navy.Earlier, the average period of captivity for arrestedfishermen was five to six months. But last year’scase was very different and the captivity periodextended to 12-15 months. During this period,the fisher families were utterly helpless. The boa-towners were not ready to attend to the families’

∗National Convenor, National Fisheries Solidarity (NAFSO), Sri Lanka.

90

Table 1

Year No. of Captured Boats Repatriated Fishermen

1996 53 133

1997 32 160

1998 38 182

1999 27 125

2000 30 253

2001 (up to 07.01) 17 63

Source: Department of Fisheries, Minister of Fisheriesand Aquatic Resources Development, Sri Lanka

grievances. The authorities were also not in favourof the fisher families. The situation became seriouswhen the number of captured boats increased.

The fisher families approached the Ministry ofFisheries (MoF) for help, individually. But the MoFwas awaiting a response from the Ministry of For-eign Affairs, which is the authority responsible fordealing with such matters.

3 Causes of Marine Disasters

Marine disasters occur from complex causes andare often assignable not to a single but a numberof adverse conditions. Most marine disasters oc-cur due to one, or a combination, of the followingcauses:

• abnormal meteorological conditions and ad-verse marine phenomena

• lack of skill in manoeuvring the vessel

• ignorance or negligence of the crew

• deficiency of navigation aids

• lack of meteorological data

• deterioration of the hull, engine and otherparts of the vessel

• deficient installation or malfunction of nauti-cal instruments

• manoeuvring beyond the vessel’s capacity

• lack of understanding on the part of the ves-sel owner

However, with the exception of some cases, thecrossing of borders by Sri Lankan and Indian fish-ermen hardly happens due to the above conditions.The fishermen at Mannar claim that Tamil Nadufishermen come near the seashore and operate theirbottom-trawling vessels for prawns, whereas a SriLankan fisherman who returned from an Indian jaillast August said that, having experienced long peri-ods of imprisonment, Sri Lankan fishermen do notbother to cross the borders to fish in the Indian ter-ritory, where there is a high risk of arrest.

The abovementioned causes are very rarelyvalid for those fishermen who cross borders inten-tionally. Only very few cases have been reported ofboats drifting beyond borders due to engine troubleor gusty winds. Since nobody can find boundariesat sea, the fishermen do not bother about them.Their major concern is only to catch the maximumamount of fish in order to earn a higher income.

4 Problems Faced by the FisherFamilies

4.1 Lack of information

The boatowners come to know of the arrest of theirboat and crew only after some time has elapsed.Some of the fisher families do not know what hashappened to the boat and the crew. Boatowners donot bother to inform the families, even as they aretrying to secure the release of their captured boats.

The family members are invariably in troubleas they often do not know the boatowners, othermembers of the crew, or the registration numberor any other basic information about the boat. It is

91

only the boatowner who knows all the facts relatedto the boat.

The government provides six months rationsubsidy for the fisher families of the arrested fisher-men. To claim the subsidy, all the details of the boatneed to be furnished. Thus, the families are in trou-ble from the very beginning if they do not have ba-sic information on the boat. Though the fisher fami-lies approach the MoF for assistance, the ministry’srole is limited as the Foreign Affairs Ministry canget involved only through their foreign missions.

4.2 Survival

When the fishermen are arrested, the main issue isthe survival of the family. Most of the time, the boa-towners do not provide any assistance for the fam-ily’s survival. As the skipper and the crew are theonly breadwinners of the family, the members can-not survive without assistance. The governmentprovides some subsidy for the families. But our ex-perience of the government subsidy scheme is notvery encouraging or positive. The subsidies are notprovided on time and not for all the families. Butthe amount of subsidy provided by the Departmentof Social Welfare as relief assistance cannot be ig-nored (Table 2).

Though we do not have exact figures, the De-partment of Social Welfare spent around Rs1 mn asrelief assistance subsidy.

4.3 Education of children

When the survival issue hits the family, educationbecomes a secondary issue. As the routine expendi-ture cycle is affected by the long detention period ofthe breadwinners of the family, their children loseout on schooling and, ultimately, become dropouts.Last year alone, 15 children left school due to theeconomic instability of their families.

4.4 Social issues

The fishermen’s wives face a number of difficultiesas their husbands are away from the family. Someof the boatowners try to abuse the wives, whentheir husbands are in foreign jails. Neighbours tryto tempt them as they know these women are introuble. A number of wives narrated their situa-tion to us, as they did not have anyone else to sharethese bad experiences.

4.5 Broken families

A few cases of broken families have been reported.When the wives cannot run the families, they resortto easy solutions to survive the long period of de-tention of their husbands. But often these solutionsare not sustainable.

5 Problems Faced by the Arrested Crew

Almost all the members of the crew reported thatthey were beaten up by the navy or the Coastguardwhen arrested. The communication gap createdgreat difficulties, as most of the Sri Lankan fisher-men could speak only the Sinhala language. Fewcould speak Tamil. Prison life was painful and thefood provided unfamiliar, causing some to fall ill.

Delayed court cases are painful. The fishermenwere taken to the court every other week, with-out any hearing. Inability to communicate with thelawyers was also a big problem for the fishermen.

Some of the crew in the jails shared their pa-thetic situation: no clothes (only one sarong anda shirt); no medicines; no money to send a letterto their families; and no basic facilities like soap,toothpaste, brush, etc.

6 Problems Faced by the Boatowners

Most of the boatowners are still repaying bankloans for their boats. The repayment installmentvaries from Rs75,000–100,000, according to theamount of loan. The situation becomes seriouswhen they have only one boat. The boatowners arein trouble when the crew’s families approach themand they are not in a position to help. This situationcreates misunderstanding between the families andthe boatowners.

In our experience, only a few boatownershelped the families during last year’s cases. Theboatowners do not regard assistance for the fisherfamilies’ survival as their responsiblity. Since thecaptured boats lie decaying at the harbours, theboatowners care more about getting their boats,rather than the fishermen, released.

7 Experience with Indian Authorities

It takes almost 18 months to get some of the SriLankan fishermen released from Indian jails. Whilewe cannot claim that the Sri Lankan fishermen areentirely blameless in the current situation, the au-thorities ought to consider Article 76 of the 1982

92

Table 2

Year District Boats Families Cost (Rs)

1996 Negombo 7 35 165,288

Chilaw 9 47 201,844

Puttlam 1 5 20,236

Kalutara 1 1 13,860

1997 Negombo 10 47 168,840

Chilaw 2 9 10,364

Matara 1 3 10,584

Total 31 147 591,066

Source: Ministry of Fisheries andAquatic Resources Development 1998

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS), which says that such crew must be repa-triated promptly.

But the actual situation is different and casesdrag on for up to one year before the first batch ofcrew is released. In India, both the State and Cen-tral governments are responsible for release orders.There are three ministries in Delhi responsible forthis matter: the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Min-istry of External Affairs, and the Ministry of Agri-culture. Only after receiving release orders from allthree ministries will the courts of the State be readyto withdraw the cases.

But sometimes, even after receiving release or-ders from the Central government, the Indiancourts choose not to withdraw the cases due to cer-tain technical reasons.

The fishermen get frustrated when the relevantofficials do not appear in the court as witnesses.Some of the fishermen told us that they even con-templated suicide when the officials did not turnup in court on two consecutive occasions.

8 Government’s Role

Government authorities provided the Sri Lankanprisoners with dry rations for six months, thoughthey were received after a long time. The Sri LankaMinistry of Fisheries (MoF) co-ordinated the issuewith the Indian Foreign Affairs Ministry.

When the families back home raised theirvoices, the MoF resolved to send the highest gov-

ernment delegates to India to discuss the issue withthe Indian government.

Thus, a three-member delegation went to In-dia and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Re-sources Development himself met the Indian Min-ister of Agriculture for a settlement. The MoF spentmillions of Sri Lankan rupees for the repatriation ofthe fishermen, as detailed in Table 3.

9 Role of NGOs

Both Indian and Sri Lankan NGOs played a medi-ating role with the government and others to settlethe issues. They also organized people for collec-tive efforts for short-term and long-term solutions.As a result of these collective efforts, the authoritieshad to listen to the voice of the people.

From India, the South Indian Federation ofFishermen Societies (SIFFS), the Trivandrum Dis-trict Fishermen Federation (TDFF), the Associationfor Release of Innocent Fishermen (ARIF) and theWorld Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP) played veryimportant solidarity roles to get the fishermen re-leased. They intervened in legal matters and otherwelfare measures needed for the fishermen. Theyconducted advocacy work with policymakers toget the fishermen released soon.

10 Possible Collaborative Action

Action needs to be taken along the following lines:

93

Table 3

Year Boats Released Fishermen Repatriated Repatriation Costs (Rs)

1996 22 133 581,201

1997 30 160 1,358,157

1998 33 182 1,237,566

1999 17 125 1,000,000

2000 29 253 3,761,361

2001(up to June 30) 1 63 446,811

Source: Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development

1. There should be an information centre toimmediately issue reports about any vesselscaptured.

2. UNCLOS provisions should be followed forany incident related to vessels captured forcrossing borders.

3. Articles 17, 18 and 19 of UNCLOS permit theright of innocent passage through interna-tional waters. These should be recognized.

4. Legal advisers with due authority to inter-vene in transborder issues must be appointedin the respective foreign missions of Sri Lankaand India.

5. There should be a bilateral agreement to settlethe cases within a reasonable period.

6. There should be a co-ordination body forNGOs working on transborder issues.

7. Bilateral agreements between neighbouringcountries like Sri Lanka and India must bereached to reasonably exploit the fish re-sources in the Indian Ocean. We propose aMemorandum of Understanding for fisheriesin both the territories.

8. There must be a multilateral agreementamong countries of the South Asian Associ-ation for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) for

exploitation of fish resources using approvedappropriate technologies.

9. A Co-ordinating Secretariat for Indian Oceanfisheries issues must be formed with thenecessary powers to intervene in fisher-men’s issues, without disturbing nationalsovereignty.

10. Governments must be encouraged to identifythe resource potential of their own waters andnot exceed it, so as not to export overcapacityand overfishing efforts.

11 Conclusion

Intentionally or unintentionally, thousands offisher people cross maritime borders, though onlya few get caught. We should question why theycross borders. If we can find a reasonable answer,we should think of how to settle the issue amica-bly. We should find ways for fishermen to reason-ably share the resources in the sea. Just as thereis an agreement for free trade in the South Asianregion—the South Asian Free Trade Association orSAFTA—perhaps we need to think of another agree-ment for reasonable exploitation of fish resources inthe sea.

94

The Elusive Line that Reduces Fishworkersto Mere Numbers

Souparna Lahiri ∗

AbstractThe sustained efforts of the South Asian Labour Forum (SALF) towards addressing the plight

of the detained fishworkers of India and Pakistan have borne fruit. After a long four years, thePakistani and Indian governments finalized the list of 35 Indian fishing boats and 193 fishworkers,and 29 Pakistani boats and 195 Pakistani fishworkers, who were exchanged on 15 July 1997 andrepatriated to their home countries.

Since then, SALF has been instrumental in the release of fishworkers in 1998 and also in 1999,at a time when the bilateral relations between the two countries deteriorated. These releases werefollowed by two more periodic releases, one each in the next two years as goodwill gestures. SALFhas intervened whenever the detention of fishworkers has become prolonged and also helpedboth the governments to finalize the list of arrested fishworkers.

SALF believes that the arbitrary arrest of fishworkers and their imprisonment should bestopped permanently. The ridiculous practice of ‘exchange protocol’ should be done away with.Instead, a proper policy, in consonance with UNCLOS, should be framed to release the arrestedfishworkers immediately after they are apprehended.

Keywords

India. Pakistan. SALF. Fishworkers. Exchange protocol. Maritime boundaries. Rann ofKachchh. Indus Delta. Sir Creek. Sindh. Bilateral maritime agreement.

1 Introduction

Naushad Ali, from Karachi, Pakistan, was on boardAl Ameera along with his fellow fishworkers, whenthe fishing boat was apprehended by the IndianCoastguard on 8 October 1989. After a tortur-ous process of captivity, court appearances, jailterms and a prolonged detention in police custody,Naushad and the other crew members of Al Ameerawere finally released by the Indian authorities inearly 1998.

It was the night of Diwali in October 1993, whenDhanji Harji Rathod’s boat was captured by thePakistan Maritime Security Agency. Dhanji and theother crew members of the boat Dhan Laxmi weresent to Landhi jail, Karachi. Hailing from Man-grol, in the Indian State of Gujarat, and the islandof Diu, these fishworkers could finally get back totheir families only in July 1997.

Both Naushad and Dhanji earn their livelihoodfrom fishing in the Arabian Sea and are among ap-proximately 1,500 Pakistani and Indian fishworkersarrested by the maritime security agencies of thetwo countries since 1987. Captured and incarcer-ated for alleged violation of maritime boundaries,they have been reduced to mere numbers in thediplomatic exercises between these two countries.

2 The Arrest and Imprisonment ofFishworkers: The Context

The Arabian Sea around the Gulf of Kachchh andacross Kori Creek and Sir Creek—the mouth ofthe Indus Delta—is where a large number of fish-workers from Pakistan and India congregate toearn their livelihoods. This is also the region fromwhere most of the fishworkers are arrested. These

∗South Asian Labour Forum (SALF). Prepared by Centre for Education and Communication, New Delhi, India.

95

fishworkers are arrested for alleged violation ofmaritime boundaries and also territorial waters, insome cases. A number of arrested Pakistani andIndian fishworkers told a South Asian Labour Fo-rum (SALF) Factfinding Team in May 1997 that, inthe absence of a visible demarcation line, they areunable to understand whether they have actuallycrossed the maritime boundary or not. Many ofthese fishworkers also said that they were probablypicked up from their own waters.

K. C. Pande, the Commandant of the Coast-guard, Porbandar, told the Factfinding Team,“There are no signs on the sea which demarcate thesea border. Above all, there is no agreed bound-ary on the Arabian Sea between India and Pakistan.For their mutual convenience, the patrolling agen-cies have worked out an imaginary line along theSir Creek Region off the coast of Kachchh.”

According to the Gujarat Marine Product Ex-porters Association, the sea waters off the Rann ofKachchh and the Indus Delta make up the richestfishing ground in South Asia. The various creeksare rich with high-value shrimps. This is proba-bly the reason why the fishworkers prefer this re-gion, knowing full well the perils of their venture.The Indian fishworkers from Gujarat are increas-ingly venturing into this area as their catch off theSaurashtra coast is decreasing alarmingly, mainlydue to overfishing by trawlers, pollution and dis-charge of industrial waste into the sea waters.

The region where most of the fishing boats areapprehended by the security agencies lies 70–80 kmoff the port of Jakhau in Gujarat and a few kilome-tres from Koteshwar in the Gulf of Kachchh. In fact,a large number of captured Pakistani fishing boatswere anchored in Koteshwar and the fishworkerswere first taken to Bhuj and then transferred to Jam-nagar and Porbandar jails.

3 UNCLOS and the Maritime BoundaryDispute

Though the United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Sea (UNCLOS) has a very clear guidelines re-garding protection and utilization of precious ma-rine resources vis-a-vis the territorial integrity andsovereignty of the coastal States, today the inno-cent fishworkers of Pakistan and India, who earntheir livelihoods from the Arabian Sea, are a muchtroubled and harassed lot primarily due to the ab-sence of a maritime boundary agreement betweenthe two countries and the insensitivity shown by

their governments to the human dimension of thetragedy that has unfolded.

In security parlance, the non-existence of a bi-lateral maritime agreement in an UNCLOS regimeis seen as a dispute, giving rise to possible con-flict situations. For India and Pakistan, this non-compliance with UNCLOS is linked to the borderdispute over the 60-mile long estuary of Sir Creekin the marshes of the Rann of Kachchh. The SirCreek area lies on the land border between the In-dian State of Gujarat and the Pakistani province ofSindh.

Following the 1982 UNCLOS, ratified in Novem-ber 1994, Pakistan and India, being two adjacentcoastal States, could have demarcated their mar-itime boundaries and formulated a bilateral agree-ment. But the Sir Creek dispute has thwarted thisprocess. Pakistan contests its claim over the SirCreek based on the map agreed to in 1914 by thePrincely State of Kachchh and the British India gov-ernment. This map places the boundary on the eastbank of the Creek. India insists on treating the linein the middle of the Creek as the boundary.

In 1994, New Delhi offered to delineate theboundary seawards, which was rejected by Islam-abad, fearing that any acceptance would lead in-advertently to the demarcation of a marine bound-ary without actually solving the land dispute. Theconcept of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and acontinental shelf under the UNCLOS regime mighthave also helped in hardening their stand. If a lineis drawn in the centre of Sir Creek, as demanded byIndia, then Pakistan would lose 2,246 sq km of EEZ.If the line is drawn on the east bank of the Creek,then Pakistan would gain approximately 1,300 sqkm of EEZ. Consequently, a huge area of continen-tal shelf will change hands. UNCLOS also necessi-tates the adjacent coastal States to declare a base-line before a median line is drawn to demarcate themaritime boundary. Only Pakistan has so far de-clared a baseline in 1996.

The continuing maritime dispute thus violatesthe rights of the innocent fishworkers to earn theirlivelihoods, and is precipitating a serious humantragedy as well. Continuing and indiscriminatearrest and apprehension of the fishworkers on ei-ther side of the border has led to insecurity amongthe seagoing fisherfolk in the Arabian Sea. It hasalso led to a conflict-like situation between the twocountries on a non-conflictual issue. The only silverlining is that the UNCLOS regime will have to even-tually step in if the dispute is not solved by 2004.

96

4 Implications of the Absence of aBilateral Maritime Agreement

Though both Pakistan and India have not agreedto a maritime boundary, the two countries, how-ever, have enacted laws protecting their maritimeboundaries, EEZs, territorial waters and continen-tal shelf.

The maritime boundaries of Pakistan are gov-erned by Exclusive Economic Zone (Regulation ofFishing) Act, 1975 and Territorial Waters and Mar-itime Zones Act, 1976. The maritime boundaries ofIndia are governed by Territorial Waters, Continen-tal Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Mar-itime Zones Act, 1976 and Maritime Zones of In-dia (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act,1981.

These Acts, therefore, are being enforced onthe fishworkers fishing along the coast of Pakistanand India for transgressing an imaginary boundaryline–an imaginary boundary line, which is invisibleand not demarcated. For this alleged violation, thefishworkers are imprisoned and are liable to a heftyfine ranging between Rs 1–1.5 mn, whereas Parts 2and 3 of the Article 73 of the UNCLOS, 1983 state:

Arrested vessels and their crews shallbe promptly released upon the postingof reasonable bond or other security.

and:

Coastal State penalties for violations offisheries laws and regulations in the ex-clusive economic zone may not includeimprisonment, in the absence of agree-ments to the contrary by the States con-cerned, or any other form of corporalpunishment.

As a matter of general international law, acoastal State may enforce any measures necessaryto ensure compliance with its laws and regulationsin jurisdictional zones. The power of the coastalStates is one of policing and control. However, vio-lators cannot be met with measures that amount toretaliation or summary punishment. Even bilateralfishing agreements now provide for the release ofa seized vessel if a bond has been deposited. Fur-thermore, both legislation and fishing agreementsenvisage prompt notification, as mandated in Arti-cle 73 (4) of UNCLOS.

R. Venkatramani, a senior Supreme CourtCounsel and member of the SALF Factfinding

Team, is of the view that, in the case of fishwork-ers from either country, in the absence of lines ofdemarcation being drawn and the prohibited zonesbeing made clear, no intention to violate the law canbe attributed to them.

In other words, a bilateral agreement is a pre-condition for humane enforcement of law since thebasic tenets of the agreement have to be incorpo-rated in the corpus of the law, and this needs to beemphasized over and over again.

Otherwise, the fishworkers will continue to bearrested arbitrarily and languish in jail for indefi-nite periods, only to be released at the will of theStates or as part of a diplomatic exercise and good-will gestures on the basis of what can be calledan ”exchange protocol” (as has happened in 1987,1988, 1993 and from July 1997 right up to the run-up to the Indo-Pak Summit in July 2001). The inno-cent fishworkers, in search of livelihood, are thusturned into ‘prisoners of war’.

5 Enforcement of Laws and the HumanTragedy

K. C. Pande, the Commandant of the Coastguard,Porbandar, acknowledged to the SALF FactfindingTeam, “Fishing boats can unwillingly and unknow-ingly cross into other’s territory because of tidalcurrents, wind force, cyclone and engine failures.The captured Pakistani fishing boats have no navi-gational aids. Also, no Pakistani fishing boats werefound with arms and ammunitions on board.” Inthis connection, Venkatramani also says that natu-ral factors, such as tidal forces and oceanic currents,have to be accorded due place before one can reacha conclusion or draw an inference that the lines ofdemarcation have been willfully crossed. It wouldbe preposterous and against all notions of fair playto accuse persons of violating the law despite se-rious deficiencies in its implementation or that thelaw has so far not been rendered implementable.

Both the then Foreign Minister of India, I. K.Gujral, and the Home Minister, Indrajit Gupta, ad-mitted to the SALF delegation, which met them inNew Delhi on 4 December 1996, that the capturedfishworkers are innocent and nothing incriminat-ing has been found on them. Still, these fishworkersare arrested, imprisoned, hauled up to the courtsand detained for indefinite periods.

The clue lies in the candid admission of theCoastguard officials that there is a practice of “titfor tat” among the enforcement agencies of the twocountries: “They capture so many of our boats and,

97

in retaliation, we capture that many of theirs.” Asthe political climate between the two countries viti-ates, the innocent fishworkers are made scapegoatsof deteriorating mutual relations. Even the chil-dren are not spared. Between 1993 and 1996, thePakistani agencies arrested and detained 36 Indianchildren who were accompanying their relationson Indian fishing boats. A series of interventionsby human rights organizations and trade unionsacross the borders finally resulted in their releasein March 1996.

Manji Dayar (18) and Nanji Murji (12) were twosuch children. Hailing from the Vanakvada vil-lage of Diu, they fearfully remembered the dayin November 1994 when they were caught in theocean. It was early morning. There was firing in theair. The Pakistani Navy stopped their boat and cutthe net. All the people on board, including the fa-ther of Nanji, were taken to Karachi and kept in po-lice custody for three days and then sent to Landhijail. The children were later shifted to the EdhiHome. Manji has since become a wage labourerand would never venture into the sea in the future.Nanji was studying in Standard VII when he wascaptured. After returning, he did not continue hisstudies.

Ghani Rehman, the captain of Al Jaison fish-ing boat, captured by the Indian Coastguard inNovember 1994, spent more than three years inPorbandar jail before being sent back to Karachi.Being the only earning member of his family,Ghani’s wife and children barely survived thetrauma. Mohammed Hussain, on board Al Kabu-tar, was arrested in November 1996. During thenext six months, his parents died and his wife andchildren were left to fend for themselves.

Naushad Ali, Muhammed Iqbal, Abu Usmaan,Ali Abu Samariya, Babul Gulmuhammad, Gau-nar Khan Bahadur, Nisar Ahmed, Ibrahim andKhamisa were all fishing on board Al Ameera whenthey were caught by the Indian Coastguard on 8October 1989. Ibrahim and 12 others on board AlSubhanallah were also apprehended in January 1988and taken to Bhuj jail. They were charged under theMZI Act, the Passport Act, the Foreigners Act andthe Gold Control Act. All these delayed their trialprocedures and they were kept in jail custody un-til September 1996, when the Gujarat High Courtquashed all the charges levelled against them andordered them to be deported. The High Court re-fused to take cognizance of offences under the Pass-port Act and the Foreigners Act since they are notapplicable beyond the territorial waters. These 22fishworkers were then unlawfully detained in the

custody of Porbandar police until a very strong in-tervention by the SALF partners in India and Pak-istan finally forced the Indian authorities to releasethem from illegal captivity.

First Information Reports (FIRs) and jail docu-ments available with SALF clearly point out thatthe Passport Act and the Foreigners Act have beenfrequently used by the enforcement agencies to de-lay the procedure of justice and prolong the agonyof the arrested fishworkers and their families backhome.

Velji Lakshman, a fishworker from theVanakvada village of Diu, was arrested by the Pak-istani Navy in October 1993 and kept in Landhijail, Karachi. In his letter to his family back home,Velji wrote, “They caught us by force in the ocean.For five days, we were kept in the boat itself. Thenthey took us to jail. We get one cup of pulses andtwo loaves of bread to eat. The bread is half-baked.Even our enemies should never suffer jail. . . ”

Mulji Lakshman was in a Pakistani jail for morethan three years. Back home, his wife Ramila andtheir two sons and two daughters were spendingtheir days in dire hardship. Ramila used to getwork for 10–15 days in a month and earn Rs350–400. She met the Collector, Commissioner and oth-ers for the release of her husband. She pleadedfor financial help. Ramila got only false promises.Mulji had written to Ramila, “There are no clothesto wear. No bed to sleep on. Half a bread in themorning. Two in the afternoon. . . Take care of thechildren. Do not have any hope for us.”

Raja Ram, the owner and captain of the fish-ing boat Naran Prasad, was captured along with hisother crew in October 1994 by the Pakistani secu-rity agencies and charged with violation of terri-torial waters. Raja Ram said, “We were definitelypicked up from Indian waters. We had been awayfor less than 24 hours when we were arrested.” RajaRam was in his early forties and had four children.He returned to his home in Diu in July 1997, but losthis boat and his son Dhiru. Both he and Dhiru werearrested. Dhiru escaped from the juvenile jail inKarachi and the family had not heard of him sincethen. Raja Ram’s wife was shocked to silence. Shecould only mutter that she got her husband backbut lost her son. For them, life would never be thesame again.

The SALF Factfinding Team, which visited thearrested Pakistani fishworkers in Porbandar jailsand the families of detained Indian fishworkers,concluded:

98

1. Since the late 1980s, the only way out for boththe arrested Pakistani and Indian fishworkersis the protocol of exchange of prisoners. Theyare exchanged and not released.

2. It is an open secret in official circles that, irre-spective of the fishworkers being acquitted orreleased from jails after serving out their sen-tences, they have to wait for the next round ofexchange to take place.

3. The exchange of prisoners takes place on thebasis of long-drawn negotiations between thetwo governments. The fishworker detaineesare never told the reasons or the grounds fortheir detention or about impediments in theway of their release.

4. Those who were detained in jails, as well asthose who were detained in police camps,have been deprived of their rights under Ar-ticle 21 of the Indian Constitution and guar-antees under the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights.

5. It needs to be noticed that the legislationsthemselves, in the absence of provisions fortheir implementation, would constitute un-constitutional encroachment on the rights ofthese fishworkers.

6 Interventions by LabourOrganizations

’Fishworkers in Jail’ was the first issue taken upby the Preparatory Committee, SALF, in which thetrade unions and labour suport groups from SouthAsia are the constituents. SALF was formed inKathmandu in May 1996 at a South Asia-level Con-sultation.

For the first time, the trade unions forged analliance, on a seemingly non-economic issue, and,significantly, on something that very remotely af-fects them. Central trade unions, trade unions ofworkers in the informal sector and labour supportorganizations established solidarity among them-selves that led to a co-ordinated action to upholdand protect the rights of fishworkers to earn theirlivelihoods. Not only was the method employedby the trade unions unconventional, it was also aunique instance of international solidarity.

The SALF initiative across Pakistan, India, SriLanka and Bangladesh contributed to bringing tothe forefront, the human aspect, in a situationwhere diplomatic exercises and difficult bilateral

relations have wantonly violated the rights of thefishworkers. They are treated not as human be-ings but as mere numbers in diplomatic commu-nications.

An important aspect of the SALF initiative wasthat simultaneous action took place both in Indiaand Pakistan. The fishworkers and national tradeunions in Pakistan, carried on a concerted cam-paign to seek the release of both Indian and Pak-istani fishworkers.

In July 1996, the National Fishworkers Forum(NFF), India, in a letter to the Indian Foreign Minis-ter, I. K. Gujral, requested him “to take necessarysteps to release these innocent fishworkers whowere incarcerated in Pakistani jails for no reason oftheirs.”

On 4 December 1996, a SALF delegation, com-prising trade union representatives from India,Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, metGujral and Indrajit Gupta, the then Home Ministerof India.

Following this meeting, the SALF partners inPakistan launched a press campaign focusing onthe prolonged detention of fishworkers. Many jour-nalists in Pakistan took the initiative to gather moreinformation about the detained fishworkers. Com-prehensive reports prepared by investigative jour-nalists appeared in the newspapers.

The SALF Pakistan partners, in collaborationwith the Fishermen’s Co-operative Society and theHuman Rights Commission, paid visits to all thejails in Sindh province where the Indian fishwork-ers were detained, and compiled a comprehensivelist of 242 arrested fishworkers and also distributedamong them clothing, blankets, medicines, and soon.

SALF Pakistan continued to keep in touch withvarious government agencies, including the suc-cessive prime ministers and foreign ministers, andkept the pressure on them.

In the meantime, on 15 April 1997, the main In-dian trade unions, in a joint statement released inDelhi, stated, ”The government should set aside theconvictions of Pakistani fishermen and start the dueprocess for their release. The Government of Indiashould also take initiative in formulating a long-term policy, whereby such arrests and long-termdetention of innocent fishermen are not repeated.”

The Indian Chapter of SALF decided in April1997 to send a Factfinding Team of labour leaders,legal expert and mediapersons. The team was tomeet the Pakistani fishworkers in Indian jails andthe family members of the Indian fishworkers jailedin Pakistan. The team also decided to make an

99

on-the-spot assessment of the situation arising outof these arbitrary arrests and to come out with acomprehensive report on the entire problem, withspecific observations and recommendations. ThisFactfinding visit was undertaken in Gujarat andDiu between 21–23 May 1997. The report of theteam was released on 14 July 1997.

Eventually, the sustained efforts of SALF to-wards addressing the plight of the detained fish-workers bore fruit. After four long years, the Pak-istani and Indian governments finalized the list of35 Indian fishing boats and 193 fishworkers and 29Pakistani boats and 195 Pakistani fishworkers, whowere exchanged on 15 July 1997 and repatriated totheir home countries.

Since then, SALF has been instrumental in therelease of fishworkers in 1998 and also in 1999,at a time when the bilateral relations between thetwo countries deteriorated. These releases werefollowed by two more periodic releases, one eachin the next two years as signs of goodwill ges-tures. SALF has intervened whenever the deten-tion of fishworkers has become prolonged and alsohelped both the governments to finalize the list ofarrested fishworkers.

SALF, however, has failed to make any headwayin forcing the governments to formulate short- andlong-term policies to address the periodic arrestsof fishworkers for violating marine boundaries, norhave they come any closer to a bilateral agreement.Deteriorating relations and the long-drawn disputeover Sir Creek are two major reasons for this failure.However, both the countries have agreed to treatthe plight of the fishworkers as a humane issue and

have taken a positive approach towards releasingthe arrested fishworkers as quickly as possible.

7 Possible Solutions

1. The arbitrary arrest of the fishworkers andtheir imprisonment should be stopped per-manently. The ridiculous practice of ‘ex-change protocol’ should be done away with.Instead, a proper policy, in consonance withUNCLOS, should be framed to release the ar-rested fishworkers immediately after they areapprehended.

2. India and Pakistan should immediately for-mulate a bilateral maritime agreement thatshould clearly define the demarcation lineand practical measures like light buoysshould be used to make the actual line visi-ble.

3. The continuing dispute over Sir Creek cannotbe allowed to play havoc on the livelihoodsof thousands of fishworkers. Both the coun-tries should strive for a temporary and work-ing solution and agreement until the disputeis settled.

4. Considering the regional dimension of the is-sue, there must be a regional maritime agree-ment at the SAARC level.

5. Fishworkers organizations and trade unionsacross South Asia should be represented andconsulted on any bilateral or regional negoti-ation regarding this matter.

100

Illegal Fishing in Seychelles:A Review of its Implications

for a Small Island Developing State

Rondolph Payet ∗

AbstractThis paper reviews the current developments in Seychelles to curb illegal, unregulated and

unreported (IUU) fishing and its potential implication for small island States. IUU fishing is an ac-tivity that undermines the fisheries management effort of a fishing nation, and the consequencesare numerous. These can range from short- to long-term social and economic problems. The in-crease of IUU fishing activities in the western Indian Ocean over the past few years, especiallywith regard to the domestic fishing fleet, sends out a clear message to the neighbouring countriesthat steps should be taken to ensure that the coastal fishing nations take seriously their responsi-bility for responsible fishing practices.

In this regard, the Seychelles has taken certain necessary steps to ensure that vessels flying itsflag abide by national and regional and international agreements to which it is party. It is believedthat the Seychelles is a model for the small island and coastal States in providing the institutionalmechanism to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.

Keywords

Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. IUU . Small island States. Fisheries management.Western Indian Ocean. MCS. Compliance Agreement. IPOA .

1 Introduction

In the context of the Food and Agriculture Organi-zation of the United Nations (FAO) Code of Con-duct for Responsible Fisheries and its overall ob-jective of sustainable fisheries, the issue of illegal,unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in theworld’s fisheries is serious and of increasing con-cern. Consequently, IUU fishing undermines the ef-forts of coastal States to conserve and manage fishstocks in all capture fisheries. In most cases, na-tional, regional and international fisheries manage-ment organizations can fail to achieve managementgoals. These issues can lead to the loss of bothshort- and long-term social and economic opportu-nities and to negative effects on food security andenvironmental protection. In addition, such actionscan lead to the collapse of a fishery or seriouslyimpair efforts to rebuild stocks that have already

been depleted. According to FAO (2000), interna-tional instruments addressing IUU fishing have notbeen effective due to a lack of political will, priority,capacity and resources to ratify or accede to, andimplement, them. This has been witnessed in thewestern Indian Ocean.

This paper reviews the current developments inSeychelles to curb IUU fishing, and its potential im-plication for small island States.

2 Illegal Fishing

FAO refers to illegal fishing as activities conducted(i) by national or foreign vessels in waters underthe jurisdiction of a State, without the permissionof that State, or in contravention of its laws andregulations; (ii) in violation of national laws of in-ternational obligations, including those undertaken

∗Resource Manager, Seychelles Fishing Authority, Seychelles. Email: sfasez@seychelles.net

101

by co-operating States to relevant regional fisheriesmanagement organization; and (iii) by vessels fly-ing the flags of States that are parties to relevant re-gional fisheries management measures adopted bythat organization or relevant provisions of the ap-plicable international law and by which the Statesare bound.

Poaching within the exclusive economic zone(EEZ) is a serious fishing problem. The world’s ma-jor fisheries are concentrated in the waters overly-ing the continental shelves, as these areas supportlarge populations of fish and because the depths areeasier for artisanal fishermen to reach. The compe-tition for the remaining fish is intense. This, con-sequently, leads to further IUU fishing in nationaland international waters. Illegal fishing has beenidentified as a major threat to marine biodiversity.

3 Causes of Illegal Fishing

Although there may be a general obligation to pro-tect and conserve the resources of the global com-mons, under current international law, it is gener-ally the responsibility of the flag State to enforcethese obligations. Unless a treaty is self-executing,each State must legislate provisions into law andthen enforce that law. All too often, States fail to im-plement or enforce their treaty obligations. In addi-tion, some States routinely exempt themselves fromhonouring these treaties. Both of these practicesundermine the effective implementation of sustain-able fishing practices.

The existence of excess fishing capacity incoastal fisheries presents a favourable environmentfor alternative fishing practices such as IUU fishing,due to social and economic hardships. Illegal fish-ing in developing countries arises from a combina-tion of a lack of appropriate management system,political will, enforcement capacity and financialresources to ratify regional or international treaties.

4 The Seychelles Fishery

The Republic of Seychelles is a group of approxi-mately 115 islands scattered over an EEZ of just un-der 400,000 sq nautical miles. The principal groupsof islands are situated between 4 ◦ and 5 ◦ southof the equator, at a longitude of between 55 ◦ and56 ◦ east. The main group of islands are granitic, allwithin 30 miles of Mahe, the main island. The re-maining islands are coralline and are more widelyspread.

There are two principal continental shelves orplateau areas; the Mahe Plateau and the Amirantes.These constitute the main fishing areas for the ar-tisanal fishery. In fact, there are two facets to theSeychelles fisheries and they exploit two distinctresources. The domestic segment exploits the de-mersal resources, while the foreign industrial ves-sels target larger pelagics (tuna) under access agree-ments. The artisanal fishery employs around 500–700 full-time fishermen and up to about 400–500 ca-sual fishermen. The annual catch of the domesticfishery is estimated at around 5,000 tonnes per year,with the main species being the amberjack, snap-per and groupers, with approximately 700 tonnesexported annually. Declining catch rates since the1990s have shown the need for more responsiblefishing practices.

The local fishing industry, which caters for thelocal market, has been recognized for protectionand management. The following measures havebeen implemented.

• Reservation of the demersal fishery, namelyon the Mahe and Amirantes plateaus, for Sey-chellois only.

• Introduction of restricted zones to ensure thatindustrial fishing activities are not allowed tohave undue adverse effects on the local sup-ply of fish.

• Regulation of access to fishing grounds on theoutlying islands.

• Creation of fishery reserves to promote re-sponsible fishing practices.

• Development of mother ship managementplans.

• Facilities to promote sustainable fisheries de-velopment.

The importance of the artisanal fishery in Sey-chelles is derived from the fact that it not onlyprovides employment opportunities but also foodsecurity. The expanded 200-mile jurisdiction pro-vides the nation’s main source of protein. The in-dustrial fishery is carried out mainly by foreignfishing vessels. Seychelles nationals are also op-erating in this sector, but at the semi-industriallevel, targeting mainly swordfish and tuna. Lastyear, around 10 local vessels were involved in thisfishery and approximately 400 tonnes of fish werelanded.

Between 42 and 48 purse-seiners were licensedto fish in the Seychelles water in 2000. The totalcatch in the Indian Ocean by purse-seiners holding

102

Seychelles licences is estimated at 330,340 tonnes.The vessels targeting the tuna fishery are notablyof Spanish, French, Belize, Italy, Mauritius, Nether-lands Antilles, Panama, Seychelles and Iran flags.A total of 165 licences for longline fishing were is-sued to 137 longliners in 2000. The main vesselsengaged in this method of fishing are from Taiwan,Korea, Japan, Indonesia, and a few from the Euro-pean Union.

Foreign fishing has been on the increase sincethe mid-1980s, with purse-seiners being more sig-nificant from the Seychelles point of view. Newfishing regulations were introduced with the aimto:

• reserve the shallow plateau areas for localfishermen;

• require transhipment through Port Victoria;

• impose an obligation both to prevent unau-thorized incursions and to gather data on lev-els of exploitation of the resource;

• promote sustainable fishing practices andabide by international and regional agree-ments and protocols; and

• incorporate provisions of the UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS).

With future challenges, including those of en-forcing the national law over a huge maritime zoneand keeping pace with the changing trends in mar-kets and international maritime law, responsiblefishing practices in Seychelles has somehow be-come a priority, and many coastal States do nothave the necessary resources to fulfil the emergingissues associated with IUU fishing.

5 Illegal Fishing in Seychelles Waters

Seychelles has not been excluded from illegal fish-ing activities in its waters. Since the enactment ofthe Maritime Zone Act (1977), numerous vesselshave been apprehended for fishing illegally in Sey-chelles waters. The activities of the illegal fishinginclude (i) under-reporting catch; (ii) illegal tran-shipment at sea; (iii) keeping double sets of logbooks; and (iv) fishing in restricted zones.

Overall, it is believed that there is good compli-ance with Seychelles EEZ regulations. From 1991to 2001, 22 vessels have been apprehended for ille-gal fishing in Seychelles waters, these being fromKorea (1), Spain (7), Taiwan (4), the Reunion Is-lands (2), Sri Lanka (5), Indonesia (1), Madgascar

(1) and Seychelles (1) (see Annex 1 and 3). Most ofthe vessels apprehended for illegal fishing in Sey-chelles’ waters were charged with fishing withouta valid licence. In total, 27 per cent of vessels ap-prehended were of an artisanal nature, originatingmainly from Sri Lanka, which raised some concernsregarding fishing coastal States’ responsibilities vis-a-vis international and regional agreements. Twoillegal fishing cases are summarized below to illus-trate some of the consequences to both parties.

The first case of illegal fishing in Seychelleswas recorded on 9 January 1991, when a Japanesevessel, Sumi Maru 25, was spotted fishing in Sey-chelles’ waters. The ship’s captain and the ownerof the vessel were charged with fishing without alicence in Seychelles’ waters. They pleaded guiltyto the offence, and the vessel was forfeited to theState. The captain was ordered to pay US$15,000and the owner US$75,000. The catch was also con-fiscated and later sold at US$126,000. The courtof appeal upheld the seizure of the vessel and itscatch, but the fines of the captain and the ownerwere reduced. The forfeited vessel was later usedby a State enterprise to develop longline fishing inSeychelles with a Korean crew. However, withinthree years of operation, due to financial losses, itwas sold to a third party. These illegal activitieshave serious short- and long-term economic impli-cations and serious repercussions on the countriesenforcing EEZ regulations.

A more recent event (on 23 April 2001) was theapprehension, following reports by the local fish-ermen, of a 43-m Malagasy vessel, Modell Majenga,fishing in the Seychelles waters without a valid li-cence. The vessel had a crew of 110 persons, be-lieved to be fishing for sea cucumbers. Due tothe living conditions on the vessel, the Seychellesgovernment had to repatriate most of the crew toMadagascar from the revenue obtained from thesale of the sea cucumber forfeited. The captain andone of the crew members were charged with fish-ing in Seychelles’ waters without a valid licence.They pleaded guilty and an out-of-court-settlementwas set at 70,000 francs. However, this arrange-ment did not materialize. The case continues andthe vessel is expected to be forfeited. This situa-tion reinforces the issue of the increasing fishing ca-pacity in the coastal region and its long-term socialimplications. Sea cucumber resources around theMalagasy waters are severely overexploited, andso, these coastal fishermen eventually reverted toIUU operations to sustain their livelihoods. This il-lustrates a typical example of the problems faced by

103

developing coastal States, whose consequences aresometimes irreversible.

Overall, enforcement in Seychelles over the past10 years has been relying on third-party report-ing of suspected IUU fishing in Seychelles watersand shore-based activities, such as inspection of logbooks. It has been quite effective, though resourcesfor active enforcement have been limited.

Almost all the illegal fishing activities involv-ing coastal fishermen fishing without a licence inSeychelles’ waters have resulted in the forfeitureof their vessels, as the fines have been too high tobe settled. Recently, Seychelles has opted for bilat-eral agreements with neighbouring countries likeSri Lanka to curb illegal fishing. This might be oneof the solutions for IUU fishing in the Indian OceanRim. In the case of the industrial fishing nations,out-of-court settlements have been most common.

6 Seychelles Contribution to Curb IUU

Seychelles has been very active in ensuring its re-sponsibility as a coastal fishing nation. The prin-cipal legislation governing the EEZ is the MaritimeZones Act of 1977, which came into force on 1 Au-gust 1977. It gives basis to the Seychelles EEZ andalso to EEZ resource rights, namely:

• sovereign rights for the purpose of explo-ration, conservation and management of allresources, these being:

– exclusive jurisdiction to preserve andprotect the marine environment and toprevent and control marine pollution;and

– exclusive jurisdiction to authorize, regu-late and conduct scientific research; and

• such other rights as are recognized by inter-national law or State practice.

The Fisheries Act of 1986, 1987 and subsequentamendments govern the fisheries of Seychelles.The Seychelles signed UNCLOS in 1982 and ratifiedit on 16 September 1991. The UN Convention onHighly Migratory Fish Stocks and Straddling FishStocks came into force in 1995 and Seychelles hasmade efforts to translate this convention into na-tional regulations. Parties to this agreement are re-quired to “co-operate to manage relevant stocks”and, in particular, to:

• adopt measures to ensure long-term sustain-ability;

• collect and share, in a timely manner, data onposition, catch and fishing effort; and

• implement and enforce measures through ef-fective monitoring, control and surveillance(MCS).

The main national obligation is to require au-thorization for vessels flying the national flag tofish in the high seas. The flag State is also requiredto report position, catch and effort, in accordancewith applicable standards; mark vessels; ensureMCS through various means such as satellite ves-sel monitoring systems; and ensure that its vesselsdo not engage in unauthorized fishing activities inother countries’ waters.

In conjunction with the above convention, theCompliance Agreement, which was adopted bythe FAO in November 1993, was ratified by Sey-chelles in March 2000. The Compliance Agree-ment is more concerned with fishing on the highseas, rather than highly migratory and straddlingstocks. To conform to these Agreements, the Sey-chelles government enacted the Fisheries (Amend-ment) Act, 2000 and Fisheries (Amendment) Reg-ulations, 2000. The Fisheries Act, 2000 and relat-ing regulations give the Seychelles the necessarypower to enforce UNCLOS to vessels flying its flag.This is an important step in ensuring Seychelles’ re-sponsibility towards its vessels fishing on the highsea and neighbouring EEZs. The regulations alsoprevent transhipment and landing of any fish thathas been caught contrary to international manage-ment measures, which the Seychelles is bound byinternational agreement to respect (for example il-legal landing of toothfish). The Seychelles is alsoimplementing a satellite vessel monitoring system,which is an obligation towards MCS under UNC-LOS. These, in effect, will allow the Seychelles tocontrol any IUU of its fishing vessels and other ves-sels fishing in its waters.

In February 2001, the FAO finalized a draft In-ternational Plan of Action ( IPOA) to Prevent, Deterand Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and UnregulatedFishing. However, this plan of action is voluntaryand elaborated within the framework of the FAOCode of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. TheIPOA stressed that States should co-ordinate theiractivities and co-operate directly, and as appro-priate, through relevant regional fisheries manage-ment organizations, in preventing, deterring andeliminating IUU fishing.

104

7 Conclusion

IUU fishing is an activity that undermines the fish-eries management effort of a fishing nation, and theconsequences are numerous. These can range fromshort- to long-term social and economic problems.The increase of IUU fishing activities in the westernIndian Ocean over the past few years, especiallywith regard to the domestic fishing fleet, sends outa clear message to the neighbouring countries thatsteps should be taken to ensure that the coastal fish-ing nations take seriously their responsibilities forresponsible fishing practices.

The international community is becoming in-creasingly concerned about illegal fishing, and in-ternational negotiation is under way to eliminatethis regional and global problem. In this regard,the Seychelles has taken certain necessary steps toensure that vessels flying its flag abide by national,

regional and international agreements to which itis party. It is believed that the Seychelles is a modelfor small island and coastal States in providing theinstitutional mechanism to prevent, deter and elim-inate IUU fishing.

References

1. Kawaley, Ian. 1998. Implications of the Ex-clusive Economic Zone and EEZ Managementfor Seychelles, a Small Mid-ocean Common-wealth Territory. Ocean Development and Inter-national Law, Vol. 29, pp. 225-264.

2. FAO, 2001. Second Technical Consultation onIllegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing,Rome 22-23 February 2001. Food and Agri-culture Organization of the United Nations.

105

Annex 1: Number of Contraventions Established in 10 Years by Enforcement

Date of Apprehension Name of Vessel Nationality Offence

25.03.91 Verano Korean Illegal fishing

06.02.84 Albacore Quince Spanish Illegal Fishing

06.02.94 Albacore Cuatro Spanish Illegal Fishing

06.02.94 Campolibre Spanish Illegal Fishing

06.02.94 Intertuna Dos Spanish Illegal Fishing

06.02.94 Montelape Spanish Illegal Fishing

06.02.94 Txori Berri Spanish Illegal Fishing

06.02.94 Montealegre Spanish Illegal Fishing

26.07.94 Hwa Jaan 16 Taiwanese Illegal Fishing

17.12.96 Farn Shuen Taiwanese Illegal Fishing

17.12.96 Kao Hui Taiwanese Illegal Fishing

04.04.97 Hsing I Chang Taiwanese Illegal Fishing

10.06.97 Viking Swordfish Reuniones Illegal Fishing

11.06.97 Viking Swordfish Reuniones Illegal Fishing

31.08.97 Sea Horse Reuniones Illegal Fishing

10.05.98 Rukmar Dulaj Sri Lankan Illegal Fishing

11.05.98 Bahari Kencana Sri Lankan Illegal Fishing

01.02.00 Everfrost Indonesian Illegal Fishing

07.02.00 Lanka Matha Sri Lankan Illegal Fishing

19.05.00 Torrington Sri Lankan Illegal Fishing

23.04.01 Modell Majenga Malagasy Illegal Fishing

23.04.01 Ilse of Mahe II Seychellois Illegal Fishing

106

Ann

ex2:

Map

ofth

eSe

yche

lles

Mai

nFi

shin

gG

roun

ds

107

Ann

ex3:

Ille

galF

ishi

ngD

istr

ibut

ion

betw

een

1991

and

2001

108

Illegal Fishing in Seychelles

A. Napier ∗

AbstractSeychelles has extensive pelagic marine resources and other specific species such as shark,

demersal species, tow spotted red snappers, green jobfish, spankled emperor and grouper, not tomention an abundance of sea cucumbers that have not yet been exploited.

With an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 1.4 mn sq km making the ocean surface 3,019 timeslarger than the land area, it is not surprising that other foreign fishing vessels engage in illegalfishing in Seychelles’ territorial waters, due to the absence of a relevant monitoring, control andsurveillance (MCS) unit.

Keywords

Seychelles. Illegal fishing. IUU. Monitoring, control and surveillance. MCS. Seychelles FishingAuthority. Apostleship of the Sea. Seafarers.

1 Introduction

Seychelles consists of 115 islands, representing a to-tal area of 443 sq km, with a combined coastline ofmore than 600 km. Its population of 80,000 is a mix-ture of people of African, European and Asian de-scent.

Seychelles has very few primary natural re-sources due to poor soil for agricultural devel-opment. The country’s vast exclusive economiczone (EEZ), which covers an area of 1.4 mn sqkm, is strategically located as one of the most pro-ductive fishing grounds in the southwest IndianOcean. The majority of the population lives onthe three main islands, namely, Mahe, Praslin andLa Digue, which are of granite formation. The re-maining islands and plateaux to the southwest ofMahe are all coralline in nature, including the Ami-rantes plateau, the Alphonse group, the Providenceand Farquhar groups and the Adanra-Cosmoledogroups.

Fishing activities are entirely centred on theMahe plateau and the Amirantes groups. The far-thest distance Seychelles fishermen go is to theProvidence and Farquhar groups, which are morethan 700 km from Mahe.

Seychelles has extensive pelagic resources andother specific species such as shark, demersalspecies, tow spotted red snappers, green jobfish,spankled emperor and grouper, not to mention anabundance of sea cucumbers that have not yet beenexploited.

With an EEZ of 1.4 mn sq km making the oceansurface 3,019 times larger than the land area, it isnot surprising that other foreign fishing vessels en-gage in illegal fishing in Seychelles’ territorial wa-ters, due to the absence of a relevant monitoring,control and surveillance unit.

2 Illegal Fishing

Since 1984, fishing has been the second most im-portant foreign income earner for Seychelles, af-ter tourism. But recently, in 1998–2000, it has sur-passed tourism to become the number one incomeearner of the country. Seychelles is a nation thatconsumes a lot of fish daily. Thanks to the pri-vate sector, the government and the local fishermenhave together largely contributed towards the de-velopment of the fishing industry in Seychelles.

Fishing without a licence, or illegal fishingin the EEZ of Seychelles, has existed for many

∗National Director, Seychelles Apostleship of the Sea, Seychelles.

109

years since Seychelles was a colony under Britishrule. According to the Seychelles Fishing Authorityrecords, it was only since 1991 that a number of for-eign fishing vessels (Korean, Spanish, Taiwanese,French from Reunion Island and, lately, Sri Lankanand Malagasy) were seized for fishing inside theprohibited zone of Seychelles. The majority of thefishing vessels apprehended by the coastguard wasfirst spotted and reported by local fishermen, fish-ing on the Mahe plateau. A number of those ves-sels, apart from the Sri Lankan and Malagasy ones,violated the Fisheries Act by fishing inside the EEZ.Those foreign fishing vessels were prosecuted inthe Supreme Court, but most of them managed toget an out-of-court settlement or a fine of not lessthan Rs400,000 (US$80,000).

3 Arrest of Sri Lankan Fishing Vessels

During 1997–2000, a number of Sri Lankan fishingvessels were captured and brought to the SupremeCourt for illegal fishing in Seychelles’ territorialwaters and its EEZ. The following Sri Lankan fish-ing vessels were arrested in May 2000: Sea Horse,Rukumar Dulaj, Everfrost 1, Lanka Matha and Torring-ton.

In May 2001, a Malagasy fishing vessel, Modell,was arrested for illegal fishing of sea cucumbers inSeychelles’ territorial waters. On board were 110fishermen (drivers, cleaners, cook and mechanics).The captain and the chief engineer were chargedand appeared before the Supreme Court. The caseis still going on, though an out-of-court settlementis foreseen.

The number of the charges served on the ac-cused captain varies between three and 10, depend-ing on the entry in the navigation, fish logbook anddiaries, which contain information related to thevessel’s positions according to the Global Position-ing System (GPS).

4 The Seychelles Fisheries Act

The captains of the aforementioned vessels werecharged for contravening Section 24(1) of the Sey-chelles Fisheries Act (Cap.82) and Section 25 of thesaid Act as amended by the Fisheries AmendmentAct No.3 of 1997, which states as follows:

Where any foreign fishing vessel that isnot licensed in accordance with Section7 or authorized under Section 17 is usedfor fishing in Seychelles’ waters or for

fishing for sedentary species on the con-tinental shelf, the operator and mastershall each be guilty of offence and liableon conviction to a fine of Rs2,500,000(US$0.5 mn).

If found guilty, the court imposes a fine ofRs250,000 (US$50,000) on each count, which is to bepaid within three months, and for default of pay-ment of fine, the convicts undergo six months ofimprisonment. All fines and prison terms in defaultof fines are consecutive and not concurrent.

Rukumar Dalaj and Torrington are the only twoSri Lankan fishing vessels where everything onboard (excluding the crew members) have been for-feited to the State, and which were later put up forsale to the general public, while the captains weresent to serve their sentences in a Seychelles prison,at Long Island, for failing to pay the fines.

As for the fishing vessel Sea Horse, the captainwas fined US$12,000. The vessel was allowed to de-part Seychelles upon payment of the said fine.

Everfrost and Lanka Matha reached an out-of-court settlement of US$25,000 per vessel, throughthe active participation of the Apostleship of theSea AOS, the Foreign Affairs Ministry of both Statesand the Seychelles Fishing Authority. The fishingvessels were also released as part of the settlement.

5 Role of the Seychelles Apostleship ofthe Sea

The main task of the AOS is to ensure the well-beingof those who are far from home, to encourage, ini-tiate, provide for and, as the occasion demands,moderate and co-ordinate activities, relations andmeetings of an international nature on the normsfor the care of seafarers and others travelling by sea.

Struggling against injustice is an important partof the AOS work. We are not a trade union organi-zation, a policymaker or a pressure group, but wedo negotiate, and stand for, human rights and forfairness, believing that one is always “innocent un-til proven guilty”.

6 Actions Taken

The Seychelles AOS, which is responsible for help-ing seafarers in case of difficulties, social problemsand police cases, does intervene in the followingmanner:

110

• Establish contact with the authorities con-cerned, like the Seychelles Coastguard, Sey-chelles Fishing Authority, Port Authority, theCriminal Investigation Department, etc.

• Collect information on, and inquire about,charges, names of the captain and crew mem-bers involved.

• Contact Sri Lankan nationals residing in Sey-chelles for translation from the Sinhala lan-guage into English and vice versa; requesttheir financial contributions for legal aid,food, clothing, etc.

• Request authorization to visit the captain andhis crew while in detention at the coastguardbarracks, or on their fishing boat.

• Make frequent visits to collect identificationcards, papers and travel documents, to see tothe detainees’ actual needs, get their depen-dents’ addresses in Sri Lanka and give themmoral support in their ordeal.

• Contact and report the issues on a three-day or weekly basis to the authorities ofthe Church, requesting for assistance withfood, clothes, communication equipmentsand other basic necessities.

• Contact the agents of the boatowners in SriLanka in order to assist by either visiting thedetainees in Seychelles, discussing with theSeychelles authority, and/or paying for legalaid and a fair trial.

• Write articles in the local newspapers onthe arrest, prosecution and outcome of theSupreme Court judgements and, at the sametime, develop constant contact with the re-gional co-ordinator of the Apostleship of theSea for the Indian Ocean and southeast Africafor assistance.

• Request the Bishop to write to the Presidentof the Republic asking for clemency and for aquick settlement of the case, in favour of thecaptains and their families, who are in a veryneedy situation. In the case of two Sri Lankancaptains, sentenced to a prison term, whichthey served for some months, clemency wasgranted, while, in the Malagasy case, we arestill waiting for an out-of-court settlement.

7 Difficulties Encountered

The main difficulties encountered were with the‘boatowners’ of the Torrington and Rukumar Dajal,who refused to assist or contribute towards the cap-tain and the crew’s efforts. The crew was left to facetheir difficulties themselves in an unknown coun-try. It is unbelievable that a seaman does not pos-sess an identification paper or travel documents.The absence of identification papers really compli-cates the issue of repatriation of the crew.

8 Main Problems Facing the DetainedFishermen

The majority of the abovementioned captains andcrew of the fishing vessels arrested for illegal fish-ing in Seychelles’ territorial waters have been welltreated by the authorities and the Seychellois, ingeneral. So far, there has been no report of them be-ing harassed, beaten, tortured or made to give theirstatements to the police under duress. They remainin detention on board their fishing vessels, wherethey are allowed to move around freely.

During the captains’ trials, which sometimeslasts for months, the detainees are assisted by theauthorities, the Seychelles Apostelship of the Sea,the Red Cross and Caritas of Seychelles, which helpwith medical treatment, clothes, food, writing ma-terials, etc.

The detainees do suffer from language barriersand the absence of legal aid. They face the problemof not knowing whom to trust. Boredom and lone-liness mark their faces, especially when they thinkof their families or when they receive news fromtheir families and loved ones. They feel abandonedin a foreign country, especially when the boatownerrefuses to assist and repatriate them.

9 Suggestions

Financial and manpower constraints and lack ofinter-departmental co-ordination are the main rele-vant factors that hinder the monitoring, control andsurveillance of foreign fishing vessels, fishing ille-gally in Seychelles’ EEZ. In order to counter thesesetbacks, I believe that the following could con-tribute towards the management of our resourcesand help reduce illegal fishing in Seychelles territo-rial waters.

At the local level, we need to:

• have more trained personnel and sufficientboats to carry out patrols and enforcement

111

duties; (The government cannot depend ondonations of patrol boats from foreign coun-tries. The purchase of modern patrol boatsshould figure in its budget.)

• create a monitoring depot on an outlying is-land, for example, Ascension Island, to en-force surveillance of foreign fishing vessels;

• have an independent judicial system thatis not influenced by government authoritiesand/or para-State officials; and

• build a seafarers centre to cater to, assist andaccommodate, stranded seafarers until theirrepatriation.

At the regional level, Seychelles is a memberof the following regional organizations or commis-sions:

• the South West Indian Ocean Fishery Com-mission, which deals mostly with the man-agement of demersal stocks;

• the Indian Ocean Commission, which is con-cerned with the marine environment;

• the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC),which deals with the management of tunastocks; and

• the Western Indian Ocean Commission, theCommon Market for Eastern and SouthernAfrica (COMESA), the Southern African De-velopment Community (SADC), the IndianOcean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC).

Within these regional bodies, Seychelles canestablish a number of common agreements withStates that are involved in illegal fishing within itsterritorial waters. For example, Seychelles can:

• establish a regional fisheries law enforcementresource, whereby those arrested for illegalfishing in one State can be repatriated to theirhomeland to serve their prison sentences;

• establish a subsidiary arrangement to enableco-operation, legislation and information offishing activities within the region;

• request other countries to assist in enforcingsurveillance and fishing laws, etc. and to ed-ucate fishermen of the dangers of illegal fish-ing;

• make port States responsible for ensuring thatdetained fishermen have decent living condi-tions and access to national legal systems;and

• make boatowners responsible, and liable, fortheir actions, especially when they abandontheir crew members without caring for theirwelfare and their repatriation, in clear viola-tion of their basic human rights.

Illegal fishing is a violation by other nationsof the national law of a country, which must beseverely condemned because it destroys the na-tional resources of a nation. There are also a lotof complications in dealing with fishing vessels ar-rested for such violations. Most important of all, itcauses great psychological and moral suffering forthe crew and for the families they have left behindto earn a living.

A memorandum of understanding was reachedbetween the Government of Seychelles and the So-cialist Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka, whichwas signed and approved by both parties on 2 April2001.

10 Conclusions

To conclude, may I read a letter addressed toBishop Xavier Baronnet of the Diocese of Sey-chelles, by Captain Sunil Fernando, who hadserved several months in a Seychelles prison for il-legal fishing but was granted clemency by the Pres-ident, through the intervention of the Apostleshipof the Sea:

Rev. Archbishop,

I am a poor fisherman. I have nobodyto visit me at the prison. I am in a help-less situation. I ask you to get me anykind of help. I have no income. Myonly income was from fishing. I havetwo daughters, 8 years and 9 years old.My wife has no job and no income.

I am the only breadwinner in the fam-ily. When I left home, there was a lot oftrouble there because of witchcraft. Thereverend father of our church had gonethere for prayers and blessings. I haveno proper house to live in. I have only asmall hut to live in.

I borrowed some money from a bank,keeping the land as security. I have topay Rs3,000 a month to the bank. I fearthat the bank has already taken the land

112

because I couldn’t pay them for the lastfew months.

I am doing this job because I am verypoor. I am not a drug dealer, not a mur-derer, not a thief. I came to fishing be-cause there was nothing else for me todo to feed my family.

Please write to the President and get meany kind of relief. If there are mistakesin this letter, please forgive me. I havestudied only up to year 3 in school.

After reading this, please get me somerelief.

Sunil 23.9.00

113

Threats to the Natural Resources of Small-scale Fishermenof North Sulawesi

Ronald Z. Titahelu ∗

AbstractIndonesian small-scale fishermen, who live along the coast and on the small islands, are not

automatically guaranteed a prosperous life. This is because they often lack the technology or thecapacity to maintain the quality of the environment.

In some places, there are activities that help the small-scale fishermen to empower communityand build capacity. In general, though, Indonesia’s small-scale fisher communities need a newstrategy to strengthen their position.

Keywords

Indonesia. North Sulawesi Provincial Government. Traditional communities. Local commu-nities. Decentralization. Democratization. Empowerment. Capacity building. Community-basednatural resources management. Military co-operatives. Stakeholder.

1 Introduction

The archipelagIC State of Indonesia comprises of0.3 mn sq km of sea, 2.8 mn sq km of inshore wa-ters and an additional 2.7 mn sq km of an exclusiveeconomic zone (EEZ), rich with various coastal andmarine natural resources.

But these conditions do not automatically guar-antee a prosperous life for the small-scale fisher-men who live along the coast and on the small is-lands. This is because they often lack the technol-ogy or the capacity needed to maintain the qualityof the environment.

The Government of Indonesia agrees that pro-tection and management of coastal and marine re-sources is very important, and so it has embarkedon a strategy to:

1. establish policies to sustain coastal andmarine resources, especially for small-scalefisher communities;

2. strengthen fishery regulations;

3. decrease wastes from catching, handling andprocessing fish; and

4. curtail the catching of certain species of fish.

Until recently, a structural imbalance in thecommunity, hailing from feudal and colonial times,existed. The existence of several acts, like the For-eign Investment Act, the Mining Act, the Transmi-gration Act, the Irrigation Act and the Fishery Act,tends towards a centralization of power.

According to the Fishery Directorate General ofthe Republic of Indonesia Marine and Fishery Af-fairs Department, fishing vessels that do not useoutboard motors, or that use a low-horsepoweroutboard motor are classified as belonging to thesmall-scale fishery, and they comprise 80 per centof the total fishing vessels in Indonesia. The restconsists of vessels of at least 30 gross registered ton-nage (GRT), which use inboard motors.

The North Sulawesi Provincial Government hastried to empower the small-scale fishermen bytraining and aid. But, in reality, the small-scale fish-ermen are restricted to a territory not more than 6nautical miles, while foreign vessels are permittedto enter up to 12 nautical miles, until the EEZ. Therole of the military, particularly the army and thenavy, in catching fish is very strong. Several fish-ing enterprises belong to military co-operatives and

∗Doctor-in-Law, Sam Ratulangi University, Indonesia. Email: r_titahelu@hotmail.com

114

operate fishing vessels of over 30 GRT in huge num-bers spread throughout the whole of the Indone-sian marine territory.

Article 33, Section 3 of the Indonesian Constitu-tion of 1945, states: “The terrestrial, water and nat-ural resources inside belong to the State and shouldbe used for the benefits of the greatest welfare ofthe people.” Although the Ministry of Marine andFishery Affairs Department recognizes the right oftraditional communities to the coastal and marineterritories, in fact, the Act Number 22/1999 aboutRegional Government does not recognize the rightsand obligations of the customary communities orlocal communities to the coastal and marine terri-tories and the natural resources within them.

The local government’s weakness in decentral-izing and democratizing coastal and marine nat-ural resources is also one reason for the suffer-ing of the small-scale fishermen. After the imple-mentation of Act Number 22/1999 about RegionalDevelopment, the small-scale fishermen were re-stricted by the administration from decentraliza-tion of power. In some places, conflicts amongsmall-scale fisher communities in several villageshave occurred.

2 A New Strategy

Indonesia’s small-scale fisher communities need anew strategy to strengthen their positions. In some

places, there are activities for the small-scale fisher-men community to empower community and buildcapacity.

Community-based natural resources manage-ment, which includes community-based marineand coastal resources management, is very impor-tant to enhance the prosperity of those whose livesdepend upon coastal and marine resources.

The Indonesian Navy should implement itsduty to protect the territory from fish poaching orillegal activities. The military’s role in economic ac-tivity, especially on marine natural resources man-agement, must be stopped immediately.

The government must recognize and guaran-tee small-scale fishermen full access to natural re-sources, especially to coastal and marine natural re-sources, so that they can use these resources to in-crease their prosperity.

The fishermen must have direct access to politi-cians. Members of parliament must create andbuild a significant relationship with small-scalefishers’ groups. The local government must havea strong commitment to implement the decentral-ization and democratization of coastal and marinenatural resources.

Since the struggle is not waged by the small-scale fishermen community in local places alone,but by several small-scale fishermen in manyplaces, they need strong alliances or networkingwith other stakeholder groups that have deep con-cerns for their needs and opportunities.

115

The Demise of the Traditional Fisher Peoples

Andrew Johnston ∗

AbstractEven as large amounts are spent on defending failed policies and management systems that

promote unsustainable fisheries, the plight and existence of the artisanal/traditional fishers andthe fish resources are being ignored. This is especially true around the west coast of Africa andwithin the Indian Ocean and its surroundings. Sharks, swordfish, abalone, orange roughy, patag-onia toothfish, bluefin tuna and turtles are among the species that are being indiscriminatelyharvested. Further, in South Africa, the Indian Ocean islands and Kenya, rapid and irresponsiblecoastal development has resulted in an accelerated rate of environmental degradation and habitatloss.

Keywords

South Africa. Mauritius. Port Louis. Cape Town. Traditional fishers. Sustainable fisheries.

The Indian Ocean is the third largest ocean inthe world, with the bulk of the supply for do-mestic consumption of fish coming from the tra-ditional/artisanal fishers. Fish is the most vitalsource of cheap protein, contributing essential min-erals and vitamins to the most vulnerable peopleof the poorer coastal communities. The existenceand plight of the artisanal/traditional fishers andfish resources are being ignored, while large fundsare spent on defending failed policies and man-agement systems that promote unsustainable fish-eries. Treaties and agreements are ignored and con-ferences that attempt to resolve these issues andtake necessary steps to protect and promote sus-tainable fisheries and the communities dependentupon them are boycotted by countries embracingindustrialization.

The global destruction of our ocean’s watersand marine life is especially notorious around thewest coast of Africa and within the Indian Oceanand its surroundings. Overfishing and environ-mental degradation are quickly depleting our fishstocks. Shark, swordfish, abalone, orange roughy,patagonia toothfish, bluefin tuna and turtles arejust some of the species that are being harvestedin prolific quantities, and with reckless abandon.In the southern seas, plundering by pirate fishing

vessels has escalated, with the full knowledge andsupport of some the Indian Ocean countries. PortLouis (Mauritius) and Cape Town (South Africa)have become eminent bases for chemical pollution,with the ocean being regarded as a trash bin for thedumping of all sorts of harmful waste. We are notonly destroying the earth’s life support systems,and the precious resources within, but the rich cul-tural heritage, and livelihood of innumerable com-munities that are dependent on the oceans.

A grave tragedy is unfolding as so-called ‘de-veloped’ countries attempt to transform the tradi-tional/artisanal fisher peoples into a corporate so-ciety. Industrial profiteers and governments con-tinue to promote the concept that developing coun-tries must evolve into developed nations.

With the exception of a few urban areas, thecoast of east Africa is not densely populated. How-ever, in South Africa, the Indian Ocean islands andKenya, rapid and irresponsible coastal develop-ment to serve tourism and local clients has resultedin an accelerated rate of environmental degrada-tion and habitat loss. Food security is threatened tothe extent that most of the African, Caribbean andPacific peoples’ supply of fish, the basic staple foodand source of nutrition, is now unavailable for localconsumption but is destined for the palates of the

∗Artisanal Fishers Association, Republic of South Africa. Email: andyj@worldonline.co.za

116

peoples of the rich nations of the North. Policies ig-nore social issues, but focus, instead, on productionfor economic growth, the primary concern being topromote industrial fisheries.

Very little of the profits and foreign exchangegenerated by fish export markets benefit the lo-cal fishers and fishing communities. The struc-ture of the fishing operations required to competeinternally excludes and marginalizes the small-scale fishing sector. In South Africa, the arti-sanal/traditional fishers are not accommodated asa sector within its fishing acts, and there is no

meaningful participation or involvement by thisgroup in decisionmaking and implementation offisheries management.

A government that shows no respect for the en-vironment will show even less respect for its fellowhuman beings. Now is the time, before it is too late,to stand together as concerned people and demandgovernments to change global economic rules, de-fend and promote sustainable fisheries, avoid en-vironmental degradation, safeguard the rights ofsmall-scale fishers, and protect marine resourcesfor the future benefit of humankind.

117

Dilemma of Small-scale Fishers at the Dawn of IndustrialFishing in Kenya

S. Mucai Muchiri ∗

AbstractPeople of the Kenyan coast have lived off the Indian Ocean for centuries. Folklore and leg-

end reflect a history of dependence on the sea and fisheries for livelihood. Due to technologicallimitations and small human populations, harvesting from the sea had little effect in the past.Fishermen relied on simple fishing gear, operated either from the shore or from dugout and smallplanked canoes to supply the needs of their families.

In the past three decades, human populations have increased tremendously, leading to greaterdemand for marine fisheries products. The introduction of a cash economy has also triggered theneed for more efficient methods of fish capture to meet the new and growing demand. Unfortu-nately, local fishers have not been able to participate effectively in supplying this new demand.The main reason for this handicap is their inability to keep pace with rapidly developing fishingtechnology.

The introduction of mechanized fishing by ‘outsiders’ has been seen by some members of thelocal communities as a boon, in the sense that more employment opportunities have been created.This paper argues that mechanized fishers are able to exploit areas of the sea that local fishers areunable to venture into.

On the other hand, mechanized fishers, especially those who operate trawlers, have oftenbeen accused of overexploitation of the resource, to a point that certain species cherished bylocal communities have disappeared altogether. Trawler operators have also been blamed for thedestruction of small-scale fishermen’s gear, leading to huge losses.

This paper discusses the difficulties that communities of the Kenyan coast face with the in-troduction of mechanized fishing. It also describes an ongoing initiative to resolve the mountingconflicts in the marine fisheries of Kenya.

Keywords

Kenya. Mechanized fishing. Prawn fishery. Surveillance. Natural resource management.

1 Introduction

Global economic trends indicate an ever-increasinggap between the industrialized nations and theso-called developing world. The uneven trendof development was demonstrated vividly by theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)in its annual report of 1992. The report demon-strated the inequalities with the help of a funnelgraphic indicating that 20 per cent of the world’spopulation utilized some 85 per cent of global re-sources, leaving 15 per cent to be shared by the re-

maining 80 per cent of the population. Since 1992,this trend has only worsened.

In many developing countries, particularly inAfrica, local situations reflect these global trends.The rich become even richer as they benefit frommore and more of the available resources, whilethe poor become poorer as they access less andless of the resources. This inequality constitutesthe main developmental and ecological problem.The dilemma for the poor, however, is the ever-lingering hope (often futile) that industrializationand an increase in the ‘riches’ in their locality

∗Department of Fisheries, Moi University, PO Box 3900, Eldoret, Kenya. Email: muchirim@africaonline.co.ke

118

would improve their livelihoods through some ofthe benefits flowing their way.

This paper analyzes the fisheries of the Kenyancoast to illustrate the foregoing inference. It de-scribes the attitudes of small-scale fishers towardsthe large mechanized fishery (particularly, shrimptrawlers), and some of the efforts being made toaddress conflicts that have developed between thetwo sectors.

2 A Historical Background

Kenya’s coastal peoples have lived off the IndianOcean for their livelihoods for a long time. Folk-lore, legend and written history tell of a peoplewith a close dependence on the sea for their liveli-hoods and food. Today, as in the past, marine fish-eries in Kenya is mainly artisanal, relying on sim-ple fishing gear operated either from the shore orfrom small non-motorized boats. This technolog-ical constraint limits fishing operations to withinthe shallow reef. Fishing gear include gillnets, cast-nets, seine-nets, handlines and traps. Since the late1970s, new players have come in with more ef-fective fishing technology that utilizes larger gear,such as trawl nets and purse-seines, from muchlarger vessels. Longlines are also used for fishingin the deeper offshore waters of the exclusive eco-nomic zone (EEZ ).

It is estimated that there are about 5,000 coastalfishers in Kenya, 4,000 of whom are artisanal, anda total of about 40,000 people dependent directlyon fish production. With the introduction of a casheconomy, it is not always possible to distinguishcatch meant purely for home consumption fromcatch meant for sale. However, all artisanal fish-ermen take home part of their catch for food.

The increase in the coastal human populationfrom fewer than 500,000 in the 1970s to more than2 mn today, coupled with new patterns of con-sumption, has led to greater demand for marinefisheries products. There are more local peopleto feed, while tourist hotels and the export mar-kets have raised the demand for certain speciessuch as prawns. This increased demand for ma-rine fisheries products meant that fishing technol-ogy needed to improve to increase supply. It wasat this point that the larger, more effective fish-ing vessels were introduced. The trawlers targetmainly prawns, while purse-seiners catch finfish.With the decline of the targeted species, by-catchhas recently become a very important part of theprawn trawler fisheries.

Due to the limited financial resources at the dis-posal of local fishing communities, their participa-tion in industrial fishing has been confined to jointventures, with minority shareholding and virtuallyno control. Most of the large vessels are owned andoperated by peoples of European origin (at present,mostly Greeks and Italian), with the involvementof some rich, politically well-connected local inlandand coastal partners.

The industrial fishers were required by lawto fish beyond 5 nautical miles from the shore-line, leaving the more shallow, nearshore fishinggrounds to artisanal fishers. In practice, however,the larger vessels are commonly seen fishing withinthe prohibited grounds, leading to major conflictswith the small-scale fishers and causing seriousdamage to the environment.

3 Dilemma for the Kenyan CoastalFishing Communities

In a series of stakeholder meetings, held betweenSeptember 2000 and March 2001, it became evidentthat conflicts exist, particularly between the prawntrawlers and the small-scale fishers of the Kenyancoast. It was also clear that some members of thelocal communities are more tolerant of industrialfishing. The latter group (led, not surprisingly, byelected co-operative officials) argues that the entryof industrial fishing is justified for several reasons.

The main reasons put forth are:

1. Artisanal fishers are unable to venture intothe deeper waters offshore and, therefore,with the liberalization of the Kenyan econ-omy, those areas should be open to those whohave the means.

2. The larger capacities of the industrial fishingvessels provide additional opportunities foremployment.

3. More fishing activities lead to increased localtrade.

4. There exists a Kenyan cultural norm of hospi-tality to visitors.

It should be noted that this particular sectionof the fishing community supports industrial fish-ing because of their own liaison with the large-scalefishers.

On the other hand, there is a long list ofgrievances raised by the communities involved inthe fishing industry. The set-gear are wantonlydestroyed by the large vessels, either during their

119

fishing operations or in transit to and from fishinggrounds. The question of fishing gear damage bytrawlers and compensation claims is complex, as itis not always easy to provide poof or evidence toincriminate the culprits. In certain instances, theclaims appear overpriced, and are perhaps aimedat getting compensations large enough to financethe purchase of new gear. A mechanism needs tobe put in place that would clearly provide for reso-lution of gear damage claims.

Operations of prawn trawlers in the shallow in-shore areas of the reef cause a great deal of damageto the environment, and thus affects the integrity offinfish breeding grounds. It has also been observedthat large amounts of non-target fish are caughtand discarded. Many of such fish are juveniles ofspecies that are valuable as adults in directed fish-eries. In this way, certain species of fish that werepreviously common in the catch have become rareor virtually extinct.

Large-scale fishing operations provide largeramounts of fish, often of higher quality than thoseprovided by the small-scale fishers. As a re-sult, small-scale fishers are unable to competefavourably in the marketing of their catch, particu-larly in the more lucrative niche markets for touristhotels and the export trade.

At the stakeholder meetings, it became evidentthat though they have, in the past, looked to thegovernment to provide solutions for problems thatafflict them, the small-scale fishers have receivedlittle support. This state of affairs has led to frustra-tion and a loss of self-esteem among the small-scalefishers.

4 Recent Efforts to Resolve theConflicts

The stakeholder consultative meetings that wereheld in late 2000 and early 2001 comprised a pos-itive reaction by the government to the agitationby the small-scale fishers and their dependents af-fected by industrial fishing activities. Complaintsand demonstrations featured in public meetingsand were covered by the press. The gravity of thematter at hand was emphasized by the fact that themeetings were chaired by the Permanent Secretary(the chief technical officer) in the ministry responsi-ble for fisheries. Present at the meetings were fish-ing community leaders and representative fisher-men, representatives of the industrial fishers, envi-ronmental pressure groups and officials of various

government departments with interest in the ma-rine resources.

During the first stakeholder meeting on 27September 2000, a wide range of issues of concernwas raised. Conflicts arising from prawn trawl-ing was identified as the most pressing issue. Atask force was appointed to identify such conflictsand to make recommendations to a second stake-holder meeting. The task force made up of rep-resentatives of various interest groups, includingfishers, held several meetings to develop recom-mendations for the next, larger meeting. In themeantime, all trawling activities were suspended,until those recommendations were discussed andresolutions passed.

The second stakeholder meeting, held on 15March 2001, passed the following resolutions :

1. Research needs to be carried out to estab-lish the current status of the marine resources(particularly of prawns). It was noted thatthe last survey (an FAO-funded one) to assessprawn stocks was done in 1982. Therefore, itwas difficult to effectively assess the viabilityof the present stocks for commercial exploita-tion. This resolution required that the sur-vey (a) establish the current population struc-tures and distribution of prawns; (b) assessthe level of environmental damage by prawntrawlers; and (c) evaluate the economic via-bility of the prawn fishery.

2. To facilitate research activities, commercialtrawlers should be allowed to operate underspecial licences, with strict guidelines. Re-search scientists should be accommodated onboard the trawlers to collect data as commer-cial fishing takes place.

3. Clear fishing zones and fishing seasonsshould be established. The present law pro-vides for trawling only beyond 5 nauticalmiles from the shore for an unlimited time.Industrial fishers admitted that they fishedwithin the 5 nautical mile limit as it was noteconomical to fish in the deeper waters.

4. Limit number and capacity of fishing vessels.It was agreed that the number of trawlers al-lowed to fish in Kenyan waters be limited tothe four vessels at present registered with theFisheries Department.

5. Provide for observers to be on board all thefishing vessels, as a means to monitoring thefishery.

120

6. All trawl nets should be fitted with turtle ex-cluder devices. This was consequent to theobservation that, through their fishing oper-ations, both trawlers and small-scale fishersare responsible for the present decline in thepopulation of marine turtles.

7. Effective surveillance and enforcement mech-anisms must be developed. It was noted thatall the efforts made would be futile if thefishing regulations and guidelines were notstrictly enforced. The fisheries departmentadmitted its limitation in carrying out effec-tive surveillance, for want of patrol boats andadequate staff.

5 Future Prospects

The excessive uses of natural resources eventuallyexerts a strain on the available resources. The strainis felt more and more as the resource diminishesand becomes scarce. Scarcity inevitably leads tocompetition and, ultimately, conflicts, as users at-tempt to maintain, or even increase, their own useof the resource to satisfy their perceived needs andwants. This then raises the crucial questions of al-location. How much is available? Who gets what?Who gets preference?

The case we have at hand in Kenya is one of astrained natural resource, a resource that has, in thepast, provided a means of living to various groupsof people, though not in exactly the same way. Butnow it is obvious that there are serious conflicts re-sulting from a diminished resource. Unfortunately,we do not even know exactly how much of the re-source is left, in order to make a sensible judgementon allocation.

Technical knowledge is required for guiding theprocesses of planning and managing natural re-sources. This does, in fact, underline the correct-ness and importance of the first resolution by thestakeholders’ meeting–that a survey be carried outto establish the current status of the marine fish-eries stock. Stock surveys should be a continuousmonitoring process by which danger signals can bedetected in good time.

The question of how much is allocated to eachgroup, and what priorities ought to be set, can onlybe answered effectively by establishing ownershipof the resource. All the stakeholders would thencollectively decide on the allocation and manage-ment of the resource. The stakeholder meetingswere an important means towards empowering thecoastal fishing communities to voice their concernsand aspirations, and to provide them the chance toget involved in managing the marine fisheries re-sources.

Conventionally, the government has been thesole player in the management of natural resources.The current involvement of communities in deci-sionmaking requires that the government supportsand encourages the development of strong com-munity leadership. This may involve relinquishingmuch of decision-making powers to the communi-ties. The role of government would then remainone of support and guidance in the planning andmanagement process. The government would pro-vide the framework by which the resources shouldbe managed.

Surveillance is the crucial part of natural re-source management. Compliance with, or enforce-ment of, regulations has to be a joint effort betweenresource users and the governing authority. Suc-cessful natural resource management is much eas-ier to achieve where there is a strong sense of own-ership leading to user compliance. Where compli-ance is weak, enforcement of regulations must beeffected.

In the case of Kenya’s coastal fisheries, the sit-uation remains generally unchanged. The trawlersare still fishing nearshore and the conflicts are stillreal. To achieve positive results from the presentinitiative to remove conflicts, it is required thatthe government be forceful in ensuring compliancewith all resolutions and enacted regulations. Thereis such a great deal of goodwill from most resourceusers that this is the opportune time to turn aroundthe management of Kenya’s coastal fisheries to pro-vide for equitable and sustainable use of the re-source.

121

What Does the Future Hold for Malagasy CoastalCommunities? The Role of Traditional Fisheries

Felix Randrianasoavina ∗

AbstractTraditional fisheries in Madagascar provide the main source of livelihood for over 100,000 fish-

ermen from 1,250 communities along 5,000 km of coast. The fishery provides 50 per cent of theMalagasy fish catch and supplies 70 per cent of the fish locally consumed. Despite this, the sectoris not recognized officially, and has been marginalized from mainstream national economic devel-opment. Since 1995, a group of Malagasy non-governmental organizations (NGOs), supported byEuropean NGOs, have been drawing public attention–both locally and internationally–to this situ-ation. Over the last six years, they have studied and documented the traditional sector, organizedformal meetings between representatives from traditional fishing communities and policymak-ers, and lobbied the Malagasy government and European Union (EU) Member States to includetraditional fisheries in their development initiatives.

Keywords

Madagascar. Traditional Malagasy fisheries. EU. Shrimp. Apostolate of the Sea. MadagascarMarine Programme. Collective of Malagasy Maritime Organizations. CCFD. EU-MadagascarTuna Fisheries Agreement. CFFA.

1 Introduction

It is undeniable that Madagascar, a large island of587,000 sq km and a population of around 14 mnpeople, is a maritime power to reckon with. It pos-sesses a coastline of 5,000 km, and a 200-mile ex-clusive economic zone (EEZ), despite legal disputeswith France over the sovereignty of three islandsscattered in the Mozambique Channel. However,the national maritime prospects are very bleak: theport infrastructure is in a state of abandonment;and Malagasy shipping companies are disappear-ing to the benefit of the insurers of foreign fleets.In a few years, faced with modernization and glob-alization, Malagasy ports are at risk of falling intomarginal use in the southwest region of the IndianOcean.

By contrast, Malagasies see the industrial fish-eries sector as the new ‘El Dorado’. Malagasy fish-ery resources, unevaluated but with real potential,are coveted by industrial companies. For the mostpart, these are Malagasy-registered, but foreign-

owned, employing mainly expatriate staff. Thegrowing value of shrimp is reflected in the will-ingness of the government to categorize this ‘pinkgold’ as a strategic resource of national importance.

Faced with an expanding shrimp fishery andwith all kinds of demands from the industrial sec-tor, traditional fisheries, time-bound and neverbenefiting from any technical development, are rel-egated to second place. This sector is in dangerof disappearing, leaving destitute the fishing pop-ulations in the 1,250 officially registered villages,where agriculture is not possible. It could evenbe said that the sector is hostage to ignorance, un-known in the mainstream economic developmentof the fishery. What hope is there for the future?

2 Gaining Organizational Momentum

Modelled on French law, Malagasy law encouragesassociations to become formalized. Since the coun-try’s independence in 1960, several kinds of organi-

∗Executive Secretary, Collective of Malagasy Maritime Organizations (COMM), Madagascar. Email: Felix.randria@voila.fr

122

zations have sprung up and multiplied, includingassociations, unions, co-operatives and NGOs.

In the maritime sector, organizations were firstinitiated towards the end of the 1970s and the be-ginning of the 1980s. The country’s isolation wasnot seen as a constraint, and it was felt that therewas little to worry about in the maritime sector. Ataround this time, thanks to initiatives of the Apos-tolate of the Sea, little by little, an organizationalmovement in the maritime sector was developed inall its multiplicity and diversity. During this pro-cess, it was seen fit to regroup these efforts into anational-level platform. Thus, the Madagascar Ma-rine Programme (PMM) was born, but, now livingon borrowed time and facing a complex situation,it is being used to hoodwink the unsuspecting. To-wards the end of 1999, and due to an urgent need tomonitor and co-ordinate ongoing initiatives in theMalagasy maritime sector, the Collective of Mala-gasy Maritime Organizations (COMM) came intobeing. This initiative was taken by people close tothe Apostolate of the Sea and the PMM.

Such a monitoring and co-ordination effort wasdeemed necessary because both in the merchantmaritime sector and in the fisheries sector, thanksto support from foreign partners, several initiativeswere being taken countrywide, around the coasts.These initiatives count on the strong support of theseafarers and fishworkers to establish common ob-jectives that will promote national solidarity, and,over time, develop a Malagasy maritime sector.

At this point, a brief summary of the story sofar, to clarify the roles played by the respective or-ganizations, would be useful. The Apostolate of theSea is a branch of the Roman Catholic Church, withits headquarters in Rome. It works for the well-being of seafarers. It has established itself in themain coastal centres of Madagasar, and its variousinitiatives have led to the creation of organizationalmovements and platforms for the representativesof various segments of the merchant maritime andfisheries sectors. In 1993, in partnership with theFrench NGO, the Catholic Committee for Freedomfrom Hunger and Development (CCFD), variousMalagasy organizations from the traditional andartisanal fisheries sectors formed a national-levelgrouping called the Christian Federation of Arti-sanal Fishermen of Madagascar (FECPAMA). Like-wise, organizations of seafarers from the merchantmarine sector formed another national-level bodycalled the Christian Federation of Malagasy Seafar-ers (FECMAMA).

Another initiative in January 1995, in partner-ship with CCFD, gave birth to the PMM, providing a

new national platform and a voice for all the groupsof maritime-sector federations. At the beginning of1998, the scope of the EU-Madagascar Tuna Fish-eries Agreement was considerably widened. Dur-ing the negotiations for the renewal of this agree-ment, a number of joint initiatives were taken byCCFD and the Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrange-ments (CFFA) in support of various local-level ac-tions in Madagascar. These included awareness-raising and campaigning among fishworker com-munities, facilitated and conducted by the differentnetworks associated with the Apostolate of the Seaand FECPAMA.

It was also during this time that a workshopon the future of traditional fisheries in Madagascarwas organized to provide a voice to the fishworkersthemselves. Unfortunately, after the initiative waslaunched, PMM was unable to see through its com-mitments due to administrative problems. Thanksto the joint efforts of local organizations with theirforeign partners (CCFD and CFFA), the workshoptook place, and led to the formation of COMM.

COMM is a new national-level institution, com-prising 28 associations or groupings of seafarersand fishworkers dispersed across the large island.As its name implies, COMM is a genuine collective,directed by a Maritime Council that represents itsconstituents. It has the following long-term objec-tives:

• to raise public awareness about conditions inthe maritime sector;

• to encourage associations and groupings ofseafarers to be aware of their rights and re-sponsibilities;

• to establish a shared communication to fos-ter improved understanding of the needs ex-pressed by the maritime profession, therebyenabling them to participate fully in the de-velopment of their sector; and

• to foster support for associations and group-ings of seafarers, industrial fishery workers,traditional fishworkers and coastal communi-ties, and, eventually, dockers and the familiesof seafarers.

COMM’s purpose is to represent and promote,to train and inform, and to support and encourageworking relations between organizations of work-ers in the merchant maritime and fishery sectors.

COMM’s assistance is available to all the bodiesworking to promote the maritime sector, regardless

123

of race, religion, or political persuasion. Such a col-lective effort is necessary in the context of ‘global-ization’, and, given the realities we face, to succeed,we must act together.

Of course, there is a strong connection betweenthose with power and means enabling the advance-ment of those without. But COMM’s objectives arerooted in the development priorities of the seafar-ers at both local and national levels, taking into ac-count changes at the international level, and thehazards and consequences of globalization.

To this end, concrete actions, particularly inthe area of traditional fisheries, are being under-taken, which have enabled some breakthroughs tobe made in raising awareness at the national level.

3 The First Steps Along the Road

The start of fishery agreement negotiations be-tween the European Union (EU) and Madagascartowards signing a new protocol is what first trig-gered the Malagasy traditional fishing sector tovoice its concerns and to make itself heard.

In 1995, the first phase in the large-scale mobi-lization of traditional fishworkers was undertakenin the framework of the renewal of the fourth tunaagreement between the EU and Madagascar. In thevarious discussions, organized both in the coastalprovinces and in the Malagasy capital, two impor-tant issues were taken up as core themes:

• First of all, the fishworkers’ image of the fish-ery resources is one where big fish feed onsmall fry. But they also know that a mass ofsmall fish can swallow up the big fish.

• Secondly, they established the following posi-tion: “We feel that the country should be de-veloped by Malagasies, for Malagasies. Butthat won’t be achieved in a day! But shall wemake a start? Aren’t our officials essentiallyeconomic managers of the resource, leavingthe human resources idle, to be exploited byforeigners?” Recognizing this was the callthat awoke the Malagasy traditional sector.

As noted above, mobilization on this large scalewas facilitated through improvements in the orga-nizational environment and structure and thanks tothe support provided by a number of the aforemen-tioned organizations. A synergy was thus createdbetween national Malagasy organizations and for-eign partners. From then on, it became easier tomove things forward together, focusing on preciseobjectives.

In 1998, a joint mission of the Brussels-basedCFFA and the French NGO, CCFD focused on theneed for the traditional Malagasy fishing sector tobe recognized. The first signs of this were noticedin the context of the fisheries agreement due to besigned by the two parties. Thus, it is worth not-ing that, for the first time, the fifth EU-MadagascarTuna Fisheries Agreement (approved in Brusselson 8 June 1998) stipulated that part of the finan-cial compensation of the agreement amounting to125,000 ECU (some 750 million Malagasy francs)was to be allocated to the development of tradi-tional fisheries. It was also noted that unless aworkshop was organized to consult with the fish-workers themselves, it would be almost impossibleto decide what this amount should be used for.

In 1999, a workshop for fishworkers was or-ganized in Amborovy-Majunga (17 to 22 May) on“What Does the Future Hold for Traditional Mala-gasy Fisheries?”. Specialists from the MalagasyMinistry of Fisheries and Fishery Resources par-ticipated in this workshop. A ‘Fishworkers’ State-ment’ supported by ‘Recommendations’ with 20fundamental points were produced. These coveredfour main areas:

• Materials and ownership of vessels;

• Production, processing and preservation;

• Trade and markets; and

• The role of women in collection and market-ing.

Up to this stage, as mentioned above, it had al-ways been the PMM that had guided the processes.

In 2000, at an important first meeting of fish-workers in Majunga, COMM, in partnership withCFFA, CCFD and ICSF, took up the initiative by or-ganizing a debate on the “Problematic of the ZoneReserved for Small-scale Fishing”. A meeting wasthen organized in Toamasina (25 to 28 August), at-tended by specialists from the Malagasy Ministryof Fisheries and Fishery Resources. The fishworkerrepresentatives validated the results of a surveycarried out in nine sites selected as representative oftheir sector. The event enabled them to confirm that“traditional Malagasy fisheries are alive and well,but they are fragile and vulnerable”.

The meeting focused on these main questions:

• How to define the sector?

• Who is considered a traditional fisherman?

124

• What criteria are recognized by the fishermenthemselves to qualify as a ‘traditional’ fisher-man?

The majority of fishworkers interviewed camefrom fishing families, where fishing was their mainsource of livelihood. The use of special fishing gear,and the observance of family traditions, restrictionsand taboos were also seen as important and com-mon elements.

The sector was also seen as highly vulnerable:

• traditional fishing gear and boats are vulner-able to bad weather, and collisions (especiallywith industrial fishing boats);

• traditional fishing communities are vulnera-ble and at risk in the face of competition fromother activities (industrial aquaculture, differ-ent types of pollution in the coastal area);

• the fishery resources on which traditionalfishermen depend are highly vulnerable tooverexploitation of the coastal areas. Thiscould put the very survival of families andcommunities living along the coast at risk;

• how to get the sector formally recognized bythe public authorities (representation at na-tional level, actions by public authorities, cen-sus, taxation, subsidies, etc.).

Lack of official recognition of traditional fish-eries by the administrative and political au-thorities was seen as a major constraint.However, representatives of national author-ities present did acknowledge that “tradi-tional fisheries exist”, that they “help earnforeign exchange for the country”, and that“they play an important role in the fightagainst poverty and supply of fish for na-tional consumption”.

• How to manage access to the coastal area,with the traditional fisheries as a sector hav-ing priority access.

Fishworkers wanted their rights of access to berecognized and protected. They also wanted to beinvolved in the management of their coastal zonesand the resources they contained, in order to ensuresustainability of stocks and to fight against coastalpollution.

In the same year, ‘Representatives of MalagasyFishworkers’ participated in the World Forum ofFishers meeting, held in Loctudy, France. This en-abled COMM to become a member of the World Fo-rum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP). At the same time,

there was a European campaign on shrimp fishingin Madagascar initiated by the NGO AGIR ICI, withother French and European partners.

Now, in a context where the French governmentand the shrimp fisheries dominate the Malagasyfisheries scene, the road seems long and bleak. At atime when they are trying to establish a national-level platform to defend their interests and helpdevelop their capabilities to participate in resourcemanagement and decision-making processes, tra-ditional fishworkers are facing a highly confusingand hugely competitive situation. Two importantfisheries management programmes are being takenup at the national level:

• First of all, within the framework of the na-tional Environmental Programme, the Mala-gasy State has established a Ministry forthe Environment. Its first operational pro-grammes are the ‘Protected Areas and Zones’implemented by ANGP (National Organiza-tion for the Management of Protected Ar-eas) branch of the National Environmen-tal Office (ONE), and funded by the WorldBank and the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF). It is worth noting that this pro-gramme owes much of its effectiveness to thepolicy approach adopted, specifically withinthe framework of building up the responsi-bility of grassroots communities based on tra-ditional norms. Within the same Ministry, theMarine and Coastal Branch (EMC) is taking anactive part in this programme by encouragingcoastal communities to become involved inan integrated coastal zone management pro-gramme (GIZC). This programme has estab-lished the GELOSE (Locally Secured Manage-ment) framework that provides fishing com-munities with the rights to manage and con-trol the different activities being undertakenin their respective areas.

• By contrast, for the industrial fisheries, a pro-gramme to establish ‘Concrete Zonal Man-agement’ (ZAC) has been initiated. This issupported by the French Agency for Devel-opment (AFD) and financed by French pub-lic funds. It is being implemented throughthe French commercial interests party to theGAPCM, a grouping of Malagasy shrimp in-dustry organizations, and is supposed to pro-vide a tool to resolve resource allocation prob-lems as well as all kinds of conflicts withinthe fisheries. This five-year programme is

125

both supported and backed by the Mala-gasy Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries Re-sources. As a result of being part of the aid be-ing pushed by French public funds, the ZACproject and the associated programme havecome to dominate the fisheries managementdebate in Madagascar. Through this pro-gramme, the GAPCM would like to see small-scale fisheries develop as a service providingsubsector of the shrimp industry.

• Within the same programme, in December,a workshop on the Management of ShrimpFisheries in Madagascar was organized at theministerial level. In reality, it was the GAPCM(changing their name from the Organizationof Malagasy Shrimp Fishery Vessel Ownersto the Organization of Malagasy Shrimp Fish-ers and Vessel Owners) who were behind thismeeting. COMM, represented by its ExecutiveSecretary, was honoured to give a presenta-tion entitled “The Problematic of the Zone Re-served for Small-scale Fishing”. The issue of

traditional fisheries was at the centre of theworkshop debates, and has now become anissue of concern.

In 2001, there is recognition that the traditionalfishing sector may be of global concern; but it alsorequires an administrative basis. There should,therefore, be an open exchange between admin-istrators and fishworkers. A roundtable meetingof fishworkers was, therefore, organized in Tana-narive from 14 to 17 March to discuss the the issuesof “Traditional Fisheries and Food Security, Sus-tainable Development, and Poverty Alleviation”.

What more is there to say on this occasion whenthe coastal States of the Indian Ocean are meetingto discuss their future? Specifically, in the case ofMadagascar, one can say that, with each step taken,further important issues become apparent.

We hope that, in the course of time, we willidentify what effective actions need to be taken inthe future to make the maritime sector more just,equitable and humane.

126

127

Illegal Fishing: The Case of Mozambique

Simeao Lopes∗ and M. A. Pinto †

AbstractThe fisheries sector plays an important role in the economy of Mozambique, contributing to

40 to 50 per cent of the country’s foreign exchange earnings. An extensive coast that supportsdiverse fisheries makes Mozambique a sensitive place for illegal, unregulated and unreported(IUU) fishing.

This paper discusses the relation between IUU fishing and surveillance capacity, length of thecoastal zone, commercial value of the resources and the national fishing capacity of Mozambique.

Keywords

Mozambique. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. IUU. Surveillance. SADC. Shrimpfishery.

1 Introduction

Mozambique lies between 10◦20’ north (from themouth of the Rovuma River on the Tanzania bor-der) and 26◦50’ south (at Ponta do Ouro on theSouth African border). The coastline is 2,770 kmlong, and the exclusive economic zone is 562,000 sqkm. The fisheries sector plays an important role inthe economy of the country, contributing about 40to 50 per cent of Mozambique’s foreign exchangeearnings in recent years. About 85 per cent ofthe exports by value come from industrial shallow-water shrimp fisheries, which is the most impor-tant fishery. The extensive coast, which supportsdiverse fisheries, makes Mozambique a target for,illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

Mozambique occupies 800,000 sq km on thesoutheast coast of Africa, sharing boundaries withSouth Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, Malawi and Tan-zania. The country has 25 major rivers and severalports. The coastal plain is broad and characterized,in many places, by large deltas and low-lying river-ine areas, many of which are susceptible to flood-ing. About 80 per cent of the 16 mn people livein rural areas. The central and northern provincesare characterized by fertile soils and plentiful rain-fall, but suffer from poor accessibility. In the south-

ern provinces, the soils are poor, and rainfed pro-duction is marginal, but accessibility is relativelygood, particularly in Maputo, the nation’s capitaland largest market, as well as in South Africa.

2 Historical Context

Mozambique won its independence in 1975. Theexodus of Portuguese settlers and Asian traders,the subsequent adoption of central planning, na-tionalization of major enterprises, and the civil warfrom the late 1970s to the early 1990s resulted in acollapse in production, and heavy dependence onforeign aid. Only after the 1992 peace settlementwas Mozambique able to effectively pursue eco-nomic policies based on privatization of public ex-penditure and pursuit of fiscal balance. Since 1992,the government has won a well-earned reputationfor prudent macroeconomic management and com-mitment to rural poverty alleviation, a positive pic-ture that has only recently been disrupted by seri-ous floods that affected much of the country in 2000and 2001.

A stable multiparty democracy has been estab-lished and consolidated; political and economicdecentralization has proceeded, albeit gradually;

∗Small-scale Fisheries Development Institute, Maputo, Mozambique. Email: lopes@idppe.co.za†Fisheries Research Institute, Maputo, Mozambique.

128

the constitution has been substantially revised,through an open process of public hearing, so as toachieve a better balance of power in the State appa-ratus; and legislation has been passed in areas suchas governance ethics.

3 The Economy

Mozambique is one of the world’s poorest coun-tries, with 70 per cent of the population living be-low the poverty line. Yet the country is rich in un-derexploited resources. Peace, better policies, ris-ing foreign investment and continued external as-sistance have contributed to encouraging economicperformance and the creation of an environment inwhich these resources can be developed. Real grossdomestic product (GDP) has been increasing at anannual average rate of 10 per cent since 1996.

The value of exports, of all the sectors, has in-creased rapidly and is rising faster than the valueof imports. Annual inflation declined from 70 percent in 1994 to less than 1 per cent in 1998, and itwas expected to hover at 4 per cent in 1999–2000, asthe government relaxed its monetary policy. Nev-ertheless, flooding and other factors have resultedin inflation rising to 9 per cent. However, confi-dence in the economy is strong, and private invest-ments have grown over the past few years and areexpected to cross 25 per cent of GDP by 2002.

The government’s Poverty Reduction StrategyPaper, approved by the cabinet, aims to reduce ab-solute poverty by 30 per cent, by 2009. The strat-egy emphasizes the promotion of economic sta-bility and broadbased high growth (based on thedevelopment of manufacturing and constructionand increased agricultural productivity); improvedaccess to education, water, health and sanitation;the development of rural infrastructure; promotionof self-employment; and protection of vulnerablegroups.

4 Strategic Importance of Fisheries

The fisheries sector contributes to only 3 per cent ofthe country’s GDP. Mozambique’s fish exports, val-ued at approximately US$75 mn in 1999, make upabout 28 per cent of total exports and 12 per cent offoreign exchange earnings. Over 85 per cent of theexports by value come from shrimps, which is themost important fishery in the country. The mainmarkets are the European Union (EU), Japan andSouth Africa.

Marine fisheries account for more than 80 percent of the country’s total production. About 90,000people are directly involved in fishing, processingand marketing. Marine fisheries provide for morethan 90 per cent of the jobs in the sector. With overtwo-thirds of the population within 150 km of thecoast, about 50 per cent of the people’s protein in-take is estimated to come from fish. Overall, it isestimated that the country uses only about 25 percent of its exploitable fish resources (FAO, 2000).

5 Resources and Trends

Around 1,500 species of fish are present in theMozambican seas, of which 400 are of direct com-mercial importance. The catch of fish was esti-mated, in 1995, at over 350,000 tonnes, but only25 per cent of this was utilized. Pelagic fish anddemersal species, in particular, seem to offer pos-sibilities for increased expansion. Large demersaland pelagic fish have high value, and can commandgood prices domestically and abroad. According tothe production nomenclature used in Mozambique,this type of fish is known as ‘first category fish’. Theother categories are ‘second’ and ‘third’ (IIP, 1999).The yearly average catch rates, from 1977 to 2000,showed a decreasing trend, though effort had in-creased. For the same period, the total catch fig-ures showed some fluctuation, with lower catchesreported between 1990 and 1994.

6 Main Features

In the artisanal sector, traditional fishing meth-ods dominate. The main artisanal fishing gearare beach-seines, gillnets, hooks-and-line and traps.For local fishermen and their families, the artisanalfishery is important in terms of food supply andincome generation. Nevertheless, the per capitafish consumption is about 6 kg per annum. It isestimated that the fisheries sector employs around100,000 people, of whom 90 per cent are full-timefishers.

The sector has a total of 87 semi-industrialboats, most of them based mainly in the Beira andMaputo areas. Different fishing gear are used, suchas bottom-trawl nets, gillnets, longlines, hooks-and-line and seine nets.

The industrial fishery consists of large trawlvessels, equipped with deep freezers, which makemonthly trips to the main fishing area, Sofala Bank.This fishery, specially oriented towards shallow-water bottom trawling, is aimed at the export

129

markets supplied by joint venture companies inMozambique.

7 Fisheries Management

The fishery sector is managed by the Ministry ofFisheries (MoF) of the Government of Mozam-bique, under three national Directorates, three De-partments and four financially autonomous insti-tutions, namely, the Fisheries Development Fund(FFP), the National Fisheries Research Institute(IIP), the National Small-scale Fisheries Develop-ment Institute (IDPPE) and the Fishing School (EP).

At the provincial level, the MoF is representedby the Provincial Services for the Fisheries Admin-istration (SPAP), which has the main task of mon-itoring and controlling fishing activity. The Mar-itime Administration (ADMR), under the Ministryof Transport and Communication, has the respon-sibility for controlling artisanal fisheries.

The shrimp fishery is managed by monitor-ing the total allowable catch(TAC). A three-monthclosed season, from December to March, is used tokeep the catch below the TAC. There is also a mini-mum legal mesh size limit of 55 mm.

8 Illegal Fishing in Mozambique

Illegal fishing is defined as “any fishing or relatedactivity carried out in contravention of the laws ofa State Party or the measures of an internationalfisheries management organization accepted by aState Party and subject to the jurisdiction of thatState” (Article 1, Protocol on Fisheries of the South-ern African Development Community, SADC).

Illegal fishing in these waters appeared as a con-sequence of the crisis and shortage of kapenta (Lim-nothryssa miodon) in the Kariba Reservoir, located atZambezi River, which, in turn, caused the exodusof Zimbabwean kapenta fishers to the Cahora Bassareservoir in Mozambique, considered a better fish-ing ground.

The most common infringements relate to ille-gal imports of boats, fraudulent licensing, jettison-ing of investment projects, unauthorized fishing,and violation of licence validity.

It should be noted that illegal boatowners aremostly foreigners and nationals who partner withthe former. Kapenta fishing at night, coupled withinsufficient supervisory bodies and lack of propertechnical knowledge, make supervision impracti-cal and cause misreporting of some infringements

to the Provincial Services of Fisheries Administra-tion (Castiano, MoF, 2001).

There are other cases of illegal fishing reportedfrom Lake Niassa, involving fishermen from theTanzanian and Malawian areas, who are reportedto use destructive fishing methods (using mainlypoison and dynamite).

9 Illegal Marine Fishing

The problem of illegal marine fishing in Mozam-bique by outsiders is well recognized, though notreflected in official figures. The lack of an institu-tional infrastructure to supervise the coast, investi-gate reported cases and, if necessary, sue offendersleaves the country vulnerable to such illegal activi-ties.

Local boatowners are aware of the occurrencesof night fishing in Mozambican territorial waters,mainly by foreign vessels. These activities takeplace particularly in the region of Cabo Delgado(Palma and Mocmboa da Praia), Inhambane (in theBazaruto area) and Nampula (Angoche and Musso-ril), and are presumably related to highly migratoryspecies, mainly tuna.

On the other hand, some dubious recreationalfishing practices, mainly undertaken by SouthAfrican and Zimbabwean tourists, under the pre-text of sport fishing, create conflicts with local boa-towners.

10 Causes of Illegal Fishing

Some factors behind illegal fishing are: excesscivefishing effort; decrease of catch of high-value re-sources; inefficient systems of monitoring, controland surveillance; and inadequate knowledge offisheries legislation, combined with the fear of dis-approval by the Ministry of Fisheries.

11 Consequences of Illegal Fishing

Illegal fishing leads to several damages, like thegradual loss of national income (mainly fromtaxes); conflicts between foreign fleets and localowners/fishers; an undue increase of catch effort;and a decrease in fish stocks, leading to unsustain-able fishing.

National and regional strategies are beingthought of to combat illegal fishing from abroad.The MoF is being restructured to deal with fisheriesadministration and management. At the regionallevel, the SADC Head of States have just agreed, last

130

August, on regional mechanisms to control fish-eries activities amongst the member States. In fact,a regional Protocol on Fisheries was adopted lastAugust in Malawi. The document lists, amongother things, some regional strategies, namely:

• Harmonization of the principal concepts to beobserved by the member States for the controland monitoring of fishing activities in the re-gion and the administration of the sector.

• Establishment of the main basis for the use,regulation and protection of resources.

• Creation of a committee of ministers respon-sible for fisheries in the inland and marinewaters of each member State.

References

1. BR # 49 IS, 10/03/99. Interdita a capturade peixe ornamental e coral vivo nas aguasmaritimas, bem como o seu processamento,coserva cao e transporte.

2. BR#26 I S, 30/06/99 Determina a area depesca de arrasto com embarca coes de pescaindustrial e semi-induistrial. Determina amalhagem mnima autorizada para as redesde arrasto para a terra.

3. BR#34 I s, 4◦ supl. 31/08/99. Regulamentoda pesca desportiva.

4. BR#43 I S, 25/10/2000 estabelece o perodode interdi cao da pesca de cmarao semi-industrial e artesanal.

5. BR#43 I S,25/10/2000. Estabelece o periodode veda efectiva para o camarao dos 16◦ se 21◦S, pesca por arrasto de peixe, gamba eourtros crustaceos de profundidade.

6. BR#49 I S, Supl. 6/12/95 Politica Nacional doAmbiente.

7. Information on Artisanal Fisheries Co-management Committee (26 February-2March 2001), Part I and Part II.

8. General Maritime Regulation (Decree 265 ofJuly 31, 1972): Enforcement of MaritimeTrade, Recreation, Fishing Industry (SAF-MAR).

9. Fisheries Law (Number 3, September 26,1990): Fishing Industry and Mechanisms forManagement.

10. Water Act Law 16, August 3, 1991: Utilizationand Control of Inland Waters.

11. Maritime Act and Maritime Courts Act (Laws4 & 5, January 4, 1996): Maritime Activity,Competent Juridical Forums.

12. Sofala Bank Artisanal Fisheries Project: Ap-praisal Report, Volume I: Main Report, May2001.

SADC Documents

13. Protocol on Fisheries. August 2001.

14. SADC Regional Monitoring, Control andSurveillance (MCS) of Fishing Activities: In-ception Report, August 2001.

131

Status and Trends of Tanzania’sMarine Artisanal Fisheries

Narriman Saleh Jiddawi ∗

AbstractAbout 95 per cent of the fishery in Tanzania is artisanal, involving traditional boats and gear.

The inshore fishery has recently been showing signs of overexploitation, especially in Zanzibar.The high seas within the exclusive economic zone, rich in migratory species such as tuna, sailfishand marlin, remain unexploited, though their resource potential is not known.

Most of the fishing practices are destructive and have caused significant damage to the reefs.The problem persists due to the lack of monitoring, control and surveillance.

This paper looks at these issues, while also focusing on the state of fisheries research in Tan-zania, which, though begun at the start of the century, is proceeding at a slow pace.

Keywords

Tanzania. Zanzibar. Mafia Channel. Monitoring, control and surveillance. FAO. TanzaniaFisheries Research Institute. TAFIRI. Institute of Marine Sciences. IMS. University of Dar esSalaam. Shrimp. Rufuji Delta. Fisheries research.

1 Introduction

All over the world, fisheries are of immense im-portance and most of the coastal people dependon fisheries for their livelihoods. About 95 percent of the fishery in Tanzania is artisanal, involv-ing traditional boats and gear. The boats includedhows, outrigger canoes and canoes. The gear in-clude nets, movable traps (dema), hooks-and-lineand fixed traps (uzio). Total catches range from48,300 tonnes to 56,779 tonnes for the Tanzaniamainland, and for Zanzibar, from 21,632 tonnes in1984 to 10,062 tonnes in 1998.

The continental shelf is narrow, about 4 kmoffshore, with the exception of the Zanzibar andMafia channels, where the shelf extends for approx-imately 60 km. According to the Food and Agricul-ture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), thearea of the shelf to the 200 m depth contour, for boththe mainland and Zanzibar combined, is 30,000 sqkm (1988). This is the area most commonly used bythe artisanal fishermen.

The inshore fishery has recently been showingsigns of overexploitation. This can be seen espe-cially in Zanzibar where the trend in annual catchis showing a decline. These signs can also be de-tected from the elder fishermen who claim that, inthe past, they used to catch much more and largerfish in nearshore waters than is currently the case,and they also claim to now have to travel farther toobtain these catches.

The high seas within the exclusive economiczone continues to be unexploited and the resourcepotential remains unknown. However, the area isrich in migratory species such as tuna, sailfish andmarlin.

Most of the fish caught in inshore waters by ar-tisanal fishermen are demersal species (Lethrinidae,Serranidae, Siganidae, Mullidae, Lutjanidae), followedby large and small pelagic species (Carangidae,Scombridae, Cluepidae, Engraulidae). Others includesharks and rays, crustaceans, octopus and squids.

Most of the fishing practices are still destructiveand have caused significant damage to the reefs.The most common destructive methods involve dy-

∗Institute of Marine Sciences, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Email: jiddawi@zims.udsm.ac.tz

132

namites, dragged nets (juya la kigumi) and spears.Also, marine products like beche de mer are collectedwithout any size considerations. The problem per-sists due to lack of monitoring, control and surveil-lance.

Fisheries research in Tanzania has been con-ducted since the beginning of the century, thoughat a slow pace. Research increased in the early1940s with the establishment of the EAMFRO orga-nization. Subsequently, FAO played a key role inconducting research directed towards the develop-ment of fisheries in Tanzania. However, most of theresearch in the country is currently conducted bythe Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI),the Zoology and Marine Department, and the Insti-tute of Marine Sciences (IMS) of the University ofDar es Salaam. Recently, the International Unionfor Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources(IUCN—The World Conservation Union) in Tangaand the Frontier Organization in the southern partof Tanzania have also played an active role in ma-rine research.

Industrial fishing in Tanzania is conductedmainly by the Dar es Salaam-based Tanzania Fish-eries Corporation, which fishes mainly for shrimp,and the African Fishing Company, based in Zanz-ibar, which targets mainly pelagic fish in the deepsea.

2 Importance of the Resource

Tanzania, with its 850 km coastline and numeroussmaller islands, including Zanzibar, is rich in fish-ery resources along its banks and coral reefs. Fish-ing plays an important role as a source of cheapprotein and employment. The number of full-timefishermen operating in Zanzibar is 23,000 and thereare about 1,500 fishermen along the coast of Tanza-nia . The per capita fish consumption is 25-30 kg .The contribution of fishery to the nation’s gross do-mestic product (GDP) varies between 2.1–5 per centin the Tanzanian mainland and 2.2–10.4 per centin Zanzibar, mostly from export of fishery prod-ucts. Tanzania exports approximately US$ 7,652,700worth of marine fishery products from the main-land and about US$598,203 worth from Zanzibar.The products are shrimp, beche de mer, shells, lob-ster, crabs, squids, octopus, sardines, fish offal andaquarium fish.

Coastal communities depend on fishing as theirmain source of income, and 95 per cent of the fishlandings in Tanzania come from these fishermen.Some of these resources such as shark fins and sea

cucumbers are exported to the Far East. Trade inthese resources has existed for centuries. Sharkmeat is widely consumed, although it is not as pop-ular as other species of fish. The jaws and teeth ofsharks are sold to tourists.

Some fresh fish is exported overseas and earnsforeign exchange. Most of the export revenuecomes from shrimp. The two main fishing groundsfor shrimp are around Bagamoyo/Sadani and theRufuji Delta in South of Tanzania, where about fivespecies of shrimp are caught.

3 Condition of the Resource

Tanzania’s fishery resources have reached the up-per level of exploitation. This is believed to be be-cause fishermen have been fishing in the same areassince time immemorial due to the limitation of therange of their non-motorized fishing vessels. Theresource depletion is also due to a lack of propermanagement strategies. Interviews with fishermenconfirm that catches are declining, and an increasein fishing effort will not result in increased catchrates. The total annual catch in Zanzibar was about20,000 tonnes in 1988, but has currently droppedto less than 13,000 tonnes. A localised reduction infish catch can also be observed in some areas, suchas Chwaka bay, and for specific fisheries, such asthe reef fisheries.

Some resources have been affected more thanothers. For example, in the small pelagic fish-eries of Zanzibar, the catches by the boats of theZanzibar Fisheries Corporation have declined dras-tically from 600 tonnes in 1986 to 91 tonnes in 1997.The history of the purse-seine fishery has been doc-umented in a video produced by N. S. Jiddawi forthe Marine Education and Extension DevelopmentUnit at the Institute of Marine Sciences, Zanzibar.

Fish resource assessment surveys conductedin the 1970s and the 1980s estimate the standingstocks for the coastal waters as ranging from 94,000tonnes to 174,000 tonnes, respectively. Annualyield estimates for demersal species was 38,000tonnes and for pelagic species, about 23,000 tonnes.

Seashell and sea cucumber resources are over-exploited along the whole coast due to rampantcollection. There have been no population stud-ies of any of the commercially exploited species.However, the traders claim that the sizes of someof the sea cucumbers have reduced tremendously,but competition forces them to continue buyingwhatever is available. In most parts of the region,including Tanzania, the longline fisheries are re-

133

porting drastically lower catches, both in numbersand weight. The shark-fin trade has also declined,while some fish species are rarely seen now in Tan-zania waters.

4 Type of Data/Information Gatheredin Tanzania

A lot of work has been conducted in Tanzaniaon fisheries, covering a range of subjects fromgeneral fisheries to information based on resourceconstraints, development and management issues.Fisheries surveys have used scuba and snorkelingtechniques, mainly in coral reef areas along thecoast of Tanzania and Zanzibar. Fisheries data havebeen collected from landing sites through monitor-ing programmes in areas such as Matemwe andMkokotoni in Zanzibar, and Tanga and Bagamoyo.

Of the 334 references that pertain to fisheries inTanzania, 40 per cent are baseline studies, most ofwhich were conducted in the 1990s. Fewer than 10masters and doctoral studies have been conducted.These have mainly provided information on spe-cific fishery topics, such as the biological aspects ofsiganids and their mariculture potential in Tanza-nia, the food and feeding habits of Indian mackerelfrom Zanzibar, reproductive biology of the squid inthe coastal waters of Zanzibar, the dynamics of thetrap fishery in the coastal waters of Zanzibar andthe population dynamics of the small pelagic fish-ery in the Zanzibar channel.

4.1 Observational studies

Only 0.9 per cent of the studies were of an obser-vational nature, involving underwater visual sur-veys in Fumba Peninsula. Observational studieswere also conducted in seaweed-growing sites onthe east coast of Zanzibar to map the distributionand abundance of inshore fish assemblages.

4.2 Experimental studies

Experimental studies are more related to gear de-velopment and usage, and aquaculture, such aspreferential settlement of oyster spats on differentsubstrates in Zanzibar. Another important aqua-culture study is the integrated fish farming modelthat was developed in Israel and tried at Makoba inUnguja island by the Institute of Marine Sciences,in collaboration with the Prison Department.

4.3 Applied studies

Applied experimental studies were few, account-ing for 2.7 per cent of all the studies. They weremostly related to aquaculture experiments, such asthe cage culture of Siganus species, the aquacultureof rabbit fish and milkfish in ponds at Makoba.

4.4 Review studies

Most of the fisheries reports (41 per cent) were inthe nature of review, mainly presenting general in-formation on fisheries in different parts of the coun-try and the west Indian ocean region. Several re-ports discuss fisheries development in the countryand the priorities for fisheries management.

4.5 Other types of studies

Fishery resource surveys have been grouped in thiscategory and forms 12 per cent of all the studies.All the fish resource surveys conducted by researchvessels in Tanzanian waters and the region falls un-der this category. These surveys include the sur-veys conducted by Fidjitof Nansen in the 1980s andthe survey by Mestyasev, the surveys conducted byMbegani fisheries Institute through its research ves-sel MV Mafunzo. These surveys provided an insightinto the fishery potential and stock abundance inTanzanian waters.

4.6 Grey literature

Out of 331 references listed, about 70 per cent are‘grey’. Only 52 of these reports have been pub-lished in international journals. The rest of thereports appear as seminar proceedings, institutereports, consultancy reports, and student reports.Some are masters and doctoral theses, retrievablefrom the university’s main library.

4.7 Currency of information

About 45 per cent of the references were written inthe 1990s, especially those connected with projectsfrom Tanga, Mafia, Mtwara, Bagamoyo, Matemweand Mkokotoni in Zanzibar. About 36 per cent ofthe reports were written in the 1980s and the restbetween 1920 and 1970s. The earliest reference thatwe were able to come across, dating back to 1929,was on a survey of marine fisheries of the ZanzibarProtectorate.

The earlier research papers aimed at looking athow fisheries could be developed in the country.

134

These were followed by research on gear technol-ogy and species availability. Although there latelyappear to be more fisheries papers than before (seeFigure 1), most of these are short-term and aimedat providing baseline information. All reports haveassisted in one way or another in addressing scien-tific and management issues.

4.8 Geographic coverage

Although fisheries seems to be widely studied, sev-eral gaps exist. Most of the studies are conductedin areas where research institutions or projects ex-ist. The majority of the reports come from Zanz-ibar, Mafia, Mtwara, Tanga, Dar es Salaam andSongosongo. A few are from Rufiji, one fromPemba and one from Ruvu. Many areas have stillnot been studied due to the absence of an institu-tion or donor-assisted projects (see Figure 2).

4.9 Subject coverage

Most of the reports (62) discuss general fisheries is-sues in Tanzania. Several (28) discuss the biologicalaspects of fish. About 47 references present infor-mation on specific fisheries, such as the shark fish-eries or the demersal fisheries. About 10 presentinformation on socioeconomic aspects of fisheries.Fisheries development is included in about 15 ref-erences. Conservation issues, marine parks and in-tegrated management of fisheries are discussed in67 references (see Figure 3). The huge number ofreferences is misleading, as there is a lot of repeti-tion of subjects .

4.10 Duration of studies

Most of the studies were short-term . There is aneed to repeat these studies for a longer duration.The only long-term study, which is still ongoing,is the Matemwe and Mkokotoni fish monitoringstudy.

4.11 Currency of studies

Though there are several new studies, most areshort-term and have been conducted by studentsaiming at grades for their subjects, and are notgeared at problem solving. However, a lot of usefulsurveys were conducted in the 1980s. Since then,none has been conducted. Some useful studieswere also conducted in the early 1960s and 1970sunder the East Africa Marine Fisheries Organiza-tion.

4.12 Information accessibility

Almost 50 per cent of the information is difficult toaccess, as it is in the form of unpublished reports.Therefore, despite the presence of a large numberof reports, their accessibility is a problem. In mostcases, only one copy of the report exists and it is inthe hands of the author (see Figure 4).

5 Recommendations forFuture Work

1. There must be better collection of data onlandings and economic parameters from fish-eries. Without effective data collection, itwill be difficult to formulate better manage-ment strategies. Therefore, for the assess-ment of these fisheries, it is important to usestandardized techniques for the whole coun-try, for purposes of comparison and incentiveschemes for data collectors.

2. Specific reference points should be selectedalong the coast for monitoring purposes toensure that at least the whole coast of Tanza-nia is represented. These could be in the ma-jor fish-landing ports and places such as ma-rine protected areas where such informationis required.

3. The areas that have been less studied, suchas minor fisheries like the octopus fishery, thesea cucumber fishery and the fence-trap fish-ery, need to be studied. Also, more biologicalstudies of important commercial fish speciesneed to be done.

4. Basic studies on the food and feeding habitsof fish, the results of which can be used inecosystem modelling, need to be done. Re-search should be multidisciplinary and inte-grated, involving all users. Socioeconomistsand scientists should formulate joint researchproposals to determine problems facing thefisheries industry.

5. Monitoring is required throughout the coun-try, especially to look at catch landings, catchrates and species diversity so as to be ableto determine immediate changes. The mon-itoring exercise needs to be long-term andinvolve community collaboration with scien-tists.

135

6. Most of the fisheries staff in Tanzania are atthe educational level of diplomas and mas-ters degrees. There is thus a need for capac-ity building among fisheries staff, especiallyin view of the scarcity of such people in thecountry.

7. Effective communication links between rele-vant institutions within the country can re-duce duplication efforts, as well as keep themup to date with what is happening in thecountry.

136

Figure 1: Trend in fisheries research in Tanzania

Figure 2: Areas in Tanzania where fisheries research has been conducted.

137

Figure 3: Subject categories in fisheries research

Figure 4: Information presentation by researchers

138

Coastal Marine Ecosystem through CommunityManagement

Pisit Chansnoh ∗

AbstractThis paper outlines the efforts of Yadfon Association to oppose inappropriate fishing techniquesand large-scale coastal development and to support local conservation efforts in 20 fishing vil-lages in Trang Province of southern Thailand.

By empowering the communities to help themselves, Yadfon and the villagers have madeimpressive achievements in protecting coastal resources and the traditional way of life. Similarapproaches have been extended to 10 other provinces in southern Thailand. Small fishers haveproven themselves capable of managing their resources sustainably, and they are now calling onthe government to recognize the people’s rights to manage resources independently, according totheir own local wisdom.

Keywords

Thailand. Trang Province. Yadfon Association. Mangrove. Seagrass beds. Coral reefs. Seaturtles. Dolphins. Dugong. Shrimp aquaculture. Logging concession. Destructive fishing. SmallFisher Federation. Resource conservation.

Half a million small-scale fisherfolk of Thai-land once lived quiet and peaceful lives, sustain-ing themselves along the coasts. Now, however,their lives have been upset by the destruction ofthe coastal ecosystem on which their way of life de-pends. Mangrove forests, seagrass beds and coralreefs have been widely degraded as a result of de-structive fishing gear, and the rapid developmentof intensive shrimp aquaculture. Yadfon Associ-ation has been working in 20 fishing villages inTrang Province, southern Thailand, to oppose inap-propriate fishing techniques and large-scale coastaldevelopment, and to support local conservation ef-forts.

Through the empowerment process, fisherfolkhave joined to stop using destructive fishing gear,dynamiting and cyanide poisoning, and have suc-cessfully petitioned the local government to en-sure that regulations are enforced within the pro-tected 3-km coastal zone. Since 1985, villagers haveworked together to rejuvenate the coastal man-grove forests, the seagrass beds and the coral reefs.

As a direct result of their activities, many species ofmarine animals have returned to local waters, andthe income levels of the fisherfolk have increasedsignificantly.

The fisherfolk have proven that they are capableof managing their resources in a sustainable man-ner. They now request the government to recog-nize their achievements by granting them the rightto manage these marine resources independently.By providing support for fisherfolk conservationactivities, instead of leaving the development pro-cess in the hands of government officials and busi-nesses, the government will be able to ensure ahealthy, productive coastal ecosystem, and a sus-tainable livelihood for fisherfolk families, who arean important component of Thailand’s cultural her-itage.

Along the 2,600 km of coastline in the lower halfof Thailand, there are approximately 65,000 fishinghouseholds whose survival is intimately linked tothe health of the coastal ecosystem. This ecosystem

∗Yadfon Association, Thailand. Email: yadfon@loxinfo.co.th

139

is composed of three important living resources:mangrove forests, seagrass beds and coral reefs.

The three natural areas form a complex, interde-pendent and delicately balanced ecosystem. Man-grove forests are scattered along 927 km of the coastand are home to 74 flora and 386 fauna species. Sea-grass, growing in calm, shallow waters, provideshabitat for countless numbers of sea creatures, in-cluding shrimp and crab. Together, these naturalareas form a complex ecosystem where many com-mercially valuable species spawn and grow. Thehealth of this ecosystem directly affects the well-being of the coastal fisherfolk. Although once plen-tiful enough to support these communities, in re-cent years, these resources have been threatened bythe encroachment of development, the use of de-structive fishing techniques and the application ofunsustainable government practices.

Granting concessions to log mangrove forestsis one example of such unsustainable governmentpractices. The Forestry Act has granted the pri-vate sector the right to log mangroves since 1941;however, in 1968, the concession system was re-organized to allow each concessionaire the right toharvest an area of 2,500–5,000 rai (1 rai = 1,600 sq m)for 15 years. Each year, one strip was to be loggedusing the ‘clear-cut’ method. At the end of the year,the strip was to be re-forested, and the next striplogged.

While the forestry department believes thatthis method will make it possible to preserve theforests, the reality is that the concessions have notbeen operated according to the ground rules. Inmost cases, the entire area was logged immediately,causing great damage to the ecology of the coastalecosystem. A government report in 1991 cited sev-eral areas that had once been 200,000 rai. The evi-dence provides a clear indication that this system isnot working and is in urgent need of review.

Encroachment on, and destruction of, man-grove forests have increased since the governmentbegan promoting shrimp farming using modern,intensive techniques. These systems rely on high-nutrient food and antibiotic drugs, together withthe poisoning of ‘undesirable’ marine animals toaccelerate the growth of shrimp.

Until 1986, encroachment of mangrove forestsaffected a total area of 690,000 rai or 64.3 per cent ofthe total forest area destroyed. Although there areno official figures on the effects of shrimp farming,the magnitude of the destruction can be easily ap-preciated. Between 1986 and 1989, the mangroveforests were reduced by 99,000 rai and, between1989 and 1991, in five eastern provinces alone, man-

grove forests were reduced by another 59,000 rai.These documented losses, as well as the thousandsof rai of undocumented loss, are primarily a resultof shrimp farming.

Much of the seagrass forest and large areas ofcoral reef have been destroyed as a result of coastalactivities, including waste water discharge fromshrimp farms, industrial plants and communities.The use of large fishing gear, such as drag-nets andbeach-seines, exacerbates the situation by sweep-ing the sea floor and causing structural damage tothe grasses and corals. Other destructive fishingmethods include the use of explosives and poisons.Even though laws exist to prohibit the use of de-structive fishing gear within 3 km of the coast, vi-olations have been common, and enforcement hasbeen weak.

As a direct result of the deterioration of thecostal ecosystem, many fishing villages have facedsevere hardships. Fishers are burdened by thehigh cost of modern fishing equipment, and theymust travel farther and work longer hours in or-der to maintain a decreased income. In some cases,whole communities have collapsed as householdshave been forced to sell their lands, and communitymembers have become wage labourers or hiredhands on commercial fleets. Men and women canbe forced to stay away from home for months at atime, often returning with little money. A negativespiral can easily begin as social collapse causes anincrease in social problems, such as drinking andgambling, which further destroy the community.

Yadfon Association has been working with 17small fishing communities in Trang Province since1985. Before Yadfon initiated its work, the villagersin these communities had already been trying, bythemselves, to protect their fishing grounds andthe mangrove forests, seagrass beds and coral reefson which their fertility depends. However, theyachieved little success.

One of the first projects that Yadfon undertookwas to initiate a 587-rai community forest, set upunder the support of the provincial authorities.This became the first community mangrove for-est in the country supported by the Forestry De-partment. Encouraged by this initial success, thevillagers worked with Yadfon staff to identify thesteps for rejuvenating the coastal ecosystem andcommunity welfare. Through a series of commu-nity meetings, villagers worked together to find so-lutions to their common problems, based on a com-bination of local wisdom and modern knowledge.

There are many examples of these communityprojects. In some villages, fishers whose incomes

140

had dropped dramatically initially raised cagedfish. In order to save money, they worked to-gether to find ways of making much of the nec-essary equipment themselves. To cope with therising costs of fishing equipment, a group savingsprogramme was started. An integral component ofthis programme was a fund through which familiesin need could borrow small amounts of money atlow interest rates. At the same time, a co-operativebuying programme was set up to enable fishers topurchase equipment and fuel at reduced rates. Inaddition, Yadfon and the village leaders began aprogramme for raising domestic animals to supple-ment the low fish catches.

While the villagers were combating the eco-nomic and social problems in their communities,they also began an active programme to restoreand protect their natural resources. They replantedmangroves in large areas of land within or adjacentto the community forests, and declared seagrassconservation zones within the traditional fishinggrounds. They also petitioned the local govern-ment to enforce a ban on the use of destructive fish-ing gear within 3 km of the shore. By empoweringthe communities to help themselves, Yadfon andthe villagers have made impressive achievementsin protecting coastal resources and the traditionalway of life.

As the fertility of the sea increases, villagershave been able to capture greater quantities of ma-rine animals for food and trade. From 1991 until1994, there has been a 40 per cent increase in totalcatch. At the same time, there has been a substan-tial decrease in risk, time spent on the water andfishing expenses because the fishers are no longerforced to travel long distances or venture into theopen sea. By the end of this three-year period, fish-ers spent, on average, three to four hours fewer perday in their boats and had a daily cost savings of30 to 40 baht (US$1.20-1.60). For the 500 familiesin the target area, the projects have provided a netincrease in community income of 150,000-200,000baht (US$6, 000-8,000) per day, an increase of over200 per cent.

Overall improvements in environmental qualitycan be observed through the tremendous increasein plant and animal life along the shores of TrangProvince. The seagrass beds, having expanded tocover 133 sq km, are now densely populated withvegetation and attract many forms of marine life,from small fish and arthropods to reptiles and largemammals. In addition, the community mangroveforest system has grown from one forest of 587 raiin 1989 to six forests totalling 3,197 rai.

Catfish, thread fins and mullet—fish speciesthat had once disappeared from the local waters—are now returning. Many species of crab, squid andshrimp can again be captured with simple fishingtools. Most importantly, marine animals which arealmost extinct have returned to the waters of TrangProvince, including sea turtles, dugongs and dol-phins. News of the conservation of these scarcecreatures has prompted a national response, notonly of concern for their future, but also opti-mism that local efforts can be successful in effectingchange.

In order to ensure the success of these efforts,villagers have needed to set up meetings for the ex-change of ideas and to divide duties and respon-sibilities. This organization has taken place notonly within one village but throughout the targetarea. From these activities, a group consciousnesshas developed, providing a network of involvedcitizens who now have greater power in preserv-ing the public interest. Their effective organizationwas recognized at the national level when severalof the target villages were chosen by Turakji Ban-dit University as model fishery villages in the man-agement of coastal resources. These successes haveforced local officials to pay attention to the needsof the villagers. Many officials are assisting themwith programmes to support sustainable develop-ment initiatives and protect local resources.

The coastal resources conservation activities inTrang Province have been a source of co-operationand learning for governmental agencies, private-sector institutions and coastal fishing villages. Dueto the trust and understanding that has been cre-ated, Trang has now become a centre for agenciesand village leaders from other provinces to learntechniques for initiating sustainable developmentactivities. Fishers have organized a ‘Small FisherFederation’ in the southern region to discuss is-sues of common concern and to find solutions toregional problems. In the future, the villagers ofTrang Province will play an important role in theco-ordination of grassroots conservation activitiesthroughout the region.

The approach of sustainable fishing develop-ment in these villages has been regarded as a pos-itive example for the entire province. Provincialleaders have seen the importance of the activitiesand have allocated funds for continued work inthe conservation of coastal resources. Examples ofthe projects that have already been implementedwith provincial funds are mangrove forest restora-tion, initiation of large-scale seagrass conservationzones, and coral reef conservation.

141

Trang Province has also supported fishers inthe prevention of destructive fishing practices. TheFishery Office of the province has responded to therequests of villagers by prohibiting, in local waters,several such practices, like beach-seines and the useof harmful noise-producing devices. The Adminis-trative Division and the Police Division have, like-wise, provided resources and support for enforcingnational regulations that ban the use of dynamiteand cyanide.

Recommendations for the Future

The success of these conservation measures hasconfirmed that villagers have the knowledge, ded-ication and ability to manage coastal resources for

sustainable development. Beginning with the workin Trang Province, similar approaches have beenextended to 10 other provinces in southern Thai-land. Small fishers have proven to the govern-ment that they are capable of managing their re-sources in a sustainable manner, and they call onthe government to recognize the rights of the peo-ple to manage these resources independently, ac-cording to their own local wisdom. By providingproper support for these activities, rather than at-tempting to place control of the development pro-cess in the hands of officials and businessmen, thegovernment can reduce the cost of its programmes.More importantly, it would provide for the contin-uing survival of the nation’s coastal resources—thefisherfolk’s source of livelihood and an importantcomponent of Thailand’s cultural heritage.

142

Coastal Area Degradation on the East Coast of India:Impact on Fishworkers

Venkatesh Salagrama ∗

AbstractThis paper analyzes how the degradation of the east coast of India has affected the lives and

livelihods of fishworkers and their community.A century of fisheries development has radically transformed a traditional, subsistence-based,

livelihood activity into a commercial, monetized, business venture, where risks are outweighedby profits, which invariably leads to overexploitation.

Simultaneously, there has been a major shift in the gender roles within the sector, with tra-ditional roles re-defined to exclude or marginalize women, in a sort of ‘masculinization’ of thesector, which thrives on profit-making at the expense of long-term sustainability.

‘Degradation’ is a social as well as environmental/ecological matter. The social aspects of thesituation must be taken seriously, and people whose livelihoods have been ‘degraded’ by variousprocesses cannot be expected to take seriously the idea of ‘conservation’.

Keywords

Coastal degradation. Sustainable development. Andhra Pradesh. Orissa. India.

1 Introduction

There is a certain reassurance in being able to blameall ills that befall us on ‘policies’, the temporalequivalent of ‘fate’. To err is human—to err con-sistently is policymaking. In the case of coastalareas, unfortunately, these sound bytes have anextra resonance. Throughout the 20th Centurypolicymaking related to coastal areas has beencharacterized by an evangelical zeal to do awaywith traditional systems, and transplant ‘mod-ern technology’ in their place. Policymakers, tostretch the ‘fate’ metaphor further, are like God—faceless, ubiquitous and impervious to natural pro-cesses of logic and empathy. Thanks to a policymindset that has been ever so constant throughthe entire 20th Century, what was essentially amore or less homogeneous, ‘I-mind-my-business-you-do-yours’ community has been reduced to astate of dependence that puts professional beggarsto shame. More dangerously, the processes thatbrought this about are very much alive and kick-

ing, and the degradation—physical, natural andhuman—continues. The marine fishing communi-ties are India’s version of the American Indians andthe Australian aborigines.

Physical degradation of the coastal environ-ment is just one of the many outcomes of the poli-cies pursued over a century. However, the degrada-tion of coastal areas is itself a huge field of enquirythat needs a multidisciplinary, multisectoral inves-tigation, and I shall confine myself here to the fish-eries sector alone, on the—hopefully mistaken—assumption that the same experiences must havebeen repeated endlessly in all other sectors, withsimilarly drastic consequences for the poor. It fol-lows that—though I am aware of some positiveefforts in this area—I would concentrate more onwhat went/is going wrong. I would confine myobservations to the east coast of India, more par-ticularly to the Andhra Pradesh and Orissa coasts,although I have to be more arbitrary with the doc-umented sources.

∗Director, Integrated Coastal Management, Kakinada, India. Email: icm_kkd@satyam.net.in

143

2 A Brief Overview of Indian FisheriesPolicies

From a superficial glance, it is possible to see fourphases of fisheries policymaking in India, whichshow the evolution of a consistent mindset throughthe years, reflected not only in what policies wereenacted, but also in what were not, which legisla-tions were implemented and which were not.

The first 50 years of organized fisheries devel-opment in south India, which started in late 19thCentury with the establishment of the Departmentof Fisheries (DOF), was more or less set in the fa-miliar colonial mode. The pioneers found that “theIndian seas swarm with valuable fish”, but the tra-ditional fishing practices “bear about the same re-lation to British fisheries, as a catamaran does toa steam trawler”, and it was necessary “to stimu-late and assist private effort, whether by individualcapitalists or by associations, under proper regula-tions for the quality and wholesomeness of the re-sulting food supply, and the safety of the salt rev-enue” (MFB,1915: 2-3). The existing fishing indus-try was “in the most primitive condition, quite un-developed in any of the modern methods and al-lied industries, bound by custom and ignorance,and entirely without initiative in new departures;it is the government officers only who have a largerknowledge and a certain degree of initiative, andit is, at present, for them to lead the industry andthe men—this is the raison d’etre, and this only, ofthe Government Department” (MFB, 1916:2). Hereis the birth of the philosophy of reductionism thatmanifested itself in so many hues of revolution (theBlue, Green, White Revolutions come immediatelyto mind) and the puritanical zeal to show the pathof salvation to the ignorant heathens, which was setin stone in the latter period.

It must be admitted that the colonial adminis-trators had also the interest to study, describe andunderstand in great detail the traditional systemsand practices, although it was done with a certainsense of superiority to the ‘natives’. A part of theobject of documentation was to ‘prove’ how igno-rant/primitive/backward the ‘natives’ were (Stir-rat, personal communication). Be that as it may,there is no denying that the reports they had givenof the existing conditions, systems and practicescontinue to remain relevant, not the least becausetheir post-colonial successors never felt constrainedfor lack of a more up-to-date form of such infor-mation to take decisions. There was a social policycomponent to the DOF’s work, which manifested it-self in the ‘annual anti-malarial operations’, setting

up village schools and co-operative societies (MFB,1933: 39-49), although it is a bit unclear as to howthe implementation of the two—social and fisheriespolicies—worked in actual practice.

The second phase began in the 1950s, with thetripartite agreement between the United Nations,the United States (US) and India, which resulted inthe Technical Co-operation Mission (TCM), underwhich, “costly equipment such as fully equippedfishing vessels, ice plants, freezing and canningequipment, fishmeal plants, nylon nets and twine,fishing hooks, diesel engines, winches and gurdiesand a host of other items costing several millionsof US dollars at almost throwaway prices”. It wasfor the first time that “entrepreneurs realized thatif we wanted to develop our fishing industry, wecannot rely on the small boat and inadequate fish-ing gear and that we must invest and get sophisti-cated equipment” (GFC, 1994:4). This was the pe-riod when the first phase of globalization of the In-dian seafood industry started (although the term‘globalization’ was to be coined much later). Thefisheries development philosophy got reduced toa more prosaic and easily digestible doctrine of‘growth and foreign exchange’. ‘People’ were moregenerally defined to include a broad category of in-dividuals, whose qualification to enter the sectorwas their ability to invest in the new technology.Seeds for the industries of the future—trawling, in-dustrial fishing and aquaculture—were sown hereand supported with generous subsidies and loansand so were, naturally, the concomitant pips ofcoastal degradation. To be fair, the increased impe-tus to mechanization and motorization was to reachwhere the traditional boats could not, but in prac-tice, this never happened. The artisanal sector wasexpected to ‘dissipate and merge with’ the mecha-nized sector, and in order to speed up the process, itwas more or less neglected (Bavinck, 2001:65). Theresult was that, as one World Bank study (1992:15)noted, “by the mid-1970s, it had become increas-ingly clear that, in general, the small-scale sectorwas not only failing to benefit from fishery devel-opment projects but was, in several cases, actuallybeing damaged”.

The next phase began sometime during the late1970s, and lasted until the early 1990s, and thiswas the period in Indian fisheries on which thesun was not supposed to set—we were the ‘sun-rise’ sector, and virtually everybody, including thesmall-scale fishers, flourished as a result of tech-nology, more technology and even more technol-ogy, which was made available by soft financingthe capital needed through special fund commit-

144

tees. This was the most active period of the ‘BlueRevolution’. The keywords here are investment,technology, growth and foreign exchange. Have in-vestment, will fish. A survey of the fishery sector ofIndia conducted for the World Bank by Srivastavaet al (IIM, 1990), which has influenced a great dealof fisheries development programmes throughoutthe 1990s. showed the way forward: the projectprofiles it prepared to develop marine fisheries in-cluded (i) increasing inshore fish production bymechanized fishing boats; (ii) acquisition of deep-sea fishing vessels; (iii) fishing, processing and ex-port of tuna, squid and cuttlefish; and (iv) establish-ing new fishing harbours and strengthening andexpanding existing ones. Development of brackish-water aquaculture, cold storage chains for fish mar-keting, individual quick-frozen plants, processingof by-catch into frozen, canned and artificial driedproducts, and putting up ice plants are some of theother projects suggested.

Even during this period, there was degradation,but it was drowned in the noise of bulldozers mow-ing down mangrove forests, making way for aqua-culture ponds, and the high horsepower enginestaking boats faster and faster. Of people them-selves, very little is heard, and a publication of theIndian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR), re-vised in 1990—nearly a century after the mission todevelop the heathens began—has this to say of thefishers: “The community, as a whole, is extremelyconservative and largely illiterate. The craft, gearand other equipments used are, by and large, prim-itive, and, consequently, according to modern stan-dards, the return per unit of effort is relativelysmall. Being economically and socially backward,comparatively ignorant and ill-educated, most fish-ermen fall victims to the many evils in society”(ICAR, 1997: 769-770).

The last phase began in the early 1990s, co-inciding with the second phase of globalizationthat was ushered in with more vigour, wider reachand bigger impacts for the country as a whole.Management—a word that tries to be all thingsto all people—is apparently the keyword for thisAge, and personifies the contradictory impulsesthat push and pull the Establishment. All the ‘hi-tech’ chickens—deep-sea trawling (see Vivekanan-dan et al, 1997), aquaculture (this one does not evenneed references), mechanized fishing (see the Tel-ugu newspapers for the best part of August 2001,for reports on agitating trawler associations de-manding, among other things, increased diesel sub-sidies, and ‘increased prices for their catches’)—have come to roost, but, at the same time, old habits

die hard, so you have policy documents such asthe Vision 2020 document brought out by the Gov-ernment of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP, 1999), reachingfor the stars: “By 2020, Andhra Pradesh will havea thriving fisheries sector”, it enthuses. “Fish pro-duction will be four times its current size, reachingover 10 lakh tonnes a year. The sector will boastof thriving, diversified exports and provide amplestocks of a highly nutritious food to the people ofAP and other States.” Much like a drug addict whowants to be weaned away from drugs, but cannotresist ‘just one more drag’, the policies alternate be-tween ‘increasing the foreign exchange’ and ‘cur-tailing overexploitation’, the haves often getting thebenefit of the first impulse and the have-nots reap-ing the rewards of the second.

3 A Century of Policies and TheirImpacts

What have we got to show in return for a centuryof ‘development’? There has indeed been a remark-able growth. Fish production increased by leapsand bounds. Aquaculture production increased, sohave the exports and foreign exchange. The num-ber of mechanized and motorized boats increased,while there has been a very steep decline in thenon-motorized traditional boats, so people have in-deed taken advantage of the technology. Fish thathad been thrown back into the sea for lack of de-mand until a decade ago now fetch unbelievablesums. The insulated fish transport vehicle is thesymbol of new prosperity. It is everywhere, thesign of progress reaching the unreached, spreadingthe good word about using ice and paying a goodprice to the converts . . . . It is said that the minutean insulated vehicle arrives at a landing centre, fishprices double, and that fishers would rather throwaway their fish than sell to anyone else. (For a moredetailed discussion on the changes in the marinefishing sector, see Integrated Coastal Management,2000a.)

So what is the problem? Why do fishing fleetsspend more time at the harbour than at sea whenthe fish catch graphs keep climbing new heightsevery year? Why do the vast aquaculture pondsstretching into eternity look for all practical pur-poses like deserts, when the foreign demand isgrowing so handsomely? Why do mangroves lookmore like phantoms of dead trees, and people—even the rich folk—look scared all the time? If theincreased fish catches and foreign exchange returnsshown in the statistics have not gone to the fishers,

145

where have they gone? If everything is going sowell as claimed, how come there are more regula-tions now than at any time since the fisheries insti-tutions began?

Unarguably, there has been a serious declinein the coastal environment. It is reflected in thedeclining quantity and variety of fish catches, de-creasing fishing days, increasing conflicts and thelargest ever number of destitute women and oldpeople in fishing villages. What caused the degra-dation? No one quite knows—some blame it onfishers and their fishing practices, some on over-population, some on faulty statistics, and some onthe fish themselves, but all agree that there hasbeen degradation—statistics or no statistics—andthat “something must be done about it.”

And, when people do get that concerned aboutthe environment, they become very evangelicaland very possessive to the point of excluding theaffected people themselves from their activities,which is exactly what has happened . . . . This dis-possession is done very logically and rationally,and is eminently justifiable, whichever way youchoose to look at it. The operation may or may notbe a success, but there is no denying that the pa-tient will be dead at the end of it. I would go astep further and argue that the so-called develop-ment efforts to reduce coastal degradation and pro-tect the ecosystems—both by the government andthe NGOs—are as much a cause for concern as thedegradation itself.

But first, I would like to explore a few strandsthat I believe are important. A century of fish-eries development has brought about a radicaltransformation of a traditional1, subsistence-based,livelihood activity into a commercial, monetized,business venture, where risks have to be weighedagainst profits, which invariably leads to overex-ploitation.

Alongside, there has been a major shift in gen-der roles in the sector, with the traditional roles re-defined to exclude or marginalize women, in a sortof ‘masculinization’ of the sector, which thrives onprofit making at the expense of long-term sustain-ability.

4 Commercialization of IndianFisheries

To begin with, everything in the fisheries sectorwas traditional and small-scale. The fishing com-munities were, by and large, homogeneous. Therewas a small craft-owning class and a large workerclass, but, economically, there was little distinctionbetween the classes: the difference in income be-tween the owners and the crew was not all thatgreat to set them apart.2. In many areas, traditionalmanagement systems held power over the com-munity. Fishing was confined to the waters closeto the villages, and most fish were sold within ashort radius from the landing centre. Men’s roleswere confined to fishing, while women did the pro-cessing and trading, besides running the household[see Bavinck (2001), Suryanarayana (1977), Schom-bucher (1986) and Tietze (1986) for a more detaileddescription of the small-scale fishing communitiesof the east coast.] Overall, it was a subsistence fish-eries, where everyone clung together for survival.

That is, until motorization and mechanizationcame along. The fishers contend that motorizationcame in at a time of need for new fishing grounds.To that extent, it was a right thing at the right time,and the fishers took to it with alacrity. Moreover,traditional fishing was a manual operation requir-ing much hard work and fishers widely welcomedthe motorization programmes.

The 1980s, as mentioned, were also the GoldenAge for the fisheries sector, and the motorized boa-towners reaped the benefits of a huge increase inthe demand for seafood, and the number of fishingboats burgeoned as well. It was also the time whenthe new fibre reinforced plastic (FRP) boats, ply-wood boats, ‘disco’ nets (trammel nets) and long-lines were introduced to great enthusiasm, andthey did stand up to the expectations for a time.Ice was beginning to come into the fishing villages,making a huge difference to their returns. It waseasy to assume, as many did, that if things becamehard, all it required was to ‘diversify’ into newboats, new nets, and new fishing grounds. This

1I am in full agreement with the view that the use of the word ‘traditional’ in relation to the communities is a misnomer, which, asStirrat says, is “a modern construction and implies unchangingness” and adds, “I suspect that there were lots of change in the pastand that 18th Century fishermen were probably sitting around moaning about how things have changed from past tradition.” So alsowith the word ‘subsistence-based’. As Vivekanandan et al (1997) and Stirrat pointed out, fishermen have always been producing forexchange unless they were only part-time fishers. Fish has to be exchanged for other items: it is not like agriculture where one canconsume one’s production much more easily. I used these words here for two reasons: one, because they have increasingly come toimply artisanal, small-scale, more or less community-based and -orientated activities, and, two, because I could not think of suitablealternatives.

2In a recent ‘participatory’ wealth-ranking exercise conducted in four villages, I witnessed great debate amongst the participantsas to who—boatowners or crew members—were poorer, and in every case, there was an impasse.

146

false security, and the investments that fuelled it,have in turn contributed to the fall subsequently.

It was not until about the early 1990s that peo-ple seemed to realize (or may be the heavy sub-sidies used to promote motorization programmesacted as blinkers) that motorized fishing involveda certain cost—for fuel, for instance, which wasnot there in traditional fishing. While a traditionalfisher can rightly feel that whatever he caught washis, the motorized boatowner has to pay the lion’sshare—more so in these resource-depleted days—to run his engine. Even a handful of fish caughtby the traditional boat would at least see to thefamily’s meal for the day, while even a good catchmight not leave sufficient surplus for the motor-ized boatowner to take home. Moreover, he can-not take his boat out to sea whenever he feelslike it; he has to be absolutely sure that he wouldat least get enough to pay the running costs, sothe number of days of fishing has come downtoo, while—to cut costs as well as to travel far-ther out—the fishing duration of each trip had goneup. A motorized boatowner—and there were moreof them than the non-motorized ones by the early1990s—found himself weighing costs with benefitsin strictly monetary terms, before ‘investing’ in anew trip (see Nayak (1993); State Planning Board,Kerala (1993); IMM, 1993; PCO and SIFFS, 1991 for amore detailed analysis). It might be mentioned herethat, when it comes to the documentation of theconsequences—counting the dead after the battle—those who drafted the ‘folly-cies’ in the first placeseldom do it.

Commercial enterprises, in order to maxi-mize returns on their investment, have to con-centrate on the extraction of commercially valu-able species—the complex relationships within theaquatic ecosystem are ignored. Investments weremade on specialized fishing gear to catch only themore expensive varieties and not others. A num-ber of species on which the communities dependedhave become by-catch or ‘trash’ and dispensable.3.Smaller and smaller mesh sizes have come to beused. The average number of fishing nets per boat,the engine horsepower and the duration of fish-ing have all increased in an inverse proportion tothe catches. Not surprisingly, so, too, have thedebts to the local moneylenders and the fish trader-financiers.

5 Masculinization of Indian Fisheries

The fishing sector has evolved in such a way thatthere was a clear division of labour between menand women. The men, generally, did the fishingand handed over the fish to their women folk forsale. And the women sold as much of it as possiblein fresh condition, then processed it by drying andsalting, and generally held the purse strings, man-aged the family, procured the daily necessities suchas firewood and so forth. The Women in Fisheriesseries of dossiers from the International Collectivein Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) gives a good pic-ture of the role that women played in the fishingsector and the impact of changes on their liveli-hoods and social status.

The history of the 100 years of fisheries devel-opment in the country is also a history of ‘mas-culinization’ of the sector where, with increasinginflows of technology and outflows of fish, womenfound themselves at the receiving end, both liter-ally as well as figuratively. With fish increasinglybeing sold off at the point of landing to the new cat-egories of traders—commission agents, financier-traders, exporters—the fishermen no longer needto channel their fish through the women. Trans-actions are mainly in cash, and pass directly fromtrader to the fishers, whose mounting investmentneeds—for engine repairs, replenishment of nets,repair of boats, advances to their crew, cost of fuel,ice and other necessities of a modern age—leavevery little for meeting the household needs.

Most fish having found a ready market else-where, women who depended on traditional pro-cessing for a livelihood find it increasingly difficultto obtain fish. While, on the one hand, the fish-ers try and catch only the more expensive varieties,thereby reducing supply, on the other, the increasedcompetition for most fish for export and from otherusers makes them so expensive that the processor-women can hardly afford to buy them. For house-holds that have an earning male member in thefamily, the returns from sale of fresh fish wouldhave amply compensated the loss of processing in-come (although, in social terms, it still is at the costof the women), but for the single women-headedhouseholds (who can constitute nearly a fifth ofthe total households in a fishing village), this mustmean a serious loss.

An important area where the women had arole was in their interactions with the coastal

3In due course, the fishers did begin to catch and land the so-called by-catch both in the mechanized and the motorized sectors,but this was mainly to supplement the shortfall in the catches of the main species. There are studies indicating that nearly 60 to 80per cent of the by-catches were composed of juveniles of important species (Sujata, 1995 and 1996).

147

commons to meet many of their, and the house-hold’s, needs—village lands (for grazing, dryingfish, washing and drying clothes, as lavatories,etc.), mangroves and other wild growths (for fire-wood, grazing, thatching their houses, etc.) andopen beaches (for drying fish). The worth of thecoastal commons, which had hitherto been consid-ered as fallow and allowed to be used by the com-munities for ages, became manifest with the arrivalon the scene of new activities such as aquaculture,and the State promptly stepped in to restrict access.

Considering the dire straits that the small-scalefishers find themselves in, it is not too far-fetchedto use the ecofeminist framework, which suggeststhat women identify with an integrated ecosystemmanaged for multipurpose utilization, whereasmasculinist policies have often tended to be re-ductionist and ecosystem independent ones (Shiva,1999:42), and that the marginalization of womenfrom their productive roles has had more negativeconsequences than those related to their livelihoodsalone.

6 New Players in Coastal Areas

Increased industrial activities, upstream effects, ur-ban growth, aquaculture and competition besiegecoastal areas. The degradation of the coastal envi-ronment as a result of these developments is toowell known to merit a lengthy discussion. Suf-fice to say that a large part of the degradation inthe coastal areas is directly attributable to many ofthese new ‘developments’. . . .

What is it about the coastal areas that invitespeople to do all sorts of things to it? Or is it thatthe ecosystem is more sensitive than others, and ismore easily upset? More likely still, being at thedownstream of all development, the coastal areaacts as a sink both for the effluents as well as thepeople. Being the home to a more diverse rangeof primary occupations than others—it is after allthe one ecosystem where the features of all otherecosystems are represented—it attracts a propor-tionately larger number of people. In a piece ofresearch (ICM, 2000b) on what sets a coastal vil-lage apart from a non-coastal village, an importantpoint made by the people was that while more re-sources are open-access (or assumed to be open-access, as Bavinck (2001) argues) in the coastal ar-eas, in non-coastal areas, assets are mostly privatelyowned, or the village holds exclusive control overthe common property resources, largely curtailingopen access. “Private property is protected and

maintained by its owners, who, after all, obtainbenefits of any investment they make. By way ofcontrast, those depending on common property re-sources are locked into a system in which it is onlylogical that they increase their exploitation withoutlimit” (Acheson, 1981).

To take the example of the eastern coastal Statesof India, the coastal areas are far more naturallyfertile and productive than the non-coastal areas,which act as a magnet for people. Nearly half theIndian population apparently lives in coastal ar-eas, and the coastal States have population den-sities ranging between 600 and 2,000 per sq km,as against the national average of 300 per sq km.Naturally, infrastructure is better developed, andthe availability of labour and infrastructure, withthe enticing prospect of open-access regimes, at-tracts investments. All industries are polluting, toa greater or lesser extent, but it appears to me thatthe more polluting ones always end up near the sea.Fertilizers, nuclear power plants, and fossil fuel ex-tracting and refining units, are some of the morefrequently visible industries in the coastal areas.Within the coastal areas, the land closer to the sea ismore saline and naturally less fertile, which meansthat buying large tracts of it close to the beach is notas expensive as procuring it elsewhere.

Perhaps the proximity of the sea, with its im-mensity, gives people the confidence that they cando anything and get away with it. Until recently,no self-respecting fisherman—however big a man-sion he might build for himself—would ever deignto use anything other than the beach for a lavatory,because “the sea takes care of it all”, as one fisher-man elder told me. Take this philosophy to a suf-ficiently high degree, and you will end up dump-ing your urban wastes, industrial effluents, aqua-culture and agriculture wastes, and even nuclearwastes—virtually anything that you cannot other-wise dispose off—into the sea, because they are nomore than the proverbial drop in the ocean. Plus,for the policymakers, who have never recognizedthe existence of use rights or traditional tenurial ar-rangements in the coastal areas, at least officially,the sea, the beaches, the mangroves and the creeksbelong to no one in particular; so there is nobody tocomplain about degradation either. In this respect,as in a few more, the one other ecosystem that hassome parallels to the coastal one is that of forests.

There is no denying the fact that the coastal ar-eas are prosperous compared to inland areas—asevidenced by the fact that non-coastal districts inboth Andhra Pradesh and Orissa are perpetuallydrought-prone. Travel writers like Paul Theroux

148

have noted the remarkable change in scenery fromthe inland areas to the coastal ones in these States.But this broad generalization of the prosperity inthe coastal areas masks the more important fact thatabsolute poverty is also very high, and that coastalareas are home to large numbers of people who areas poor as any in any other ecosystem. Ongoingresearch in the coastal villages confirms the truism“Being poor in a rich neighbourhood is worse thanbeing poor in a poor neighbourhood.”

7 Impacts on the Fishworkers

There are creek-based villages where, for weeks ata time, fish are seen floating belly-up as a resultof the periodical discharge of industrial effluents.Villagers cannot send their cattle to graze outsidethe village because what they had assumed for along time to be village commons were not com-mons at all, but belonged to a prawn aquacultur-ist. Mechanized boats seldom fish beyond a stone’sthrow from the shore, using mesh size of less than10 mm at the cod end, often overrunning tradi-tional nets, and capturing huge quantities of juve-niles, which feed poultry feed mills and aquacul-ture ponds. In some areas, the sites that the fishingvillages currently occupy—Pentakota (Puri), Chan-drabhaga (Konark) and Sandakhud (Paradeep), allin Orissa, to cite some examples—are ‘taken over’for development of tourism, ports, industries oraquaculture hatcheries. Natural water bodies likethe Chilika lake are dying, and the livelihoods ofnearly 150,000 fishers are at stake.

There is an increasing uncertainty about fish-ing operations, which are also very expensive. Un-til recently, most boatowners, when they savedenough, added a new boat to their fleet. A boat—like jewellery and bank balance—was both an in-vestment and a saving, and the number of boatsa person owned determined his social status. Notany more—like a family-planning advertisement, itis ‘one boat per family’ now, and not only becausea plastic boat costs three times as much as a tra-ditional boat. Nowadays, making investment in anew boat is an unwise act. It is not that there isno money to be had in fishing, or that the fishersdo not occasionally make a killing. It is the uncer-tainty that pervades the whole activity that encour-ages them to invest in more reliable assets such asagriculture and jewellery.

Most people—including many fishers—arguethat, while there has indeed been a steep declinein catches, it has been more or less compensated by

a comparable increase in prices, and the overall im-pact on the fishers was more or less balanced. Thehollowness of this smug assertion is already beingfelt in many villages in some of the poorest districtson the east coast of India like Srikakulam and Gan-jam, to cite a couple of examples.

Weakened as the fishers are from increasinglyunsustainable livelihoods, from alienation, fromlack of use rights, from loss of common propertyresources, and from lack of easy alternatives, itis no wonder that they are taking to increasinglycriminal occupations. Knowing fully well, andeven insisting that activities such as shrimp-seedcollection are harming the resources very badly,they still continue with it, despite bans, not be-cause it is lucrative (at 5 paise per piece, it cannotbe), but because there is no alternative. There arereports—unconfirmed but sufficiently widespreadto be credible—that loss of occupations is leadingwomen in fishing villages to turn increasingly toprostitution.

Fishers in Srikakulam district migrate en masseto Gujarat to work as crew in trawlers under con-ditions that are pathetic. Fishers in Ganjam Districtare not so lucky—or may be more lucky, dependingon how you look at it: they simply sit at home andplay cards, while their women search for work asagricultural labourers, building labourers, sweet-meat sellers—all occupations that were consideredto be beneath their dignity less than a decade ago. . . . Most women reported that their income oncecomplemented that of their husbands; now it isthe mainstay of family income. Moreover, mostwomen reported an increase in liquor consump-tion by their husbands. Fishers in Krishna Districtwork as aquaculture farm labourers in TelanganaDistricts of Andhra Pradesh for six months a year.

One striking example of the level to which re-source constraints have become serious comes fromthe increasing number of conflicts within and be-tween the communities—between the small-scalefishers and the mechanized fishers, amongst small-scale fishers themselves, between fishers of differ-ent villages, different States and between fishersand non-fishers. While geographical migration inthe fishing communities—from area to area, Stateto State, and country to country (there had alwaysbeen a steady stream of Indian fishermen who mi-grated to Burma, Singapore and Malaysia for a longtime)—is a given fact, there are indications that, in-creasingly, the local communities are not so welldisposed towards the migrants. There have beeninstances in the last two years when fishers fromcertain parts of Andhra Pradesh migrated to their

149

habitual destinations elsewhere, they faced such se-rious opposition from the local communities thatthey had to turn back. The fishers in the Go-davari delta increasingly wake up to the fact thatthe creeks in which they had always fished wereno longer to be open-access, that the traditional userights belonged to another village. The increasedconflicts have invariably led to violent clashes anddestruction of boats.

Traditional activities such as fish smoking inthe Godavari delta area are dying out. It is onlya matter of time before the last fish is smoked.Lack of fish and firewood together took away atleast about 1,500 livelihoods, besides countless oth-ers like smoked fish vendors, transporters and soforth. Fish drying still continues, but is a paleshadow of its glory days. There is neither fish northe place to dry it on in most coastal villages—theplace having been eroded (Uppada), or taken overby private industries for setting up power plants,shrimp hatcheries and so on. Shore-seines, each ofwhich provided livelihoods for more than 50 fam-ilies, are dying out too, as are traditional woodenboats and catamarans. When a BBC team wantedto make a film of the traditional catamarans ofAndhra Pradesh, it took them about a week’s run-ning up and down the entire coastal length beforethey could find a place where there were enoughcatamarans still left.

The fate of the single-woman headed house-holds is still worse. The women in six villageswhere a piece of research was conducted in AndhraPradesh and Orissa reported that the number ofdays when they go food-less had increased drasti-cally over the last three to four years. When onewoman respondent, who was being interviewedat her home, was asked why she was not mak-ing haste to make her meal, she replied that therewas nothing to cook; there had not been anythingon the previous day either. When I had first metthis woman nearly a decade ago, she was a reason-ably well-off fish processor, employing two othersto help in the processing activity. Her children havegrown up, in the meantime, married and movedaway, and earn barely enough to feed their fami-lies.

The case of the burgeoning destitute old peoplein the fishing village is perplexing. Having workedall their lives, they have reached a stage where theycannot work. But their children have moved away,their life savings hardly amount to anything, andthey live pathetic lives. How could, the questionarises, a community that had worked out every sin-gle intricate detail of negotiating every variety of

waves at sea forget to put in place basic systemsto ensure insurance for its old people? A little re-search indicated that this state of affairs is a re-cent phenomenon, and has a lot to do with disin-tegrating social structures in the villages. Commu-nity and family relationships are at their weakest,and the joint-family system—that bedrock of ruralIndia—is dead as a dodo. The livelihood and so-cial security systems in the coastal fishing villagesare in disarray, and the numbers of utterly desti-tute people are increasing, much like the mythicalfish catches in the annual handbooks on fisheriesstatistics.

Fishers eat a part of their catches and sell therest, right? Wrong. The catches they get areso few and precious that they cannot afford toeat them anymore. In most fishing villages inAndhra Pradesh, there is a new category of fishtraders, who bring cheaper fish from a distant ma-jor fishing-landing centre for sale in the villages. Ifthe trawlers have reduced discarding by-catch atsea, it has to do with the increased consumption ofthe varieties of fish that would have been rejectedout of hand a decade ago. Most fishers reportedregularly consuming beef—a taboo item in manyfishing castes, but far cheaper than the fish theycatch.

So, why don’t they get out? If they don’t havebread, why can’t they eat cake? For many devel-opment practitioners illiteracy in the fishing com-munities is a favourite axe to grind, and a wonder-ful excuse for not getting results. Forgetting theglut in the employment market for educated peo-ple, the more important question remains: how cananyone plan long-term when the short-term needsare not met? The midday meals schemes did seemto attract a number of children to schools, but theschemes themselves were as unsustainable as anyfishing activity.

And the list can go on and on.

8 Responses to the Issue of CoastalDegradation

The government and the private sector—and, in-creasingly, the NGOs—have a far more decisive in-fluence in shaping or changing the coastal liveli-hoods now than at any time in the past. This has,ostensibly, to do with conflict resolution, conserva-tion and management of resources, and sustainabledevelopment in the coastal areas.

There have been, typically, two responses to theissue of coastal degradation: one, as already dis-

150

cussed, was the imposition of regulations to pre-serve the natural resources from the depredators,which was more or less the stand that the govern-ment took, and the second, providing alternativesustainable livelihoods for the communities, whichwas mostly, but not solely, taken up by the NGOs.

Why this sudden interest in ‘management’, afterspending nearly half a century promoting the sameprocesses that were responsible for degradation inthe first place? Two closely related things broughtinto sharp focus the fact that things were not go-ing as planned. The first was, of course, aqua-culture, which suddenly became a ‘capital market’subject, and then a legal issue, and needed—likean errant child—nurturing to be made more re-sponsible . . . . Its importance as a foreign exchangeearner as well as the controversial status it achievedwere justifications enough for the active involve-ment of the fisheries administrators. The secondwas a syndrome of issues—overexploitation, re-source conflicts, pollution, destitution and environ-mental degradation—frankly, things that the DOFcould do without. Anyway, for the fisheries es-tablishment, which, like Alexander, was moaningthat there were no more lands left to conquer, andwas facing serious questions related to its contin-ued survival under the structural adjustment pro-grammes, these were a godsend to reassert itself.

Though few of the State DOFs ever acceptedthat there was any decline in the fish catches—either as a whole or species-wise—that did not de-ter them from take some serious action about de-clining catches.4. Thus was born Fisheries Manage-ment. The government’s answers to the problemsof degradation were pat, if not typical: if there isa decline in capture fisheries, let’s have alternatesources of production—to wit, promote aquacul-ture, and lots and lots of it, even if that is goingto have other, more serious, impacts in the longterm (in the event, it turned out to be a problemeven in the short term). And, for everything else,there is the “Off with his head!” solution from Al-ice in Wonderland: If we want to protect the fishresources, let’s ban fishing in the mangroves, banentry into mangroves themselves, ban fishing forshrimp seed (which, incidentally, was somethingthat ‘we’ taught ‘them’ even until early 1990s, whenwe banned it as ecologically harmful), ban collec-tion of mollusc shells, ban fishing during certainparts of the year, in certain areas round the year,and so on. For restoring natural balance (whichmeans protecting dolphins and turtles and such ex-

otic species only, whose foreign exchange value isnot quite as good as that of shrimp or sharks), letus declare ‘protected areas’. In effect, every prob-lem is met with either a ban, or a regulation of ac-cess, to everything that the coastal people have de-pended on for their livelihoods for centuries. Allvery noble, as Mark Antony would have said, butvery drastic on the fishworkers for whom this wasrubbing salt into the wound: there they were, wor-ried stiff over the lack of fish, and in comes a regu-lation to reduce their access even more.

What the government’s efforts at regulationhave meant in practice was to reduce the depen-dence of the coastal people on the natural re-sources, like fish, mangroves and shells. Lest thisgives the impression that the traditional users havefound alternative means to obtain the same ser-vices, let me hasten to add that, if anything, theneed to depend on the traditional resources forfood, firewood, house-building, income-generationand so forth has remained more or less constant, ifnot actually increased. What it means is that thereis a decrease in the access to natural resources thatprovided many of their basic needs, affecting theirquality of life, thanks to the zealotry of the govern-ment to ensure the long-term sustainability of thesector at the expense of the short-term needs of thepeople, the needs being such inconsequential andold-fashioned ones as food, clothing and shelter. Italso does not matter that their actual contributionto the degradation may be only a fraction of thatwrought by the growth-and-foreign exchange-ledtechnical innovations’.

There is a big dilemma before the voluntarysector: while it is politically correct to be pro-poor, it is politically even more correct to be pro-environment, and the problem arises when it comesto deciding between two politically correct things.This is often resolved by following the leader, thatis, the funding agency. I know at least one agency inOrissa, which, as a result of some misunderstand-ing with its funding agency, realized suddenlythat it was more pro-poor than pro-environmentmidway through a pro-environment project, andswitched sides almost overnight.

Are there no positive interventions then? Therecertainly are. The so-called alternate income-generating (AIG) programmes fall once again intotwo very conventional streams. The first strand fol-lows the ‘increased income from fishing’ line, thatis, the fishers, being fishers, should find a solution

4In my experience, very few people were more candid in concurring with Mark Twain’s hierarchy of falsehoods—Lies, damn liesand statistics—as the people responsible for compiling fisheries statistics.

151

to their problems within the fisheries sector. If fish-ing is poor in the near-shore waters, they shouldbe given bigger boats to fish farther off. As a Gov-ernment of India paper presented at a workshopin 1997 (BOBP, 1999) says: “To further this objec-tive (of regulating the growth of mechanized fish-ing vessels and channeling their growth in direc-tions which would increase production from areaspresently untapped), it is proposed to go in for anew generation of fishing vessels between 15-20 mOAL, which would be able to tap waters of about150-200 m depth and go on voyages up to about 15days.... This would also help shift the fishing effortfrom the inshore/near shore areas to offshore areaswithin the EEZ.”

Increasing returns for the catches—valueaddition—is another important AIG activity. Ifthere are no fish for drying, let the women makefish wafers, fish cutlets, fish pickles and sell themin the urban and international markets and makea fortune, although, after more than a decade oftraining and ‘test-marketing’, I have yet to see onesuccessful production and marketing activity actu-ally taking off.

The second strand follows the “If they don’thave clothes to wear, let them learn to sew” line,and wherever you go, you cannot but find the samecategories of AIG programmes. While there hasbeen an increased masculinization of livelihoods inthe sector, there has also been an increased femi-nization of development effort, with the interven-tionists swooping down on the women, teachingthem about the importance of ‘group ethic’, andso forth. Ostensibly, this emphasis on women isto help them assert themselves, which, in the caseof fishing communities at least, is partly bogus,because here the women have traditionally beenmore assertive than elsewhere; this misplaced zealto ‘empower’ them does not exactly suit the con-text. Moreover, when it comes to group ethic, thewomen have a lot more to teach us than the otherway round—look at any artisanal activity, and youwill find a group action in place. In the end, thisinterest in women boils down to the fact that theyare more or less captive audiences for the develop-ment show; they are more reliable in repayment ofloans and, hence, make good ‘beneficiaries’. Theonly real beneficiaries appear to be the so-calledAIGexperts, since renamed ’sustainable livelihoodsexperts’, to keep up with the times, who indeedhave tapped a very sustainable source of livelihoodfor themselves.

That most of the programmes—eithergovernment-supported or NGO-sponsored—go by

the claims of being sustainable, equitable and par-ticipatory is another irony. What, pray, would afisherman or woman hope to gain by planting thou-sands of mangrove saplings in a barren area, whichdoes not even belong to them?So why do they doit then?What perks are attached to the plantingof mangroves, and how sustainable are the perksthemselves? If sustained efforts over decades couldnot make the mechanized boats keep off the inshorewaters or use a slightly bigger mesh, what earthlyreason could convince the hand-to-mouth fishersto stop fishing for long periods in the interest ofrestoring the populations of Olive Ridley turtles orplanting mangroves to ensure long-term ecologicalbalance of the ecosystems? As Acheson (1981) asks,why should fishermen conserve when there is noway the benefits can be reserved for themselves?

Granted that the ‘ban regime’ was imposed withaltruistic motives to save Mankind, which includesthe small-scale fishworkers as well, a few ticklishquestions crop up: such as, how many mecha-nized boats have been caught in the last more than10 years since the Marine Fishing Regulation Actshave been enacted by each of the coastal States incomparison with the number of small-scale fish-ers fined for fishing during a seasonal ban period?How many aquaculturists have had their farmsdamaged for transgression of boundaries, and howmany shrimp seed collectors have been caught andfined for seed collection? How many firewood col-lectors were made to pay fines, besides forfeitingtheir wood, and how many factories and aquacul-turists were fined for releasing their effluents intothe creeks? The answers may not always satisfy ourclaims of being ‘equitable’.

Most of the management efforts are claimed tobe completely people-centred. In a strictly partic-ipatory exercise, agenda setting, problem identi-fication and project activities should all have theparticipation of the communities. How many vil-lagers would have set mangrove conservation astheir top priority that so many participatory jointforest management (JFM) committees have sprungup all over the place? The goal of universal peaceand harmony in the coastal areas is sought to beachieved by a sort of carrot-and-stick policy. Par-ticipation involves complete acquiescence with ouragenda, and is facilitated by giving carrots such asconstruction of community halls (for more partici-patory exercises), provision of loudspeakers, mar-riage halls and chairs and tables, besides more sub-stantive ones like houses and boats, on the under-standing that the community members would be-have themselves and keep off the mangrove forests.

152

Those who took, took everything they received andasked for more. And those who had no inklingof the deals struck on their behalf received thestick. A question that had never been asked waswhether what was being given was a good substi-tute for what was being taken away, that is, theright to mangroves, and whether what was givenwas acceptable to those whose livelihoods were go-ing to be the most affected in the bargain. Whoactually participates, thus, is a billion-dollar ques-tion, and invariably, women and the real poor whodepended on the mangroves for centuries are ex-cluded, as I can vouch from my personal experienceof attending a few JFM meetings.

It is easy to regard a community as a homo-geneous unit, almost like a family, where the vil-lage elders, acting as family heads, discuss every-thing with all family members and share every-thing equally with everyone. As authors like Diet-rich and Agarwal point out (Menon, 1999) in rela-tion to feminist studies, this uncomplicated and un-problematic acceptance of homogenity in the ‘tra-ditional’ communities is fraught with serious prob-lems, but that does not deter us too much. Theco-option of the communities, while achieving asemblance of participation, is achieved by reinforc-ing the stereotypes, by buttressing the local powerstructures and by excluding most stakeholders whowould be affected from the decision-making pro-cesses. Nicholas Hildyard et al., in Cooke andKothari (2001: 56-71), do a comprehensive job ofevaluating ‘participation’ in the JFM programmesin India.

No wonder, then, that, whenever a suitablyofficial-looking person enters a fishing village thesedays, the looks are either greedy (for the carrots)or downright hostile (to the stick). Many singlewomen-headed households reported that they kepttheir distance from the government officers becausethey feared them, preferring to forgo assistance intimes of cyclones, for instance.

Misplaced zeal for ecological conservation,without looking at the impacts of such programmeson the people concerned, not only have serious con-sequences for the people, but undermine the pro-grammes themselves in the short run itself. AsAcheson (1981) notes, the lack of support for fish-eries management and conservation efforts “stemsfrom the fact that fisheries management often hasdeleterious effects on people in the industry thathave not been taken into account by either theeconomists or the biologists who have been re-sponsible for developing management plans.” Hegoes on to provide many examples from developed

countries that show that many of the regulatorypractices result in “extreme inequality”, “aid own-ers of large, modern offshore vessels and penal-ize the inshore fleet”, and the “current efforts tomanage fisheries have not succeeded very well”,and are “doomed to failure”, not only because theyhave “created conflict, but have also been ineffec-tive since fishermen have proved very adept at in-novating their way around them . . . ” Obviously,we are treading a haloed path here.

9 What is to be Done?

After all this axe-grinding, what do I have to offer?How do I think the world can be saved? I am afraidwhatever I have to offer is my solution to the prob-lem, and my ideas are liable to be as faulty as anythat I have discussed so far. My only submissionis that enlightenment does not always come in ablinding flash, nor is it an individual achievement.I am aware that in every situation where there arelosers, there must be winners too, and more thanblack and white, it is the grey that permeates real-ity. It is only right and human that everyone shouldtry and make the best of the opportunities availableto them, but if these opportunities always favourthe same set of people, particularly at the expenseof another, concepts like “striking a balance”, “tak-ing the right perspective” and “achieving consen-sus” are almost meaningless. I take comfort in whatRobert Chambers (1983:85) says of overestimatingthe rural people’s knowledge: “These positive bi-ases may be no bad thing. The colonizing force ofoutsiders’ knowledge is programmed to overrideand bury other paradigms and to impose its own. Itneeds to be offset by countervailing power. To bal-ance it not only requires an independent and openmind; it also requires positive discrimination” (em-phasis mine).

It has been my attempt to show that the impassewe have reached is as much a result of our ownactions as that of any natural or supernatural phe-nomena. It was my purpose to show that ‘degrada-tion’ is a social as well as environmental/ecologicalmatter. My theme has been to emphasize that youhave to take the social aspects seriously and thatyou cannot expect people whose livelihoods havebeen ’degraded’ by various processes to take seri-ously the idea of ’conservation’. Interest in turtlesand their conservation is highly laudable, but ef-forts to achieve these noble aims should not neces-sarily be at the expense of some poor fishers, as ishappening in Orissa.

153

If there had been no interference in the coastalareas from the development initiatives—which isimpossible anyway-would the coastal poor havebeen better off? Or, are there alternative ways ofmeeting the conflicting demands, both ecologicallyand socially? I do not know. But we do knowthat they are definitely more vulnerable today thanat any time, thanks to all the meddling done inthe name of development and industrialization andconservation. This is as good a time for reflectionand debate as any—we may still find redemption.

Acknowledgement

My thanks to Dr. R. L. Stirrat, School of Africanand Asian Studies, University of Sussex, for pa-tiently going through this paper and offering muchencouragement and valuable insights.

References

1. Acheson, J. M. 1981. Anthropology of Fish-ing. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. Vol.10, pp. 275-316.

2. Bavinck, M. 2001. Marine Resource Manage-ment: Conflict and Resolution in the Fisheries ofthe Coromandel Coast. Sage Publications, NewDelhi.

3. BOBP. 1999. Report of the Regional Workshop onthe Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Manage-ment, 25-28 February 1997, Medan, Indonesia.Bay of Bengal Programme, Madras.

4. Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development:Putting the Last First. Longman, Harlow, UK.

5. Cooke, B. and Uma Kothari (Eds.) 2001. Par-ticipation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books, Lon-don.

6. GFC. 1994: Handbook on Fisheries. Global Fish-ing Chimes, Visakhapatnam.

7. GoAP. 1999. Vision 2020 Document. Govern-ment of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

8. ICAR. 1997. Handbook of Animal Hus-bandry. Indian Council of Agricultural Re-search, New Delhi.

9. IIM. 1990. Fishery Sector of India. Oxford andIBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

10. IMM. 1993. A Review of ITDG’s Work in SouthIndia in Support of Artisanal Fishing Communi-ties, April 1986-January 1992, Integrated Ma-rine Management Ltd., Southampton.

11. Integrated Coastal Management. 2000a.Changing Fish Utilization and Its Impact onPoverty in Andhra Pradesh. Study done aspart of a DFID-funded research programmeon “Changing Fish Utilization in India and ItsImpact on the Poor”.

12. Integrated Coastal Management. 2000b.Sustainable Coastal Livelihoods Project: Field-validation of Literature Review. Done as part ofa DFID-funded research programme on Sus-tainable Coastal Livelihoods.

13. Menon, N. (Ed.) 1999. Gender and Politics inIndia. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

14. MFB. 1933. Fishery Reports for 1930. MadrasFisheries Bureau, Madras Fisheries Bureau Bul-letin No. XXIV, Madras.

15. MFB. 1915. Papers from 1899: RelatingChiefly to the Development of the MadrasFisheries Bureau, Madras Fisheries Bureau VolI–Bulletin No. 1, Madras.

16. MFB. 1916. Fisheries Statistics and Infor-mation, West and East Coasts, Madras Pres-idency. Madras Fisheries Bureau Bulletin No. 9,Madras.

17. Nayak, N. 1993. Continuity and Change in Ar-tisanal Fishing Communities. Programme forCommunity Organization and South IndianFederation of Fishermen Societies, Trivan-drum.

18. PCO & SIFFS. 1991. Motorization of FishingUnits: Benefits and Burdens. Programme forCommunity Organization and South IndianFederation of Fishermen Societies, Trivan-drum.

19. Salagrama, V. and Mahapatro, B. 1998. CoastalCommunities: Declining Resources and Increas-ing Vulnerability–A Study of the Opportunitiesfor New Income Generating Activities in Puri andGanjam Districts, Orissa. Unpublished.

20. Salagrama, V. 1990. Our Boats Are OurHomes. News article on the shoe-dhoni com-munity of Andhra Pradesh, in Bay of Ben-gal News, Vol I, Issue 39, Bay of Bengal Pro-gramme, Madras.

154

21. Salagrama, V. 1999. By-catch Utilization in In-dian Fisheries: An Overview. In Clucas, I.and Teutscher, F. (Eds.) Report and Proceed-ings of FAO/DFID Expert Consultation on By-catch Utilization in Tropical Fisheries, Beijing,China, 21-23 September 1998.

22. Salagrama, V. 1999a. Sustainable Livelihoods forPoor Coastal Fisherfolk: A Study of Opportunitiesfor Income Generation in Selected Project Villagesof Coastal Community Development Programme,Machilipatnam. ICM: Kakinada.

23. Salagrama, V. 1999b. Caught Between theDevil and the Deep Blue Sea. In FishingChimes, Dec. 1999.

24. Salagrama, V. 2000. Small-scale Fisheries:Does it Exist Anymore? In Bay of Bengal News,Issue No. 16, April 2000.

25. Sarma, S. B. 1992. Introduction of FRP navasin Andhra Pradesh. Paper presented at theRegional Expert Consultation on Planning ofFishing Craft Introduction, 21-24 July 1992.Bay of Bengal Programme, Madras.

26. Schombucher, Elisabeth. 1986. Die Vadabal-ija in Andhra Pradesh und in Orissa: Aspekteder Wirtschaftlichen und Sozialen OrganizationEiner Maritimen Gesellschaft. Steiner VerlagWiesbaden Gmbh, Stuttgart.

27. Seetharam, M. and Suvarchala Rani, P. (un-dated). Gender Profile: Andhra Pradesh. RoyalNetherlands Embassy, New Delhi.

28. State Planning Board. 1993. Evaluation Studyon the Impact of Motorization of Traditional Fish-ing Crafts. Evaluation Division, State Plan-ning Board, Thiruvananthapuram.

29. Sujatha, K. 1995. Finfish Constituents ofTrawl By-catch off Visakhapatnam. FisheryTechnology, Vol.32 (1).

30. Sujatha, K. 1996. Trash Fish Catch of theTrawl Fishery Off Visakhapatnam. J. Aqua.Biol. Vol.11 (1&2), pp. 17-23.

31. Suryanarayana, M. 1977. Marine Fisherfolk ofNortheast Coastal Andhra Pradesh. Archaeolog-ical Survey of India, Calcutta.

32. The World Bank. 1992. A Study of InternationalFisheries Research. Policy and Research Series19, Washington DC.

33. Tietze, U. (Ed.) 1985. Artisanal Marine Fish-erfolk of Orissa. Vidyapuri, Cuttack.

34. Vivekanandan, V., Muralidharan, C.M andSubbarao, M. 1997. A Study of Marine Fisheriesof Andhra Pradesh. Draft report.

155

Coastal Zone Conflicts in Maharashtra

Ram Bhau Patil ∗

AbstractSome ongoing and proposed industrial projects in the State of Maharashtra, India threaten to

wrest from fishers their traditional and customary rights of access to natural resources, includingfish. Some of these are outlined here.

Keywords

Maharashtra. India. Mumbai. Chemical plants. Power plants. Mangrove forests.

1 Introduction

The State of Maharashtra in India has a coast-line of 720 km and about 350 villages are situ-ated along the coast, with a fisher population ofabout 1 mn that survives by fishing alone. But,in the name of development, all kinds of projectsare coming up in the coastal areas of Maharash-tra, like power plants—including one by EnronCorporation—amusement parks, a sea-link bridge,an airport, a harbour and a chemical industrieszone. These activities are polluting the water, anddisplacing fisher people almost every 10 km of thecoastal belt of Maharashtra.

Examples of the proposed projects include:

• The Esselworld Amusement Park at Gorai inMumbai: The Essel company has destroyed700 acres of mangrove fields by sprayingchemicals in Gorai village in Mumbai. It istrying to reclaim the mangrove fields in theCoastal Regulation Zone 1, to which fisherpeople have enjoyed traditional and custom-ary access.The company is not allowing fisher people tofish in this area. The Maharashtra Machhi-mar Kriti Samiti and the National Fishwork-ers Forum are agitating against this com-pany through blockades and strike action,and have asked the government to vacate the700 acres of mangrove fields and to allow fish-ermen to fish.

• Thermal Power Plant at Dahanu: This projecthas reclaimed vast wetland of more than1,000 acres for construction of the plant anddumping of ashes. Around 1,000 fisherfolk,who fish in the wet lands at high and lowtides, are affected by this project. Ash dump-ing is polluting the sea, and several species offishes have disappeared.

• Worli–Bandra sea-link bridge in Mumbai: Forthis project, 70 acres of estuary area of theMithi river at Mahim have been reclaimed.Fishermen of the area who were pickingclams, oysters, crabs and creek fish duringhigh and low tides have been displaced, andthe coastal ecosystem has been greatly dam-aged. This is a clear violation of the tradi-tional and customary rights of the fisher peo-ple.

• The Tarapur-Mahad-Parashram-Lote chemi-cal industrial zone: This is polluting the river,creek and sea. Drinking water wells are alsogetting polluted in nearby areas.

• Bombay High oil wells in the deep sea: Thedigging of wells for oil by the Government ofIndia in the deep seas has encroached on thefishing grounds, and is polluting the sea.

• Industrial fishing vessels in the deep sea, theEnron power project and the mega-airport atRewas Mandava are other examples of poten-tially destructive projects.

∗President, Maharashtra Machhimar Kriti Samiti, India.

156

• The Nagothana Vadhavan mega-harbour inNorth Maharashtra, and tourism and aqua-culture projects are also affecting the coastalecosystem, marine environment and fish re-sources, thus depriving fisher people of theirsources of livelihood.

It must be noted that this model of develop-ment does not benefit the fishermen in any way, but

creates uncertainties for their survival and liveli-hood. This is a violation of the Constitution of In-dia, which guarantees the right to life under Arti-cles 18, 19 and 21.

For the protection of the coastal ecosystem,and the management of fish resources, communityrights over the water bodies should be entrustedwith the local fisherfolk.

157

Problems of Fishers of Gujarat

P.V. Khokhari ∗

AbstractThe Government of Gujarat and the Central government should consider the plight and prob-

lems of the fisher people of the State, so that they can catch up with the world’s thriving fishingindustries.

An early solution to their problems of pollution and transborder fishing will definitely helpthem carry out fishing operations on the high seas in a safe and profitable manner.

Keywords

Gujarat. National Fishworkers Forum. Transborder fishing. India. Pakistan.

1 Introduction

Of India’s 7,100-km long coastline, 1,600 km lies inGujarat State, which has several small and largeports and fish landing centres. India’s popula-tion is about five crores (50 mn), of whom 265,000are fisher people, who constitute an economicallybackward class, as declared by the Government ofGujarat State. Traditional fishers can be found atVeraval in Junagadh District and Porbandar in Por-bandar District. There are at least 90,000 fishermenengaged in the fishing industry of Gujarat State.The Gulf of Kachchh is the primary nursery areafor various fish and crabs. This is the best fish-ing grounds for various species of fish exported forforeign exchange. The fish exported from Saurash-tra ports have fetched more than Rs240 crores. TheState has 6,787 trawlers, 3,764 gill-nets, 454 fibre re-inforced plastic (FRP) boats and 6,451 outboard mo-tors (OBMs), totalling 17,496. The sea off Gujarat issomewhat calm and the fishing season lasts from 16August to 15 May annually, after which it is closeddue to bad weather.

Gujarat’s fish production is as under (figures intonnes):

1996–97 6,60,0681997–98 7,02,3541998–99 5,91,9601999–00 6,70,951

There has been a decrease in the last few years,mainly due to heavy pollution by big industrialhouses, whose chemical wastes have damaged ter-ritorial coastal areas. In the south Gujarat coastalbelt, from Surat to Vapi, there are huge industrialhouses whose waste and pollutants have damagedthe fishery resources. These industrial plants haveno effluent treatment facilities.

For these reasons, the fishermen have had to sailout into the high seas from their native lands. Thiscosts much in terms of higher prices of diesel/fueland the number of days engaged in fishing. As fishcatches decrease, the operations of fishing boatshave become uneconomical.

In 1986, the Marine Security Agency of Pakistancaptured 11 fishing boats from Gujarat for crossingthe invisible maritime border, and sent the fisher-men to jail. The fishing boats were kept in custody.Thereafter, the Indian Coastguard took similar ac-tion against Pakistani fishing boats. Both Indianand Pakistani fishermen suffer under similar condi-tions, with a maximum jail duration of three years.

The National Fishworkers Forum (NFF) unit atPorbandar has managed to get the fishermen andtheir boats released. At times, the boats are not re-claimed as they are in a damaged condition. On 7June 2001, Pakistani fishermen and their 11 fishingboats were released and repatriated home. Eight

∗Secretary, National Fishworkers Forum, Porbandar, Gujarat, India.

158

fishing boats were left behind in damaged condi-tion. In response, 25 fishing boats and 157 Indianfishermen were repatriated from Pakistan to India.

At present, there are 32 Indian fishing boatsand 196 fishermen languishing in Pakistani jails.Though trials for repatriation are on, nothing con-crete has materialized. Thirty-one Pakistani fish-ing boats and 200 Pakistani fishermen have beenin Indian jails for a long time. It is imperative thatthe State and Central governments of India providefunds to assist the families of these fishermen. Suchsystems exist in other countries. Meanwhile, or-ganizations of fisher people in Pakistan and Indiaare helping with the formalities needed to get thefishermen released from custody and repatriated totheir homes.

Delegates of fishworker organizations have vis-ited Pakistan for the release and repatriation of fish-ermen and fishing boats. The delegates to Pakistanwere well assisted. The NFF and other organiza-tions have proved especially useful for the fisherpeople.

When fishing boats are captured by either na-tion, the fish caught in the boats are also taken intocustody, but no price is paid to the owner. This fish

is later sold. But it ought to be done in the presenceof the representatives of fishworker organizations,to ensure that there is no malpractice and so thatthe amount raised can be utilized for the repairsof the boats in custody. This amount could alsobe spent towards the supervision and maintenanceof the fishermen in custody. The charges could berecovered from the boatowner at the time of itsrelease. Charges for repairing engines and otherwork should also be recovered from the owner.Some funds should be provided to the concernedcrew by the government.

By declaring a common fishing zone, the prob-lem of capture and custody of boats and fishermencan be minimized. The boats should not be takeninto custody for long periods, but, after the factshave been ascertained, they must be passed back tothe nation concerned.

The Government of Gujarat and, if necessary,the Central government, should consider the factsnarrated above for the larger interest of the fisherpeople, so that they can catch up with the world’sfishing industries. An early solution to the entireproblem will definitely help them carry out fishingoperations on the high seas safely.

159

Coastal Resource Degradation and User-right Abuse inBangladesh: An Overview of the Challenges in User-based

Community Management

Prosanta K. Roy ∗

AbstractThis paper deals with the traditional fisher communities of Bangladesh and their rights to the

natural resources, including fish, of their own land.Weak human rights, social injustice, inequity and lack of freedom of expression and rights of

association are of major concern in the majority of the world’s poor countries. In Bangladesh, theimpact of these deprivations is more evident in the everyday life of the coastal indigenous peoplesand backward classes. Industrial effluents and urban sewage, along with aquaculture, especiallyshrimp culture, are the main causes of coastal resource degradation. Industrialists from outsideintroduced shrimp culture for commercial benefit, without considering the environmental degra-dation and the rights of the indigenous people. The State does not recognize their rights; it evenstrictly restricts access to the resources. Private parties and the State own property rights, andclass conflicts directly threaten Bangladesh’s coastal people and fishers.

The right to access is not sufficient for the sustainable use and development of the re-source. Creating awareness about respecting and protecting the environment is an important aim.Equally important is empowerment through training and education about the fundamental rightto participate in decisions and activities that directly affect lives and livelihoods. User rights willsafeguard users’ interests, while respect for the environment is the key for resource protection. Toachieve both these goals, assistance should be provided to users under the concept of user-basedrights to the community, with a guarantee of employment and minimum requirements leading tosustainable development.

Towards this end, nation-States should undertake immediate and effective measures to stophuman oppression and resource degradation, and initiatives to restore the coastal resources in-volving all sectors like local government bodies, civil societies and, especially, non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs). In addition, a comprehensive study needs to be done by a body of interna-tional experts to formulate an effective model for coastal resource management.

Keywords

Bangladesh. Shrimp aquaculture. Coastal resource degradation. Sustainable development.Coastal resource management.

1 Introduction

In all likelihood, the concept of the ‘user’ came intopractice with the introduction of agrarian civiliza-tion about 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. Humans cutjungles, made the rugged lands plain and sowedseeds. They did it to meet their basic need for food.

Thus, they acquired the right of use resource fortheir livelihood, a primary and fundamental right.The question of ‘common’ is very much related tothe user right because, at that time, people lived ina community and used resources commonly.

The concept of ‘property’ is based on the right ofuse and possession. In the old days, this right was

∗Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Establishment, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Email: roypkan@bttb.net.bd

160

enjoyed commonly, hence it was a common prop-erty right. In the course of time, humans adaptedto their diverse livelihoods in different ways andmeans through natural selection. Thus, tillers set-tled on agricultural land, hill dwellers on hills andmountains, woodsmen in the jungles, fishers bywater bodies, and so on. In this paper, I would liketo dwell on the fisher community and their rightto the resource in areas where they were born andbrought up.

Fishers can be classified into two broad cate-gories, according to the two basic types of fish-ery resources: fresh-water and marine. They dif-fer greatly in living styles, fishing practices, foodhabits, resource use, and so on. They experience thesame property rights abuse and resource degrada-tion that lead to poverty and environmental dam-age as the outcome of unplanned overexploitationof fish resources by non-locals and industrialists.

2 Marine Resource Profile ofBangladesh

Bangladesh is a country with a small territory of 14mn hectares (ha), where the cultivable land area isonly 9 mn ha. But it is blessed by 3 mn ha of coastalarea, of which 1 mn ha is specially characterized byrich and diverse fauna and flora. The coastal areastarts from the Indian border in the west and ex-tends some 480 km up to the Myanmar border inthe southeast and the Bay of Bengal in the south. Itincludes the numerous low-lying islands and vastmangrove swamps (the Sundarbans) in the south-ern part of the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta, the sim-ilar but much smaller estuarine systems along theChittagong coast (Chokoria Sundarbans and NaafEstuary), and a single coral island of the extremesouthern tip of the country (St. Martin’s Island).

The estuaries are also very rich in prawnsand shrimps (such as Parapenaeosis, Penaeus andPalaeomon spp.), estuarine crocodiles, 25 speciesof turtles and tortoises, three species of monitorlizards and numerous snakes. In fact, the coastalresources are rich in a wide diversity of plants andanimals, including significant wild life species. Thewestern part of the Sundarbans lies in India and therest, almost 60 per cent, is in Bangladesh. This re-gion is dominated by two plant species, Heriteriafomes and Excoecaria agallocha. It is characterized bysemidiurnal type of tidal inundation, with a max-imum amplitude of 3 m during spring tides. Theclimate is humid tropical, with an annual rainfall ofabout 1,600 mm in the central coast and 2,500 mm

in the outer coast. Violent storms are frequent dur-ing the pre-monsoon period, and again in Septem-ber, October and November.

Fishermen commonly catch over 120 species offishes, including 95 species of water fowl, morethan 270 species of local and migratory birds,as well as species of birds of prey in mangroveswamps. About 42 species of mammals are stillseen in the Sundarbans, including the rare RoyalBengal Tiger, Panthera tigris. A recent study es-timates the principal mammalian populations as:350 tigers; 40,000-70,000 rhesus macaques; 50,000-80,000 spotted deer; 20,000 wild boars; and 20,000smooth-coated otters. Crustaceans are also impor-tant for the biomass of the system. Crabs, prawnsand shrimps are the main groups.

About 20 mn people live in the coastal region ofBangladesh, 20 per cent of whom directly dependon the coastal and marine resources for their liveli-hoods. They live exclusively on fishing of wild fish,along with crabs, prawns and shrimps. In addition,the mangrove ecosystem supports nearly 300,000coastal people through activities like fishing, col-lecting honey, wax and timber, hunting, and so on.Fishery production in mangroves increased signifi-cantly to 14,000 tonnes in 1982-83, compared to 640tonnes in 1972-73. Many thousands are engagedin collection of honey and wax. An estimated 232tonnes of honey and wax were harvested in 1983.In addition, collection of shrimp fry is an impor-tant source of livelihood. The mangrove forest alsofunctions as a buffer, protecting the densely settledagricultural areas to the north from the full force ofcyclonic storms and tidal waves.

Also of great importance are the marine re-sources of Bangladesh, geographically provided bya relatively shallow embayment of the northeasternIndian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal in the south-ern part. The Bay of Bengal occupies an area of2,173,000 sq km, with an average depth of 2,600 mand a width of 1,600 km. In 1974, the special eco-nomic zone provision allowed Bangladesh the rightof enjoying up to 200 nautical miles (370 km) fromthe seashore, which comprises an area of 166,000 sqkm, larger than the landmass.

The ecosystem in this region is quite distinctand tropical in nature. The huge river drainage andthe profusion of wetlands, marshes and mangrovesincrease productivity of nearshore fish species.About 475 species of fish are found in this re-newable habitat, along with 16 species of marineshrimp. In addition, several species of crab and 31species of turtle and tortoise. of which 24 live incoastal fresh-water environment, are also found (P.

161

Gain, 1998). The marine fishery is totally open andcontributes to 23 per cent of the total fish catch. Themarine fisheries are of two types, namely, indus-trial (trawling) and artisanal, the former contribut-ing about 6 per cent and the latter, 17 per cent of thetotal catch.

Petroleum and gas reserves have been discov-ered in the marine zone. It was recently estimatedthat about 20 tn cu ft of gases can be extractedfrom the bottom of the Bay of Bengal. The mostrecent World Bank estimate shows that Bangladeshis expected to receive US$1,049 mn by 2004, mostof which would go to the oil and gas sectors. TheBay of Bengal is of great significance to Bangladeshand neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka, Indiaand Myanmar for ocean transportation facilities.Carriage of cargo to and from these countries isof immense importance. The oceanic transportroute directly supports the principal seaports ofBangladesh, Chittagong and Mongla.

3 Degradation of the MarineEnvironment

Industrial effluents and urban sewage, along withagrochemicals used in the coastal crop fields, arethe main threats to the marine resource. In this re-spect, the two seaports, Chittagong and Mongla,along with the industrial cities of Khulna and Chit-tagong, are the main sources of pollution. InChittagong, out of the 720 industrial units, only20 per cent treat their liquid effluents before dis-posal. These effluents contain hazardous chemicalslike chromium, salt, sulphur, caustic soda and bu-tanol, which are finally carried to the Bay of Bengalthrough the river Karnafuli.

Khulna possesses 300 large industrial units,which discharge about 10 mn gallons of liquidwaste that finally reach the Bay of Bengal throughthe Sundarbans. Oil spills on the seaports and shipsnavigating the area are the other sources of pollu-tion. Shipbreaking on the beach add to the pol-lutants, which seriously affect the aquatic faunaand the mangrove vegetations. Uncontrolled, il-legal fishing and overfishing of marine fishes andaquatic turtles, molluscs and crustaceans threatenmarine fish resources. Excess navigation also dis-turbs the natural habitat of the aquatic flora andfauna.

The Sundarbans have been exploited from timeimmemorial, when human settlements in the basinstarted cutting and clearing the vegetation forhomesteads and cultivation. About 100 years

ago, the area came under the maintenance of thegovernment’s department of forest. Agriculturalencroachment—a common and indigenous phe-nomenon to this important ecosystem—threatensits existence. Population explosion and dense set-tlements on the coast surrounding the Sundarbanscould reach a disastrous position, unless checked.Fishermen’s camps, which encourage illegal trap-ping and hunting, are also a cause of serious dis-turbance. This illegal activity is also done by thewoodcutters and a reasonable number of civil anddefence officers. Along with agricultural encroach-ment, shrimp farms and their intensive cultiva-tion have added serious damage to the mangroveforests, affecting the fries of all wild fish.

The ecological disturbances of mangrove forestshave been caused by many anthropogenic activi-ties, like the diversion of the Ganges river. About40 per cent of the dry season flow of the Ganges hasbeen diverted upstream, following the FarrakkaBarrage in India in 1974. This accelerates the de-crease of fresh-water flushing and increases salinewater intrusion, which damages the vegetation andfinally degrades the environment. Oil spills causeimmense damage, especially to the aquatic faunaand sea birds. The seaport Mongla is the mainsource of oil spills, with pollution also coming fromthe large and numerous shipping vessels that passthrough the Sundarbans every day via the north-east shipping route.

The most significant and immediate threat isthe illegal overextraction of timber and fauna. Inthe 1980s, an assessment showed that the stockof Heritieria fomes, the principal variety of man-grove locally known as ‘Sundari’, has declinedby 40 per cent since the forest inventory of 1959.At the same time, another dominant species, Ex-coecaria agallocha, has fallen by 45 per cent. For anyBangladeshi, it would be shocking to know that, inthe near future, the Sundarbans will be a misnomerdue to the possible extinction of Sundari if the trendof exploitation, rather than conservation and man-agement, continues.

4 Commercial Shrimp Culture

Intensive commercial shrimp culture is one ofthe most important export-earning activities ofBangladesh. Initially, during the period 1979-80,the area under shrimp culture was only about20,000 ha. It has now reached 137,995 ha (BBS,1998) and contributions of this subsector, which

162

provides employment for around 1 mn people1,are estimated at US$9-180 mn. Though the em-ployment and export earnings are impressive, toachieve them, Bangladesh has to pay considerablecosts relating to environmental degradation, in-cluding deterioration in soil quality, declining ce-real and vegetable production, as well as many so-cial conflicts. The yield of rice and other cereals hasdeclined, as has land quality and acceptable levelsof salinity and acidity. As a result, the marginalfarmers are forced into poverty and landlessness.

Environmental degradation due to retention ofsaline water leads to a loss of biodiversity (thatis, the disappearance or extinction of indigenousflora and fauna), declining land quality, loss ofgenetic diversity due to monoculture, and so on.The coastal mangrove forests are now threatenedby the expansion of shrimp farms. It is reportedthat a total of 60,000 ha of mangrove forest areahas been converted mainly to shrimp farms, ofwhich 2,944 ha have gone to the Directorate of Fish-eries for shrimp aquaculture in a project fundedby the Asian Development Bank (ADB) (Md. Ka-mal,1999). Mangrove forests are also consideredsuitable breeding grounds for many fresh-waterand marine fish, including shellfish and otherwild species. The removal or destruction of man-groves may disrupt the entire coastal environmentin many ways. Extensive clearance of mangroveshas led to great erosion and siltation in certain ar-eas, which has affected coastal areas like seagrassbeds and habitats of migrating birds, sea turtles,dolphin, molluscs and crustaceans.

In the polder areas, the long retention of salinewater damages the natural vegetation, aquaticplants and weeds, leading to their extinction. Themost important and common ones affected are thePati, Bajua, Shapla, Helenchi, Malencha, Kalmi,Durba, Thankuni and Ambali. A wide variety offruit and woody trees, like mango, blackberry, jack-fruit, lemon, papaya, banana, coconut, beetel nut,guava and babla are declining at an alarming rate.The production of all kinds of household vegeta-bles has been stopped due to soil salinity and waterretention in homestead lands and vegetable fields.The flooding of land also reduces the availabilityof grazing fields, accommodation and drinking wa-ter, which inevitably leads to reduced livestock andpoultry populations.

The loss of biodiversity due to shrimp culture isof paramount concern. Wild fry, collected from the

river by thick nets, is the largest source of shrimpfry for commercial farming. Normally, the collectedwild fries, including all other fish fry, are kept in ajar/pot, and only the shrimp fries are sorted out,while the rest are all abandoned. Thus, we are los-ing thousands/millions of wild fries of thousandsof species of aquatic flora and fauna just for oneor two shrimp fries. On the other hand, in theshrimp farm areas, selective species of bagda andgalda are cultured intensively and all other nat-ural aquatic species have declined or become ex-tinct. During the visit of the author to the farm areaof Khulna and Bagerhat, the farmers reported thisscarcity and decline of so many indigenous aquaticfishes, turtles, molluscs, etc.

5 Deprivation of Rights Relating toEnvironment and Resource Use

Bangladesh is a poor and underdeveloped country,where all the indicators of human development areweak. More than 40 per cent of the people are il-literate and over 60 per cent live below the povertyline (daily consumption below 2,200 k cal). The in-fant mortality rate is 57 per 1,000 live births, and 0.3mn are born without medical care per year, 10 mnsuffer from malnutrition, and nearly 0.2 mn chil-dren die before attaining 5 years of age. In view ofthese human deprivations, protective security andaccess to the resources are of highest concern. Thelatter should be considered as a right and not aprivilege and must be ensured through democraticprocesses of the nation-State.

6 Deprivation by Law and Practice

Bangladesh is a post-colonial State. Though itachieved freedom in 1971, all current parametersindicate a transitional stage from colonial practiceto freedom, with most of the policies and biases ofthe former ruler still being followed, especially inlaws related to resource use right and management.

It is worth mentioning that land, along with allother resources in this country, were settled to pri-vate ownership by the zamindars during the Britishregime under the Sunset Law, Permanent Settle-ment Regulation (PSR) 1793. The trend was to settlealmost everything possible to ensure a fixed eco-nomic return or revenue for the rulers. The termi-nation of British regime in 1947 gave birth to two

1The employment scenario is estimated ignoring the extent and magnitude of eviction and deprivation of the local poor from theiruser/property right. The poor and helpless people are forced to engage in shrimp farms as day labour for subsistence, includingcollection of fry. In fact, both the works are done against their interests, financial and environmental.

163

separate States: India and Pakistan.2. East Bengalbecame the eastern province of Pakistan. Due to thePSR in 1947, the land tenure situation in this partreached such a position that 91 per cent land wasunder permanent settlement, 3.5 per cent undertemporary settlement and only 5.5 per cent under‘public property’ status; and all the tenancies cre-ated by the zamindars were legally valid tenures bythe Bengal Tenancy Act 1885. The zamindari systemwas abolished under the State Acquisition and Ten-ancy (SAT) Act 1950 and all rent-receiving interestswere vested to the State, which made the lawful set-tlers by the zamindars owners of the property. How-ever, the SAT Act 1950 (Section 20) restricted privateownership over certain categories of property asabsolutely ‘non-retainable’, including forests andwater bodies3 (except tanks constructed solely byexcavation). Today, the water bodies and forestresources are public property (State-owned) andmaintained by the government. Forests are man-aged by the Department of Forests under the pro-vision of the Forest Act 1927. The land ministryregulates the management of land tenure and rev-enue system under the Land Management Manual(LMM) 1991. The tenurial provisions for water bodymanagement under the LMM of 1991 are as follows:

• The closed water bodies measuring up to20 acres are entrusted with the upazila (sub-district) administration for management andopen auction.

• The water bodies managed by the Ministry ofFishery and Livestock would be available andaccessible to the scientists and researchers ofthe Department of Fisheries for investigationand environmental information collection.

• The closed water bodies, mainly ponds notmore than 3 acres in size, would be preservedby the union council so that people can exer-cise their customary right of using the watersfor domestic and other uses. These fisherieswould not be leased to anyone.

• All other closed and open-water bodies cov-ering an area larger than 20 acres would beleased through open auction to the people bythe Deputy Commissioners concerned.

This generalized tenure and resource use prac-tices are also applicable to the coastal resources. Ex-

cept for the rivers and mangrove swamps, 2 mnha of coastal lands are cultivable and under privateownership, while the remaining 1 m ha is, more orless, State-owned. Eighty per cent of the popula-tion are farmers and live on rice cultivated in theirfields. Due to salinity, the crop production is verylow and the mangrove ecosystem provides liveli-hood through fishing, collecting honey, wax andtimber, hunting and so on. About 20 per cent of thecoastal people live exclusively on fishing of wildfish along with crabs, prawns and shrimps. Man-grove forests and all open-water bodies are con-trolled by the government. All types of harvest-ing of mangrove forests are regulated by the ForestDepartment. Open-water bodies are also leased tothe individuals for a period of two to five years. Inthis way, the local indigenous people are being de-prived of their right of harvesting and fishing be-cause they are poor and unable to lease the waterbodies, though the government has declared thatthe water bodies will be leased only to the fisher-men, not to others. The recent mission of intensiveand commercial shrimp culture by non-fishermenhas deprived the poor and marginal farmers. Inmany cases, these poor people are evicted by thenon-local farm owners, which adds to their suffer-ings.

Forests, including public land resources, arestrictly restricted and come under the system ofpublic-individual property rights through leasing,either permanently or temporarily, to an individ-ual or a corporation. In the case of water bod-ies, the government practices public–group prop-erty rights, with a legal arrangement where thegovernment conditionally leases the water bodiesto the fishermen’s society or user groups of a partic-ular locality. In both systems, the practices are nowjeopardized by mismanagement and inefficiency ofthe public sector, along with the social weaknessand lack of political commitment.

Two major types of property rights—the pri-vate and State owned/public—are supposed to bepractised in the coastal area of Bangladesh, butthe most important common and open-access prop-erty rights are no more recognized in tenure form.This tenured system is a great threat to community-based property rights, including the commons, par-ticularly for the local and indigenous people ofBangladesh.

2In British India, this territory of Bangladesh was under the province Bengal (Bengal, Bihar and Orissa). As Viceroy, Lord Curzon,in 1903, decided to divide the original Bengal, and, in 1905, a new province was created comprising East Bengal and Assam. Lateron, in 1947, during the partition of India and Pakistan, East Bengal was included to Pakistan and renamed as East Pakistan. After 24years, the people of East Pakistan achieved victory on December 16, 1971 through a liberation war.

3“Land” includes land which goes under inundation daily or seasonally (SAT Act 1950).

164

7 Deprivation by the Power Structure

In the economic contribution to the national ac-count through export earnings, shrimp cultureplays an important role, including in employment.But all these achievements have various costs to so-ciety; marginal farmers and local fishers are spe-cially subjected to exploitation. Many conflictsand litigations have also arisen between farm own-ers and small landowners, and between marginalfarmers and fishers, which affect social life in vari-ous unpleasant ways; to some extent, eviction fromproperty has also happened.

The shrimp farms are either privately or pub-licly owned; in most cases, land belongs to themarginal farmers, from whom the farm ownershave to procure or lease land. The owners of thelarge shrimp farms seized the properties of all othersmall/marginal farmers in collaboration with lo-cal touts. To some extent, the helpless farmerswere forced to sign the deed of lease; otherwise,they would have been evicted and driven away.In extreme cases, they have been tortured by paidmusclemen. It was reported that in places likePaikghacha (in district Khulna), the farm owner didnot hesitate to shoot down women in broad day-light. The story does not end here. When the fightultimately settles, the farmers are often deprived oftheir lease money.

In many places like Paikgacha of Khulna dis-trict, shrimp farm owners procure land on lease fortwo to seven years from many farmers to make alarge commercial farm unit. The farm owners usu-ally pay US$35-50 per acre seasonally to the farmerand, as annual rental, double this cost or US$70-100.The per acre cost in semi-intensive shrimp farm-ing, on average, is US$1,300 and the net return isUS$4,600. From this, it is not difficult to estimate thedegree of exploitation by the farm owners. Farmowners, on average, get more than US$3,300 fromone acre of land, while the real owner of the land,the farmer, gets only US$35-100. On the other hand,due to increasing salinity, the production of cerealand other household needs, including livestock,has declined remarkably, pushing the farmers tothe verge of destruction. The uncontrolled deterio-ration in household incomes burdens the land userswith debt, forces them to migrate to non-farm activ-ities or leaves them stranded as submarginal patchfarmers, which, in turn, may lead to increased rateof landlessness and poverty.

The farm owners and lease holders strictly re-strict access to the fishing ground, both in open

water and shrimp culture areas, leaving the fish-ers and their children to starve for days on end. Tosurvive, they have to compromise and come intounofficial contact with the farm owner for work.The episode of sufferings does not end here, as thefarm owner seizes subsistence rights by putting anembargo on collecting crabs and small crustaceansto eat4. Thus, both property rights and humanrights are seriously threatened in this coastal areaof Bangladesh. As a result, poverty, and in ex-treme cases, migrations of fishers and poor farmersfrom their properties and homesteads are the hid-den scenes in the export drama.

8 A Bangladeshi Perspective

User rights and community property rights, includ-ing human rights, are the major areas for viola-tions in the coastal parts of Bangladesh. The rightto access to the resources is also strictly restrictedby the State. For example, the reserved and pro-tected forests are controlled by the Department ofForest, and other public properties are under thejurisdiction of district administration (the coloniallaw enforcing institution). The marine and coastalresources are now under threat of degradation dueto irregular anthropogenic activities. Under pri-vate ownership, a bundle of titles is protected bythe legal system. Sustainable resource manage-ment thus requires a fundamental and conceptualchange in juridical perception and interpretation oftitles, rights, duties, interests and liabilities.

It is noteworthy that there are no specific lawsfor marine resource management. Most of the re-lated laws are either for management in terms ofrent/revenue receipt and environmental conserva-tion based on a legal framework. If we consider theEnvironmental Conservation Act 1995, the legisla-tion purely deals with the environment; it does not,however, explicitly recognize the right to a soundenvironment. Like this Act, all other rules and reg-ulations are devoid of the rights and titles of thecommunity, ignoring their vital part in the particu-lar environment.

9 A World Perspective

Bangladesh’s experience on rights and manage-ment of coastal resources can be considered a com-mon and generalized phenomenon in the countries

4During a visit, the author witnessed extreme abuse of human rights.

165

of the Indian Ocean Region. From a more gener-alized point of view, we can identify the followingcommon factors:

• The majority of the people of the world livein developing countries.

• Human rights are weak in these countries.

• Access to justice and information, and free-dom of association and expression, are ofhighest concern, alongside property rights.

• Private/individual activities are acceleratinghuman-rights violations and environmentaldegradation.

• In the name of development, human-rightsand environmental abuses occur.

• National/State law does not recognize thehuman rights of the local communities andindigenous people, including their rights toland and other resources.

• It is now more apparent that deprivation ofthe local/indigenous people has a very closelinkage with environmental resources andhuman rights abuses.

Key Challenges From the above picture of weakhuman rights and abuse of property and environ-mental rights in the coastal regions of the develop-ing world, we can consider the following as a fewkey challenges:

• prevention of human rights abuse/violation;

• establishment of community participationand user-based property rights;

• avoidance of environmental degradation; and

• legitimacy of user rights and enforcement,that is, compilation and enforcement of lawsin support of user-based property rights andenvironmental management by the nation-State.

10 Overcoming the Challenges

We believe that humans have a right to user-basedproperty and environmental management and arecommitted to overcome these challenges. We needa creative approach and new opportunities to re-spond to the challenges, inviting contributions per-taining to community and user-based legal incen-tives for sustainable development.

From environmental and human rights perspec-tives, it is challenging to develop equitable legalrelationships between local communities, govern-ment and other supportive organizations for sus-tainable user-based community management of re-sources.

Before modelling such an effective and creativeapproach, we should share the experiences gainedby fisher communities in community-based useand participation in resource management system.

11 Experience of Community-basedCo-management in the Philippines

Fisheries are now passing through a process oftransition to the sustainable use of resourcesthrough environmental conservation practices.This is done by community-based participation atthe level of users, that is, fishers.

Like many other fisher communities of differ-ent countries, the fishers of the island of San Sal-vador in the Philippines5 took the initiative to avertthe overexploitation of fishery resources in the late1980s and, by 1997, they had attained a tangiblesuccess in community-based resource use and co-management.

Most of the honorable participants at this con-ference may be well experienced in this field. Nev-ertheless, I feel it necessary to describe the key ini-tiatives and processes taken by the fisher commu-nity of San Salvador.

12 Invasion of Non-locals and theBeginning of Degradation

The fishery of San Salvador was an open-accessresource, without any law enforcing arrangementsince the time of human settlement. Until the late1960s, resource use conflicts were rare and the re-source remained in good condition.

But, in the early 1970s, non-local fishersfrom the central Philippines entered the area andbrought with them illegal fishing methods such ascyanides, fine-mesh nets and explosives. The newfishers also integrated the village economy into theinternational market for aquarium fish.

5This Filipino experience is adopted from Managing Small-scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods by F. Berkes et al, 2001.

166

13 Crisis Point

In the late 1980s, the resource degradation and useconflict reached a crisis point. The average catchper trip of 20 kg in the 1960s had declined to 3 kg in1988. Many reef fish, such as groupers, snappers,and damsel fish, became scarce. In 1988, the liv-ing coral cover had declined to an average of 23 percent for the entire island.

14 External Agents and the Iinitiativesof Local Fishers

As the local fishers of San Salvador felt the need ofresource protection for their livelihood, they wentin search of solutions to their problems. PeaceCorps volunteers had arrived in San Salvador in1987. They conceptualized a community-basedcoastal resource management project for coral reefrehabilitation. In 1989, a local NGO led a project toestablish a marine sanctuary. The project featuredbiological conservation and governance interven-tions with other programmes like managementplanning, community organizing, income genera-tion, rules and regulations, education and training.

15 Sharing of Experience

In the same year, 1989, the core group membersvisited a successful marine sanctuary in the cen-tral Philippines. That visit increased motivationand support for the idea of sanctuary and reserve,which resulted in the drafting of a local ordinanceto ban fishing within the sanctuary and allow onlynon-destructive fishing in the reserve.

16 Participation of the LocalGovernment Authority

Depending on the draft local ordinance, the lo-cal government authority, the Masinloc Munici-pal Council, helped by passing an ordinance forthe marine sanctuary and reserve. The ordinancealso increased the role and participation of thegovernment authority and brought about a re-source management partnership between govern-ment and fisheries in a number of ways:

• the legislation provided a legal basis for thesanctuary and for apprehending rule viola-tors;

• conflicts were mediated between local andoutside resource users;

• boats and equipment for patrolling coastalwaters were provided;

• a government patrol team to enforce laws wascreated; and

• a political environment that allowed for thepursuit of community-based initiatives wasprovided.

This inspired the core members to monitor ille-gal fishing activities and guard the sanctuary. As aresult, other resource users participated in villageconsultations, endorsed local ordinances, adheredto the rules, and adopted non-destructive fishingmethods.

17 Obstacles

The path of co-management was not trouble-free.The fishers had to fight against the non-locals aswell as local exploiters. Those fishers who were dis-placed from the sanctuary and reserve by destruc-tive and illegal methods of fishing became alien-ated and resentful. Over time, however, tangiblebenefits in the form of higher fish catch from SanSalvador’s fishing grounds helped to encouragerule compliance and non-destructive fishing prac-tices.

18 Outcome of the Co-managementSystem

Within a period of only 10 years, fish catches wentup from 3 kg in 1988 to 6-10 kg in 1998. The extentof living coral reef cover increased from 23 per centto 57 per cent for the whole island. Another bio-logical achievement was the increase in fish diver-sity. Fishers perceived gains in equity, knowledge,household income, empowerment and conflict re-duction. Overall, the system of co-managementgave the villagers a reason for optimism, a motiva-tion for collective action, and pride in their resourcemanagement achievements.

19 Contributing Factors

Several factors led to the success of the co-management or community-based managementsystem. The important ones are:

• participation of resource stakeholders, incul-cating a sense of ownership in planning andimplementation of programmes;

167

• partnership agreement between fishers andthe government to promote community man-agement;

• specification and legitimacy of user rightsand enforcement;

• empowerment and capability building;

• tangible benefits such as redefined resourceaccess;

• shift to non-destructive fishing methods andimproved enforcement; and

• observable changes in biological, social andeconomic development.

20 Conceptual Clarification for a ModelApproach

Though the model of community-based manage-ment relating to co-management involving the gov-ernment, community and NGOs, as practised in SanSalvador, is a good one, it is not sufficient to explainthe basic points of user-based community rightsand environmental rights and management. Butfirst, we need to clarify some basic concepts.

20.1 User-based community

‘Community’ is a term with a wide diversity of us-age, denoting:

• the people living in one place, area or country,as a whole;

• a group of people of the same religion, race oroccupation or with shared interests;

• a group of people sharing things in commonor being alike in some way;

• a group of people with a community spirit, afeeling of sharing the same attitude, interests,and so on;

• a group of animals or plants living or grow-ing6 in the same place.

From the above terminologies, it is clear that theconstitution of a community requires five funda-mental components: a certain area, a group of liv-ing mass, a common mode of living and growing,

sharing of resources, and the feeling of sharing thesame attitude and interests. The last one is exclu-sively applicable for rational beings.

In our present discussion, we must choose thewords that are more useful to understand thetheme and ethics of the user-based community ap-proach. We may thus define these components asfollows.

• ‘Certain area’: the area where the resourcesare present, that is, the resource-based area.

• ‘A group of living mass’: this is an ecologicalterm that includes animals and plants as liv-ing mass, but, in our present discussion, onlyhuman populations should be considered asthose living in that resource-based area.

• ‘Common mode of living and growing’: thepeople should have a common life patternand livelihood or occupational entity.

• ‘Sharing same resources’: the people must de-pend on the same resource and everybodyhas access to enjoy the resource.

• ‘Feeling of sharing the same attitude and in-terests’: the people must have a feeling ofsharing ways of thinking, doing, managingand protecting, and making others do com-mon things.

Thus, the user-based community is a group ofpeople who live in certain resource area and di-rectly depend on that resource with a commonmode of living and growing (same occupation),having a feeling of sharing the same attitude, in-terests, and so on.

20.2 User-based right

This right is of highest consideration in resourceuse and management. I stated earlier that user-based right should be established on a first-userbasis. This needs further clarification. It may sohappen that one who was a resource user in thepast, like a fisher or tiller, may have shifted, in thecourse of time, to being a businessman in an urbansetting; at the same time, an urban day labourermay have become a resource user, settled in that re-source area. Ethically, the first one should lose hisright to the resource and the latter should be pro-vided an acquired user right. User rights can thus

6For those who are born and brought up in a certain place, depending on the resources available there, this can be considered abirth right through user-based acquired right, irrespective of diversities in colour, caste and nationality.

7Those who shifted to other livelihood but get the benefit of use of resources through paid labor or any other secondary support.

168

be further refined into direct user rights and indi-rect user7 rights.

20.3 Nature and type of property rights

The concept of private property is harmful to soci-ety. Polarization of money and assets is the princi-pal outcome of private ownership, and the root ofinequity, creating scope for inefficient, uncontrolledand insufficient use of resources. Private owner-ship is quite inapplicable in natural resource useand management.

Apart from private property rights, two othertypes of property rights are practised in society: thecommon and the public or State. In certain cases,where no well-defined property rights exist, the sit-uation is very often taken as open access. Though‘open access’ and ‘common’ seem to be synony-mous, they differ greatly. Common property rightsare the rights of members of a certain community toenjoy any property or resource commonly, whichmay be regulated by law, either local or national.Open-access rights are also common but are not re-stricted to the local community, that is, all the peo-ple of a State may enjoy the resource without anylegal framework in use.

Public properties are of a different resourcebase, where the title is exclusively vested to theState but the right of use is diverse in relation tothe nature of the property. In some cases, the Stateuses the property for national interest under directcontrol as reserve forests, national parks and so on,but, in most cases, public properties are used bythe people under a different legal framework witha view to rent collection, as in lease (short-term andlong-term) to either individuals or groups. In mostcases, the State encourages the concept of privateand individual rights even in resource use. In cer-tain areas, the State has still not established publiccontrol over the resources and there, users commonrights exist. In many countries, the nation-State rec-ognizes community participation and rights to re-source use and management within a communitythrough a system of co-operatives.

No property right should be recognized in re-spect of title except by the State; people shouldposses only user rights, which can be ascertainedby how property is used8 by the community of thatresource area. The vital point is the right of use tothe resource, not the title, and the user right shouldbe ascertained on the user-based community con-

cept. The title creates hereditary rights, which pro-vide private ownership to the descendants. So, thechanged property right should be established onthe philosophy of ‘user-based community propertyright’.

20.4 Environmental abuse and human rights

Degradation of resources and environmental dam-age occur due to unplanned and uncontrolled an-thropogenic activities. Such environmental abuseis relatively higher where human rights are weak,or, in other words, the degree of environmentalabuse is proportionate to human rights violation.In the name of development and poverty erad-ication, several projects are adopted in develop-ing countries, like coastal flood protection embank-ment schemes and export-oriented intensive aqua-culture, which lead to further exploitation of re-sources and marginalization of the indigenous andpoor people.

Where the State does not recognize their rights,local communities and indigenous peoples sufferfrom human rights violations, including environ-mental abuse. This is also true for other resourceusers, like tillers of land. Thus, the right of a partic-ular community to access and live in certain envi-ronments, that is, the environmental right, is verydifficult to differentiate from human rights. Theright to environment does not include merely theright to live and enjoy the resources but also theright to conserve them through proper use andmanagement. So the user right approach is appro-priate where the user can apply his/her environ-mental right not only to use but to conserve andprotect the environment from damage and injus-tice.

20.5 Man as a part of the environment

The two basic components of the environment arethe biotic communities (living biomass) and theabiotic resources (non-living physical bodies). Theinteractions of these living and non-living compo-nents in certain resource areas (habitat) constitutesan ecological unit, the ecosystem, which is the basiccontribution of the natural world, leading to envi-ronmental balance. Ecologically, ‘community’9 in-cludes all living bodies, that is, plants and animalsliving in a certain habitat, and the integrated unit ofinteraction includes all the species of living bodies.

8Tilling in land, fishing in water, etc. are modes of living and livelihood relating to resource.9Someone may think of ecosystem-community to explain the human community of a certain area in respect of community-based

rights; in such a case, resource management is not suitable enough and inappropriate.

169

The nature of the resource and the climatic condi-tions of certain habitats play a vital role in selectionof species of plants and animals, and this processof selection, or ‘natural selection’, is very long andcomplex. Like many other living species, humansstruggled for existence against abiotic and bioticenvironmental factors and acquired victory in thecompetition of the ‘survival of the fittest’. But hu-mans have become a threat to the environment byenjoying resources in an uncontrolled way, which isagainst the natural law of environmental balance.They have forgotten that they are also a part ofthe natural system, under an ecosystem whose re-sources form the base of all living and non-livingconditions, and that if they fail to restore or main-tain the rhythm, the whole world is doomed10. Hu-mans are the only living creatures that engage indamaging the resources beyond the regenerationcapacity of the natural system.

If we consider the above facts, the responsibil-ity to restore resources does not lie exclusively withthe people who live in the resource area, but to thenation States, civil societies, NGOs and all sectors ofpeople. By way of restoration, we have to considerthe vital role of the local and indigenous people,as they are the inhabitants of that particular habi-tat, like all other species of living bodies, and it istheir environmental right to live and enjoy the re-source. Ignoring this right, we seized their resourcefor our class benefit and caused great damage to theenvironment. This is the proper time to reinstatetheir rights and avert environmental degradationthrough recognition of user rights to resources.

Some may argue that indigenous people are notaware of the environment and they do not knowhow to use resources in a sustainable way. This po-litical economy of ignorance makes it easy to over-look the presence of rural people and their rights.Though all the local and indigenous people do notequally respect and protect their resources, many ofthem know much more about the resource and itsmanagement than modern scientists. In addition,we have to consider that, as human beings and in-habitants born in that area, they should have a fun-damental right to participate in decisions and activ-ities that directly affect their lives and livelihoods.

21 The Approach and the Model

To achieve the goal of sustainable development, wemust consider the user right of the resource-basedcommunity, along with the use of resources in a

sustainable way, where ecological balance shouldnot be hampered, so as to allow the regeneration ca-pacity of nature to work. The major considerationsof the concept can be interlinked and designed asfollows:

Right and T itle −→ Mode of Use −→Livelihood −→ Living −→ Development

where,type of property right = user-based right of thecommunity, that is, the right of access to the re-source;mode of use = sustainable use of resource withoutcompromising the future;significance of livelihood = employment of humanresources by occupation;living = survive with a guarantee of minimum re-quirements and equity; andsignificance of development = sustainable develop-ment.

22 Probable Outcome

Whatever the strategies and ways applied to imple-ment the model, the probable outcomes are:

• protection of resources from indiscriminateand irregular use;

• creation of common-right ethics;

• reduction of private ownership and mini-mization of conflicts at the individual level;

• human resource utilization through employ-ment;

• maximum use of resources, without compro-mising the future;

• individual and social security throughcommunity-based life;

• guarantee of minimum requirements, likefood, clothing, shelter, and so on; and

• reduction of inequity.

10Greenhouse effect, acid rain, toxic wastes dumping, etc. can be taken into consideration.

170

23 Conclusion

Indiscriminate use, misuse and exploitation with-out replenishment of resources, along with irregu-lar and unplanned activities against nature, lead-ing to environmental degradation and a disastrousend is a reality today. Humans are their ownenemy, harming themselves, though they are theonly rational beings who can restore the resources.Along with many other devices for restoration andavoidance of degradation of resources, the user-based community right is an important and effec-tive one in most of the fragile ecosystems. This isthe proper time to take effective steps. In particu-lar, the nation-States may take:

• immediate and effective measures to stop hu-man oppression and resource degradation;and

• initiatives to restore the coastal resources in-volving all sectors—local government bodies,civil society, NGOs—by applying the conceptof user-based property rights and manage-ment.

Finally, we, of the Indian Ocean Region, maytake the initiative to form a team of experts toconduct a comprehensive study to finally shape amodel and a programme of action.

24 References

1. Clemett, A. et al. 2000. Symposium Pro-ceedings on Peoples’ Livelihoods at the Land-Water Interface.

2. A.K. 1987. History of Bangladesh, Pakistan andIndia.

3. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. 1999. Statis-tical Yearbook of Bangladesh.

4. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council.1998. Task Force Report on Agricultural Re-search and Development Plan for the CoastalRegion of Bangladesh.

5. Gain, P. (Ed.) 1998. Bangladesh Environment:Facing the 21st Century.

6. Berkes, F. et al. 2001. Managing Small-scaleFisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods.

7. Scott, Derek A. 1989. A Directory of Asian Wet-lands. IUCN.

8. Nisat, A. et al. (Eds.) 1993. Freshwater Wet-lands in Bangladesh: Issues and Approaches forManagement.

9. Government of East Pakistan (Legislative De-partment). The East Bengal State Acquisitionand Tenancy Act 1950 (as modified up to 27May 1957, with explanatory notes).

10. Hussain, T. 1995. Land Rights in Bangladesh:Problems of Management.

11. Kader, Mia A. 1992. Land Management Man-ual.

12. Ministry of Environment and Forest. 1995.National Environment Management ActionPlan.

13. Planning Commission, Ministry of Planning.1998. Fifth Five Year Plan: 1997–2002.

14. Soil Resource Development Institute Re-gional Office, Khulna. 2000. Annual Techni-cal Report.

15. Hamid, Akhter M. et al. 1998. Shrimp-RiceFarming System in Bangladesh. The Universityof Queensland Working Paper.

16. Khan, M. S. et al. (Eds.) 1994. Wet Lands ofBangladesh.

171

The EU as a Distant-water Fishing Power

Michael Earle ∗

AbstractThis paper examines management objectives and the precautionary approach in international

fisheries management, and the relationship between developed and developing States. Three dif-ferent tuna regional fisheries organizations illustrate the differences—the International Commis-sion for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), established in 1969; the Indian Ocean TunaCommission (IOTC), which entered into force in 1996; and the new, as yet unnamed, commissionfor tuna in the western and central Pacific.

Keywords

Fisheries management. Precautionary approach. Tuna. Regional fisheries organizations. IC-CAT. IOTC. Western and Centrtal Pacific. WIOTO. Flags of convenience.

1 Introduction

The Indian Ocean is an increasingly important fish-ing ground for tuna and billfish, with declaredcatches having grown almost every year since themid-1970s. While well over half of the world’s tunaand billfish are caught in the Pacific (3.9 mn tonnesin 1999, or 66 per cent of the total), catches in the In-dian Ocean surpassed those in the Atlantic in 1986.By 1999, a total of 1.3 mn tonnes of tuna and billfishwere caught in the Indian Ocean.

These fish are caught by an extremely heteroge-neous collection of fisheries. The small-scale andartisanal sectors of the coastal States are relativelymore important here than in other ocean areas. Thisis evident in several ways.

The coastal States catch more than do thedistant-water fleets (DWF). In 1999, 28 coastal Statesreported total catches of 850,000 tonnes1, whereasthe DWF reported 563,000 tonnes.

Of the five largest fisheries in the area, three areby coastal States and two are DWF:

• Spanish purse-seine (142,000 tonnes in 1999of skipjack, yellowfin)

• Sri Lankan gill-net (122,000 tonnes of skip-jack, yellowfin, shark)

• Maldives baitboat (116,000 tonnes of skipjack,some yellowfin)

• Taiwanese longline (100,000 tonnes of bigeye,albacore, yellowfin)

• Iranian gill-net (82,000 tonnes of yellowfin,longtail tuna, skipjack)

The country with the largest total catches is aDWF—Spain—but six of the top 10 are coastalStates (No. 2–Sri Lanka, 3–Indonesia; 4–Maldives;5–Other nei2; 6–Taiwan; 7–India; 8–Iran; 9–France;10–Pakistan).

Purse-seines are the most important gear type,accounting for 449,000 tonnes in 1999, equiva-lent to 31 per cent of declared catches. Gill-nets (coastal, not high-seas drift-nets) followed andcaught 353,000 tonnes, or 25 per cent of the total.

∗Advisory to the Green Group in the European Parliament. Email: Mearle@europarleu.int1All figures include catches of sharks (68,000 tonnes); data from the IOTC database in FishStat, available on the IOTC website

http://www.seychelles.net/iotc/English/TechInfo/Edatabases.htm2Other nei is ‘not elsewhere included’ and consists primarily of estimated catches by vessels flying flags of convenience.

172

2 The Legal Instruments for TunaFishing in the Indian Ocean

It is no exaggeration to say that internationalfisheries management can be divided into twoperiods—prior to the UN Convention on the Con-servation and Management of Straddling FishStocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Strad-dling Stocks convention) and after3. That conven-tion made tremendous advances in defining the ob-jectives, responsibilities and methodologies of re-gional fisheries organizations (RFOs). It incorpo-rates provisions on flag and port State responsibil-ities, special rights for developing States, a disputesettlement mechanism and many others. As of 3October 2001, 29 countries have ratified, includingseveral of the Indian Ocean coastal countries4, with30 necessary for entry into force. The EuropeanUnion (EU) has not completed ratification proce-dures.

As the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)was negotiated in the early 1990s (it was adoptedby the FAO Council in November 1993), it is the lastof the pre-Straddling Stocks conventions. Nonethe-less, several of the provisions of the StraddlingStocks convention were foreshadowed in IOTC.Here I will look at two aspects: management ob-jectives and the precautionary approach, and therelationship between developed and developingStates. Three different tuna RFOs will illustratethe differences—the International Commission forthe Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), estab-lished in 1969; the IOTC, which entered into forcein 1996; and the new, as yet unnamed, commissionfor tuna in the western and central Pacific (whichI shall refer to as the Western Central Pacific TunaCommission, or WCPTC). At the time of writing(October 2001), three countries have ratified the lat-ter, out of a necessary ten.

3 Management Objectives and thePrecautionary Approach

ICCAT has no clearly stated objectives as such. In-stead, in its Preamble, it aims “to co-operate inmaintaining the populations of these [tunas andtuna-like fishes] at levels which will permit themaximum sustainable catch for food and other pur-poses”.

Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is the classicmanagement objective, also found in Article 61 ofthe UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNC-LOS), which has been largely discredited in recentyears as being too prone to overexploitation. Theword “precaution” does not appear anywhere inthe text of the Convention.

Precisely because MSY has led to so manydepleted stocks around the world, the languagefound in the Straddling Stocks Convention (and theFAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries) ismore conservation-oriented. For instance, in Ar-ticle 5 on General Principles, the UN Agreementrefers to “measures to ensure long-term sustainabil-ity of straddling fish stocks and highly migratoryfish stocks and promote the objective of their opti-mum utilization”. MSY is cited as a minimum stan-dard which is heavily qualified “by relevant envi-ronmental and economic factors, including the spe-cial requirements of developing States, and takinginto account fishing patterns, the interdependenceof stocks and any generally recommended interna-tional minimum standards, whether subregional,regional or global”.

The precautionary approach, listed as one of theGeneral Principles in Article 5, is fully describedin Article 6. Annex II provides detailed guidelinesfor the application of the precautionary approachto highly migratory species such as tunas.

IOTC contains some, but not all, of the progres-sive aspects of the Straddling Stocks convention. Itsobjective, in Article 5, is “the conservation and op-timum utilization of stocks covered by this Agree-ment and encouraging sustainable development offisheries based on such stocks”. Fortunately, theterm “maximum sustainable yield” does not ap-pear in the Convention. However, neither does theword “precaution”.

WCPTC outlines its conservation and manage-ment principles in Article 5. They are virtuallyidentical to the wording of the Straddling Stocksconvention, including the reference to the precau-tionary approach and the description of its applica-tion.

There is thus a clear evolution from a simple ac-ceptance of MSY as the only objective of manage-ment to a far more conservative set of objectives,which may include MSY as a minimum standardbut as definitely subordinate to a well-defined pre-cautionary approach.

3Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.

4Australia, Iran, Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sri Lanka

173

So much for theory. But what has happened inpractice? Most of the tuna and billfish stocks underICCAT jurisdiction are in a sorry state. Of the majorstocks, only yellowfin and skipjack are not consid-ered to be overexploited. From the point of view ofconservation of stocks, ICCAT cannot be consideredvery successful, though it has made attempts, inrecent years, to limit fishing capacity in some fish-eries.

The situation is somewhat better in the IndianOcean, but industrial tuna fishing does not have aslong a history there. No species are reported as be-ing overexploited, though analyses of bigeye andseveral billfish stocks have led scientists to urgecaution in these fisheries. As the WCPTC has notyet entered into force, it is not possible to evaluateits success at achieving its objectives.

4 Developing and Developed States

In many RFOs, there is an obvious tension betweenthe more affluent States, with their highly devel-oped fishing fleets, and the less affluent, develop-ing States, which are often still trying to establishor expand their fishing activities. Other differencesoccur between coastal States and the DWF States.In the IOTC, these alliances are drawn along similarlines, though this is by no means always the case.

In ICCAT, there are no occurrences of the words“coastal”, “developing” or “developed”. In thosedays, the question apparently did not arise! It hassince, of course, become a major source of disagree-ment. As Atlantic tuna stocks decline, and devel-oping and/or coastal States seek to develop theirfisheries, a major battle has broken out over allo-cation of access to the more lucrative stocks, espe-cially swordfish, bluefin and bigeye5.

The Preamble of IOTC recognizes the “specialinterests of developing countries in the IndianOcean Region to benefit equitably from the fisheryresources.” One of the Objectives is the “transfer oftechnology, training and enhancement, having dueregard to the need to ensure the equitable participa-tion of Members of the Commission in the fisheriesand the special interests and needs of Members inthe region that are developing countries.”

There are no catch limits adopted by IOTC, sothere has been no need to discuss allocation amongthe countries involved. In other respects, the orga-nization seems to be trying to put these words intopractice. For instance, a resolution was adopted

in 1999 to limit the fishing capacity of the fleetsexploiting tropical tunas (yellowfin, skipjack andbigeye)—the resolution specifically mentions the“rights and obligations of developing countries ...with respect to their entry into high-seas fisheries”.In March 2001, a special session was held to discussa possible integrated control and inspection schemein the IOTC area. Again, mention was made of theneeds of developing nations with respect to train-ing, technical assistance in establishing Vessel Mon-itoring Systems (VMS) systems. Neither of these ini-tiatives is operational yet, so it is not clear how, orif, these promises will be kept.

Membership in the IOTC is open to two basiccategories of countries: coastal States that are situ-ated in the region or those whose vessels fish in thearea (as usual, the EU is made a special case, butit clearly fits in as a DWF State, though France andthe UK are full members on behalf of their islandsin the Indian Ocean). No distinction is made be-tween the rights and obligations of the two typesof members, though two of the three criteria uponwhich fees are assessed relate to stage of develop-ment (according to gross national product or GNPand Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment or OECD status). Being the largestcatcher in the area, a member of the OECD and hav-ing a high GNP, the European Union pays 30 percent of the budget (43 per cent with France and theUK included).

The WCPTC goes much further in outliningthe problems faced by developing countries. ThePreamble to the Convention mentions the “ecolog-ical and geographical vulnerability of the small is-land developing States” and their need for, amongother things, “specific assistance, including fi-nancial, scientific and technological assistance”.Among the principles for conservation and man-agement is the need to “take into account the inter-ests of artisanal and subsistence fishers” (Article 5of the UN Straddling Stocks convention). “Due con-sideration to the respective capacities of develop-ing coastal States” must be given when implement-ing the provisions in exclusive economic zones(EEZs) (Article 7). Article 8 requires that, when im-plementing conservation measures, the “respectivedependence of coastal States and the States fish-ing on the high seas” must be considered. The cri-teria for allocating access to stocks must include“the needs of small island developing States”, the“needs of coastal communities” and “the fishing in-terests and aspirations of coastal States.” Finally,

5More information can be found in the ICCAT reports, especially those of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Allocation Criteria. Seethe ICCAT Annual Report, available at http://www.iccat.es/downloads.html.

174

Article 30 lists several requirements of developingStates, including the need “to ensure access to fish-eries by subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fish-ers and fishworkers, as well as indigenous people”.

As with the IOTC, fees shall be based upon,among other criteria, “national wealth”.

It is in its eligible membership, as well as theconditions for its entry into force, though, that theWCPTC is most different from earlier RFOs. Mostunusually, Article 34 specifies which countries areeligible to sign and ratify the convention6. Theonly non-coastal State which is allowed to sign isCanada (France, the UK and the US all have Statesor territories in the area). Other countries may onlybe invited to accede after the entry into force of theconvention and by consensus. The EU is specif-ically mentioned in this paragraph as a “regionaleconomic integration organization”.

Entry into force requires ratification by threeStates north of 20◦ North latitude and seven Statessouth of 20◦ North. If the northern countries don’trush to ratify this convention, then after three years,it can enter into force with 13 ratifications. It shouldbe noted that all members of the South Pacific Fo-rum Fisheries Agency are situated to the south of20◦ North latitude.

This is a most unusual structure, clearly de-signed to keep control in the hands of the coastalStates. Its controversial nature can be guaged fromthe Final Act of the High Level Conference thatadopted the Convention, where it states that theChairman “informed the Conference that all ef-forts at reaching general agreement had been ex-hausted.” The text of the Convention was adopted,but only after a vote. At the meeting of the IOTCin December 2000, both Japan and the EU com-plained about various aspects of the Convention,while Australia welcomed it.

Time will tell whether this model of conventionleads to a more equitable distribution of the bene-fits from the fisheries resources of the western Pa-cific.

Curiously, the countries around the western In-dian Ocean have concluded an agreement whichincludes only the coastal States—the Western In-dian Ocean Tuna Organization (WIOTO). Ratherthan be a regulatory body, its objectives are “topromote co-operation and co-ordination among itsmembers” in respect of several areas: harmoniza-

tion of fisheries policies; relations with DWF na-tions; surveillance and enforcement; fisheries de-velopment, including of fishing capacity and pro-cessing; access to EEZs of other members. Mem-bership is only open to certain coastal States7,which may subsequently allow other “indepen-dent” coastal States to adhere. The WIOTO enteredinto force in 1994 and currently has four members(Comoros, India, Mauritius and Seychelles), but isinactive.

5 Pirates in the Indian Ocean

As elsewhere, pirate fishing by vessels flying flagsof convenience (FOCs) is a serious threat to thetuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean. In the IOTCdatabases, certain of the catches by these fleets arereferred to by the lovely euphemism of ‘nei’—notelsewhere included.

There are two types of ‘nei’ statistics, as far asthe IOTC is concerned. The first comes from vesselsthat report their catches, but not by the flag State.A good example of this is the purse-seiners that be-long to EU shipowners but which fly flags of conve-nience. The second is vessels which do not reporttheir catches in any way, and which have to be esti-mated by all sorts of indirect means. These includethe longline fleets flying flags from Belize, Panama,Honduras, and so on. The fleet of small longlin-ers in this category has increased in size in the pastseveral years.

According to the most recent IOTC catchdatabase, catches by ‘nei’ vessels, plus catchesattributed to Belize, Netherlands Antilles andPanama, amounted to 166,308 tonnes in 1999, or 12per cent of the total declared catches for that year.In other years, vessels flying flags from Liberia, St.Vincent and the Grenadines and Malta also had sig-nificant catches. This is surely an underestimate ofthe total catches made by FOC vessels, as not all ofthe vessels are included.

In other words, at least 12 per cent of the fish-ing in the Indian Ocean is made by vessels whichare completely outside any regulatory framework,and are free to fish in any way they choose, withno controls or overseer. As the scientific commit-tee of the IOTC noted, “Control of FOC vessels re-mains the major constraint to management of tunafisheries.” Last year, Japan presented a resolution,

6Australia, Canada, China, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji Islands, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, the Mar-shall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Samoa, Solomon Islands,Tonga, Tuvalu, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (in respect of Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands),United States of America, and Vanuatu.

7Comoros, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Tanzania.

175

which, if adopted, would allow the IOTC to imposeimport bans on bigeye tuna coming from FOC ves-sels. The matter will be discussed at the next meet-ing in December 2001.

The Europeans claim that, as the FOC purse-seiners they own dutifully report their catches,somehow their FOC vessels are ‘acceptable’. Butreporting catches is only one small part of respon-sible fishing! At the present time, it is true thatthere are no conservation and management mea-sures adopted by the IOTC. But a vessel registeris in the works, which will eventually lead to limitson fishing capacity or effort8. Similarly, discussionshave begun on a control and inspection scheme.When these programmes are operational, all ves-sels flying the flags of non-members will not be re-quired to abide by them. So, while it is helpful ofthe Europeans to report their catches, it does notabsolve them of the responsibility of fishing un-der the flag of a country which is a member of theIOTC and which enforces its flag State responsibili-ties. Indeed, the Straddling Stocks convention stip-ulates that only countries which are members of aregional fisheries organization shall have access tothe fishery resources.

I recently did an analysis of the vessels ownedby European interests yet registered outside the Eu-ropean Union. In all, 10 per cent of the EU-ownedvessels were flagged in non-EU countries, includ-ing 8.5 per cent of the French fleet and 19 per centof the Spanish, the two most important Europeanfishing countries in the Indian Ocean. They hadvessels registered in, among other places, Belize(51 vessels), Honduras (29), St. Vincent and theGrenadines (27) and Sierra Leone (12).

The EU is one of the biggest users of flags ofconvenience to evade fisheries management mea-sures. And, as bigeye are caught in purse-seines,the European’s favourite fishing gear, would Spainand France be subject to import bans?

6 Gear Selectivity

Fishing for tuna using either purse-seines or long-lines cannot be described as “selective”. As dis-cards are rarely noted by the skipper, few recordsexist, other than scattered observer reports and de-ductions made by inspecting landings. For purse-seiners targetting yellowfin and skipjack, discardsare thought to vary from zero to 30 per cent of thecatch, depending on the type of fishing being con-

ducted (setting seines around floating objects leadsto much higher by-catch and discards, than settingaround a free swimming school of tuna). Most non-target species are thrown overboard, although wa-hoo, billfish and some species of smaller tunas maybe kept. There are also unconfirmed reports of largediscards of juveniles. In the eastern Pacific, wheredetailed records of catch composition have beenkept for several years, the level of discards are veryhigh, including large quantities of small yellowfinand skipjack. It is quite probable that a similar sit-uation exists in the Indian Ocean.

For longlines, the levels of discards are thoughtto be even higher, and can include non-targetspecies, fish damaged by sharks and cetaceans andjuveniles of the target species. Again, few data areavailable.

Given that artisanal fisheries are so important inthe Indian Ocean, one has to ask what impact thesediscards by the industrial fisheries have. With upto 30 per cent or more of the catch being thrownoverboard, of both tuna and non-tuna species, theartisanal fisheries, including those for non-tunaspecies, are doubtless affected in some way. Thisshould be a matter for urgent study.

Scientists have expressed concern about the sizeof the catches of juvenile bigeye tuna. These are es-pecially pronounced when setting the seine aroundfloating objects, an increasingly popular methodof fishing. Consideration was given last year toestablishing a closed season for fishing on float-ing objects for a few months a year when catchesof juveniles were particularly high, but no deci-sion was taken, at least in part because the IOTCdid not think it possible to ensure that the mora-torium would be respected by all seiners. Here isa good example of the type of problems posed by,for example, EU-owned seiners which fly flags ofconvenience—there is no way to make them respectany such regulation.

7 European Union Policy in the IndianOcean

The European fleets have been active in the IndianOcean since the early 1980s. The first French purse-seiner began exploratory fishing in 1980, but thecommercial fleets of France and Spain only showedup in 1984. This was, in fact, a displacement of theseiner fleet from the eastern Atlantic, prompted bypoor fishing for yellowfin in 1984. Apparently, this

8At the IOTC meeting in 2000, Japan tabled a draft resolution to limit or reduce the fishing capacity of large scale longliners fishingfor bigeye tuna; unfortunately, this idea received little support.

176

was due to the repercussions of an El Nino and notthe depletion of the yellowfin stock in the Atlantic,as the following year the catches were once againat a normal level. Until the arrival of the Euro-peans, the only industrial fleets were the longlinersfrom Japan, Korea and Taiwan. The two Europeancountries quickly increased their catches and Spainis currently one of the largest fishers in the region(France catches somewhat less).

The EU pursues its fishing interests in the In-dian Ocean through several means. Most obviousis its network of fisheries agreements. There arefour with Indian Ocean countries: Seychelles, Co-moros, Madagascar and Mauritius. The EU viewsthese as purely commercial in nature, as what for-mer Fisheries Commissioner Emma Bonino called“pay, fish and go” agreements. In exchange for pay-ments of cash (3.45 mn Euros annually for the Sey-chelles, less than 1 mn Euro for each of the others),the EU fleets are allowed to fish for tuna in theirEEZs. While each agreement has a nominal catchlimit associated with it, in fact, there is no limit tothe fishing—if they want to fish more, they simplyincrease the payments. The seiners generally seeklicences to fish in more than one of these countriesat the same time, for they follow the tuna whereverit goes, which is not always completely predictable.

In addition to the lump-sum payment for theagreement, shipowners pay licence fees, based, inpart, on declared catches. Obviously, no paymentsare necessary for catches taken on the high seas, or,in the case of France, in the waters of its many ter-ritories in the region, so disputes often arise overthe origin of the catches. The seiners have satel-lite systems on board, but, with few observer pro-grammes, allocation of catch to one EEZ or another,or the high seas, can be problematic.

The Structural Funds of the EU provide gener-ous subsidies to EU companies to set up permanentjoint enterprises (and, previously, temporary jointventures) with companies in third countries. A listof these enterprises has not been made public, butit is known that some countries have devoted con-siderable amounts of money to them.

Shipowners can also profit from the StructuralFunds to reflag their vessels. In the past 12 years,a total of 746 fishing vessels were exported fromthe EU. An unknown number of these receivedsubsidies from the EU and their respective Mem-ber States. Several Indian Ocean countries were therecipients of these: Australia (2), Iran (2), Madagas-car (1), Mozambique (17), Malaysia (1), Saudi Ara-bia (2), Sudan (12), Tanzania (3) and South Africa(12). Many more went to FOC countries: Nether-

lands Antilles (2), Belize (1), Liberia (2), Panama(22), Sierra Leone (5), Trinidad and Tobago (1), St.Vincent and the Grenadines (2) and Vanuatu (1).Again, it is not known if the owners received sub-sidies. In many of these cases, the vessel ownersimply sets up a shell company in the destinationcountry, but retains true, or “beneficial”, ownershipof the vessel and, therefore, maintains control overits activities.

Finally, the Community imports fish to make upfor its chronic deficit. One problem that can arisehere is over the “Rules of Origin”. The CotonouAgreement (the new Lome Convention) specifiesthat Africa-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) countries areallowed to export fish duty free to the EU, but thereare very precise rules over what is to be considered“ACP fish”. There have been several cases where acountry has exported fish to the EU, but the Com-munity refuses to accord it duty-free status, argu-ing that it does not conform to the rules of origin.The reason for this is that the EU wants to garneras much as possible of both the employment gener-ated by the fishing activities and the value added tothe catch during transformation. They truly want itboth ways—to catch the fish and to eat it too.

8 Europe and the Coastal States

As noted above, the IOTC states that the special in-terests of the developing coastal countries must berecognized, and there is some evidence that thatpromise is to be kept. What will the EU do aboutthat?

In the European Commission, there are separateDirectorates-General (DG) for “fisheries” and “de-velopment co-operation”. While the latter, doubt-less, takes a favourable view of the aspirations ofdeveloping States to develop their fisheries, thatview is not entirely shared by the fisheries DG.Their primary objective is to maintain the supplyof fish to the EU market, to defend the interests ofEU fleets and to conserve fish stocks in their homewaters. There are frequent differences in policy be-tween the two DGs.

An appropriate precedent can be found in theAtlantic Ocean tuna fisheries, managed by ICCAT.The EU is a dominant power in ICCAT, as it isboth a coastal and a DWF State, in addition to pay-ing for much of the budget. Over the past sev-eral years, a number of developing coastal Stateshave begun to create or enlarge their fisheries, no-tably South Africa, Brazil, Namibia and Mexico. Atthe same time, several of the more valuable stocks

177

are overexploited, even depleted (bluefin, bigeye,swordfish, marlin). ICCAT has established quotasfor some of these stocks and capacity limits on thefleets exploiting others. The developing States ar-gue that they should be given access to these stocks,especially when they are found in their EEZs. TheEU is arguing very strongly against that position.An Ad Hoc Working Group on Allocation has beencreated, but so far no agreement has been reached,with different countries arguing in favour of crite-ria that would increase their share of any quota.The battle promises to continue for a while yet.

If this is anything to go by, then the EU couldbe expected to resist a significant shift in access tostocks to coastal States that do not have a historyof fishing. As no formal management regulationshave yet been established, it is too soon to tell, andthe articles in the IOTC Convention should give thecoastal States some support.

Further, the European Commission has recentlypublished a Green Paper on the Future of the Com-mon Fisheries Policy. In it, the Commission recog-nizes “Developing States’ requirements and legit-imate aspirations to develop their own fisheries.”It also states quite clearly that the objective of en-suring access to fish stocks in third country wa-ters “should be achieved in a manner coherent withother objectives, such as development and environ-

ment policies.” The EU must be held to these state-ments.

9 The Future?

There is currently a debate about the future of EU-third country fisheries agreements. While they dopresent many difficulties, they have one advantageover other forms of “co-operation” with third coun-tries and that is that their terms and conditions areopen to public input. They are very expensive,though, from the point of view of the EU, and someinterests are advocating other avenues, one of thefavourites being the establishment of joint enter-prises. These can be subsidized under the EU Struc-tural Funds or set up with no public aid. While thismay seem to be a relatively easy and inexpensiveway to get access to modern fishing technology, itis important to remember that the European inter-ests generally retain control over the vessels andmake sure that most of the production goes to theEU. In fact, one of the criteria for setting up a jointenterprise with the Structural Funds is specificallyto supply the EU market.

If the Indian Ocean coastal States wish to de-velop their own fisheries, and retain control overhow they are conducted, then this might not be themost appropriate model to follow.

178

European Union Interventions in the Fisheries Sectorin the Indian Ocean: A Passport for Equity or

Road to Hell Paved with Good Intentions?

Beatrice Gorez ∗

AbstractA summary of the main kinds of interventions by the European Union (EU) in the fisheries sec-

tor in the Indian Ocean is provided, highlighting (in selected cases) their impact, and forecastingwhat direction these interventions are likely to take in the future.

EU interventions in fisheries are made through two main policy frameworks: for developmentco-operation (previously under the Lome, and now the Cotonou Convention); and for fisheries(through the Common Fisheries Policy or CFP).

The paper shows that, overall, EU interventions in the fisheries sector in the Indian Ocean aremore influenced by EU-centred fisheries and trade-related objectives than by the EU concerns fordevelopment co-operation. This trend is likely to increase in future.

Keywords

Fisheries agreements. EU. Lome Convention. Cotonou Convention. Common Fisheries Policy.Flags of convenience.

Summary

The objectives of this paper are to:

• summarize the main kinds of EU fisheries-related interventions in the Indian Ocean Re-gion;

• use particular cases to highlight the combinedimpact of these interventions;

• predict which elements are likely to playan important role in the shaping future EU-Indian Ocean fisheries relations.

EU interventions in the fisheries sectors of In-dian Ocean countries are governed by two mainpolicy frameworks:

• Development Co-operation, previously un-der the Lome, and now under the CotonouConvention. The various policy instruments

in this framework include the use of Euro-pean Development Funds (EDF), technical as-sistance, loans from EIB (European Invest-ment Bank). The main policy objectives in-clude poverty reduction and sustainable de-velopment.

• Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), where the in-struments include subsidized access throughfisheries agreements and subsidies for jointventures. The policy objectives include secur-ing access rights for EU vessels and securingfish supplies to EU markets (processing in-dustry and consumer demand).

EU Development Co-operation interventions di-vide Indian Ocean countries into two main groups:African, Carribean and Pacific (ACP) States1, signa-tory to the erstwhile Lome Conventions, and cur-rent Cotonou Convention. Other States, signatoryto various Asian and Latin American agreements.

∗Co-ordinator, Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements, Brussels, Belgium. Email: gilletp@skypro.be1ACP refers to the African, Caribbean and Pacific States that are party, previously to the Lome, and now to the Cotonou Agreement.

179

It would seem that, particularly in ACP States,Development Co-operation interventions are moreimportant from a political than financial perspec-tive. Two main kinds of interventions are describedbelow.

In those countries where the EU has no par-ticular fisheries interests, coastal zone manage-ment and regional co-operation are the main activ-ities, with support provided directly to local initia-tives. In those countries where the EU has partic-ular fishing-related interests, initiatives are gearedmainly towards providing a favourable environ-ment for EU-”owned” activities (for example, insupport of export-related aquaculture, industrialfisheries, and so on).

EU-ACP Development Co-operation hasevolved and adapted to a changing global con-text. This has changed markedly over the last threedecades, in the context of notable events, includingthe end of the Cold War (and the support of east-ern European countries), the emergence of Asiannations and the development of the EU market forfish. These have encouraged the EU to developpartnerships with new actors. Globalization andthe emergence of the World Trade Organization(WTO) have also had a major influence on EU poli-cies. In 2000, a new framework for developmentco-operation was established with the signing ofthe Cotonou Agreement (replacing the previousLome Conventions).

Four main changes are noteworthy:

• participation of civil society (non-State actors)in programme implementation. Under theprovisions of the Cotonou Agreement, 15 percent of the aid disbursed is to go directly tonon-government organizations (NGOs).

• economic reform, including liberalizationand deregulation, to promote economicgrowth. This may favour EU enterprises morethan local enterprises.

• promotion of free trade, by removing thepreferential arrangements (trade preferences)provided under the Lome Convention. Theemphasis now is on WTO compatibility. Theremoval of subsidies in general could havethe potential to benefit the competitive ad-vantages of the small-scale sector.

• developing regional economic integrationthrough the promotion of “free trade zones”.In the Indian Ocean context, the SouthernAfrica Development Community (SADC) is ofparticular relevance.

Under the Common Fisheries Policy, the maininterventions relate to the EU’s problems of over-capacity, to the need to secure fish supplies (bothfor its processing industry and consumers), and tosecuring access for its distant-water fleet to tuna re-sources. In the case of the former, subsidized vesseltransfers are the main kinds of interventions; in thelatter, it is the activities of EU tuna vessels fishingunder “cash for access” fisheries agreements. Theseare currently signed with four countries in the re-gion: Comoros, Madagascar, Seychelles and Mau-ritius. Also, the EU plays an important role in theIndian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), trying tokeep its lion’s share in the access to regional tunaresources.

Illustrating these different kinds of interven-tions are the cases of Seychelles (which has had afisheries agreement with the EU since 1984), andMozambique (where a bilateral fisheries agreementwas denounced in 1993, and European InvestmentBank (EIB)loans/fisheries subsidies have been usedsince to benefit EU fishery enterprises through jointventures).

Future directions of EU interventions are likelyto emphasize economic and trade aspects, and par-ticipation of non-State actors. Given the currentglobal context (overcapacity in EU waters, lack ofcontrol in Indian Ocean fisheries and lower produc-tion costs in Indian Ocean countries), it is likely thatmany EU enterprises will “re-flag” their vessels tothe registers of Indian Ocean countries under jointventure arrangements, and relocate their process-ing operations there.

To counter these threatening trends, IndianOcean countries should:

• build up regional alliances to manage, con-serve and regulate their fisheries, and nego-tiate joint access arrangements with distant-water fishing fleets, but also to encouragetrade in the region in which artisanal fisher-men can be involved.

• promote the participation of small-scalecoastal communities in the development andmanagement of their fisheries.

1 Introduction

There are several facets to EU institutional interven-tions in Indian Ocean fisheries, and they are gov-erned by two main policy frameworks:

180

On the one hand, they are part of a wider co-operation framework (for example, the EU-ACP Co-operation, under the Lome Convention and subse-quent Cotonou Convention frameworks), based onsuch policy objectives as sustainable developmentand poverty alleviation in the third country.

On the other hand, they are part of other poli-cies which have as primary objectives the promo-tion of EU fisheries interests, for example, inter-ventions made through the Common Fisheries Pol-icy (subsidized joint ventures or bilateral fisheriesagreements) or loans from the EIB2.

It is not easy to determine the combined im-pact of these various interventions3 in a given thirdcountry. However, in many cases, the results of EUinterventions in third countries have been stronglyinfluenced by the fact that the EU is an importantdistant-water fishing nation with the largest mar-ket for fisheries products in the world.

The reasons for this bias include:

• the idea, widely held in the EU and thirdcountries’ institutions, that the Europeanmodel of industrialized fishing is the onlyway for Southern fisheries to evolve. For ex-ample, an official from the Fisheries Direc-torate said, in a debate about artisanal fish-eries in Mauritania and Senegal4: “We mustquestion if promoting artisanal fisheries istantamount to promoting the development ofpoverty rather than wealth”5. Consequently,monies disbursed to promote EU develop-ment model in Southern countries (for exam-ple, EIB loans, bilateral fisheries agreementsor joint ventures), far outweigh monies allo-cated to the fisheries sector in general, andto the small-scale fisheries sector in particu-lar, through co-operation mechanisms.

• The strong influence of EU industrial fishingrepresentatives in the fisheries policymakinginstitutions was due, until recently, to theirvoices being the only ones heard when fish-eries relations between the EU and Southerncountries were being discussed.

2 EU Interventions: Development andCo-operation

For historical and political reasons, Indian Oceancountries have built their Development and Co-operation relationships with the EU under differ-ent schemes, namely, within the ACP-EU frame-work, under the four consecutive Lome Conven-tions (from 1975 to 2000). The Lome Conventionhas recently been succeeded by the Cotonou Con-vention (signed in Benin in 2000). In the IndianOcean Region, ACP countries include , Madagascar,Comoros, Seychelles, Mauritius, Tanzania, Kenyaand Somalia, among others, through other bilateralor regional agreements (for example, the Asian andLatin American or ALA agreements).

The role played by EU Development and Co-operation policy may be more important politicallythan financially. For example, the total amount ofmoney provided by the EU to the ACP countriesover the last 15 years (under Lome III and IV) rep-resented less than 50 per cent of the losses incurreddue to collapsing commodity prices. Despite this,many ACP countries consider the political dialogueintrinsic to the EU-ACP development co-operationpartnership as important a platform for foreign re-lations, as it is for disbursing financial and technicaldevelopment aid.

In the Treaty of the EU (signed in Maastricht in1995 and consequently updated in Amsterdam in1998), the EU’s Development Co-operation policyobjectives are the promotion of sustainable devel-opment and poverty alleviation.

Since the 1990s, the fisheries component of theEU’s Development Co-operation programme withIndian Ocean countries has had two declared pri-orities:

• to promote coastal zone management andsustainable exploitation of marine resources;and

• to promote regional co-operation and integra-tion.

Keeping these objectives in mind, it is interest-ing to see in which baskets the financial aid has

2Although the EIB primary objectives are to promote EU interests, the loans provided are often included in the co-operation anddevelopment package proposed by the EU.

3Since 1995 (the signing of the Maastricht Treaty) European NGOs have been denouncing the lack of coherence between these 2types of interventions and their negative impacts on small-fisheries in third countries.

4West African artisanal fisheries (e.g. Senegal and Mauritania) are highly dynamic and provide employment, food and exportrevenue to the state, thus fulfilling EU development objectives. To question whether such artisanal fisheries contribute so plainly towealth creation clearly shows that it is a question of ideology rather than performance which is being raised.

5The current recognised failure of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (in terms of making its fleet adequate to available resources)and of the EU development model may be a time for questioning the “export” of this model in third countries.

181

been placed during that period. When looking atEU monies spent in the Indian Ocean Region (referto the Annex) through Development Co-operation(more than 100 mn euros), certain elements are ap-parent:

Unsurprisingly, coastal zone management andregional co-operation receive particular attention.About 35 per cent of monies disbursed are linkedin one way or another to these two objectives.

A difference can be noted between those coun-tries where EU has fishing interests and those coun-tries where it does not:

• In India, for example, where there is very lit-tle historical record of EU fishing activities,almost all the support has been given to thesmall-scale fishing sector (inland or marine).Much of this has been provided as co-fundingthrough European NGOs with local partners.

• On the other hand, in Mozambique andMadagascar, where the EU has a histori-cal record of fishing activities, developmentaid has been mainly devoted to create afavourable environment for EU-”owned” ac-tivities (that is, support to industrial aquacul-ture, industrial fishing, and so on).

Madagascar and Mozambique are amongst thepoorest countries, and the small-scale fishing sec-tor is vital for sustainable local development, (vis-a-vis food security, employment creation and incomegeneration). Despite that, the support received bythe small-scale sector from EU Development Co-operation is tiny.

In such cases where support is given throughdevelopment aid to EU-owned activities in indus-trial aquaculture and industrial fishing, adverse ef-fects can be expected on local sustainable develop-ment, particularly for the small-scale communities.

It should also be noted that in places likeMozambique and Madagascar, EU operators arepowerful, well-organized and well-connected tothe EU and local institutions, while the small-scalesector is poorly organized (unlike, for example, inIndia).

The importance given to providing support tothe small-scale sector seems to depend on its de-gree of organization and the potential for a conflictof interests with EU-owned fishing fleets.

3 Evolution of ACP-EU Co-operation

It is interesting to look more closely at the ACP-EU partnership as it is the most elaborated of EUpartnerships with Southern countries, and as suchcould “show the way” that other partnerships withSouthern countries should go.

Within the ACP-EU co-operation framework,EU interventions are not limited to financing pro-grammes/projects alone.

Some of the tools to development co-operationpolicy, for example, the EIB (European InvestmentBank), can have a major impact on developmentprospects of some fisheries. The EIB is the financinginstitution of the EU, and members are the EU Mem-ber States who all subscribe to its capital. The EIBcontributes to the EU Development Co-operationprogramme and provides loans (from its own re-sources) and risk capital (from community budgetor EDF6) to public and private borrowers.

With regard to investment, the European Invest-ment Bank plays a major part in supporting the pri-vate sector, often with the objective of supportingEU interests. In the case of Mozambique, EIB pro-vided an important loan to Pescamar (a sister com-pany of Pescanova) to develop its fishing activities(mainly shrimp fishing) in the coastal zone. In thesame way, in Madagascar, EIB invested in indus-trial aquaculture development. It is not very clearhow these projects are chosen and fit in with theframework of EU development co-operation objec-tives (sustainable development and poverty allevi-ation).

In 2000, a new 20-year agreement was signedbetween the EU (15 states) and 77 ACP countries:the Cotonou agreement. As reported by one ob-server7, “it addresses two issues: although eco-nomic strategy plays a major role, the fact is thatdevelopment is first and foremost political and thefact is that globalization cannot be synonymouswith poverty, inequality and exclusion”.

Consequently, some fundamental changes havebeen introduced which will affect not only EU-ACPrelationships but also, as this is the likely modelthat will develop with other Southern countries,most of Indian Ocean countries. These changes in-clude:

3.1 Bringing in civil society

Encouraging participation of civil society is seen asa way to politicize debates. But, until now, the most

6European Development Fund7D.David, Editor, ACP-EU Courier magazine

182

noticeable change concerns funding: EU aid to ACPcountries was traditionally made available throughthe governments of ACP countries. In the Cotonouagreement, up to 15 per cent of aid is directly avail-able to NGOs, like fishworkers organizations.

But bringing in civil society should go way be-yond involving fishworkers organizations in aid fi-nanced projects. There is a need to involve fish-workers organizations and communities in the de-sign and implementation of fisheries policies andfisheries relations with the EU. This is one of thekey issues currently being debated in EU institu-tions8.

3.2 Economic reform

The EU stresses the importance of creating thenecessary conditions for economic growth in ACPcountries, which means more liberalization, dereg-ulation and non-discrimination against foreign in-vestors.

Unless emphasis is put on participation of thecoastal fishing communities in design and imple-mentation of fisheries policy for sustainable devel-opment and poverty alleviation, this could leadin some cases to de-nationalisation of ACP fish-eries interests and the reproduction of unsustain-able industrial practices, marginalising the small-scale sector.

This trend may be reinforced by the need for theEU to “get rid” of part of its fleet (to reduce over-capacity) and increasing difficulties to get accessto non-EU waters through bilateral fisheries agree-ments.

3.3 Move towards free trade

Under successive Lome conventions, ACP coun-tries enjoyed important trade preferences. ACPcountries were allowed to export their fish prod-ucts to the EU without paying import taxes. Thesetrade preferences were non-reciprocal. Fisheries ex-ports to the EU from ACP countries have, therefore,grown faster than fisheries exports from any othergroup of countries. The impact of these trade pref-erences on the small-scale fisheries sector have beendiverse. In countries like Senegal, where the small-scale sector is the main exporter and EU its main

market, this provided important opportunities. Inother places, the result was that small-scale fisher-men had to face increased competition from the in-dustrial sector, as a result of these export opportu-nities. As the rule of origin applies9, some problemsmay arise in the export of processed fish on EU mar-kets. Non-tariff barriers are also being developed,such as hygiene standards.

With the new (Cotonou) convention, the mainprinciple is to have, in the long-term, a “WTO-compatible” agreement. This means progressivelygoing towards the removal of all tax barriers. Someexceptions will be made for LDC-ACP, including,in the Indian Ocean Region, Comoros, Madagascar,Mozambique, Somalia, Tanzania, Sudan, etc. Spe-cific measures will be taken for island ACP Statesincluding Mauritius, Seychelles, Comoros, Mada-gascar.

The Cotonou agreement is designed to promoteenvironmentally and socially acceptable trade.Such a move should open up opportunities forsmall-scale fishermen. The absence of small-scalefishermen in the current debate on ecolabelling inthe EU (towards environmentally acceptable trade)makes it very doubtful that there is the political willin the EU institutions to encourage this.

There are also other serious threats to the small-scale sector. For example, the dumping of EU-caught frozen fish on ACP markets may increase de-pendency on foreign markets and hamper the de-velopment of regional trade.

3.4 Development of a regional economicintegration

From an EU point of view, regional co-operationand moving towards “free trade zones” is a keychange in the EU-ACP relations, necessary to pro-mote “integration of ACP countries into the worldeconomy”. The success of regional co-operation de-pends on a number of pre-requisites, including theneed for those countries involved in co-operation tohave an equal level of development and a traditionof trade between its members (to counter a poten-tial increased dependency on foreign markets).

An interesting experience is that of SADC (par-ticipating States include Angola, Namibia, South

8A debate on this subject is organised at Parliamentary, administration and Ministerial level, partly thanks to campaigns (organisedsince 1995) by NGOs collaborating through the Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements.

9Rule of origin means that fisheries products exported to EU market should have their origin (i.e. the nationality of the vessels)from either an EU or ACP vessel. In countries which have developed local processing and are trying to export processed fish products(like canned tuna) to the EU, it sometimes causes problem as there is no local tuna fleet and the EU landings are not sufficient toensure profitability of the local processing sector. They therefore have to get part of their supply from non- EU/non-ACP origin butstill export to EU markets.

183

Africa, Mozambique, Mauritius, Seychelles andTanzania). In the last decade, countries participat-ing in SADC have developed a regional dynamicand autonomous policy framework, like a fisheriespolicy (in 2000). It is interesting to see that somesteps are being taken in SADC’s fisheries policy torecognize the importance of small-scale fisheries.

But trade among the countries in this regiondoes not account for more than 5 per cent of thetotal volume of economic activity. So, any discus-sion of integration in southern Africa brings up theissue of co-operation with countries in the south-western Indian Ocean, where traditional trade rela-tions exist and could be developed. Ways of help-ing small-scale fishermen to develop such regionaltrade relations (for fisheries products but also forinputs) should be looked at by, for example, de-veloping better conservation methods, and collec-tion and transport infrastructure that can be usedby small-scale fishermen. Increasing this regionaltrade may be interesting as a way to resist the neg-ative impact of the move towards free trade advo-cated by, amongst others, the EU.

Mauritius, for example, joined SADC in 1995.It took part in the cross-border initiative and latermooted the idea of a wide regional group withother countries to be called the Indian Ocean RimInitiative. According to its designers, this groupwould involve all countries around the IndianOcean, from South Africa to Australia, includingIndia and the Gulf States. As an observer said,“This is a commendable initiative, but one whichwill not be possible in the near future. But is it notthe main point of co-operation to make a start?”

In conclusion, at the beginning of the EU-ACPrelations in the mid-1970s, the political and interna-tional trade frameworks were different than whatthey are now. That era was a period of decoloniza-tion and Cold War, and ACP countries were polit-ically “relevant” as a block to the European coun-tries. The end of the Cold War changed relations be-tween European countries and the Southern hemi-sphere. Today, there is a tendency for the EU tobuild new partnerships based on the past ACP-EUexperience, but including in the partnership, newactors. In this context, on trade aspects, the emer-gence of Asian countries needs to be taken into ac-count, which, in view of their extremely low pro-duction costs, are competitors with the ACP coun-tries for a share in the European market. In termsof development aid, eastern European neighboursreceive more attention from donors than that wasthe case before the fall of the Berlin wall. The pos-sible participation in a “ACP-EU-like” co-operation

framework by countries that did not sign the LomeConvention, the progressive end of preferential tar-iffs and the introduction of a principle of reci-procity in EU-ACP relations will change current co-operation completely.

4 EU interventions: the CommonFisheries Policy

The CFP has been designed to manage EU fishingfleets and activities. As part of the EU fleets andfishing activities happen in third countries’ waters,choices made in the CFP have an obvious impacton third countries, like the choice to privilege fish-ing capacity transfers to third countries as a way todiminish EU fleets’ overcapacity.

There is also a specific “international dimen-sion” to the CFP, which manifests itself mainly bythe signature of bilateral fisheries agreements. Inthe Indian Ocean, the tuna stocks spend much oftheir time in the exclusive economic zones (EEZs)of the coastal States, and the EU has four fisheriesagreements in the region: with Comoros, Madagas-car, Seychelles and Mauritius.

The international dimension of the CFP also cov-ers the participation of the EU in different regionalmanagement bodies, like the Indian Ocean TunaCommission.

4.1 Bilateral fisheries agreements: the case ofSeychelles

The four bilateral fisheries agreements in the In-dian Ocean Region are “cash for access” agree-ments granting EU fishing possibilities for tuna. Inthe last years, there has been a tendency from theEU fisheries administration to present these fish-eries agreements as co-operation agreements andfinancial compensation of the fisheries agreementas aid. There are two reasons for this: one is to dis-guise subsidies and make them look like aid; theother is to have stronger leverage to exert pressureon the third State and to intervene in the design andimplementation of its fisheries policy.

Several aspects can be examined in fisheriesagreements: the level of access granted, the spe-cific actions decided under the financial compen-sation, the level of compulsory landings and theamount of the financial compensation compared tothe amount of development aid allocated to thosecountries. It is interesting also to see how theseagreements interact with the co-operation interven-

184

tions the EU has with these countries and what the“combined impact” of both interventions are.

The EU-Seychelles fisheries agreement of 1984is the most important tuna agreement between theEU and a third country. The new agreement pro-tocol will cover the period 18 January 2002 to 17January 2005. Fishing opportunities remain at thesame level of 46,000 tonnes of tuna per year. Thenumber of EU vessels has been reduced from 79 to67 (40 tuna seiners and 27 surface longliners).

The EU contribution will remain at 3,460,000 eu-ros per year. The local fisheries sector will receivefinancial support from the contribution to help itsdevelopment. Measures to promote sustainablefisheries in the Seychelles will also be financed fromthis contribution. These measures will enhance sci-entific research, and control and monitoring of fish-eries activities and training. Rules have also beenagreed on the presence of observers on board EUtuna vessels and the use of the vessel monitoringsystem (VMS).

On the ACP-EU co-operation side, financial re-sources resulting from the Lome I and II have beenparticularly channelled into social issues and im-proving living conditions, namely, the housing andhealth sectors. Under Lome III and IV, allowancesfrom financial co-operation were used to developfishing (and tourism). Under Lome IV, Seychellesalso obtained assistance from the EIB for its privatesector. So, in addition to projects (like the rehabil-itation of a tuna quay), fisheries relations betweenthe EU and Seychelles covered a number of otherareas: trade arrangements in the fishing sector, EIBloans, and regional co-operation directed throughthe Indian Ocean Commission. The overall total(interest subsidies and risk capital operations) pro-vided under the four Lome Conventions is ECU 8.08mn.

Trade co-operation with Seychelles, supportedthrough the general trade preferences available un-der the Lome Convention, includes special deroga-tions from the rules of origin. A derogation relatingto canned and frozen tuna was granted in 1993 andmodified in 1994. It covers 1,800 tonnes of cannedand frozen tuna annually.

Compared to the 3,460,000 euros/year receivedthrough the fisheries agreement in the last 10years, only an average of a tenth of that amountwas received through Development Co-operationschemes. This situation is the average situation inwhich ACP countries signing fisheries agreementsfind themselves: the signing of a fisheries agree-

ment, which is a “carpet selling” exercise, providesmuch more means than the co-operation frame-work based on a political dialogue and on long-term objectives.

4.2 Subsidized transfer of vessels: the case ofMozambique

The system of subsidized joint ventures has beenput in place by the EU in 1990 to contribute to thereduction of the EU fishing fleet capacity which, atthat time, was of 2.3 mn gross registered tonnage(GRT)10.

But other objectives also existed: to guaranteefish supply for EU markets; to maintain, even par-tially, EU employment; and, lastly, to offer alterna-tives to bilateral fisheries agreements. On this lastpoint, third countries are increasingly trying to de-velop their own fleets and limit access in their wa-ters to foreign boats.

In the Indian Ocean Region, the country that hasseen a lot of subsidized joint ventures being set upis Mozambique. It has to be noted that Mozam-bique denounced its bilateral fisheries agreementwith the EU in 1993, at the same time that these EUsubsidized joint ventures were being set up. An-other thing to note is the concentration of own-ership that happened following the setting up ofjoint ventures. The main EU beneficiary is Pesca-mar, part of the giant fishing enterprise, Pescanova.Pescamar operates 19 freezer trawlers in a jointventure with Spain, exporting shrimp up to Spain.Mozambique is the largest exporter by value offrozen shrimps to the EU, accounting for more than20 per cent of the value of ACP shrimp exports (upto 5,000 tonnes/year).

Artisanal fishing in Mozambique provideslivelihood for more than 50,000 families, and sup-plies food for a large part of the population. In 1998there were approximately 16,000 marine canoes inMozambique.

It is not clear whether, where and to what extentcompetition exists between the artisanal sector andthe industrial sector, but the attention given almostexclusively, in EU-Mozambique fisheries relations,to creating a favourable environment for Pescamaractivities has a important opportunity cost for thesmall-scale sector. Particularly, it seems the role thesmall-scale sector can potentially play in meetinglocal food demand has been overlooked. Today, tomeet the local demand for fish, it is necessary to im-port about 5,000 tonnes per year.

10EU fleet overcapacity is estimated, for some segments, up to 40 per cent.

185

The per capita yearly supply is estimated at 6kg (in 1997), and, in recent years, the share of pro-tein from fish in total animal consumption has in-creased to 23 per cent. The demand for fish in thecoastal areas is high and is expected to grow, tomatch population growth (2.6 per cent annually).In order to maintain the present level of fish con-sumption, an annual increase of about 1,000 tonneswould be required. However, the demand couldincrease drastically if distribution problems weresolved.

5 Future Directions for EU FisheriesInterventions

From an analysis of the evolution of the EU’s twomain policy frameworks (the Common Fisheriesand Development Co-operation Policies) for fish-eries interventions, and the different kinds of inter-ventions they have promoted, it is likely that forfisheries relations with Indian Ocean countries, in-creasing importance will be given to:

• economic and trade aspects; and

• participation of the private sector and civil so-ciety (“less State, and more community-levelparticipation”).

Due to difficulties with signing new fisheriesagreements (due to WTO rules on subsidies and lo-cal resistance), it is likely that the EU distant-waterfleet will contract, with vessels “re-flagging” to theIndian Ocean or “flags of convenience” States.

Overcapacity and resource depletion problemsin EU waters will encourage EU fishing companiesto relocate their fleets to countries where there isstill some resource potential, and/or where there isless control on fishing activities (in extreme casesrelocating their vessels to a “flag of convenience”State. In such a context, the current trend towardsexporting overcapacity through joint venture ar-rangements is likely to increase.

Also, higher production costs in Europe maypush companies to relocate their operations tocountries where processing costs are lower. For ex-ample, some Dutch companies are shipping shrimpfor shelling to Morocco, where labour is cheaper.

Many Indian Ocean countries, whether ACPcountries or not, meet these criteria (namely, re-source potential, fish being less expensive to pro-cess, and less control over fishing activities). Theywill certainly be pushed to provide good conditionsfor the establishment of EU enterprises through, for

example, the establishment of free tax zones (as fortuna processing plants in the Seychelles and Mada-gascar) and investment in infrastructure develop-ment and improved surveillance.

These countries will need to clarify what kind ofmodel they want as the basis for the long-term de-velopment of their fisheries. They will also need thestrength to defend their positions against politicaland economic pressures from the EU. Two elementsthat could play in their favour are the building upof regional alliances (to manage, conserve and reg-ulate fish stocks), and taking decisions and negoti-ating jointly on distant-water access rights. Takentogether, Indian Ocean countries have potential inall segments of their fisheries sectors (capture, pro-cessing and marketing), but, individually, none ofthem can exploit this potential.

There are several constraints for greater re-gional integration: many Indian Ocean countriesare more taken up with trying to solve internalproblems and so have little capacity left to de-velop regional integration; many of these countriesalso face severe economic constraints. Often thosecountries in less desperate situations are more con-cerned with planning their own development thanconsidering the opportunities that associating withtheir regional neighbours can offer.

Within the Cotonou Convention, significantmonies (up to 15 per cent of the total) are to bemade available for “non-State actors” (civil soci-ety organizations like NGOs, fishworkers’ organi-zations and so on). Efforts should be made forthese monies to be channelled into such projectsthat strengthen the capacity of community orga-nizations to participate in decisionmaking and re-source management processes, in particular, to par-ticipate in the design and implementation of fish-eries policies and in determining how fisheries re-lations with the EU should be structured. The dan-ger is that the political will of EU for this partici-pation is derived from the principle of “less State,more private actors’ participation”, and this could,therefore, serve the EU private sector’s aspirations,rather than local community’s aspirations.

Participation proposed in fisheries agreementsnegotiations is interesting for fishermen to defendtheir access to resources. It can also be a first steptowards a better dialogue between fishermen andtheir national administrations. It can also be a wayto promote more effective financial support fromthe national government through a re-evaluationon the use of the financial compensation. The dan-ger is that any financial support received throughthe financial compensation will be in exchange of

186

fishing rights for the EU, thus posing a major threat,in some cases, to the small-scale sector.

If these elements (regional alliances and partic-ipation) are not present in the future EU-Southerncountries fisheries relations, this may lead to a pro-cess of “recolonization” of their fisheries by EU

fleets and interests. To some extent, this is alreadyhappening in places like Madagascar and Mozam-bique, where a big share of the national sectoris owned by European companies, and where thefisheries policy is, first and foremost, at the serviceof these EU interests.

187

AnnexEC Co-operation funds in Indian Ocean Seas/Ocean projects

Period 1990–1998

Countries EC funds Main Projects Objectives

Comoros 7 650 000 Development of arti-sanal fishing (± 45%)

Harbour development(40%)

Promote traditional methods offish catching and preservation

Madagascar 14 000 000 Aquaculture (loan EIB)(± 70%) FisheriesInfrastructure Nosy Be(± 20%)

Improvement of foodsafety standards (6%)

Improvement rev-enue of coastal com-munties (less than 5%)

Loan for operators and technicalassistance to the Ministry to de-velop shrimp aquaculture

Mauritius 2 300 000 Regional planning ofcoastal zones (± 15%)

Enhance competi-tiveness of the free port(± 85%)

Coastal zone management

Improve facilities of the freeport, provide equipment andother support to enhancecompetitiveness of the free port.

Mozambique 9 600 000 Transfer of fishingvessels (EIB loan)(± 50%)

Technical assistance tothe Ministry andfisheries enterprises(± 25%)

Support to small-scale and medium-scale sector (± 20%)

PESCAMAR project

Development of artisanal fishing(± 5%), experimental in shorefishing with small size linertrawler (± 15%)

Seychelles 1 700 000 Rehabilitation of theold tuna quay (95%)

Establishment of fish-eries legislation (± 5%)

Somalia 60 000 Artisanal fisheries reha-bilitation study (100%)

Micro projects, fishermen train-ing

188

Countries EC funds Main Projects Objectives

Tanzania 80 000 NGO cofinancing /uni-versity project (ChristianAid, VSO, University)(100%)

Duck-cum-fish culture, evalua-tion of establising marine parks;support training program forsmall-scale aquaculture

IndianOcean

17 900 000 Development ofcommercial tunafisheries (± 35%)Coastal zone manage-ment (± 60%)

Sustainable use of the coastal re-sources

SADC coun-tries

14 100 000 Monitoring control andsurveillance (± 90%)SADC countries integra-tion (± 10%)

India 23 050 000 Inland fisheriesdevelopment (± 85)%

Assistance to theshellfish industry (± 5%)

Support small-scalesector (NGO co-funding)(± 10%)

Strenghtening fishermen’sco-operatives

Fishing equipment, SIFFS sup-port, women in fisheries projects

Indonesia 2 350 000 Support offshore pelagicfisheries (± 95%)Support small-scalesector (± 5%)

Sri Lanka 650 000 Support to refugees to beabsorbed by the fisheriessector (100%)

Thailand 1 900 000 Support fishingcommunities (± 55%)

Coastal areasmanagement (± 25%)

Research (± 20%)

Asia 7 400 000 Coastal zone man-agement (includingmangroves (± 90%)

Tropical shrimp aquacul-ture impact study (10%)

189

The Social Clause in the Fishery Agreements betweenthe European Union and Countries of the Indian Ocean

Jean-Marc Barrey ∗

AbstractThis is a call for socially just principles to govern the signing of fisheries access agreements

between the European Union and countries of the Indian Ocean Region.

Keywords

EU. Fisheries access agreements. CFDT. European Transport Workers Federation. Multi-annual Guidance Programmes.

Following numerous complaints from Africanseafarers and from other nationalities in the IndianOcean working on French vessels through fisheriesaccess agreements, our organization, Union Mar-itime CFDT, took up the issue of these seafarers’working conditions.

To start with, we felt that it was up to the Frenchunions to offer suitable remedies, given the legalobligations of its flagged vessels.

Very quickly, we clashed with the boatowners,who, because they operated through local recruit-ment agencies, rejected all responsibility for thethird country crews. After that, it seemed to usimperative to explore all possible ways of stoppingthese practices.

At the European level, the European TransportWorkers Federation has now established eight ba-sic principles to be included in a social clause as anintegral part of each fisheries agreement signed be-tween the European Union (EU) and a third coun-try. These principles are based on the premise thatthe EU and its member States whose vessels benefitfrom fisheries access agreements have the respon-sibility to ensure that the rights of workers, bothfrom their own nationalities and from third coun-tries, are respected.

Principles

1. The EU should only negotiate fisheries accessagreements with third countries if they acceptto include a social clause to protect the crewmembers of the third country.

2. The social clause contained in the fisheries ac-cess agreement should be agreed as a com-mon position of the unions from the EU mem-ber flag States and the unions of the thirdcountry, as well as the respective govern-ments and administrations.

3. The unions should participate in the ratifica-tion of the social clause negotiated.

4. In no instance should the provisions of thesocial clause contained in the fisheries accessagreement be less stringent than those of in-ternationally recognized rules.

5. The EU member States who benefit from fish-eries access agreements should be prohibitedfrom using flags of convenience to engage inthis kind of exploitation.

6. The social clause should be an integral partof the rules of registering in the Multi-annualGuidance Programmes (MAGP)1 for tuna.

∗Secretary General, Confederation Francaise democratique du travail (CFDT) , France.1MAGPs are national programmes to balance fishing capacity with fishing resources available in the European Union.

190

7. The organizations signatory to the socialclause should have the right to inspect condi-tions aboard the ships and in the enterprisesas well.

8. Each renewal or development of a new agree-ment should be the object of a new negotia-tion.

Our main proposals are that:

• the crew from the third country concerned getorganized into unions, and, together with theunions from the flag State, actively partici-pate in the negotiations of their working con-ditions;

• the unions of the flag State denounce the dis-criminatory practices of the vessel owners;and

• the European Commission takes up, and in-cludes, a compulsory social clause in the fish-eries access agreements that has been ap-proved by all parties (the vessel owners, theflag State, the third country and the unions).

These points are essential and should be in-cluded in the issues under debate at the ICSF/IOIChennai Conference, 9 to 13 October 2001.

We should:

1. denounce the practice of using intermediariesor employers in the third country, whom wecall merchants of people;

2. obtain the full and entire responsibility of thevessel owners; and

3. denounce, equally, the lack of respect for thelegal obligations of the flag State.

We would like to propose that, building on theabove, the following essential points be addressed:

• contract of employment

• working and salary conditions

• aid provided by the EU to the third Stateshould also be provided directly to recog-nized fishworker union organizations.

191

Economic and Social Implicationsof Multi-day Fishing in Sri Lanka

Oscar Amarasinghe ∗

AbstractThis paper presents a description of the multi-day fishing technology introduced into Sri

Lankan fisheries, and its economic and social implications. This study is based on the resultsof field studies carried out in Dondra and Beruwala, two fishing villages in, respectively, thesouthern and western provinces of Sri Lanka.

Keywords

Sri Lanka. Multi-day fishing. Multi-day Operating Craft. Dondra. Beruwala.

1 Introduction

Open-access fisheries have long been considered asnatural resources, which could be exploited withmoderate levels of technical training and invest-ment. Almost all countries endowed with theseresources have hundreds of years of experience inharvesting them. In Sri Lanka too, by the onset ofthe Second World War, traditional fishermen hadmastered techniques of harvesting fish with theavailable technology: oru or oruwa (outrigger ca-noes), vallam, theppam, beach-seines, etc. Yet, thepost-war period saw high rates of growth of pop-ulation and increased demand for food, which ex-erted tremendous pressure on agricultural and fish-eries resources. Technological change in agricul-ture, brought about by the introduction of newhigh-yielding paddy varieties from the Interna-tional Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the early1960s, which marks the onset of the ‘green revolu-tion’ in Sri Lanka, enabled the country to meet itscereal demand to a considerable extent. Increasedfood demands too necessitated higher rates of ex-

ploitation of fish, but the seagoing ability of the tra-ditional craft was not sufficient to bring in sizeableincreases in fish landings.

In order to face the new challenges of the post-War period, the State, which assumed a regula-tory role during the pre-War period, took an ac-tive role of reformism to expand fish production.Many technological innovations have been intro-duced to fisheries since then, with major empha-sis on mechanization. The State’s intervention infisheries was mainly characterized by measuresadopted to improve traditional craft and gear, in-troduction of new craft and fishing techniques andthe development of fisheries infrastructure to facili-tate reaping the full benefits of the above measures.Among these measures, the commencement of ex-ploiting deep-sea resources through the introduc-tion of multi-day craft in the late 1980s and early1990s marks an important juncture in the develop-ment of Sri Lankan fisheries.

This paper intends to present a description ofthe multi-day fishing technology introduced intoSri Lankan fisheries and its economic and social im-

∗Senior Lecturer, University of Ruhuna, Sri Lanka. Email: oscar@agecon.ruh.ac.lk

192

plications. This study is based on the results of fieldstudies carried out in Dondra and Beruwala, twofishing villages in, respectively, the southern andwestern provinces of Sri Lanka.

2 Multi-day Fishing in Sri Lanka

2.1 The drive towards mechanization

Due to the high dependency of traditional craft onweather conditions for sailing, efforts were made toimprove the traditional fishing craft of Sri Lanka,namely, oruwa (outrigger canoe), vallam, kattama-ran, and so on. Unless the sea was calm, thesecraft could not be taken for fishing operations andsuch operations had to coincide with changes inwind movements. The bimodal pattern of rainfallin Sri Lanka has given rise to two periods of stormyand rainy weather, which, in turn, influence tra-ditional fishing operations, confining them to thenon-monsoonal periods. The monsoon period iscalled the warakana (in the jargon of fishermen) andthe non-monsoon period is called the haraya. Inorder to circumvent the problem of seasonality offishing operations and to make way for year-roundfishing, it was attempted to mechanize the tradi-tional craft, which was done simply by fixing anoutboard engine (8–15 hp) to the craft.

2.2 Introduction of new craft

Since the late 1930s, experiments have been con-ducted by the State to introduce suitable mecha-nized craft into Sri Lankan fisheries, and the resultsof such experiments led to the introduction of threemain types of mechanized vessels, which are de-scribed below:

1. Mechanized craft with outboard engines (themost commonly used craft is the 17–23 ft fibrereinforced plastic or FRP boat);

2. One-day Operating Craft (ODOC) with in-board engine (the 3.5 tonne day-boat, 28–34ft in length);

3. Multi-day Operating Craft with inboard en-gine and ice compartment (MDOC) (3.5–5.5tonnes and more than 34 ft in length).

Of the craft mentioned above, the 17–23 ft FRPboat, which was introduced in the early 1970s, op-erates in coastal waters up to about 15 km from theshore, often along with traditional craft. The out-board motor (OBM) became very popular among

fishworkers, who began to mechanize their tradi-tional craft by fixing outboard motors. Both the17–23 ft FRP boat and the mechanized traditionalcraft (MTC) often exploit the same resources, forwhich they employ small-meshed gill-netting astheir most common fishing technique. The 3.5tonne one-day operating craft (ODOC) is meant tofish in offshore waters, beyond 40 km from thecoastline, whereas the multi-day boat (MDOC) op-erates within and beyond Sri Lanka’s exclusive eco-nomic zone (EEZ).

3 History of Development of Multi-dayFishing

The ODOC was introduced in the late 1950s andsoon became popular due to its ability to ex-ploit fish resources that remained underutilized un-til then. It operates in offshore waters, employ-ing techniques such as large-meshed gill-netting,longlining, single-hook and multi-hook trolling,and also purse-seining. However, this boat was notequipped with facilities to freeze the fish catch and,therefore, the fishworkers had to confine their fish-ing activities to one-day fishing trips. By the late1980s, fishworkers started introducing an ice com-partment to the existing fleet of day-boats and, sub-sequently, this modified boat (which was earlier re-ferred to as ’tank boats’ or tanki boattu) was replacedby the multi-day boat which was larger in lengthand equipped with an ice hold and a cabin for thecrew (see Figure 1).

Some of these craft operated today are 45–48 ftin length and are powered by 110 hp engines. Itis not unusual to find radio communication equip-ment and satellite navigators in these boats. TheMDOC is the craft that is mainly engaged in the ex-ploitation of deep-sea fish resources. Large-meshedgill-netting and longlining are the common tech-niques of fishing employed by these craft. In theearly 1990s, these boats began to venture outsideSri Lanka’s EEZ, first to fish in neighbouring Indian,Maldivian and British Indian Ocean territorial wa-ters and then in international waters to the north-east (Bay of Bengal) and northwest (Arabian Sea).The continuing pressure to stay at sea for longerperiods and to travel further in search of fish is re-flected in the continuing increase in the length ofmulti-day boats. Local boatyards are now capableof producing boats up to 60 ft in length, which canstay at sea for over two months.

Along with the mechanized craft, the nylongill-net was introduced into Sri Lankan fisheries,

193

replacing all traditional hemp and cotton nets.Gill-netting became a popular technique of fishingwithin a short period of time, and led to a consider-able increase in catches. The tenfold increase in fishproduction from the 1950s until today is the com-bined result of both the introduction of the nylonnet and mechanized craft.

With the exploitation of deep-sea and oceanicfish resources by the multi-day craft, fish landingsof the deep-sea and oceanic subsector started to in-crease at a rapid pace, from 8,155 tonnes in 1989 to76,500 tonnes in 1999; a more than ninefold increasewithin a period of 10 years.

4 Types of Multi-day Craft

The multi-day boats in operation today are of sev-eral types, varying according to their length andthe degree of sophistication. A general model ofa multi-day craft is shown in Figure 1. The lengthof these craft varies from 32 to 55 ft. They are pow-ered by 30 to 120 hp inboard engines. With increas-ing length of the craft, the size of its fish hold andthe capacity of the diesel and water tank and thecabin increase too, enabling the craft to engage inlonger fishing trips in more distant waters. Most ofthe multi-day craft in operation today are 32–34 ft,powered by 50 hp engine. The current tendency isto construct longer and more sophisticated craft ofover 40 ft in length, powered by inboard engines of110 hp.

If one defines small-scale fisheries as “all fishingunits, whether traditional or modern, which do notdemand heavy capital investment and do not re-quire the intervention of industrial concerns or cap-italists outside the fishing communities and where,the owners of these craft are personally involved indecisionmaking in respect of production and mar-keting”, then the present-day deep-sea craft canalso be categorized as small-scale fishing units.

A technical assessment of multi-day boat designand construction practices in Sri Lanka by OeyvindGulbrandsen (an FAO consultant and naval archi-tect) (1998)1 has indicated that the present-day crafthas an extreme barge-like shape to maximize fish-holding capacity and fuel space for a given lengthof the craft, which may have adverse influenceon the craft’s stability. This report also indicatedthat multi-day boats built by one of the major na-tional boatyards did not meet international stan-dards. According to boat managers, this wouldhave added another 40 per cent to the cost of a hull,

putting boats beyond the reach of would-be boa-towners. With regard to stability of locally builtboats, it has been noted that current procedures forincline tests did not take account of the worst pos-sible scenario—where a boat returns to port witha poor catch, empty fuel and water tanks and wetnets piled on top of the deck. Clearly defined rulesand regulations for the construction and testingof multi-day boats are needed, Gulbrandsen con-cludes. However, it should be noted that incidentsof craft toppling over or accidents at sea have notbeen reported in both the study areas.

The assessment report also indicates that manyof the multi-day boats currently operating do notmeet recognized international safety standards andare not equipped with onboard safety devices suchas life jackets, flares and inflatable rafts.

Another factor of significant importance interms of the stability of 40+ ft long craft is the in-adequacy of the fuel tank to carry sufficient fuel for3-month long fishing trips, which forces the crewto carry additional fuel barrels on the deck or roofof the cabin of the craft, adversely influencing thecraft’s stability. Usually, the two fuel tanks cancarry only up to 17,500 l of fuel and, according tofishworkers, approximately another 3,500 l of fuelare required for such long fishing trips. Fuel inthese barrels is used first, so as to ensure the craft’sstability during the rest of the trip.

The capacity of the water tank, which holdsabout 3,500 l of water, also appears to be adequateonly for drinking and cooking purposes. Sea wa-ter is normally used for washing and bathing, oftenleading to complaints of skin diseases.

5 Areas of Operation and Duration ofFishing Trips

The main areas of operation of multi-day craft inthe Indian Ocean are shown in Figure 2, while themovement of craft and the duration of fishing tripsare given in Table 1.

Due to its smaller size and the limited facili-ties available for longer fishing trips, the 32–34 ftcraft operate mainly within Sri Lanka’s EEZ, whileall other craft operate both within and beyond SriLanka’s EEZ. Fishing trips of the 40+ ft craft are of2–4 weeks’ duration, while the 40+ ft craft are of-ten engaged in fishing trips exceeding two months.The most popular length categories among the 40+ft craft are the 45 ft and 48 ft craft. According toskippers of the 40+ ft category in Beruwala and

1Gulbrandsen O., 1998. Marine Fisheries Develepment–Tuna Longliners, FAO, Bangkok.

194

Figure 1: A model of a Multi-day craft built by boatyards in Sri Lanka

Type of craft

32–34 ft. 34–36 ft. 36–39 ft. Over 40 ft.

Area of Operation Sri Lanka’sEEZ

Sri Lanka’sEEZ and In-ternationalWaters

Sri Lanka’sEEZ and In-ternationalWaters

Sri Lanka’s EEZ, interna-tional waters and the territo-rial waters of Andaman Is-lands, Nicobar Islands, Mal-dive Islands, LakshadweepIslands, Australian Islands,Bangladesh, Thailand andMadagascar.

Duration of Fishing Trips 1 week 1 – 3 weeks 1 – 3 weeks 3 weeks to 3 months

Table 1: Area of operation and duration of fishing trips

195

Figure 2: Common areas of operation of multi-day craft in the Indian Ocean

196

Dondra of Sri Lanka, the territorial waters of An-daman and Nicobar Islands, Maldive Islands, Lak-shadweep Islands and, occasionally, Bangladesh,Thailand, Madagascar and Australian islands arethe areas of operation of most of their craft duringthe period October to April, when the sea is calm.Longlining for shark (for fins) and tuna is the majortechnique employed. Incidents of these craft fish-ing in the Red Sea have also been reported. For thewestern and southern parts of Sri Lanka, during themonsoon period, which falls between the monthsof May and September, these craft usually fish inthe EEZ and in international waters, and the fish-ing trips are shorter (of three to four weeks in du-ration). Large-meshed gill-netting is the commonfishing technique employed during this time of theyear.

Since facilities for freezing are not available onthe boats, fish cannot be preserved in the fish holdfor a long time. It appears that the maximum hold-ing period is about one month, if fish is to be keptfresh, although fish is kept in the hold for longer pe-riods. At present, the tendency is to look for sharkresources, retaining only the fins in the fish hold,while the shark parts are either dried on board orthrown back into the sea.

6 Profitability of Multi-day Fishing

6.1 Cost of craft

6.1.1 Fixed costs

The cost of multi-day craft varies according to thesize of the craft, as shown in Table 2. It is evidentthat the cost of craft increases with its length. Ingeneral, the hull, engine and gear (including acces-sories) account for 38 per cent, 29 per cent and 33per cent, respectively, of the total cost of the craft.

The main accessories in multi-day craft includeradio communication equipment and satellite nav-igators. Only about 66 per cent of the 32–34 ftcraft have radio equipment, while all other craftare equipped with radio communication facilities.Satellite navigation equipment is present in craftabove 34 ft in length, and only 88 per cent of the32–34 ft category carry such equipment. Almost allskippers of 40+ ft craft know how to handle mapsand charts and they can read the exact position oftheir craft.

6.1.2 Variable costs

Variable costs of fishing operations include costs oflabour, fuel, food and other inputs. The total cost ofoperation of different craft varies due to the varia-tions in craft size and the length of fishing trips (seeTable 3).

Labour accounts for about half of the total vari-able costs, followed by fuel (20 per cent). Of theother cost items, the major component is the cost offood on board. The crew workers usually spendlavishly on very expensive food items, becausegood food is something that they enjoy on theirlong and lonely journeys in the deep seas.

6.1.3 Revenue and profits

From information collected during field studies,average annual fixed costs, variable costs, grossprofits and net profits were calculated for each typeof craft, as shown in Table 4.

It is evident that fixed and variable costs gen-erally increased with the length of the craft, whichhas to be understood in terms of higher prices forlarger craft (and therefore, higher fixed costs) andthe higher variable costs associated with longerfishing trips of the larger craft, with the exceptionof the 32–34 ft category. The latter craft, whichis engaged mostly in shorter fishing trips withinSri Lanka’s EEZ, make more fishing trips per year,which is the reason for their higher average annualvariable cost of operation, compared to the 34–36 ftand 36–39 ft craft.

The total revenue amounted to the annual pro-ceeds or the monetary value of all catches landedby a craft. The 40+ ft length category had the high-est annual revenue followed by the 32–34 ft, 34–36ft and the 36–39 ft. The latter category (36–39 ft)enjoyed the lowest annual revenue. It is quite clearthat annual revenues did not increase in proportionto the length of the craft.

Gross profits were obtained by deducting allvariable costs from total revenue. Variable costsincluded expenses on food for the crew, fuel, iceand wages. Wages consisted of a share of the to-tal proceeds, which were equal to a half of the totalproceeds less operational expenditure. This wageshare was divided among all the crew members. Afishing unit is able to continue fishing as long aspositive gross profits are earned, which means that,as long as the fishing unit is able to cover all oper-ating expenses, it can stay in business at least in theshort term. According to Table 4, all categories ofcraft enjoyed positive gross profits. Gross profits

197

Item Average Cost of Multiday Craft(Rs)∗

32–34 ft. 34–36 ft. 36–39 ft. Over 40 ft.

Hull 475,000 650,000 750,000 1,550,000

Engine 400,000 450,000 450,000 1,200,000

Gear & Accessories 425,000 520,000 700,000 1,250,000

All 1,300,000 1,620,000 1,900,000 4,000,000∗ 1 US $ = Rs. 89.00. Source: Field studies in Dondra and Beruwala, 2000.

Table 2: Average cost of multi-day craft

Item Average Annual Variable Costs(Rs.)

32–34 ft. 34–36 ft. 36–39 ft. Over 40 ft.

Labour 1,300,346 941,466 894,144 1,837,506

Fuel 521,854 455,143 621,450 720,652

Other Inputs* 809,734 816,928 674,623 923,752

Total Variable Costs 2,631,933 2,213,537 2,190,217 3,481,910∗ includes food, water, ice, maintenance, license fees, handling charges, payments

for watchers at anchorage, cost of cleaning unloading and loading, gate charges, etc.

Table 3: Average annual variable costs of craft operations of multi-day craft

Type Fixed Variable Total Costs Revenue Gross Profit Net Profit Resource

of Craft Cost (1) Cost (2) (3) = (1) + (2) (4) (4) – (2) (4) – (3) Rents* (5)

32–34 ft 196,500 2,631,933 2,828,433 3,810,562 1,178,629 982,129 911,742

34–36 ft 235,879 2,213,537 2,449,416 2,965,715 752,178 516,299 447,299

36–39 ft 230,487 2,190,217 2,420,704 2,909,800 719,583 489,096 415,896

Over 40 ft 495,422 3,481,910 3,977,332 6,308,696 2,826,786 2,331,364 2,254,364(5)* Net Profits - Opportunity Cost of Management. Source: Field studies, Dondra and Beruwala of Sri Lanka, 2000.

Table 4: Average annual costs and revenues associated with Multi-day Craft Operations (Rs)

198

were largest for the 40+ ft craft category and low-est for the 36–39 ft category. The gross profits of theformer craft were approximately twice those of the34–36 ft and 36–39 ft categories.

Unless all fixed costs are covered, a fishing unitwould not be viable in the long run, because thefishing activities will have to be terminated whenthe productive life of the current assets expires.Therefore, allowances should be made for depreci-ation and other fixed costs, which ensure continu-ity of the fishing unit in the long term. Net profit isthe difference between total revenue and total costs(variable costs + fixed costs). So those fishing unitsenjoying positive net profits are viable in the longterm. As can be seen from Table 4, all categoriesof craft enjoyed positive net profits, indicating theirlong-term viability.

Resource rents were positive for all craft types.Rents were low for the 34–39 ft length categories,compared to the 32–34 ft and 40+ ft categories,which registered higher resource rents. These re-sults have important implications for future plan-ning and policy making in respect of deep-sea fish-ing. First, fishing within Sri Lanka’s EEZ still gen-erates substantial resource rents, and the 32–34 ftcraft that operate in this area appear to be most suit-able for this purpose. Second, operations of 34–36ft and 36–39 ft categories, both within and just be-yond the EEZ, appear to be too costly, comparedto resource availability in their areas of operation.Third, the extremely high resource rents earned bythe 40+ ft category can be attributed to its ability toreach distant fishing grounds rich in high-valuedfish resources, especially shark and tuna.

Return to capital was arrived at by deductingthe opportunity cost of management from net prof-its; a normal wage share of a crew member wastaken as the opportunity cost of management. Theresult was then expressed as a percentage of the to-tal value of assets (Table 5).

It is evident that the rate of return to capitalwas quite high for the 32–34 ft and 40+ ft cate-gories, compared to the 34–39 ft category. Ratesof return to capital for these craft are significantlyhigher than the current rate of interest on fisheriescredit (which, at present, remains around 21 percent), while return to capital for the 34–39 ft craftcategories appears to be marginal.

Return to labour, expressed as the return per 8-hour man-day, was quite high for the 40+ ft cate-gory, followed by the 32–34 ft, 34–36 ft and 36–39 ftcategories (Table 6).

These results were then compared with wagerates prevailing in other occupations (Table 7).

It is evident that fishermen who had adoptedmulti-day fishing earned considerably higher in-comes, compared to incomes earned by skilledand semi-skilled workers engaged in other employ-ment activities in the unorganized sector.

7 Profitability of Multi-day Fishingwith Restricted Movement of Craft

The higher profitability of fishing operations of themulti-day craft, especially the 40+ ft category, ap-pears to be closely associated with the larger craft’sability to move into distant fishing grounds rich inshark resources. According to fishermen, such richresources are mainly found in the territorial watersof the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and MaldiveIslands. If measures are adopted by these nationsto effectively stop illegal fishing by foreign fishingvessels, then Sri Lankan fishermen will not be ableto earn as high revenues as indicated in Table 4.Field studies revealed that annual revenues woulddrop to about half of what these craft could earnduring the non-monsoon period, if access to theseresources are completely cut off. This is especiallytrue with the 40+ ft category of craft. If this is thecase, the net revenues earned by the 40+ ft categorywould fall to about Rs1,786,684 and return to capi-tal invested would drop to 40 per cent. It is evidentthat these multi-day craft would still earn substan-tial net profits and return on investment. Yet, morein-depth studies are required to arrive at any con-crete conclusions on this issue.

In responding to a question on their suggestionsto improve fishing techniques in international wa-ters, the skippers of multi-day boats said that fish-ing in international waters would become highlyprofitable if they can use the very long nylon long-lines used by Thai fishing vessels in the deep seas.These longlines are supposed to be over 40 km inlength, compared to the 12-km longlines used bythe local fishermen. Equipment to trace these verylonglines and a winch to haul them in were sug-gested by the local fishermen as a means of improv-ing the present multi-day fish-catching technology.

8 Social implications

The social implications of mutli-day fishing are dis-cussed here in relation to the changes that havetaken place in the labour and product markets.The major emphasis will be on changes that havetaken place in production relations between vari-ous agents and the role of women.

199

Type of Craft Value of assets Net profits-opportunity Return to Capital

(1) cost of management (2) (per cent) (2)/(1)*100

32–34 ft. 1,130,000 911,742 80.69

34–36 ft. 1,620,000 447,299 24.61

36–39 ft. 1,900,000 415,896 21.89

Over 40 ft. 4,000,000 2,254,364 56.36

Table 5: Return to capital in multi-day fishing (Dondra and Beruwala, 2000)

Type of Craft Return to Labour

(per 8-hour man-day∗)(Rs.)

32–34 ft. 693

34–36 ft. 502

36–39 ft. 476

Over 40 ft. 875* man-day = 8 hours of fishing labour

Table 6: Return to labour in multi-day fishing (Dondra and Beruwala, 2000)

Sector Activity Average Daily

Wage Rate(Rs.)

Agriculture Ploughing (paddy) 227.00

Transplanting (paddy) 221.00

Harvesting (paddy) 217.00

Land-prep.(tea) 206.00

Tapping (rubber) 129.00

Planting (rubber) 239.00

Digging Pits (coconut) 253.00

Plucking (coconut) 359.00

Building Construction Master Carpenter 367.00

Master Mason 364.00

Unskilled Helper 219.00

Skilled Helper 275.00Source: Central Bank of Sri Lanka (2001) Annual Report 2000, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Table 7: Average daily wage rates in agriculture and building construction

200

8.1 Emerging relations between employersand employees

8.1.1 Unequal access to credit and the new entrants tofisheries

Of all categories of craft owners, those engaged intraditional fishing activities have the least access tocredit facilities extended by State-owned banks. Ingeneral, formal lending schemes appear to have ahigh bias towards asset-rich individuals. Grantedthat access to new technology is directly related tofishworkers’ access to credit, the asset-poor fish-workers in fishing societies are put at a seriousdisadvantage in adopting new technology due totheir inability to offer the collateral demanded bylenders. Although the fisheries co-operatives of-fered them opportunities of adopting the new tech-nology, the issue of craft through co-operatives un-der the State subsidy schemes is on the decline.About 75 per cent of the owners of multi-day crafttoday are non-fisher owners, of whom a sizeablenumber represent a class of businessmen who haveno history of fishing. The shift of craft owners fromtraditional to the ultra-modern sector, therefore, ap-pears to be quite low.

With the entrants of ’outsiders’ into fishing com-munities to undertake multi-day fishing, the tra-ditional pattern of labour recruitment, employer-employee relations and work conditions of labourhave undergone tremendous changes

8.1.2 The disappearance of traditional skilled labourgroups

In traditional fisheries, two distinct types of labourwere present; the marakkalahe group (skippers)and the labourers. This difference was morepronounced in the traditional skipjack fishery.The more experienced fishworkers carried out thefunctions of active fishing (using pole-and-line),while the less experienced crew labourers, calledkalasikarayo (students), threw bait into the seaand splashed the water with their hands. Themost experienced fishworker in the crew was themaha marakkalahe (chief skipper), who usually com-manded the craft, gave orders and directed all op-erations. With the advent of the new deep-sea tech-nology, many of the functions performed by themarakkalahe have been taken over by modern equip-

ment. Today, most of the crew members of multi-day craft claim that they are able to manoeuvre fish-ing craft and work with the modern equipment. Al-though every modern craft has a boat captain, heenjoys that position not because of the special fish-ing skills he possesses but for his experience in fish-ing and his organizational and managerial abilities.Usually, these boat captains do not receive any ad-ditional payment for their services, but instanceswhere he is paid an allowance up to 5 per cent ofthe owner-share have been noted2. The fact thatthis payment is made from the owner-share (notfrom the general wage-share) reveals that fishinglabour has now become a more ’generalized typeof labour’. This has facilitated even seasonally un-employed agricultural labour to join fishing crews,as it was evident in Tangalle of South Sri Lanka3.

8.1.3 The emergence of the labour market in fisheries

The relations between owners of fishing assets andcrew labourers in traditional fishing communitiesduring the pre-war period were characterized by apatron-client type of relations. These relationshipswere well evident in beach-seine fisheries4. Risk offalling into crises of subsistence, on the part of crewworkers, and the various incentive problems asso-ciated with labour markets were found to be themajor forces that led to the formation of such rela-tions. Long-term labour attachment was quite com-mon, which is a dominant feature of the patron-client type of relations. Moreover, strong kinshiplinks between craft owners and crew workers havealso been often observed. Near-perfect knowledgeof one’s own kin and the affective relations amongthem ensured the craft owners with a dependableand guaranteed labour supply, while this systemof labour recruitment also guaranteed employmentsecurity to the crew workers.

The employer-employee relations have under-gone many-faceted changes along with market ex-pansion, population growth and the advent of newtechnology. The crew labourers are no longer em-ployed on a ’permanent’ or ’long-term’ basis andthey are free to move from one employer to an-other at any time they wish, even during the peakseason. Even indebtedness to a craft owner doesnot prevent a crew labourer from leaving him. Thenew owner may advance money to settle debts

2Ibid.; Creech S. & W. Subasinghe, 1999. The Labour Conditions of Sri Lanka’s Deep-sea Workers (research report prepared for UnitedFishermen’s and Fishworker’s Congress).

3Amarasinghe, O., 1988. The Impact of Market Penetration, Technological Change, and State Intervention on Production Relations inMaritime Fishworkers’ Communities: A Case Study of Southern Sri Lanka (unpublished Ph.D. thesis), FUNDP, Namur, Belgium.

4Amarasinghe, 1988. op.cit.

201

or the labourer may settle debts later as he earns.Apparently, a genuine labour market has emergedin which anonymous relations tend to prevail, theforces of supply and demand are at work andlabour mobility is no more hindered by custom-ary practices of personal attachment. The fact thatlabour has now become a commodity also meansthat the craft owners have an interest in extractingas much surplus as possible from labour.

8.1.4 Changes in the method of catch sharing

As in many other fisheries of the world, labour inSri Lankan deep-sea fisheries is paid a share of thecatch. The system of catch-sharing helps the craftowners pool the risk of loss of operational capitalexpenditure when fishing is poor. If the catch iszero, the owner does not lose the operational capi-tal expenditure because it is deducted from the pro-ceeds of the following fishing trip, before the pro-ceeds are distributed.

In the system of catch-sharing in multi-daycraft, operational capital expenditure on the fishingtrip is deducted first from the trip’s total proceedsand the rest is then divided between the owner(payment for capital) and the crew workers (pay-ment for labour). In general, it is evident that theowner’s share is higher for mechanized craft thanfor traditional craft due to the high degree of capitalintensity of these craft. In a very broad sense, cap-ital and labour receive equal shares in mechanizedfishing, whereas, in traditional fishing, the respec-tive shares are one-third and two-third.

Quite recently, with the use of large multi-dayboats (more than 50 ft in length) for deep-sea fish-ing, some craft owners have adopted a method ofpaying wages to crew workers. Although wagecontracts are likely to be more attractive to crewworkers under the condition of highly fluctuatingcatches threatening their subsistence, they may pre-fer share contracts in highly productive deep-seafishing, in which the catches are high and subject tolow fluctuations. Wage contracts under such con-ditions would prevent the crew workers benefit-ing from large catches, but would enable the craftowners to increase their share of the value of thecatch. Although fishworkers generally object to thispractice, whether they will be in a position to effec-tively bargain with craft owners will depend on thestrength of their bargaining position as a group.

Disputes between craft owners and crew work-ers are quite common, and they usually arise at

the time of distribution of proceeds. Such disputesare confined to an exchange of a few harsh wordsand/or the crew worker leaving the craft owner.Quite recently, conflicts between owners of multi-day craft and their crew workers emerged whenthe former category tried to replace the old catch-sharing system (50:50) by a new system in whichthe owner’s share was increased (60:40). Loss ofemployment was reported by a number of fish-workers in Dondra, who tried to organize fellowfishworkers against this move. This matter still re-mains unsettled and the Ministry of Fisheries andAquatic Resources Development (MFARD) intendsintroducing rules and regulations governing thedistribution of proceeds in multi-day craft, and re-quests have been made to the MFARD by fishworkerorganizations recommending a 50:50 sharing sys-tem. Although the new catch-sharing method isconsidered by fishworkers as ‘exploitative’, it stillremains to be seen whether the craft owners receivesufficient returns on capital with the 50:50 catchsharing system. In fact, a study conducted by Ama-rasinghe (1989)5 revealed that labour is overpaidand capital is underpaid in mechanized fishing.

8.2 Weak bargaining position of crewworkers and poor work conditions onboard

The weak bargaining position of crew workers isquite evident in respect of the facilities availablefor labour in multi-day craft. Life jackets are gen-erally not available on multi-day craft, while ade-quate medical supplies and clean water are not car-ried on board. Risks to life and health appear toremain quite high, although crew workers do notcomplain much about them.

The major safety issue at present is that of thethreat of capture, arrest or conflict at sea. Almostevery month, five to ten Sri Lankan deep-sea fish-ing boats are arrested and detained for alleged ille-gal fishing. Fishworkers are detained for periodsranging from four weeks to over 12 months, de-pending on the charges levied against the boat, bythe authorities. When asked why they tend to fishin foreign waters, skippers came out with two rea-sons.

First, Sri Lankan authorities turn a blind eyeto foreign craft fishing within Sri Lanka’s EEZ.Many large Thai fishing boats are said to operatewithin Sri Lanka’s territorial waters and, due to

5Amarasinghe, O., 1989. Technological Change, Transformation of Risks and Patronage Relations in a Fishing Community of SouthSri Lanka. Development and Change, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp 684-734.

202

their larger size and power, they appear to harassthe local fishworkers by cutting their nets and pur-posely knocking off the smaller local craft. There-fore, the local fishworkers feel safe in internationalwaters where there is less probability of such con-frontations.

Second, the risk of arrest for fishing in other ter-ritorial waters appears to be low, although severalincidents of arrest have been reported. It appearsthat the crew, aiming at high average incomes frommulti-day fishing, willingly accept to bear the risksof arrest, illness and even death. Information ob-tained from the monitoring, control and surveil-lance (MCS) division of MFARD revealed that for-eign vessels are only issued licences to land andrefuel, but not to fish inside Sri Lanka’s EEZ. Ontheir part, the Sri Lankan authorities are unableto carry out effective MCS activities with the cur-rently available small craft due to their low speedsand also due to their inability to carry weaponson board following the ban on the use of suchweapons by defence authorities, under the currentstatus of war against the Tamil militant group, theLiberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Fisheries insurance, as in the provision of anyother forms of insurance, is adversely affected bythe problems of ’moral hazard’ and ’adverse selec-tion’. Perhaps these problems are felt more dueto the great geographical distance that exists be-tween insurers and insured. Although a large num-ber of craft owners contribute to formal insuranceschemes during the purchase of multi-day craft,many of them withdraw from them after the initialpremiums are paid. Studies carried out in a numberof fishing villages in the South of Sri Lanka revealedthat indemnity payments received by craft ownersfrom formal agencies accounted for less than 30 percent of the total repair and replacement expensesincurred on the affected fishing assets (the rest be-ing secured through credit). Long delays in indem-nity payments and high premiums were the majorcomplaints made by fishworkers against State in-surance agencies. The imperfections in the insur-ance market and the withdrawal of craft ownersfrom the existing schemes increase the risk of lifeto fishworkers, unless they are covered by any per-sonal insurance scheme. The need for the latter isurgently felt in deep-sea fisheries.

9 Emerging Relations Between Agentsin the Product Market

9.1 The disappearance of ‘boat-tying’

Generally, fish merchants (mudalali) are eager to se-cure access to a large and guaranteed supply of fish,which leads to stiff competition among them for ahigher ‘market share’. One obvious way to ensurethis is to buy their supplies forward. In the absenceof any organized forward market for fish, one wayof forward contracting is to link up credit with mar-keting relations by providing loans to craft own-ers on the latter’s promise to hand over all futurefish catches. Credit provided by mudalali helps craftowners to insure against the various risks and un-certainties confronted by them or to finance expen-ditures. In its simplest meaning, a tied-boat owneris one who has pledged to dispose all his futurecatches through a mudalali for loans borrowed fromhim. For craft owners, the credit provided by fishmerchants perform both a credit and an insurancefunction, under the condition of imperfectly devel-oped credit and insurance markets.

Fishworkers claim that mudalali often resort tounderreporting of wholesale prices. Although notexplicitly stated, it is quite evident that the dif-ference between the wholesale price (reported bythe mudalali) and the price paid to the producer ismade up of a marketing commission and an inter-est charge on loans granted to the producer.

Direct handing over of catches to lender-merchants was the most dominant mode of catchdisposal for fish landings of large craft in manyfishing villages in the 1970s and the first half of the1980s. Most of the mudalali involved in ‘boat-tying’arrangements were the local fish merchants. How-ever, recent studies in the southern coastal com-munities (Amarasinghe, et al., 2001) reveal that thefish auctioning system is gaining popularity amongowners of large mechanized craft. Today, morethan 50 per cent of the landings of large mecha-nized craft are auctioned. The question arises as towhat has led to the above changes in the fish mar-keting system. One of the major factors responsiblefor this change is the introduction of multi-day fish-ing.

The movements of MDOCs, which often fish ininternational waters, are uncertain, giving rise toproblems in marketing the catches. When an MDOClands its catch, there is no assurance of sufficientnumbers on the beach to bid for their catches. Thisprompted many craft owners to vertically integratetheir production activities with marketing activi-

203

ties, by acquiring insulated fish vans and trans-porting their catches to commission agents in largeurban centres. This was facilitated to a signifi-cant extent by the increased availability of institu-tional credit for investments in fish marketing. Thishelped the craft owners to cut down marketingcosts (saving on ‘unfair’ charges levied by assem-blers) and narrowing the informational gap (be-cause they had perfect information about the mar-ket situation) which enabled them to obtain bet-ter prices for their fish. Moreover, they were oftenrequested by fishworkers operating other smallercraft to undertake transportation of their catchestoo, which again weakened the role of the assem-bling agent.

New tying arrangements between owners ofMDOCs and commission agents in large urbanmarkets have emerged recently. Commissionagents, especially those operating in Colombo,have granted credit to large numbers of craft own-ers to acquire deep-sea craft. As for craft own-ers, they find the present tying arrangements ‘lessexploitative’ than those with beach assemblers forseveral reasons. Since craft owners are directly re-lated to the wholesale market, mudalali cannot un-derreport prices. Increasing the market commis-sion is also a limited prospect because craft own-ers, who are equipped with fish transport vehi-cles, are highly mobile and, therefore, they areable to move to alternative commission agents (op-erating in other markets), or they may approachwholesalers directly. Very few modes of sanctionare available to commission agents to take actionagainst craft owners who resort to such moves. Onthe part of the lender-commission agent, he hasno interest in extracting his returns to a level thatwould harm his relations with the borrower be-cause it would increase moral hazard problems.These problems are likely to be greater due tothe wide geographical distance that exists betweenagents.

9.2 Changes in the role of women

Active participation of women in fishing can onlybe observed in the Catholic fishing communitiesin the western province of Sri Lanka. Althoughwomen’s participation in active fishing was quitelow, their contribution to marketing, from auction-ing to retail selling of fish, remained at a very highlevel in such communities. Most of the womenused to gather on the beach at dawn, awaiting thereturn of the craft with their catches. The pierc-ing voices of women shouting to market their takes

were heard on the beach, above the voices of themale fishworkers. However, women’s participa-tion in the deep-sea fisheries subsector remainsvery low, due to the fact that the movements ofthese craft are uncertain and that catches are usu-ally sent to large urban centres in insulated fishvans of the craft owner. Local marketing of catchesis hardly practised.

However, women claim that they play an in-creasingly important role along with the pace ofdevelopment of the fisheries sector. The increas-ing rate of personal savings noticed in fishworkerfamilies can be partly attributed to the increasinginvolvement of women in financial management.Household responsibilities of women are growingalong with the development of the ultramoderndeep-sea fisheries subsector in which the fishingtrips are longer, usually for about one-and-a-halfmonths. Not only do the women have to feed, edu-cate and protect children and manage their house-holds, but they are also supposed to confront andresolve all health and other household problems aswell as meet social obligations. Women claim thatthey are the ones who maintain all social relationswith kin, friends and other individuals and groups,because the men (who are absent from home forprolonged periods) hardly find time to do so. In-stances of wives of young fishworkers having loveaffairs with other men in the community, whentheir husbands are absent from home for long pe-riods, are also not rare.

It is thus evident that crew men in the deep-seafisheries subsector earn higher average incomes, ata greater social cost than those who operate in thecoastal and offshore waters, a cost that is mainlyborne by the female fishworkers in the community.

10 Conclusions

The introduction of multi-day craft into Sri Lankanfisheries has led to a considerable increase infish production in the deep-sea fisheries subsector.These craft are of varying length and there exists atendency to build longer fishing craft capable of en-gaging in fishing trips of more than two months induration. However, the ability of the present largemulti-day craft of 40+ ft in length to engage in suchlong fishing trips is constrained by the inadequatecapacity of the fuel and water tanks built into thesecraft, which force the crew workers to carry addi-tional fuel on board, adversely affecting the stabil-ity of the craft. Technical reports of experts have

204

also proposed an improvement of the design of themulti-day craft to increase their stability.

Of the different length categories, the 32–34 ftcraft operates mainly within Sri Lanka’s EEZ, whilethe 34–36 ft and 36–39 ft categories operate bothin the EEZ and in international waters. The 40+ft craft operate throughout the Indian Ocean, espe-cially around Maldive Islands, Andaman and Nico-bar Islands, Lakshadweep Islands and, occasion-ally, in West Australian islands, the territorial wa-ters of Bangladesh, Thailand, Madagascar and evenin the Red Sea. Fishing inside the EEZs of othercountries is purposive and is also common. Thepotential financial gains from exploiting such re-sources appear to be significantly high, which hasdampened the costs associated with the risk of ar-rest for intruding into others’ territories.

Profitability estimates indicate that all types ofmulti-day craft earn positive gross and net profits,indicating both their short-term and long-term vi-ability. Net profits are highest for the 40+ ft cat-egory, followed by the 32–34 ft, 34–36 ft and 36–39 ft categories. Resource rents are positive for alltypes of craft, indicating that all these craft operatein areas where rates of resource exploitation havenot reached the open-access equilibrium. Return tocapital for 32–34 ft and 40+ ft craft categories aresignificantly higher than the current rate of inter-est on fisheries credit. The rates of return to cap-ital for craft of 34–39 ft are quite low. Return tolabour is highest for the 40+ ft category, followed bythe 32–34 ft, 34–36 ft and 36–39 ft categories. Crewworkers engaged in all types of multi-day craft earnincomes above those earned by skilled and semi-skilled labour in the unorganized sector, showingthe attractiveness of employment opportunities inmulti-day craft, in relation to comparable employ-ment opportunities elsewhere.

Results reveal that profits, return to capital andreturn to labour do not increase in proportion to thelength (and therefore, size) of the craft. It is quiteevident that the 32–34 ft craft is best suited to fishwithin the Sri Lanka’s EEZ. The 34–39 ft craft cat-egories are not capable of engaging in long fishingtrips and harvesting rich fish resources in distantwaters. Yet the fishworkers incur high fixed andvariable costs, earning lower profits compared tothose associated with the smaller 32–34 ft craft. Infact, the 34–36 ft and the 36–39 ft craft are not anymore popular among the fishworkers, and their rel-ative numbers are likely to decline in the future.The best craft for fishing in the Indian Ocean ap-pears to be the 40+ ft craft, of which the 45 ft and48 ft craft are gaining popularity among fishwork-

ers in Sri Lanka. However, if effective measures areadopted by nations in the Indian Ocean Region toban illegal entry of foreign fishing vessels into theirterritorial waters, the revenues earned by the 40+ft craft will be adversely affected. Nevertheless, itappears that, even after such a move, these craftwould still earn attractive revenues and return tocapital invested.

Several social changes are evident, which haveconsiderable impacts on the labour and productmarkets. Access to credit closely follows access tonew deep-sea technology. A large number of ‘out-side’ businessmen with privileged access to creditand who do not have close ties with the local com-munities of fishworkers have entered the deep-seasubsector. A genuine labour market is emerging inthe deep-sea fisheries subsector characterized by ahigh degree of personal anonymity among agentsand a high degree of mobility of labour. The newemployer-employee relations are devoid of affec-tive ties, and labour is recruited less along kinshipor friendship lines. In the efforts of craft owners toextract large surpluses from fishing activities, thereis a move to change the former catch-sharing sys-tem in favour of craft owners, while instances ofpaying wages to the crew men have also been re-ported. Work conditions of labour too have deteri-orated.

Crew workers in multi-day craft often face therisk of arrest, for fishing in the territorial waters ofother countries. Even at present, a large numberof Sri Lankan fishermen are detained by other na-tions for illegal fishing. No acceptable solution hasyet been arrived to resolve this issue. However, itappears that crew workers aiming at high averageincomes from multi-day fishing willingly accept tobear the risks of arrest, illness and even death.

Introduction of multi-day fishing has also ledto significant changes in the sphere of marketing.Craft owners have integrated their ’production ac-tivities’ with marketing activities, thereby under-mining the role of the local fish assembler (mu-dalali). Fish workers are rarely ‘tied’ to mudalali to-day, for borrowing from them. Although credit-product market interlinkages are found amongowners of multi-day craft and commission agentsin large urban wholesale markets, such relation-ships are considered by fishworkers as ‘less ex-ploitative’. There is near-perfect information aboutmarket conditions and a craft owner is able to movefrom one commission agent to another, until a rea-sonable price is received for his catch.

The role of women in fisheries has also under-gone significant changes, along with the introduc-

205

tion of multi-day fishing. When their husbands areaway from home, on month-long fishing trips, thewives are burdened with an array of household re-sponsibilities earlier borne by the men. Apparently,crew men in the deep-sea fisheries subsector earn

higher average incomes, at a greater social cost thanthose who operate in the coastal and offshore wa-ters, a cost that is mainly borne by the female fish-workers in the community.

206

Transborder Issues Involving Fishworkers and FishingVessels: Arrangements for Resolving Conflicts

REPORT: WORKING GROUP I

1 Indonesia

Ronald Titahelu from Indonesia spoke about theFilipino fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the In-donesian waters of Sulawesi, and complained thatthe traditional fishing rights of small-scale fishersare slowly being taken away from them. The In-donesian Navy does not give adequate protectionfrom foreign fishing vessels in Sulawesi, he added.He also said that many Indonesian fishers have lostaccess to their traditional fishing grounds due tothe demarcation of an Australian fishing zone.

2 India and Sri Lanka

Discussing the Indo-Sri Lankan border issues, Aru-lanandam from India said there were two agree-ments, in 1974 and 1976, between India and SriLanka, which also covered fisheries issues. Fishingwas smoothly conducted until the Vellikadai prisonincident in Sri Lanka in 1983, he said. Innocent In-dian fishers have since been shot at. Only in thecase of Sri Lanka and India does this happen, andnot when Pakistanis fish in Indian waters or whenIndians fish in Pakistani waters, he said. How canboundaries be fixed in water and how can fisher-men accept them, he asked.

One can cross the border for several reasons,Arulanandam continued. It could be due to enginefailure. In early 2001, 11 boats with 50 fishermenwere arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy, he said. Oneof the fishermen who had a stomach problem hadto be taken to a hospital. While being transferredat sea, he fell overboard and drowned. Arulanan-dam said there were 16 fishermen in Mannar jail inSri Lanka, and four of their boats were also confis-cated. Thanks to legal and other forms of assistancefrom a number of friends in Sri Lanka, the arrestedfishermen eventually get released. He particularlymentioned the role played by the Alliance for theRelease of Innocent Fishermen (ARIF). Arulanan-dam narrated some of the incidents in the form of asong, which talked about the Tamil fishermen and

their struggles against the waves, and their struggleto live.

Talking about the arrest of Sri Lankan fishersin Indian waters, Herman Kumara from Sri Lankasaid there were several difficulties for the fami-lies of such arrested fishermen. He attributed SriLankan illegal fishing to pressures from the mu-dalalis (boatowners) who force fishworkers to gofar out to sea, to bring as much fish as they can. Theonboard fishermen are actually fishworkers, whotry to earn an income in the form of a share of thecatch. Fishermen do not care about boundaries, hesaid. They go to waters of Bangladesh, Somalia,Seychelles, India, Myanmar and Thailand.

In 1999 alone, 150 fishermen were arrested inIndian waters. There are fishermen in the jails ofKerala, Tamil Nadu and Andamans. The fishermenand their boats eventually get released, thanks toorganizations like the South Indian Federation ofFishermen Societies (SIFFS), ARIF and the World Fo-rum of Fisher People (WFFP). It takes a minimumof six months for the release of fishers and boats.The release of fishermen involves the State and theUnion governments. Kumara said the fishermen,who sometimes get mentally and physically ex-hausted, should be treated as human beings. Whennews of their arrest reaches their families, womenand children get affected too. Families get econom-ically encumbered, while the children drop out ofschool.

According to the 1982 United Nations Conven-tion on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), which makesprovisions for innocent passage, the captured crewshould be repatriated as soon as they are arrested,Kumara added. But, in reality, the fishers are keptfor long periods in prison. Government providesassistance for six months. There should be a sys-tem to inform the families immediately, he said.During accidents, the boatowners communicate di-rectly with lawyers, and not with the fishermen.Kumara wondered whether Sri Lankan fishermencould provide legal assistance to those who get ar-rested. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

207

should have better co-ordination to get the fisher-men released as soon as possible. Why cannot thegovernments in South Asia enter a multilateral ar-rangement for sharing the fisheries resources, heasked. At least Sri Lanka and India ought to havea bilateral arrangement, he said, with a mechanismto address tranborder issues. Sri Lankans, however,should not be exporting their excess fishing capac-ity to other countries, he concluded.

The fishermen illegally fishing in the Sri Lankanwaters are all from Tamil Nadu, said V. Vivekanan-dan from India. About 75 per cent are fromRameswaram. Most of the vessels are mechanized,while some are motorized traditional canoes. Thereare a few unmechanized vessels too, he said.

Historically, the fishermen on both sides of theinternational border line (IBL)are Tamil-speaking.They fish nine months on the Indian side and three,on the Sri Lankan side. There was a time when fish-ermen from Sri Lanka would visit India to watchTamil films, he joked. The Kachhathivu disputedates back to 1920, he said. Ecclesiastically, the is-land was under the Jaffna Bishop in Sri Lanka, but,politically, it belonged to the Raja of Ramnad.

There was an Agreement for the Bay of Bengaland Gulf of Mannar in 1971, Vivekanandan said.In exchange for seceding Kacchhativu to Sri Lanka,the Sri Lankan government agreed to grant citizen-ship to the Indians who were living there. Fisher-men, however, were not consulted on the boundaryissues, he said.

Until the civil war in Sri Lanka in 1983 thingswent smooth, he continued. Since then, until 2001,there were 175 incidents of shooting and killing.In the meantime, Indian fishermen have expandedtheir trawler fleet. The arrest of fishermen started inNovember 1996. Since 1998, the number of shoot-ings has, however, declined.

The traditional and trawler fishermen alternatein fishing operations in Rameshwaram. Every al-ternate day, about 500 mechanized trawlers crossover into Sri Lankan waters. The Sri Lanka Navyhas difficulty in distinguishing between genuinefishermen and others. According to the Sri LankanNavy it was safer to shoot first than to verify theidentities of the crew. Arrests are rarely madefor poaching in the Sri Lankan waters, but, oncecaught, the fishermen are charged.

Most of the arrests of Sri Lankan fishermen aremade in the Gulf of Mannar or the Arabian Sea,Vivekanandan said. The Sri Lankan fleet has ex-panded and it has also increased the overall lengthof its fishing vessels. While Indians trawl forshrimp on the Sri Lankan side, the Sri Lankans fish

around islands, he said. Both governments havesupported the expansion of fishing fleets. For ex-ample, there is a 50 per cent capital subisidy schemefor building the Sri Lankan multi-day boats, hesaid.

While there are instances of the Sri LankanNavy sending back some of the Indian vessels fish-ing in their waters, there are no such cases involv-ing Sri Lankan vessels on the Indian side, he said.Fishers and their boats are exchanged at Anurad-hapura. The period of detention before such an ex-change takes place could range from a few days tosix months. There are seven designated courts inIndia to try violations of the Maritime Zones of In-dia Act, he said. Fishermen have to be produced incourt every 15 days. The State and Centre then starta long process of exchanging letters. Three min-istries are involved in the arrest of fishermen. Thecases are normally withdrawn, but the process cantake a minimum of one year. Until 1999, there wasno prosecution of fishermen. Since then, the skip-pers are being prosecuted. A fine of Rs100,000 orsix months in prison could be the maximum pun-ishment. The fine has now been reduced to Rs5,000.

Vivekanandan thinks that a bilateral fishingagreement would be the best solution for the India-Sri Lanka fishing conflicts. Five options could beconsidered under such an agreement:

Option I is to allow free access to fishermen fromacross the border in each others’ waters. This is theposition of the National Fishworkers Forum (NFF)and the WFFP, he said. There are no animosities be-tween the Indian and the Sri Lankan fishermen, headded. While the fishermen operating the dugoutcanoes might burn trawlers in protest, they havenever protested against the Sri Lankan multi-dayfishing boats.

Option II is to expeditiously settle the cases of il-legal fishing; the vessels and the fishermen shouldbe allowed to return as quickly as possible, say,within a fortnight.

Option III would be to punish the poachers.The poaching vessels and the fishermen shouldbe released within 10 days. The skipper may becharged and, if he pleads guilty, reasonable fines,say, Rs20,000–50,000 should be imposed. If a vesselis apprehended a third time, it may be confiscated.This would be a humane and transparent way ofdealing with poaching. The flip side of such an ap-proach is that it would not have a deterrent effect.

208

Option IV to reciprocally licence fishing vesselsfrom both sides to fish in each other’s designatedwaters. For example, 500 boats from India could begiven access to the Sri Lankan waters in the PalkStrait and an equal number of Sri Lankan vesselscould be given access to the Arabian Sea by India,subject to the availability of fishery resources.

Option V would be to manage Palk Bay, Bay ofBengal and Arabian Sea separately and to managePalk Strait jointly by India and Sri Lanka.

3 Pakistan

Muhammad Ali Shah from Pakistan said that bothhis father and grandfather were arrested by theIndian authorities for fishing in the Indian wa-ters. The marine fishermen of Pakistan come fromBaluchistan and Sind, he said. Sind has about 17major creeks, and one of them, the Sir Creek, is theborder with India. Relations between Indian andPakistani fishermen from Karachi are very old. Be-fore the Indo-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971, theKachchh authorities gave permission to Pakistanifishermen to fish in waters off Kachchh, India, hesaid. After the 1971 war, his grandfather, however,was detained, along with many others, for fishingin the Indian waters. They were subsequently re-leased and they had to return to Pakistan on foot.Some fishermen who were thus released lost theirway and died in the desert. Although his grandfa-ther managed to return home, while entering Pak-istan, he was detained once again, this time by Pak-istani authorities.

The first exchange of fishermen between thetwo countries was in 1988, said Shah. The Pak-istanis were released after four months of deten-tion. The second exchange was in 1995. Shah saidmany Indian fishermen cross over to the Pakistaniwaters to target many species. The crossing overinto the Indian side is often unintentional, he said.The currents are very fast in Sir Creek. Even ifyou are anchored in Sir Creek, if it rains heavily,you could find yourself in Indian waters. Duringfishing operations, the fishermen do not really re-alize that they have crossed over, said Shah. Themaritime boundary between India and Pakistan inSir Creek is still disputed, he said. Sometimes, thePakistani Coastguard arrests Pakistani fishermen,thinking that they are Indian fishermen.

In October 1999, the Indian Coastguard fired atPakistani fishermen fishing in Kajor Creek. Theytried to escape. Two fishermen got killed. In 2000,

the Indian Coastguard fired at a Pakistani fishingvessel, and one fisherman was injured. Fishermenhave no conflicts with one another, he said. ManyIndian fishermen come to fish on the Karachi coast.They help each other, he said. A trawl gear soldin India (costing Rs10,000 in Gujarat) is one-fifthits price in Pakistan (Rs50,000). The Gujarat fish-ermen sell gear and sometimes even give it free totheir Karachi counterparts. The conflict is only be-tween the two governments, and not between fish-ing communities. Fishing communities, he said, arethe victims of the conflicts between India and Pak-istan. Pakistanis have never complained against In-dian fishermen, he said. Nor have the Indian fish-ermen ever complained against Pakistani fishers.There are no visible boundary walls at sea, he said,adding that in Pakistan they do not see an end tothe problem since both governments are not show-ing any interest in solving it. In the meantime, theexchange of fishermen will go on, he said. He saidthat the Pakistani fishermen welcome Indian fish-ermen and he pleaded that no fishermen should bearrested.

Crossing an imaginary line has triggered a greathuman tragedy, said Souparna Lahiri from India.In some Tamil Nadu fishing villages in the PalkStrait, there are only widows. Although eligible forRs50,000–75,000 as compensation from the govern-ment, many of the deaths of their husbands wentuncompensated since no certificate could be pro-duced to establish death. There are about 200 Pak-istani fishers in Indian jails even today, Lahiri said.Fishers are treated like prisoners of war (POWs).Since 1987, there have been around 8,000 arrests ofIndian and Pakistani fishermen for crossing the IBL.

Fishermen are mainly arrested in the Indusdelta area, believed to be the richest fishing groundin South Asia, he said, adding that it is essentiallya dispute over a non-conflictual issue. The fisher-men often count the voyage time as a thumb rule toestimate distance.

The fishermen are charged under the Foreign-ers Act and the Passport Act. If caught outsidethe territorial sea, they cannot be charged underthe Passport Act. The arrested fishermen are of-ten kept alongside hardened criminals in Landi Jail,Karachi. There are lawyers in Porbandar who areon the payroll of Karachi boatowners to fight legalbattles, Lahiri observed. Attention was also drawnto the arrest of an Indian fishing vessel arrested byIran with the permission of Saudi authorities andhanded over to Pakistan. The crew, comprisingTamils, had to spent two years in a Balochistan jail.

209

It was proposed that the current practice ofclassifying fishing boats as cargo boats should bechanged. It was further proposed that the govern-ments should respond to the organizations mak-ing the representation on behalf of fishermen andtheir families. The exchange of fishermen, itwas observed, was a very cumbersome and time-consuming process.

4 Seychelles

In his presentation on illegal fishing in the southernIndian Ocean, Joseph Randolph Payet of the Sey-chelles Fishing Authority said that the most diffi-cult problem for the Authority after the arrest ofillegal fishermen is what to do with them. Ratherthan focusing on what governments should do tominimize fisheries violations in each other’s wa-ters, he asked if fishermen’s organizations couldeducate fishers about fisheries laws, especiallythose that apply when they fish in other exclusiveeconomic zones (EEZs). Excess fishing capacity isthe main problem for illegal fishing in the IndianOcean, he argued. Illegal fishing undermines thecountry’s management system. Participation in in-ternational organizations can help harmonize fish-ing regulations, he said. He considered it importantto disseminate information on fishing regulationsof other countries. The causes of illegal fishing aremultifaceted; they are linked to economic, culturaland social factors, it was pointed out. Illegal fishingwas a political, scientific and humanitarian issue,observed another participant.

In Seychelles, the demersal stocks are reservedfor the nationals, while foreigners harvest thepelagic resources under licensing arrangements.The shallow plateau is also reserved for the localfishers. Even pelagic stocks that are harvested inshallow waters are considered demersal stocks andreserved for the nationals. However, all forms ofdestructive fishing techniques are banned. The Sey-chelles fisheries management system and its insti-tutional mechanisms are a good model for the In-dian Ocean Region, said Payet. A permit is re-quired to fish outside the Seychellois EEZ. Thusthere is effective flag-State control on all fishingvessels. The illegal fishing vessels include those tar-geting sea cucumbers from Madagascar at the 30-mdepth. In most cases of illegal fishing in Seychelles’waters, the vessels are apprehended but the creware allowed to return home.

It was asked whether it was possible to ac-commodate small-scale fishing vessels from other

Indian Ocean countries, under licensing arrange-ments, to fish in the Seychelles, for instance, thedemersal fishermen of Sri Lanka, as in the case ofFrench tuna purse-seiners. It was also asked whyfines for illegal fishing are exorbitantly high in theSeychelles.

5 East Africa

Maritime boundaries are not enforced betweencountries in East Africa, said Mucai Muchiri fromKenya, talking about illegal fishing by Tanzanianfishermen in Kenyan waters. Such fishing extendsall the way up to Malindi, he said. The Tanzani-ans have relations in Kenya. In the north of Kimba,they have a fishing method involving dynamitingof corals after surrounding it with a seine, whichis extremely unpopular, so they have to go neigh-bouring countries, like the Rameswaram trawlersin Sri Lanka, he said. Thais are also fishing illegallyin Kenyan waters, as are Malawians in the inlandwaters of Mozambique. Tanzanians also illegallyfish in Mozambique. Since fishermen have rela-tives on both sides of the country, resource manage-ment committees from both countries meet to solvethe problem of border fishing in Mozambique, saidSimeao Lopes from Mozambique. There are inter-gear conflicts involving fishermen from differentcountries. However, the problem is not as much be-tween fishermen as between gear. The use of push-nets, in particular, has been creating problems, saidLopes.

East Africa may face problems with non-selective and illegal fishing that South Asia iscurrently facing, observed one participant, espe-cially when fisheries develop further in East Africa.There is a five-mile limit for trawlers in Kenya, saidLopes. Some species have been almost completelyoverfished. Currently, Greek and Italian trawlers,as well as Spanish purse-seiners, fish in the watersof Kenya. It is ‘free for all’ outside the littoral wa-ters, it was observed.

6 Conclusion

“There is no problem between the Indian Oceanpeoples, the problem is between governments”, ob-served one participant. Hundreds of thousandsof fishermen from India and Bangladesh are find-ing solutions to common problems, without any in-volvement of governments, said Harekrishna Deb-nath from India.

210

Maizan Hassan Maniku from the Maldives dis-agreed. He said that the Maldivian fishermen donot want foreign fishermen coming into their wa-ters. He said the fisheries laws of Maldives wereenacted mainly to prevent foreign fishing activitiesin national waters and to protect the country’s ownfishermen.

It was generally agreed that whatever be the na-ture of fishing violations, the fishermen should notbe made to languish in jail for illegal fishing ac-tivities. It was proposed that surplus total allow-able catch (TAC) should be redistributed to ripariansmall-scale fisheries in the Indian Ocean, employ-ing selective fishing methods and techniques. The

long-, medium- and short-term goals of riparian ar-rangements, however, should be clearly spelt out, itwas proposed.

The main point that emerged was the differencein the perception of riparian rights from islandsin the Indian Ocean and the mainland countries,including Sri Lanka. The countries that have thegreatest stake in fisheries resources are keen to havethe ground rules clearly spelt out. How to lay downthe ground rules is important at this juncture. Ri-parian rights should not be seen as an opportunityto export excess capacity and destructive forms offishing techniques, it was observed.

211

Sustaining Coastal Commons: Protecting the Right to Lifeand Livelihood of Fishing Communities

REPORT: WORKING GROUP II

In this session, presentations were made by par-ticipants from East Africa, followed by those fromAsia.

1 East Africa

The presentations from Mozambique, Kenya,Zanzibar (Tanzania), Madagascar and South Africahad a common thread. They all highlighted the im-portance of artisanal fisheries in their countries andthe fact that the sector was not sufficiently recog-nized or supported by the governments. The mainsupport was to fisheries for commercially valu-able species such as shrimp and tuna targeted bytrawlers and industrial vessels.

The trawl fisheries for shrimp was consid-ered especially destructive. While most of thesecountries have some zonation mechanism wherebytrawlers and industrial vessels are not allowed tofish in defined artisanal zones, encroachments arecommon. The monitoring, control and surveil-lance (MCS) capability is typically poor and few re-sources are available with governments to improvethis.

Encroachments by trawlers (both domestic andforeign) in inshore waters are highly detrimental,in that the nets and boats of artisanal fishermen areoften destroyed. At the same time, high levels ofby-catch and destructive fishing practices have anadverse impact on biodiversity and fish breeding.Moreover, the dumping of by-catch in local mar-kets is depressing the prices available for local fish-ermen. Most of the trawlers are owned by thosefrom outside the fishing community and, in severalcountries, they are foreign-owned.

Another shared issue in the region is the impactof rapid development of coastal areas, especiallyof tourism. In some cases, tourist resorts limit theaccess of fishers to beaches and marine resources.Industrial and domestic pollution and habitat de-struction have impacts on fisheries resources andthe livelihoods of fishermen.

The unregulated emergence of aquaculture, es-pecially of shrimp aquaculture, in countries of EastAfrica is also beginning to raise concerns about itssocial, economic and environmental impacts.

In several of these countries, there are efforts toset up systems of participatory fisheries manage-ment. In Mozambique, for example, village com-mittees, headed by traditional chiefs, have been setup. These committees design management systemsfor resources under their jurisdiction. Permits arerequired for migrants, and the migrant has to ob-serve traditional laws. This has reduced conflictswith migrants. However, the rights of local com-mittees, especially in terms of their powers of en-forcement, are not yet clear. Even when violationsare detected, committees have to report the offenceto the authorities for necessary action—a mecha-nism that is not always effective.

The representative from South Africa high-lighted the fact that artisanal fishers are still not rec-ognized as a category, and traditional fishers areclassified as subsistence fishers. The great hopesof “black empowerment” in the post-apartheid erahave been belied, as fisheries policies have not ledto an equitable access to resources.

2 Asia

There were presentations from Thailand,Bangladesh and India, and inputs from participantsfrom Maldives and Sri Lanka.

All the presentations highlighted the impor-tance of fisheries for employment, income and foodsecurity for large populations, and the fact that fish-ing communities tended be among the most vulner-able sections of the population.

The presentation from India highlighted theimmense ‘developmental’ pressures on coastal re-sources and the resultant pollution, habitat destruc-tion, displacement of fishing communities and offish resources. Such pressures include the devel-opment of harbours, thermal plants, industries,amusement parks, housing and tourism. In sev-

212

eral places, coastal areas are being reclaimed, andas natural flows are affected, coastal erosion is in-creasing.

The highly destructive impact that shrimpfarming has had on mangrove habitats and onsmall-scale fishing communities was highlighted,especially in the case of Bangladesh, Thailand, SriLanka and India. Environmental rights abuseswere equated with human rights abuses in suchcases. It was emphasized that the expansion ofshrimp aquaculture in mangrove areas persisteddespite studies showing that long-term returnsfrom a well-managed mangrove forest far exceededthe short-term returns from shrimp production,and that, from an economic perspective, intensiveshrimp aquaculture is unsustainable.

The presentation from Thailand highlighted theefforts of fishing communities in southern Thailandto protect their resources and to pressure the gov-ernment to adopt policies that protect environmen-tal resources. For example, banning push-nets andproviding protection to seagrass beds have helpedin the reappearance of the dugong, a tourist attrac-tion. This has helped the government realize that ifthe environment is better protected—as is possibleby regulating destructive gear like push-nets—theincrease in tourist inflows can generate alternativeincomes and livelihoods. Communities are tryingto ensure forms of tourist development that protecttheir environments and their interests.

The dugong was proposed as a symbol for theIndian Ocean community, as the presence of thedugong would be symbolic of a healthy marineecosystem and, by extension, of a vibrant small-scale fishing community using selective gear.

In the case of Maldives, it was pointed out thatformal law has assimilated elements of customarylaw. Efforts to enhance stakeholder participationare made through regular consultations with vil-lage committees.

Illegal fishing, by foreign or domestic trawlersand industrial vessels, was reported as a problem inalmost all countries. This also leads to a wrong re-porting of catches, as local boats may transfer theircatches to foreign vessels, or foreign vessels maycatch fish illegally from national waters, so that thecatch is not reflected in national statisitics. The poorMCS capabilities was seen as a related issue.

In conclusion, it was pointed out that the prob-lems that are now emerging in East Africa, includ-ing those related to industrial fisheries, trawling,coastal degradation and shrimp aquaculture, havebeen affecting fishermen in Asia for the past fewdecades. The conflict with trawlers, for example,was already acute in the late 1970s. The negativeimpact of shrimp aquaculture has been experiencedsince the early 1990s. Given this situation, it wasfelt that an interaction between fishing communi-ties from Asia and East Africa could be very benefi-cial. It could prevent the East Africans from repeat-ing the same mistakes in their own contexts.

213

INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT OF FISHWORKERS(ICSF)INTERNATIONAL OCEAN INSTITUTE (IOI), INDIA

Forging Unity: Coastal Communitiesand the Indian Ocean’s Future

IIT Madras, Chennai9-13 October 2001

VISION STATEMENT

1. We, the participants from 13 countries of theIndian Ocean Region—Mozambique, SouthAfrica, Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, India,Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Thailand,Indonesia, Maldives and Seychelles—alongwith delegates from France, Belgium, UK andNorway, met at Chennai (Madras), India from9 to 13 October 2001. Coming from fish-worker unions, research institutions and uni-versities, NGOs, and governments, our pur-pose was to discuss issues and consider mea-sures to forge unity among coastal communi-ties for the sustainable and equitable utiliza-tion of fisheries resources in the Indian OceanRegion.

2. The Indian Ocean Region has great marine bi-ological diversity and the largest number ofcommercial fish species in the world. Fish isan important source of food as well as em-ployment, income and foreign exchange inthe region. This region also has the largestnumber of fishworkers in the world. The ma-jority are in the small-scale sector, using adiversity of craft-gear combinations. A sig-nificant proportion of the population lives inpoverty, and from environmental and socioe-conomic points of view, coastal fishing com-munities are among the most vulnerable.

3. Rapid economic growth, without adequateconsiderations for equity, and fuelled by thepressures of liberalization and globalization,has increased the unregulated expansion ofeconomic activities in coastal areas. Theseinclude rapid urban development, an in-crease in the number of polluting industrialunits, the growth of luxury tourism and theexpansion of industrial shrimp aquaculture,among others. This has hastened the degra-

dation of coastal habitats and often led to thedisplacement of coastal fishing communitiesfrom their traditional living and occupationalspaces. To regulate these trends, it is impera-tive to:

• ensure effective legislation and institu-tional arrangements that adopt an inte-grated approach on access to, and use of,resources, bringing in both the landwardand seaward components of the coastalzone and its dynamic interface;

• institute participatory mechanisms fordecisionmaking on coastal resource use,according to the principle of subsidiar-ity, in order to ensure the representationof traditional coastal communities, espe-cially those involved in artisanal/small-scale fisheries;

• guarantee priority rights of coastal fish-ing communities to the coastal areawhere they live and the aquatic re-sources to which they have customarilyenjoyed access for livelihood; and

• assure priority to decent living condi-tions for coastal fishing communitiesand safeguard their own developmentinterests.

4. The Indian Ocean Region is characterizedby fragile and highly productive ecosys-tems, with complex species and environmen-tal inter-relationships. However, in almost allcountries of the Indian Ocean Region, fish-ery resources in the nearshore waters arepoorly managed and overexploited. Whilethese resources are the mainstay of the liveli-hood of fishing families, they are often sub-ject to encroachment by domestic and for-eign large-scale fishing vessels, often using

214

non-selective, destructive gear such as bot-tom trawls. These unsustainable practicesalso lead to the damage of small-scale fishinggear and, at times, loss of life through colli-sions. While untapped resources in offshoreareas are known to exist, management ar-rangements for them are poor or non-existent.The Indian Ocean has important oil and min-eral resources, which are being exploited. It isalso an ocean with extensive maritime trans-port, and is a sink for urban, industrial andtoxic wastes. To defend the livelihood of thesmall-scale fishing communities and main-tain the productivity and integrity of thisocean and its resources, it is imperative that:

• a socially just ecosystem approach to re-source use and fisheries resource man-agement is adopted by States in the re-gion;

• States should phase out destructive gear,such as bottom trawling, and assess andreduce overcapacity, in accordance withthe FAO’s International Plan of Actionfor the Management of Fishing Capacity.For social, economic and ecological rea-sons, the capacity of the industrial fleetthat engages in the same fisheries as thesmall-scale sector should be minimizedas a matter of priority;

• States should encourage small-scale, se-lective, sustainable harvesting technolo-gies with strong backward and forwardlinkages that enhance and maintain em-ployment opportunities within fishingcommunities; and

• States should prevent marine pollu-tion from activities such as maritimetransport and infrastructure develop-ment, extraction of non-living resources,dumping of toxic and other wastes inthe region, and introduction of exoticspecies, in accordance with relevant in-ternational conventions and other in-struments, including the Global Plan ofAction for the Protection of the MarineEnvironment from Land-based Activi-ties (GPA/LBA).

5. The role of women in the economic activ-ities of coastal fishing communities differsby region and culture, but is universally vi-tal in sustaining livelihoods. The degrada-tion of coastal ecosystems and the displace-

ment of fishing communities from their livingspaces have adversely affected the workloadand quality of life of women of these com-munities. Given the almost complete absenceof data and recognition of women’s work infishing communities, little is known aboutthese aspects. It is imperative to:

• recognize and value the work of women,and to develop a database on their workin coastal fishing communities;

• safeguard the existing spaces of womenin fisheries;

• ensure women’s participation in re-source management and other decision-making processes; and

• improve conditions of work of womenin fish processing plants in both the or-ganized and unorganized/informal sec-tor.

6. Unauthorized transboundary movement ofsmall-scale fishing vessels and the subse-quent detention and punishment of fishwork-ers by States has become a major issue formany coastal communities as well as for ad-ministrators who grapple with the problem.This is largely the consequence of the dec-laration of exclusive economic zones (EEZs),which sometimes prevents coastal fishwork-ers from accessing their traditional fishinggrounds. However, it is also a result of othercompulsions, such as the enhanced fishingcapacities of the artisanal small-scale fishingfleets, as well as the depletion of local, coastalfisheries resources. This complex problemneeds context-specific solutions that protectthe human rights of fishworkers. It is impor-tant that:

• implementation of legislation to dealwith the arrest and detention of fish-workers in the waters of other coastalStates should be in accordance with Ar-ticle 73 of the 1982 United Nations Con-vention on the Law of the Sea (1982 Con-vention), the UN International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights, 1976 andthe UN International Covenant on Eco-nomic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1976,among others. Penalties for illegal fish-ing should be based on the principles ofnecessity and proportionality;

215

• States should evolve necessary mecha-nisms for the release and repatriation ofarrested fishermen on a priority basis;

• recognizing that rigid enforcement ofmaritime boundaries in historic watersin relation to communities that live andfish close to such boundaries can lead totragic consequences, the interests of suchcommunities need to be accommodated,along with security and other nationalconcerns;

• fishworkers using small-scale vesselsapprehended in territorial waters for il-legal fishing should not be prosecutedunder laws that apply to illegal immi-grants. In such cases, the fact that theillegal fishing occurs within territorialwaters rather than the EEZ should notlead to punishments that are more se-vere than those for similar violations inthe EEZ; and

• fishworkers should not be made victimsof maritime boundary disputes betweenStates. States need to have working ar-rangements that provide fishworkers ac-cess to resources in such fishing groundsfor life and livelihood.

7. The development of relatively small boatswith long endurance capabilities and usingselective fishing methods has demonstratedthat large industrial fleets, often from non-riparian States, can be superfluous for the ex-ploitation of all highly migratory resources.In order to encourage this evolving small-scale sector of riparian developing States:

• coastal States with surplus resourcesshould consider providing preferentialaccess to such artisanal/small-scale sea-worthy fishing vessels, subject to effec-tive flag State control and responsibility;

• States should, where such opportuni-ties exist, facilitate the conclusion ofan agreement that allows its small-scalelong-distance fleet to legally engage insuch fisheries in a responsible manner;

• States should not export excess capacityand destructive fishing methods;

• coastal States should, given that at leasta part of the reason for transboundarymovement is the poor management ofEEZs in many countries, improve the

management of their fisheries resources,exercise effective control over their fleet,and move towards responsible fisheries;and

• States should be enabled to prevent,deter and eliminate illegal, unreportedand unregulated (IUU) fishing, in accor-dance with the International Plan of Ac-tion to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Ille-gal, Unreported and Unregulated Fish-ing (IPOA-IUU). This is of special con-cern to developing States, especiallysmall island developing States, that de-pend heavily on their fisheries resourcesfor food security, economic well-beingand development.

8. The principal beneficiaries of the current fish-ing pattern for valuable highly migratory fishstocks in the Indian Ocean Region are notthose coastal States whose territories are prin-cipally in this region. The rapid growth oftuna catches by distant-water fishing nationsin the very recent past should not be inter-preted to have established a habitual right inthe sense of the 1982 Convention. Decisionson access to these resources should, instead,be governed by:

• a true tradition of harvesting these re-sources;

• dependency of a country’s economy onthese resources; and

• the potential of economic and social de-velopment for small island developingStates and other developing countries inthe region.

9. There is evidence that coastal States in the re-gion have accepted fishing agreements withdistant-water fishing nations that have notbeen to the best long-term interests of theireconomies or to the advantage of their coastalfishing communities. This has often beencaused by unfair pressure being exertedthrough linking the conditions of the fish-eries access agreements to the provision of aidand trade, in contravention of internationalinstruments. To create fair fishing arrange-ments:

• States should apply Articles 11.2.7 and11.2.8 of the FAO Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries, which discourage

216

States from making access to markets acondition for access to resources;

• States should develop national fisheriespolicies in which the coastal fishing com-munities’ rights and needs are taken intoaccount before entering into any negoti-ation for granting access to distant-waterfishing nations;

• States should ensure full transparencyand accountability in their dealings withdistant-water fishing companies andjoint ventures and agreements in orderto combat corruption; and

• conditions of work and service on boarddistant-water fishing vessels should con-form to generally accepted internationalregulations, procedures and practices, inparticular those adopted by the Interna-tional Labour Organization (ILO).

10. Coastal communities in the Indian Ocean Re-gion stand to gain from greater interactionand sharing of information and experiences,capabilities, skills and development alterna-tives. Many of the countries in the westernIndian Ocean Region can also draw lessonsfrom the negative experiences of the Asian

countries in pursuing development strategiesin the realm of fisheries and industrialization.These have had an adverse impact on coastalfisheries resources and coastal ecosystems atan earlier point in time. An example wouldbe the negative impact that industrial shrimpaquaculture has had on the coastal habitatsand livelihoods of coastal communities.

11. Keeping the above in mind, as well asthe many positive examples of community-based and sustainable development alterna-tives, it is imperative to strengthen appropri-ate South-South co-operation. This is par-ticularly relevant in the realm of human re-source capability building, use of appropri-ate and environmentally selective technolo-gies, exchange of experiences in communitydevelopment projects and resource conserva-tion and rejuvenation measures.

12. In adopting this Vision Statement in theUnited Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civ-ilizations and amidst the current challengesto world peace, we are especially consciousof our responsibility and duty to continueto promote co-operation among nations andforge unity of the coastal communities in theIndian Ocean’s future.

Chennai, India13 October 2001

217

COLLECTIF INTERNATIONAL D’APPUI AUX TRAVAILLEURS DE LA PECHE (ICSF)INSTITUT INTERNATIONAL DE L’OCEAN (IOI), Inde

Forger l’Unite: les communautes cotiereset l’avenir de l’Ocean Indien

IIT Madras, Chennai9-13 Octobre 2001DECLARATION

1. Nous, participant(e)s de treize pays dela region de l’Ocean Indien–Mozambique,Afrique du Sud, Kenya, Tanzanie, Madagas-car, Inde, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh,Thailande, Indonesie, Maldives andSeychelles—avec des delegue(e)s de France,Belgique, Royaume Uni et de Norvege, noussommes rencontres a Chennai (Madras)–Inde du 9 au 13 octobre 2001. Nousfaisons partie d’organisations de pecheursa petite echelle, d’instituts de recherche,d’universites, d’ONG, de gouvernements.Notre objectif etait de discuter les enjeux etenvisager quelles mesures sont approprieespour forger l’unite entre les communautescotieres de la region Ocean Indien, dans uneperspective d’utilisation durable et equitabledes ressources.

2. L’Ocean Indien possede une grande diver-site biologique marine et abrite le plus grandnombre d’especes commerciales de poissonsau monde. Le poisson y est une sourcede nourriture, d’emplois et de rentrees endevises importante pour la region. Cetteregion compte egalement le plus grand nom-bre de pecheurs au monde. La majoritede ces pecheurs viennent du secteur a pe-tite echelle, qui utilisent une grande diver-site d’engins et d’embarcations de peche.Une proportion significative de la populationde l’Ocean Indien vit dans la pauvrete, etd’un point de vue environnemental et socio-economique, les communautes cotieres depeche sont parmi les plus vulnerables.

3. La rapide croissance economique, sans con-siderations adequate du principe d’equite, at-tisee par les pressions de la liberalisation etde la mondialisation, a provoque l’expansionanarchique des activites economiques dansles zones cotieres. Celles-ci incluent, en-tre autres, le developpement urbain rapide,l’augmentation du nombre des unites indus-trielles polluantes, la croissance du tourisme

de luxe et l’expansion de l’aquaculture indus-trielle. Cela a precipite la degradation deshabitats en zone cotiere et, souvent, conduitau deplacement des communautes cotieres depeche de leurs espaces traditionnels de vie etde travail.

Pour reguler ces tendances, il est imperatif:

• d’assurer que des mecanismes legaux etinstitutionnels adoptant une approcheintegree pour l’acces et l’utilisation desressources soient mis en place. Cesmecanismes prendront en compte tant lacomposante maritime que terrienne dela zone cotiere etant donne que ces deuxelements constituent une interface dy-namique;

• d’instituer des mecanismes participat-ifs pour la prise de decision concernantl’utilisation des ressources cotieres, con-formement au principe de subsidiarite,afin de garantir la representation descommunautes cotieres traditionnelles,specialement ceux impliquees dans lespecheries artisanales et a petite echelle;

• de garantir des droits prioritaires pourles communautes de peche sur la zonecotiere ou ils vivent et sur les ressourcesaquatiques auxquelles ils ont eu tradi-tionnellement eu acces pour assurer leurgagne-pain;

• de donner la priorite a l’instaurationde conditions de vie decentes pourles communautes de peche cotieresafin de sauvegarder leur propredeveloppement.

4. La region de l’Ocean Indien est caracteriseepar une grande biodiversite marine et desecosystemes hautement productifs mais frag-iles. Cependant, dans presque tous les paysde la region Ocean Indien, les ressources depeche dans les eaux cotieres sont mal gerees

218

et surexploitees. Alors que cette zone est lepilier de la vie des familles de pecheurs, ellesfait souvent l’objet d’incursions de bateaux depeche nationaux et etrangers. Ces bateauxutilisent souvent des engins non selectifscomme les chaluts de fond. Ces pratiquesnon-durables menent a l’endommagementdes engins de peche des petits pecheurs et,parfois, a des pertes de vie humaines lors decollisions en mer. Alors qu’il est avere quedes ressources non exploitees existent dansles zones eloignees des cotes, les outils de ges-tion de ces ressources sont faibles voire in-existents. L’Ocean Indien possede egalementdes ressources minerales et petrolieres impor-tantes, qui sont exploitees. C’est egalementun ocean ou existe un intense transport mar-itime et qui sert d’egout pour les dechets tox-iques urbains et industriels. Pour defendrele gagne-pain des communautes de peche apetite echelle et maintenir la productivite etl’integrite de cet ocean et de ses ressources, ilest imperatif:

• qu’une approche basee sur lesecosystemes, socialement juste, soitadoptee par les etats de la region pourl’utilisation et la gestion des ressourcesde peche;

• les etats de la region devraient progres-sivement eliminer les engins destruc-tifs, comme le chalut de fond; evalueretreduire la surcapacite de peche, en ac-cord avec le Plan International d’Actionpour la Gestion de la Capacite de Peche.Pour des raisons sociales, economiqueset ecologiques, la capacite de pechedu secteur industriel engage dans lesmemes pecheries que le secteur dela peche a petite echelle devrait etrediminue en priorite;

• les etats devraient encourager l’adoptionde technologies de peche durables,selectives et a petite echelle, fortementliees aux activites en amont et en aval,et qui contribuent a l’amelioration etau maintien des opportunites d’emploidans les communautes de peche.

• Les etats de la region devraient prevenirla pollution marine provoquee par lesactivites comme le transport maritime,le developpement d’infrastructures,l’extraction de ressources non-vivantes,

le rejet de dechets toxiques et autres,l’introduction d’especes exotiques, cecien accord avec les conventions interna-tionales pertinentes et les autres instru-ments internationaux, comme le PlanGlobal d’Action pour la Protection del’Environnement Marin contre la Pollu-tion des Activites basees a terre (GPA-LBA)

5. Le role des femmes dans l’activiteeconomique des communautes de pechecotiere varie selon les endroits et les cultures,mais joue partout un role vital pour assurerles moyens d’existence des communautes.La degradation des ecosystemes cotiers etle deplacement des communautes de pechede leurs espaces de vie traditionnels ont euun impact negatif sur la charge de travailet la qualite de vie de ces femmes. Etantdonne le manque de reconnaissance du tra-vail des femmes dans les communautes depeche et l’absence complete de donnees lesconcernant, ces aspects sont meconnus. Il estimperatif de:

• reconnaıtre et valoriser le travail desfemmes et de developper une base dedonnees sur leur travail dans les com-munautes cotieres de peche;

• assurer que les espaces existants pour lesfemmes dans la peche sont sauvegardes;

• Assurer la participation des femmesdans la gestion des ressources et dans lesautres processus de prise de decision;

• Ameliorer les conditions de travail desfemmes dans les entreprises de transfor-mation du poisson tant dans le secteurorgansie que dans le secteur non orga-nise ou informel.

6. Les mouvements trans-frontaliers non au-torises de bateaux de pecheurs artisans,leur detention subsequente et les peines ap-pliquees par les etats est devenu un enjeumajeur tant pour les communautes cotieresde pecheurs que pour les administrateurs quidoivent gerer ce probleme. Ceci est souventune consequence de la declaration des ZonesEconomiques Exclusives (ZEE) en applicationde la declaration des Nations Unies sur leDroit de la Mer de 1982, qui a coupe, pour lespecheurs cotiers, l’acces a leurs zones tradi-tionnelles de peche. Cependant, ces mouve-ments trans-frontaliers sont aussi le resultat

219

d’autres pressions comme l’augmentation decapacite des flottes de peche artisanales etla surexploitation des ressourecs de pechecotieres locales. Ce probleme complexe abesoin de solutions, adaptees aux differentscontextes, qui protegent les droits humainsdes pecheurs. Il est important que:

• La legislation appliquee lors des arresta-tions et des detentions de pecheurs dansles eaux des autres etats cotiers ne violepas l’esprit de l’article 73 de la Conven-tion de 1982, ni ne contrevienne aux arti-cles appropries de, entre autres, l’AccordInternational sur les Droits Civils et Poli-tiques, 1976 et l’Accord International surles Droits Economiques, Sociaux et Cul-turels, 1976. Les sanctions pour les ac-tions de peche illegale devraient etrebasees sur le principe de proportion-nalite.

• Les etats devraient, en priorite, dis-poser des mecanismes necessaires ala liberation et au rapatriement despecheurs arretes.

• Reconnaissant que l’application rigidedes frontieres maritimes dans les eauxhistoriquement utilisees par les commu-nautes qui vivent et pechent pres de cesfrontieres peut avoir des consequencestragiques, les interets de ces commu-nautes doivent etre pris en compte aumeme titre que le souci de securite et lesautres interets nationaux des etats.

• Les pecheurs a petite echelleapprehendes dans les eaux territorialesne devraient pas etre poursuivis par lesloi s’appliquant aux immigres illegaux.Dans ce cas, le fait que l’acte illegal depeche se passe dans les eaux territori-ales plutot que dans la ZEE ne devraitpas mener a des sanctions plus severesque celles appliquees pour des viola-tions similaires dans la ZEE.

• Les pecheurs ne devraient pas etre lesvictimes des disputes pour la fixationde frontieres maritimes entre Etats. Lesetats devraient trouver des accords pra-tiques fournissant aux pecheurs un accesaux ressources de ces zones de pechedont depend leur vie et leur gagne-pain.

• Etant donne qu’au moins une par-tie des raisons pour lesquelles il y a

ces deplacements trans-frontaliers est lamauvaise gestion des ressources de laZEE, les etats cotiers devraient ameliorerla gestion de leurs ressources de peche,exercer un controle reel sur leur flotte etdevelopper une peche responsable.

7. Le developpement de bateaux relativementpetits ayant des capacites importantes en ter-mes d’endurance et utilisant des methodesde peche selectives a demontre que lesflottes industrielles, souvent en provenanced’etats non cotiers, peuvent se reveler super-flues pour l’exploitation des ressources haute-ment migratoires. Afin d’encourager cetteevolution d’un secteur a petite echelle auniveau des etats cotiers de la zone Ocean In-dien:

• les etats cotiers ayant un surplus deressources devraient considerer l’octroid’un acces preferentiel a cette peche arti-sanale longue distance, qui devrait fairel’objet d’un controle et etre sous la re-sponsabilite de l’etat du pavillon;

• les etats devraient, lorsque l’opportunitese presente, faciliter la conclusion d’unaccord qui permette a cette flotte apetite echelle longue distance d’etrelegalement engagee dans ce type depeche de facon responsable.

• Les etats ne devraient pas exporter leurexces de capacite ni leurs methodes depeche destructives;

• Les etats devraient pouvoir prevenir,empecher et eliminer la peche illegale,non regulee et non documentee (IUUfishing) en accord avec le Plan d’ActionInternational contre la peche illegale(IUU). Ceci est un souci partic-ulier pour les etats en developpement,specialement les etats insulaires despays en developpement, qui dependentfortement de leurs ressources de pechepour leur securite alimentaire, leur bienetre economique et leur developpement.

8. Dans la region de l’Ocean Indien, les prin-cipaux beneficiaires du modele actuel depeche pour les stocks de peche migrateursde grande valeur commerciale ne sont pasles etats cotiers dont les territoires princi-paux sont en Ocean Indien. Au cours de cesdernieres decennies, les prises de thonides

220

par les nations de peche longue distance dansla region ont augmente. Cela ne devrait pasetre interprete comme un droit d’usage ausens ou l’entend la Convention de 1982. Lesdecisions concernant l’acces a ces ressourcesdevraient plutot etre motivees par:

• L’existence d’une veritable tradition depeche pour ces ressources;

• La dependance de l’economie d’un paysdonne par rapport a ces ressources;

• Le potentiel de developpement socialet economique des etats insulaires etdes autres etats en developpement de laregion.

9. Les elements existent que les accords depeche signes par les etats cotiers avec des na-tions de peche longue distance n’ont pas etedans le meilleur interet a long terme de leurseconomies ou a l’avantage des communautescotieres de peche. Cela s’explique par le faitqu’une pression deloyale a ete exercee en liantles conditions de ces accords d’acces avec deselements d’aide au developpement et de con-cessions commerciales, en contravention avecles instruments internationaux existants. Afinde creer des accords de peche equitables, il estnecessaire que:

• Les etats appliquent les articles 11.2.7et 11.2.8 du Code de Conduite dela FAO pour une peche responsable,decourageant les etats de condition-ner l’acces aux marches a l’acces auxressources.

• Les etats devraient developper despolitiques nationales de peche danslesquelles les droits des communautescotieres de peche et leurs besoinssont pleinement pris en compte avantd’entrer dans aucune negociation qui oc-troie des possibilites d’acces pour les na-tions de peche a longue distance.

• Les etats devraient assurer la trans-parence dans leurs interactions avec des

nations et entreprises de peche longuedistance (accords de peche, constitutionde societes mixtes, etc) afin de combattrela corruption;

• Les conditions de travail a bord desbateaux de peche longue distance de-vrait ete conforme aux declarations etaux standards de l’Organisation interna-tionale du travail et aux autres normes etlois internationales.

10. Les communautes cotieres de l’Ocean In-dien gagneront a avoir de plus grandesinteractions et partages d’experiences,d’information, de “capacity building”,de savoir faire et d’alternatives dedeveloppement. Nombre de pays de la regionOuest de l’Ocean Indien peuvent aussi tirerles enseignements des experiences negativesdans les pays d’Asie pour poursuivre lesstrategies de developpement dans le domainedes pecheries. Un exemple d’impact negatifvecu en Asie est celui que l’aquaculture in-dustrielle de crevettes a eu sur les habitats etla vie des communautes cotieres.

11. En gardant a l’esprit ces differents elements,ainsi que de nombreux exemples positifsd’alternatives de developpement durablebase sur les communautes, il est imperatifde renforcer une cooperation sud-sud appro-priee. Cela est particulierement pertinentdans le domaine des ressources humaineset du “capacity building”, de l’utilisation detechnologies environnementalement appro-priees et selectives, de la conservation desressources et des mesures de renouvellementde l’ecosysteme.

12. En adoptant cette declaration au cours del’Annee Internationale des nations Uniespour le Dialogue entre les Civilisations, etalors que la paix mondiale est en peril, noussommes specialement conscients de la re-sponsabilite et du devoir que nous avons depromouvoir la cooperation entre les nationset de forger l’unite des communautes cotierespour l’avenir de l’Ocean Indien.

Chennai, Inde13 Octobre 2001

221

COLECTIVO INTERNACIONAL DE APOYO AL PESCADOR ARTESANAL (ICSF)INSTITUTO INTERNACIONAL OCEANO (IOI) India

Forjamos unidad: las comunidades costeras y el futuro del oceano Indico

IIT Madras, ChennaiDel 9 al 13 de octubre 2001

MANIFIESTO

1. Nosotros, los participantes de 13 paıses dela region del oceano Indico Mozambique,Sudafrica, Kenia, Tanzania, Madagascar, In-dia, Paquistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Tailan-dia, Indonesia, Maldivas y Seychelles juntocon delegados de Francia, Belgica, GranBretana y Noruega, nos hemos congregado enChennai (Madras), India, del 9 al 13 de oc-tubre 2001. Nos hemos reunido aquı, en rep-resentacion de sindicatos, institutos de inves-tigacion y universidades, ONG y gobiernos,con el animo de discutir y estudiar medidasorientadas a forjar la unidad entre las comu-nidades costeras en aras de un uso sostenibley equitativo de los recursos pesqueros de laregion del oceano Indico.

2. La region del oceano Indico encierra una grandiversidad biologica y marina, ası como elmayor numero de especies marinas de valorcomercial del mundo. En la region, los pro-ductos pesqueros constituyen una importantefuente de alimento y de empleo, de ingresosy de divisas extranjeras. Asimismo, esta zonaalberga al mayor numero de trabajadores dela pesca del mundo que, en su mayorıa, se en-cuadran en el sector de pesquerıas a pequenaescala y utilizan una enorme variedad decombinaciones de artes y barcos. Un por-centaje significativo de la poblacion de lazona vive en condiciones de pobreza. Desdeun punto de vista medioambiental y socioe-conomico, las comunidades pesqueras de lacosta constituyen uno de los colectivos masvulnerables.

3. Un rapido crecimiento economico ajeno acriterios de equidad y propulsado por losprocesos de liberalizacion y globalizacion haacelerado la expansion indiscriminada de ac-tividades economicas en las zonas litorales.

Entre estas actividades cabe citar el rapidodesarrollo urbano, el aumento del numerode unidades industriales contaminantes, elauge del turismo de lujo y la expansion dela acuicultura industrial de camaron. Estosfenomenos han precipitado la degradacionde los habitats marinos y con frecuencia hanconllevado el desalojo de las comunidadespesqueras de la costa de sus espacios tradi-cionales de vida y trabajo. Con el fin de regu-lar estas tendencias se hace imprescindible:

• elaborar leyes y acuerdos institucionaleseficaces articulados en funcion de un en-foque integrado del acceso y el uso delos recursos. Este enfoque debe englobarlos aspectos marıtimos y terrestres de lazona costera y tambien contemplar el di-namismo de su interrelacion.

• instaurar mecanismos participatorios enel proceso decisorio que regula el usode los recursos costeros, en consonanciacon el principio de subsidiariedad, conel objeto de asegurar la representacionde las comunidades pesqueras tradi-cionales y, en especial, de aquellas impli-cadas en las pesquerıas a pequena escalao artesanales.

• garantizar el derecho prioritario de lascomunidades pesqueras costeras con re-specto a la zona del litoral que habi-tan y a los recursos acuaticos de cuyoacceso han disfrutado tradicionalmentepara ganarse un sustento; y

• plantearse como prioridad que las co-munidades pesqueras costeras puedandisfrutar de unas condiciones de vidadignas y salvaguarden sus propios in-tereses de desarrollo.

222

4. La region del Oceano Indico se caracterizapor unos ecosistemas fragiles y sumamenteproductivos, marcados por unas complejasinterrelaciones entre especies y habitats. Noobstante, en casi todos los paıses de la regiondel oceano Indico, los recursos pesqueros delas areas costeras estan sujetos a una gestiondeficiente y se encuentran sobreexplotados.Estos recursos, que constituyen el principalsosten de las familias de pescadores, muy amenudo estan sometidos a la incursion debuques pesqueros a gran escala, nacionalesy extranjeros, que se sirven de artes no se-lectivos y destructivos, como por ejemplo elarrastre de fondo. Estas practicas tan pocosostenibles con frecuencia estropean artes depesca a pequena escala y, a veces, propiciancolisiones que pueden acabar con vidas hu-manas. Aunque se sabe que las aguas dealtura todavıa albergan recursos no explota-dos, las medidas de gestion destinadas a el-los son deficientes, cuando no inexistentes.El oceano Indico contiene importantes recur-sos minerales y petrolıferos en proceso deexplotacion. Asimismo, en el el transportemarıtimo y el vertido de desechos urbanos,industriales y toxicos son muy intensos. Conel fin de defender el sustento de las pequenascomunidades pesqueras a pequena escala yde mantener la productividad y la integridaddel oceano y de sus recursos, es fundamentalque:

• los Estados riberenos adopten un en-foque con relacion al medio ambienteque sea socialmente justo en cuanto aluso de los recursos y a la gestion de losrecursos pesqueros;

• los Estados prohiban los artes destruc-tivos, como el arrastre de fondo, y queevaluen y reduzcan la sobrecapacidad,de acuerdo con el Plan de Accion In-ternacional para la Ordenacion de laCapacidad Pesquera de la FAO. Pormotivos de orden social, economico yecologico, los Estados deberıan dar pri-oridad a la reduccion de la capacidadde la flota industrial que participe enlas mismas pesquerıas que el sector apequena escala.

• los Estados alienten el uso de tecnologıasextractivas a pequena escala, selectivasy sostenibles, que generen actividadesanteriores y posteriores a la captura,

de forma que mantengan y amplıen lasoportunidades laborales en el seno delas comunidades pesqueras; y

• los Estados eviten la contaminacionderivada de actividades como el trans-porte marıtimo y el desarrollo de in-fraestructuras, la extraccion de recursosno vivos, el vertido de toxicos y otrosdesechos y la introduccion de especiesexoticas, en consonancia con las con-venciones internacionales que las regu-lan y con otros instrumentos, como elPlan Global de Accion para la Protecciondel Medio Ambiente Marino de Activi-dades Terrestres (cuyas siglas en inglesson GPA/LBA).

5. El papel de la mujer en las actividadeseconomicas de las comunidades pesqueras dela costa varıa en dependencia de la regiony de la cultura. Aun ası, su vital impor-tancia para el sustento de las comunidadeses universal. La degradacion de los ecosis-temas marinos junto con el desalojo de las co-munidades pesqueras de sus espacios tradi-cionales de vida y trabajo han repercutidonegativamente en el volumen de responsabil-idades y en la calidad de vida de estas mu-jeres. La casi absoluta carencia de datos y dereconocimiento a la labor femenina dentro delas comunidades pesqueras hacen que la real-idad de la mujer sea muy poco conocida. Porello, resulta fundamental:

• reconocer y valorar el trabajo de la mu-jer, ası como crear una base de datossobre su labor en las comunidades pes-queras de la costa;

• salvaguardar el espacio que la mujerocupa en las pesquerıas;

• asegurar la participacion femenina en lagestion de los recursos y en otros proce-sos decisorios, y

• mejorar las condiciones laborales delas mujeres que trabajan en plantas deprocesado de pescado, ya se encuadrenen el sector formal o en el sector infor-mal.

6. El trafico no autorizado de las embarcacionespesqueras a pequena escala a traves de lasfronteras nacionales y la subsiguiente de-tencion y castigo de los trabajadores de la

223

pesca por parte de los Estados han adquiridogran relevancia para muchas comunidadescosteras y las administraciones que se ven en-frentadas a este tipo de situaciones. En granmedida, estas detenciones se derivan de ladeclaracion de las zonas economicas exclu-sivas (ZEE), que muchas veces barran a lospescadores costeros el acceso a sus bancos depesca tradicionales. Sin embargo, tambiendeben atribuirse a las mejoras en la capaci-dad extractiva de las flotas artesanales localesa pequena escala y al agotamiento de los re-cursos pesqueros locales de la costa. Esteintrincado problema precisa soluciones quecontemplen la especificidad de cada caso yque protejan los derechos humanos de los tra-bajadores de la pesca. Por ello, es impre-scindible que:

• la implementacion de las leyes que abor-den el problema del arresto y detencionde trabajadores de la pesca en aguasde otros Estados costeros se ajuste alArtıculo 73 de la Convencion de las Na-ciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar(Convencion de 1982) y, entre otros doc-umentos, al Convenio Internacional deDerechos Civiles y Polıticos de las Na-ciones Unidas, de 1976, y al ConvenioInternacional de las Naciones Unidassobre Derechos Economicos, Sociales yCulturales de 1976. Las sanciones im-puestas a la pesca ilegal deberıan re-girse por criterios de necesidad y pro-porcionalidad;

• los Estados desarrollen los mecanismosadecuados para dar prioridad a la lib-eracion y repatriacion de los pescadoresarrestados;

• se admita que el rıgido cumplimientode la observacion de las fronterasmarıtimas en aguas historicas con re-specto a las comunidades que viven ypescan cerca de estas fronteras puedeacarrear consecuencias tragicas. Se re-conozca que deben satisfacerse los in-tereses de estas comunidades, su se-guridad y otras cuestiones de orden na-cional.

• en los juicios contra pescadores arresta-dos en aguas territoriales a bordo de em-barcaciones a pequena escala y acusadosde pesca ilegal, no se apliquen las leyes

correspondientes a la inmigracion ilegal.En estos casos, la pesca ilegal en aguasterritoriales, y no en la ZEE, no deberıacastigarse de forma incluso mas severaque otros delitos similares perpetradosen la ZEE.

• los trabajadores de la pesca no se con-viertan en vıctimas de las disputas sobrefronteras marıtimas que enfrentan a losEstados. Con relacion a este tipo de ban-cos de pesca, los Estados deben suscribiracuerdos que otorguen a los pescadoresacceso a los recursos, siempre que estoslo necesiten para ganarse un sustento.

7. La aparicion de embarcaciones pesqueras rel-ativamente pequenas con la resistencia nece-saria para efectuar salidas prolongadas y queutilizan artes selectivos ha demostrado quelas grandes flotas industriales, a menudoprocedentes de Estados no riberenos, puedenresultar superfluas para la explotacion de losrecursos altamente migratorios. Con el ob-jeto de promocionar este pequeno sector apequena escala de paıses en vıas de desarrolloy que actualmente se encuentra en expansion:

• los Estados costeros con recursos exce-dentes deberıan considerar la posibili-dad de conceder un acceso preferentea este tipo de embarcaciones pesquerasartesanales / a pequena escala, capacesde faenar en alta mar, mediante el con-trol y bajo la responsabilidad del Estadocuya bandera ondeen.

• los Estados deberıan, ahı donde seden las condiciones necesarias, suscribiracuerdos que permitan a su flota de al-tura a pequena escala participar legal-mente en este tipo de pesquerıas deforma responsable;

• los Estados no deberıan exportar su ex-ceso de capacidad ni metodos de pescadestructivos;

• teniendo en cuenta que parte de lascausas del trafico transfronterizo es-triban en la gestion deficiente de las ZEEen muchos paıses, los Estados costerosdeberıan mejorar la gestion de sus recur-sos pesqueros, ejercer un control efectivosobre su flota y avanzar hacia unas pes-querıas responsables, y

224

• los Estados deberıan estar capacitadospara prevenir, desalentar y eliminar lapesca ilegal, no registrada y no regulada(en ingles IUU) en concordancia con elPlan de Accion Internacional para Pre-venir, Desalentar y Eliminar la Pesca Ile-gal, No Declarada y No Reglamentada(PAI-INDNR). Este punto reviste una im-portancia especial para los Estados envıas de desarrollo que dependen en granmedida de sus recursos pesqueros decara a su seguridad alimentaria, su bien-estar economico y su desarrollo.

8. Los principales beneficiarios de las pau-tas que actualmente se observan en la ex-plotacion de stocks altamente migratorios enel oceano Indico no coinciden con los paısescosteros cuyos territorios yacen principal-mente en esta region. El rapido incrementoque han experimentado las capturas de atuncorrespondientes a las pesquerıas de altura depaıses remotos no deberıa interpretarse comosi estas gozaran de un derecho instaurado yhabitual en el sentido explicitado en la Con-vencion de 1982. Muy al contrario, las deci-siones relativas al acceso a estos recursos de-berıan regirse por:

• una verdadera tradicion en la captura deestos recursos;

• la dependencia de la economıa de unpaıs de estos recursos; y

• el potencial de desarrollo economico ysocial para los pequenos Estados islenosen vıas de desarrollo y otros paıses envıas de desarrollo de la zona.

9. Resulta evidente que los Estados costeros dela region han suscrito acuerdos pesqueroscon naciones pesqueras remotas cuyo con-tenido no favorece los intereses a largo plazode su economıa ni tampoco de sus comu-nidades pesqueras de la costa. Con frecuen-cia, este comportamiento ha dado lugar apresiones injustas ocasionadas por las condi-ciones anexas a los acuerdos de acceso pes-quero que abordan temas de ayuda y comer-cio, en detrimento de los instrumentos inter-nacionales. Para que los acuerdos pesquerossean justos:

• los Estados deberıan aplicar los artıculos11.2.7 y 11.2.8 del Codigo de Conducta

para la Pesca Responsable de la FAO, queno recomienda a los Estados que impon-gan la condicion de acceso a los merca-dos a cambio del acceso a los recursos;

• los Estados deberıan elaborar polıticaspesqueras nacionales en virtud de lascuales los derechos y necesidades delas comunidades pesqueras se tengan encuenta previamente a la negociacion decesion de acceso pesquero a nacionespesqueras remotas;

• con el objeto de combatir la corrupcion,los Estados deberıan garantizar unaplena transparencia en sus tratos concompanıas de pesca de altura, en lacreacion de companıas pesqueras con-juntas y en la redaccion de acuerdos con-juntos; y

• las condiciones laborales y de servicioa bordo de buques pesqueros de granaltura deberıan ajustarse a reglamentos,procedimientos y practicas aceptadas in-ternacionalmente, en especial los adop-tados por la Organizacion Internacionaldel Trabajo (OIT).

10. Las comunidades costeras de la cuenca deloceano Indico se proponen beneficiarse deuna mayor interaccion e intercambio de in-formacion, experiencias, capacidades, habil-idades y alternativas de desarrollo. Muchosde los paıses de la cuenca occidental deloceano Indico tambien pueden aprender delas desafortunadas experiencias vividas porlos paıses asiaticos al aplicar estrategias dedesarrollo en el ambito de las pesquerıas yla industrializacion. Casi inmediatamente de-spues de ser aplicadas, estas estrategias tu-vieron un efecto muy pernicioso sobre los re-cursos y los ecosistemas costeros. Valga comoejemplo el negativo impacto de la acuicul-tura industrial de camaron sobre los habitatscosteros y el sustento de las comunidadescosteras.

11. Teniendo en mente todos los puntos enumer-ados, ası como muchos ejemplos positivos dealternativas de desarrollo sostenible ancladasen la comunidad, resulta sumamente nece-sario afianzar una apropiada cooperacionSur-Sur, que adquiere una relevancia espe-cial en los ambitos de formacion de los recur-sos humanos, uso de tecnologıas adecuadas

225

y selectivas con el medio ambiente, intercam-bio de experiencias relacionadas con proyec-tos de desarrollo comunitario y medidas deconservacion y rejuvenecimiento de los recur-sos.

12. Al adoptar este Manifiesto en el Ano de lasNaciones Unidas del Dialogo entre Civilizaciones

y a la vista de los actuales desafıos que po-nen en peligro la paz mundial, somos es-pecialmente conscientes de nuestra respons-abilidad y nuestro deber de continuar pro-moviendo la cooperacion entre diferentes na-ciones y de forjar la unidad de las comu-nidades costeras en el futuro del oceanoIndico.

Chennai, India13 de octubre de 2001

226

INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT OF FISHWORKERS (ICSF)INTERNATIONAL OCEAN INSTITUTE (IOI), INDIA

Forging Unity: Coastal Communities and the Indian Ocean’s FutureIndian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India

09 to 13 October 2001

PROGRAMME

Day 1 Tuesday, 09 October 2001

9:00 – 10:00 REGISTRATION

10:00 – 11:00 INAUGURAL SESSION

Chair: C.R. Muthukrishnan, Deputy Director,IIT Madras, India

10:00 – 10:10 Welcome R. Rajagopalan, Director, IOI India

10:10 – 10:25 Introduction to the Conference John Kurien, Fellow, Centre for De-velopment Studies, India and FounderMember, ICSF

10:25 – 10:35 Presidential Remarks C.R. Muthukrishnan, Deputy Director,IIT Madras, India

10:35 – 10:50 Inaugural Address Nita Chowdhury, Chairperson, IndianOcean Tuna Commission (IOTC) andJoint Secretary, Dept. of Animal Hus-bandry and Dairy Development, Min-istry of Agriculture, Government of In-dia

10:50 – 10:55 Message to the Conference Ambassador Satya N. Nandan, Secre-tary General, International Seabed Au-thority, Jamaica (to be read out)

10:55 – 11: 00 Vote of Thanks Nalini Nayak, Founder Member, ICSF,India

11:00 – 11: 15 Tea Break

11:15 – 12:15 KEYNOTE SESSION

227

Chair: V. Vivekanandan, Chief Executive,South Indian Federation of FishermenSocieties (SIFFS), India and FounderMember, ICSF

11:15 – 11:45 Keynote Address: Ocean Governanceand the Fishing Village

Elisabeth Mann Borgese, Founder andHonorary Chairperson, IOI (Addressto be read out by R. Rajagopalan, Di-rector, IOI India)

11:45 – 12:30 Presentation: Indian Ocean FishingCommunities: Sculpting a Vision

Maizan Hassan Maniku, Former Direc-tor General of Fisheries Research, Mal-dives

12: 30 – 14:30 Lunch Break

14:30 – 17:30 SETTING THE SCENE

Session 1 Chair: Harekrishna Debnath, Chairperson,National Fishworkers’ Forum, India

14:30 – 15:00 Excerpts from Indian Ocean 2001: a CDon fisheries in Indian Ocean countries

Ramya R, ICSF, India, and Satish Babu,InApp, U.S.

15:00 – 15:15 Discussion

Session 2 Chair: Mucai Muchiri, Head, Fisheries De-partment, Moi University, Kenya

15:15 – 15:35 Ecosystem Considerations for ManagingFisheries in the Indian Ocean

E. Vivekanandan, Senior Scientist,Central Marine Fisheries Research In-stitute (CMFRI), India

15:35 – 15:55 International Instruments for ManagingFisheries in the Indian Ocean

Rolf Willmann, Senior Fisheries Plan-ning Officer, Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations(FAO), Rome

15:55 – 16: 15 Discussion

16.15 – 16:30 Tea Break

Session 3 Chair: Joseph Rondolph Payet, ResourceManager, Seychelles Fishing Author-ity, Seychelles

16:30 – 16:50 IOR-ARC Fisheries Programme for the In-dian Ocean

D. Dusoruth, Indian Ocean Rim Asso-ciation for Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC) (Address to be read out.)

228

16:50 – 17.10 Fisheries Policy of the Southern AfricanDevelopment Community in the IndianOcean Region

Simeao Lopes, Director, Instituto dedesenvolvimento de Pesca de Pequenaescala (IDPPE), Mozambique

17.10 – 17:30 Discussion

Day 2 Wednesday, 10 October 2001

CONCURRENT WORKING GROUPS (WGs)

9:00 – 16: 30 Theme 1: Transborder Issues Involv-ing Fishworkers and Fishing Vessels: Ar-rangements for Resolving Conflicts

Participants from India, Seychelles, SriLanka, Pakistan, Australia, and Mal-dives

Chair: V. Vivekanandan, Chief Executive,SIFFS, India and Founder Member,ICSF

Rapporteurs: A. J. Vijayan, Independent FisheriesResearcher, India, and SebastianMathew, Executive Secretary, ICSF,India

Transborder Movement of Fishermen Be-tween India and Sri Lanka: Policy Consid-erations

V. Vivekanandan, Chief Executive,South Indian Federation of FishermenSocieties (SIFFS), India

Transboundary Movement of Fishers: TheCase of Sri Lanka

Herman Kumara, National Con-vener, National Fisheries Solidarity(NAFSO), Sri Lanka

Transboundary Movement of Fishers: TheCase of Pakistani Fishers

Muhammad Ali Shah, Chairperson,Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan

The Elusive Line That Reduces Fishwork-ers to Mere Numbers

Souparna Lahiri, Centre for Educationand Communication, India

Preventing Illegal Fishing in SeychellesEEZ: The Role of Seychelles Fishing Au-thority

Joseph Rondolph Payet, ResourceManager, Seychelles Fishing Author-ity, Seychelles

Illegal Fishing in Seychelles: The HumanDimension

Albert Nicholas Napier, National Di-rector, Seychelles Seamen Association,Seychelles

Threat to the Natural Resources of Small-scale Fishermen of North Sulawesi

Ronald Titahelu, Doctor in Law, SamRatulangi University, Indonesia

229

9:00 – 16:30 Theme 2: Sustaining Coastal Commons:Protecting the Right to Life and Livelihoodof Fishing Communities

Participants from Tanzania, Sey-chelles, Madagascar, Bangladesh,South Africa, Mozambique, India,Kenya, Indonesia and Thailand

Chair: John Kurien, Fellow, Centre for De-velopment Studies, Trivandrum, India,and Founder Member, ICSF

Rapporteurs: Ahana Laxmi, Independent Re-searcher, India, and ChandrikaSharma, ICSF, India

Illegal Fishing: The Case of Mozambique Simeao Lopes, Director, Instituto dedesenvolvimento de Pesca de Pequenaescala (IDPPE), Mozambique

Dilemma of Small-Scale Fishers at theDawn of Industrial Fishing in Kenya

S. Mucai Muchiri, Head, Fisheries De-partment, Moi University, Kenya

Status and Trends of Tanzania’s MarineArtisanal Fisheries

Narriman S. Jiddawi, Institute of Ma-rine Science, Tanzania

Allocation of Fishing Rights: Artisanal vsIndustrial Fisheries

Andrew Johnston, Chairperson, Arti-sanal Fishers Association, South Africa

Traditional Fisheries in Madagascar Felix Randrianasoavina, ExecutiveSecretary, Collectiv of MalagasyMaritime Organizations (COMM),Madagascar (to be presented by BrianO’ Riordan)

Coastal Area Degradation in SouthernThailand

Pisit Charnsnoh, Yadfon Association,Thailand

Coastal Resource Degradation and User-Right Abuse in Bangladesh

Prosanta Kumar Roy, Senior AssistantSecretary, Ministry of Establishment,Bangladesh

Coastal Area Degradation on the EastCoast of India: Impact on Fishworkers

Venkatesh Salagrama, Director, Inte-grated Coastal Management, India

Multi-use Conflicts: The Case of Maha-rashtra, India

Ram Bhau Patel, National Fishwork-ers’ Forum (NFF), India

Fisheries Management: Is Certification aTool?

Krishna Kumar, Marine Programme,WWF-India

10:30 – 10:45 Tea Break

10:45 – 12:30 WORKING GROUPS (contd.)

230

12:30 – 15:00 Lunch Break

15:00 – 16:30 WORKING GROUPS (contd.)

16:30 – 16:45 Tea Break

16:45 – 18:00 PLENARY: PRESENTATION OF GROUP REPORTS AND DISCUSSION

Chair: R. Rajagopalan, Director IOI India

19:30 – 20:30 Carnatic Music: Flute Recital. Venue:Central Lecture Theatre, IIT

K. Bhaskaran and Party

Day 3 Thursday, 11 October 2001

09:00 – 13:00 PLENARY: PREFERENTIAL ACCESS TO RIPARIAN STATES IN INDIANOCEAN FISHERIES

Session 1 Chair: Oscar Amarasinghe, Senior Lecturer,University of Ruhuna, Sri Lanka

09:00 – 09:20 Mediating Transborder Problems of Fish-workers in the Bay of Bengal Region: WhatCan BOBP Do?

Y. S. Yadava, Inter-Governmental Or-ganization Co-ordinator, Bay of BengalProgramme (BOBP), Chennai, India

09:20 – 09:30 Discussion

Session 2 Chair Maizan Hassan Maniku, Former Direc-tor General of Fisheries Research, Mal-dives

09:30 – 10:00 EU Interventions in the Fisheries Sector inthe Indian Ocean: A Passport for Equityor a Road to Hell Paved with Good Inten-tions?

Beatrice Gorez, Co-ordinator, Coali-tion for Fair Fisheries Arrangements(CFFA), Brussels, Belgium

10:00 – 10:30 Conditions of Work on Board Non-riparian Fishing Vessels in the IndianOcean

Jean-Marc Barrey, Representative,Syndicat Maritime Bretagne (CFDT),France

10:30 – 11: 00 Discussion

11:00 – 11:15 Tea Break

Session 3 Chair Rolf Willmann, Senior Fisheries Plan-ning Officer, FAO

11:15 –11:45 Economic and Social Implications ofMulti-day Fishing Boats of Sri Lanka

Oscar Amarasinghe, Senior Lecturer,University of Ruhuna, Sri Lanka

231

11:45 – 12:15 Exploitation of Fisheries Resources in theIndian Ocean: Riparian and Non-riparianDimensions

Sebastian Mathew, Executive Secre-tary, ICSF

12:15 – 13:00 Discussion

13:00 – 15:00 Lunch Break

15:00 – 16:30 PLENARY: THE CONCERNS OF COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND MAN-AGEMENT OPTIONS – TOWARDS A SHARED VISION

Chair John Kurien and V. Vivekanandan,Founder Members, ICSF

15:00 – 16:30 PLENARY (Contd.)

18: 45 – 19:45 Dinner

20:00 – 21: 00 Traditional Folk Dance: at: CentralLecture Theatre, IIT

DakshinaChitra Dance Group: Oyilat-tam and Devarattam. Directed by V. R.Devika

Day 4 Friday, 12 October 2001

8.30 – 16:30 FIELD VISIT

To fishing communities in Chennaidistrict: Chinna Neelangarai, Injam-bakkam and Semmencheri Kuppam

Field Guides: P.V. Ramamoorthy, Retd.Jt. Director of Fisheries, and V. Ra-mamoorthy, Retd. Dy. Director of Fish-eries, Government of Tamil Nadu

Day 5 Saturday 13 October 2001

09:00 – 10:30 PLENARY: ADOPTION OF THE CONFERENCE VISION STATEMENT

Chair: Nalini Nayak, Founder Member, ICSF

10:30 –11:00 Tea Break

11:00 – 12:00 VALEDICTORY SESSION

Chair: Pierre Gillet, Founder Member, ICSF

11:00 – 11:10 Address R. Natarajan, Director, IIT Madras

11:10 – 11:25 Presentation of the Vision Statement Chandrika Sharma, ICSF

11:25 – 11:40 Valedictory Address P. Rajendran, Secretary to Govern-ment, Animal Husbandry and Fish-eries Department, Tamil Nadu, India

232

11:40 – 11:50 Vote of Thanks S.P. Subramanian, Associate Head, IOIIndia

12:00 Lunch Taramani Guest House

233

INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT OF FISHWORKERS (ICSF)INTERNATIONAL OCEAN INSTITUTE (IOI)

Conference Theme:Forging Unity: Coastal Communities and the Indian Oceans Future

Venue:Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India, 9–13 October, 2001

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

BANGLADESH

1. Prosanta Kumar RoySr. Asst. SecretaryMinistry of Establishment (Sec. JA-4)Bangladesh Secretariat,DhakaBANGLADESH

Tel: +880 2 812 4231Fax: +880 2 861 7056Email: roypkan@bttb.net.bd

BELGIUM

2. Brian O’RiordanSecretary, ICSF Brussels OfficeRue du Midi 165B-1000 - BrusselsBELGIUM

Tel: +32 2 513 1565Fax: +32 2 513 7343Email: icsfbrussels@yucom.be

3. Beatrice GorezCoordinator CFFARue du Midi 165B-1000 - BrusselsBELGIUM

Tel: +32 2 513 1565Fax: +32 2 513 7343Email: gilletp@skypro.be

4. Pierre Gillet37, Rue De La Haie LorraineB-5100 NANINNEBELGIUM

Tel: +32 2 513 1565Fax: +32 2 513 7343Email: pierre.gillet@skynet.be

FRANCE

5. Jean-Marc BarreyUnion Maritime CFDT52 avenue de la Perriere56100 LorientFRANCE

Fax: +33 2 973 72170

INDIA

6. B. SubramanianFisherfolk Organization for Advancement104 NochikuppamMylaporeChennai 600 004

INDIATel: +91 44 2596 7354/ +91 44 2634 3733 (Off)Tel: +91 44 2596 7354 (Res)

234

7. John KurienFellowCentre for Development StudiesUlloor, Trivandrum 695 011INDIA

Tel: +91 471 2448881Fax: +91 471 2447137Email: john.kurien@vsnl.com

8. E. VivekanandanSenior ScientistCMFRI - (Central Marine FisheriesResearch Institute), Madras Research Centre68/3, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006INDIA

Tel: +91 44 2829 3299/ +91 44 2829 4472Fax: +91 44 2829 4252Email: evivekanandan@hotmail.com

9. Nalini NayakSadanand, Choola Lane, Anayara P OTrivandrum 695 029INDIA

Tel: +91 471 274 1675Email: tvm nalinin@sancharnet.in

10. V. VivekanandanChief ExecutiveSIFFS (South Indian Federation ofFishermen Societies)KaramanaTrivandrum 695 002INDIA

Tel: +91 471 234 3711/ +91 471 234 3178Fax: +91 471 234 2053Email: vivek@siffs.org

11. B. AntonySIFFS (South Indian Federation ofFishermen Societies)KaramanaTrivandrum 695 002INDIA

Tel: +91 471 234 3711/ +91 471 234 3178Fax: +91 471 234 2053Email: antony@siffs.org

12. Vincent JainSIFFS (South Indian Federation ofFishermen Societies)Karamana,Trivandrum 695 002INDIA

Tel: +91 471 234 3711/ +91 471 234 3178Fax: +91 471 234 2053Email: jain@siffs.org

13. U. ArulanandamSingara Velavar Meenavar PeravaiPamban, RameswaramRamanathapuram DistrictTamil Nadu 623 521INDIA

Tel: +91 4573 231733Fax: +91 4573 221247Email: mcro99@vsnl.com

14. Venkatesh SalagramaDirector Integrated Coastal Management8-10-6 - Kamaladevi Street, Gandhi NagarKakinada, A.P. 533 004INDIA

Tel: +91 884 2364851Fax: +91 884 2354932Email: rmy sujata@sancharnet.in

15. Harekrishna DebnathNational Fishworkers Forum1073, Ashrafabad Govt. ColonyPO Maniktala,Dist North 24 Parganas,W.Bengal 743263INDIA

Tel: +91 3216 257769Email: nffcal@cal3.vsnl.net.in

16. Ram Bhau PatilNational Fishworkers ForumAT: Wadarai, Post: Kalve Mahim,Taluka: Palghar, Dist: Thane 401 402MaharashtraINDIA

Tel: +91 22 2344 5769/ +91 22 2341 766Tel: +91 2525 20133

235

17. Philomin MaryNational Fishworkers ForumVelankany Junction, ValiathuraTrivandrum 695 008INDIA

Tel: +91 471 2505216/ +91 471 2501376Fax: +91 471 2501376Email: nff@vsnl.com

18. A. Jerome FernandezPulariBalanagarTrivandrumKerala 695 021

INDIATel: +91 471 2501376/ +91 471 2505126Fax: +91 471 2501376e-mail: fernandezjerome@rediffmail.com

19. Matanhy SaldanhaGen Secretary, Goenchea Rampon Karacho EkvottPraia, Bela Mater BuildingSt. Inez, PanjimGoaINDIA

Tel: +91 832 2222273Email: m saldanha48@hotmail.com

20. Souparna LahiriCentre for Education and Communication173-A, Khirki Village, Malviya NagarNew Delhi 110 017INDIA

Tel: +91 11 26688455/ 26671084/ 26686841Fax: +91 11 26686842/ 26675611Email: lahiri62@yahoo.com, delforum@vsnl.com

21. A. J. VijayanProtsahan”Maithri”41, Asan Nagar,Trivandrum 695 008INDIA

Tel: +91 471 2505506Email: ajv@protsahan.org

22. Y. S. YadavaIGO CoordinatorBay of Bengal Programme91 St. Marys RoadAbhiramapuram, Chennai 600 018INDIA

Tel: +91 44 24936294/ 24936188Fax: +91 44 24936102/ 24913781Email: bobpysy@md2.vsnl.net.in

23. P. V. KhokhariSecretary National Fishworkers Gujarat Forum(Gujarat)Near Sagar Bhuwan Building, Bunder Road,Porbandar 360 575GujaratINDIA

Tel: +91 286 2246835/+91 286 2246153

24. Krishna KumarMarine ProgrammeWorld Wide Fund for Nature India172-B, Lodi EstateNew Delhi 110 003INDIA

Tel: +91 11 24697481/ +91 11 24691226Fax: +91 11 24696837Email: kris kum@hotmail.com

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA/IOTC

25. Nita ChowdhuryChairpersonIndian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)Department of Animal Husbandry &Dairy DevelopmentMinistry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi 110 001INDIA

Tel: +91 11 23383228Fax: +91 11 23383228Email: nitac@aphind.delhi.nic.in

236

IOI SECRETARIAT

26. R. RajagopalanCentre DirectorOperational Centre (India)International Ocean Institute (IOI)IC & SR Building, IIT MadrasChennai 600 036INDIA

Telephone: +91 44 22578805 / +91 44 22301338Fax : +91 44 22570559Email : ioi@vsnl.com

27. S P SubramanianAssociate HeadIOI Operational Centre (India)IC & SR Building, IIT MadrasChennai 600 036INDIA

Telephone: +91 44 22301338Fax : +91 44 22200559Email : ioi@vsnl.com

28. Ahana LakshmiProject AssociateIOI Operational Centre (India)IC & SR Building, IIT MadrasChennai 600 036INDIA

Tel: +91 44 22301338Email: ioi@vsnl.com, arm3@satyam.net.in

GOVERNMENTOF TAMIL NADU

29. P. RajendranSecretary to GovernmentAnimal Husbandry & Fisheries DepartmentSecretariatChennai 600 009INDIA

Tel: +91 44 25362937

30. G. SathyamoorthyJoint Director of FisheriesDirectorate of FisheriesGovernment of IndiaTeynampetChennai 600 018INDIA

Tel: +91 44 24320310

INDONESIA

31. Ronald TitaheluDoctor-in-LawFaculty of Law, Sam Ratulangi University,Kampus Bahu, Manado (North Sulawesi) 95115INDONESIA

Tel: +62 431 866 146Fax: +62 431 866 146Email: r titahelu@hotmail.com; r titahelu@yahoo.com

32. Ventje SemuelDesa Tatise Jaga II, TambunKecametan Likupang 95375Kabupaten Minahasa, Sutawesi UtaraINDONESIA

Tel: +62 431 841 671(C/o. Proyek Pesisir Manado)

KENYA

33. S. Mucai MuchiriHead Fisheries DepartmentMoi UniversityP O Box 3900, EldoretKENYA

Tel: +254 321 63111Fax: +254 321 63206Email: muchirim@africaonline.co.ke

34. Ahmed Abdalla AliTreasurerMalinoi Mbuyuni Fishermen AssociationP O Box 97 MalinoiKENYA

Tel: +254 123 20176/ +254 123 20565 (Off),Tel: +254 123 31042/ +254 123 30748 (Res)Email: shikley@jambo.swiftmalindi.com

MALDIVES

35. Maizan Hassan ManikuFormer Director General(Marine Resources Section)Ministry of Fisheries & AgricultureGhazee BuildingMale 20-06MALDIVES

Tel: +960 32 6626Fax: +960 32 6627

237

36. Faathin HameedDirectorMinistry of Fisheries, Agriculture &Marine ResourcesGhazee BuildingAmeeru Ahmed MaguMale 20-05MALDIVES

Tel: +960 32 2625Fax: +960 32 6558Email: fish1@fishagri.gov.mv

MOZAMBIQUE

37. Simeao LopesDirector - IDPPESocial Development DepartmentAv. Marginal Parcela 141/8,Caixa Postal No. 2473, MaputoMOZAMBIQUE

Tel: +258 1 494 973Fax: +258 1 498 812Email: lopes@idppe.co.za, slopes41@hotmail.com

38. Faustino Omar AtumaneAngoche Artisanal Fisheries AssociationsC/o. IDPPESocial Development DepartmentAv. Marginal Parcela 141/8,Caixa Postal No. 2473, MaputoMOZAMBIQUE

Tel: +258 1 494 973Fax: +258 1 498 812Email: lopes@idppe.uem.mz

PAKISTAN

39. Mohammad Ali ShahPakistan Fisherfolk ForumST-001, Sector X, Sub-Sector VGulsham-e-MaymarKarachi 75340PAKISTAN

Tel: +92 21 6351145 7 (Off),Tel: +92 21 5090677 (Res)Fax: +92 21 6350354Email: mshah@mailnet.com.pk

SEYCHELLES

40. Albert Nicolas NapierNational Director/SAOSApostolatus Maris Apostleship of the SeaSeychelles Christian Seamen AssociationSt. Claire Building, Victoria, MaheSEYCHELLES

Tel: +248 323360Fax: +248 324045Email: albertnapier@yahoo.com

41. Joseph Rondolph PayetResource ManagerSeychelles Fishing AuthorityFishing Port, VictoriaP O Box 449, MaheSEYCHELLES

Tel: +248 224 597Fax: +248 224 508Email: sfasez@seychelles.net, payet@hotmail.com

SOUTH AFRICA

42. Andrew JohnstonChairperson - Artisanal Fishers Association9, Eight Avenue, Fairways,Ottery 7800SOUTH AFRICA

Tel: +27 21 7059183Fax: +27 21 7050098Email: andyj@worldonline.co.za

SRI LANKA

43. K. PathmanadanFirst SecretarySri Lankan Deputy High Commission196, T T K RoadAlwarpet, Chennai 600 018 INDIA

Tel: +91 44 24987896Fax: +91 44 24987894Email: sldehico@md3.vsnl.net.in

44. Oscar AmarasingheSenior Lecturer (Agricultural Economics)Faculty of Agriculture, University of RuhunaMapalana, Kamburupitiya,SRI LANKA

Tel: +94 41 92200Tel/Fax: +94 41 26120Email: oamarasinghe@yahoo.com

238

45. W. Herman KumaraNAFSO (National Fisheries Solidarity)299/8, St. Josephs Street, Negombo,SRI LANKA

Tel: +94 74 870658/ +94 31 39750Fax: +94 74 870658Email: nafso1@slt.lk; nafsoone@slt.lk

THAILAND

46. Pisit CharnsnohYadfon Association16/8 Rakchan Road, Muang District,Trang Province 92000THAILAND

Tel: +66 75 219737/ +66 75 214707Fax: +66 75 219327Email: yadfon@loxinfo.co.th

TANZANIA

47. Narriman Saleh JiddawiInstitute of Marine SciencesP.O. Box 668ZanzibarTANZANIA

Tel: +255 24 2232128/ +255 24 2230741Fax: +255 24 2233050Email: jiddawi@zims.udsm.ac.tz

OBSERVERS

48. Ian BrycesonCentre for International Environmentand Development StudiesNoragric, Agriculture University of NorwayP.O. Box 5001, AAS N 1432, NORWAY

Tel: +47 64 948652Fax: +47 64 940760Email: ian.bryceson@noragric.nlh.no

49. Michael J. O’TooleRegional Co-ordinator,FAO/ Bay of Bengal LME ProgrammePost Bag No 1054, 91 St. Marys RoadAbhiramapuram, Chennai 600 018INDIA

Tel: + 91 44 24936387, 24620761, 24936188Fax: +91 44 24936102Email: boblme@vsnl.net

50. D. S. SunilDepartment of Humanities & Social SciencesIIT MadrasChennai 600 036INDIA

ICSF SECRETARIAT

51. Sebastian MathewExecutive SecretaryICSF, 27 College RoadChennai 600 006INDIA

Tel: +91 44 28275303Fax: +91 44 28254457Email: icsf@vsnl.com

52. Chandrika SharmaProgramme AssociateICSF, 27 College RoadChennai 600 006INDIA

Tel: +91 44 28275303Fax: +91 44 28254457Email: icsf@vsnl.com

53. Satish BabuICSF, 27 College RoadChennai 600 006INDIA

Tel: +91 44 28275303Fax: +91 44 28254457Email: sb@inapp.com

54. K. G. KumarICSF, 27 College RoadChennai 600 006INDIA

Tel: +91 44 28275303Fax: +91 44 28254457Email: kg@tug.org.in

55. Ramya RajagopalanProgramme AssociateICSF Documentation Centre27 College RoadChennai - 600 006INDIA

Tel: +91 44 28275303Fax: +91 44 28254457Email: icsf@vsnl.com

239

CONFERENCE SECRETARIAT56. Pamela Gordon

Office SecretaryICSF, 27 College RoadChennai 600 006INDIA

Tel: +91 44 28275303Fax: +91 44 28254457Email: icsf@vsnl.com

57. Joice ChristianaExecutive AssistantICSF Documentation Centre27 College RoadChennai 600 006INDIA

Tel: +91 44 28275303Fax: +91 44 28254457Email: icsf@vsnl.com

58. K. Karthe GheyanOffice AssistantICSF, 27 College RoadChennai 600 006INDIA

Tel: +91 44 28275303Fax: +91 44 28254457Email: icsf@vsnl.com

59. S. KumaranOffice AssistantICSF, 27 College RoadChennai 600 006INDIA

Tel: +91 44 28275303Fax: +91 44 28254457Email: icsf@vsnl.com

FOOD AND AGRICULTUREORGANIZATION OF THE UNITEDNATIONS (FAO)

60. Rolf WillmannSenior Fishery Planning OfficerFisheries Department, FAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla00100 RomeITALY

Tel: +39 06 5705 3408Fax: +39 06 5705 6500Email: rolf.willmann@fao.org

RAPPORTEURS

61. Nita MishraFreelance Researcher onWomen and DevelopmentD-0 Alsa Court, 72 Harrington RoadChetpet, Chennai 600 031INDIA

Tel: +91 44 2822 3241Email: tmukerji@md4.vsnl.net.in

62. A. Kavitha IyerFoundation for Sustainable DevelopmentIIT Madras, Chennai 600 036INDIA

Tel: +91 44 2657 2576 (Res)Email: kavithaiyer@indya.com

63. G. SwaminathanFoundation for Sustainable DevelopmentIIT Madras, Chennai 600 036INDIA

Tel: +91 44 2493 8280 (Res)Email: swaminathan23@hotmail.com

IOI INDIA SECRETARIAT

64. R. NarayananNo.8, Narasimha Pallavar StreetState Bank ColonyChitlapakkam, Chennai - 600 064INDIA

65. N. MuraliNo.4, Amman Koil StreetRajiv Nagar, VelacheryChennai - 42, INDIA

66. B. PriyadarshiniS/30E, Ponnambalam SalaiK.K.Nagar West, Chennai - 600 078INDIA

67. K. SudhaFlat 2C, Kumaran FoundationNo.5, Telugu Brahmin StreetVelachery, Chennai - 600 042INDIA

68. G. ParanthamanNo.2/536,7th Street, SowmiyanagarMedavakkam, Chennai - 601 302INDIA

240

Coastal Area Profiles of Selected Countriesin the Indian Ocean Region

Background Information

Note

The material in this document, a work in progress, has been compiled from different sources, including theWorld Wide Web. We welcome your contributions, advice and suggestions on how this exercise should becarried forward.

1 Australia

1.1 Primary indicators

Geographical co-ordinates 10◦ 41’ to 43◦ 39’ S and 113◦ 09’ to 153◦

39’ E

Length of the coastline 66,530 km (12,500 km western Aus-tralia bordering Indian Ocean)

Population within 100 km from thecoast

89.8 %

Shelf area 2.065 mn sq km

Number of fishers 15,800

Percentage of population depen-dent on fishing

0.08%

Population dependent on fisheries 79,000 (approx.)

Contribution of fisheries to GDP 0.163%

1.2 Coastal ecosystem

Australia has an EEZ of over 11 mn sq km, one of the largest in the world. It has high marine biodiversity,with two major bioregions—the tropical north (Indo-Pacific) and the temperate south. There are nine majorhabitats and ecosystems, including estuaries, high energy sand and rocky beaches, coastal salt marshes,mangroves, seagrass beds, temperate reefs, tropical coral reefs, benthic sea floor communities and open-water pelagic communities. Australia has the largest areas of coral reefs and seagrasses and the thirdlargest area of mangroves in the world. The total area under mangroves is 11,500 sq km of which 2,544sq km is protected. Southern Australia has the largest areas of temperate seagrasses in the world and thehighest diversity of seagrass and marine algae.

241

1.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

1.3.1 Pollution

Marine pollution from domestic, industrial and agricultural sources poses a serious threat to marine biodi-versity in Australian waters:

• Hydrocarbons are key pollutants, originating from shipping, from accidents in offshore petroleumexploration and from storm-water runoff, storm water being the most damaging.

• Waste from aquaculture operations is also contributing to increased nutrient loads in coastal waters.

• Australia’s beaches are increasingly littered with plastic bottles, bags, fishnets and fishing lines, pos-ing a threat to marine life.

1.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

• Global warming is affecting coral reefs in Australia. The last major bleaching episode occurred in1998, when 87 per cent of inshore reefs of the Great Barrier Reef were affected by bleaching to someextent.

• Non-native species introduced through ballast waters are posing a serious threat to indigenous ma-rine ecosystems.

• Several of Australia’s fisheries are considered fully fished, while a few such as southern bluefin tunaand eastern gemfish are classified as overfished.

• A large proportion of coastal and nearshore habitats (mangroves, salt marshes, wetlands) have beeneither destroyed or significantly modified by impacts from other sectors. The construction of struc-tures like breakwaters, seawalls associated with ports, harbours and canal estates have affectedcoastal salt marshes and wetlands, coral growth and, ultimately, fisheries productivity.

1.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

Under the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act, 1980, each of the States has, in effect, the same general power inthe marine area to 3 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline.

1.5 Other relevant legislation

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations, 2000

• Marine Parks Act, 1997

• Marine Park Regulations, 1999 under the Marine Parks Act, 1997

• Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, 1975

• Environmental Protection (Sea Dumping) Act, 1981

• The Protection of the Seas (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983

• Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981

• Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981

• The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967

• Ocean Policy (1998)

242

The Commonwealth Coastal Policy of 1995 contains a number of initiatives to assist integrated deci-sionmaking and the development of long-term strategic responses to coastal problems. The core of theseinitiatives is a programme to develop integrated coastal area management strategies and a programme(which is referred to as Coastcare) based on partnerships between the three spheres of government (theCommonwealth, State and Local), the community and industry. In the policy, for the purpose of the ac-tions of the Commonwealth, the boundaries of the coastal zone are considered to extend as far inland andas far seaward as necessary to achieve the Coastal Policy objectives, with a primary focus on the land-seainterface. This means that, although the coastal zone includes terrestrial and marine areas, the initiativesin this Policy have not been developed to deal with all issues associated with catchment and marine man-agement.

1.6 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Australia is a party to:

• The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• United Nations Conference on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal.

1.7 Marine protected areas (MPAs)

Australia leads the world in using MPAs as a tool for marine conservation and management. The countryhas around 310 MPAs, covering a total area of around 0.75 mn sq km. This is 24 per cent of the total numberof MPAs in the world. Over 7 per cent of Australia’s marine environment has been declared as MPAs. Alarge proportion is within a single MPA—the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

2 Bangladesh

2.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates 20◦ 34’ to 26◦ 38’ N and 88◦ 04’ to26◦ 38’ E

Length of the coastline Approx. 480 km

Shelf a (up to 200 mts depth) 66,400 sq km

Population living within 100 km fromthe coast

54.8%

Number of fishers 1,444,960

Percentage of population dependent onfishing

1.08%

Population dependent on fisheries 7,224,800 (approx.)

Contribution of fisheries to GDP 4%

243

2.2 Coastal ecosystem

Bangladesh is washed by the Bay of Bengal in the south. Most of the country is low-lying and the influenceof the sea is felt even in inland areas. Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to cyclonic storms and tidal wavesthat form over the Bay of Bengal. The Bangladesh coastline is dominated by mangrove and estuarineecosystems. In fact, the country has the largest continuous block of mangrove forests in the world, with anarea of 5,767 sq km. The main expanse, called the Sundarbans, is a swampy, saline ecosystem crisscrossedby waterways. The offshore island of St. Martin is the only island that has aggregations of corals alongwith seagrass beds and soft coral habitats. Bangladesh also has one of the longest beaches in the world—the Cox’s Bazaar beach, about 145 km in length. Climate changes and the resultant rise in sea level areexpected to have devastating consequences for this low-lying country.

2.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

2.3.1 Pollution

• The numerous rivers that run across the country carry pollutants from the entire drainage area, in-cluding Bangladesh and parts of Nepal, India, Bhutan and China. Pollutants include industrial anddomestic wastes, agrochemical residues and pollutant discharges from ships and boats. Major pol-luting industries include textiles, steel, shipbreaking, asbestos, leather tanneries, pharmaceuticals,fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides.

• Other sources of pollution include untreated domestic sewage and fertilizers and pesticides used inagricultural operations that ultimately find their way to the sea.

• Oil pollution as a result of tanker traffic and transshipment operations in the Chittagong and Monglaport areas has also contributed to the pollution of the coastal ecosystem.

2.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

• Mangrove forests have been cut for use as fuelwood and timber and also to make way for the rapidgrowth of the shrimp aquaculture. Mangroves have also been affected by increased siltation andsedimentation as well as by the reduction inflow of fresh water due to the construction of dams onrivers and the construction of embankments, dykes and other structures for control of floods andtidal waves. The resultant salinity increase has affected mangrove growth.

• The construction of flood control structures, coastal embankments, etc. have interfered with naturalhydrological processes and the floodplain ecology of the country.

• The use of destructive gear and fine-meshed nets has affected the fisheries resource base, and thereare clear indications of overfishing, especially in inshore areas.

2.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

Bangladesh has no legislation specific to the coastal zone. However, several laws have a bearing on resourceuse in the coastal zone. These include:

• Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act, 1974

• Environment Conservation Act, 1995

• Marine Fisheries Ordinance, 1983

• East Bengal Protection and Conservation of Fish Act, 1950

• Water Pollution Control Act, 1973

• Water Supply and Sewage Authority Ordinance, 1963

244

The National Environment Committee, the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council(ECNEC) and the Ministry of Environment and Forest are responsible for decisionmaking. The governmentagencies dealing with coastal and marine affairs include the Department of Forests, the Department ofFisheries, the Bangladesh Fisheries Development Corporation, the Department of Science and Technology,the Bangladesh Navy, the Directorate of Shipping, etc. There is, however, little co-ordination between theseagencies. Implementation of environmental policy and enforcement of legislation is weak. The effective-ness of environmental programmes is also influenced by a paucity of resources.

A court ruling in 1997 declared the right to a healthy environment a fundamental right of the citizensof Bangladesh. According to the said ruling, “Articles 31 and 32 of our Constitution protect right to lifeas fundamental right. It encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment,ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life can hardly be enjoyed.Any act or omission contrary thereto will be violative of the said right to life.”

2.5 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Bangladesh is a party to:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)–ratified

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)–ratified

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal

• The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC)

• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78)—not ratified

3 India

3.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates 8◦ 4’ to 37◦ 6’ N and 68◦ 7’ to97◦ 25’

Length of the coastline 8,118 km

Shelf area (up to 200 mts depth) 0.5 mn sq km

Population living within 100 km from thecoast

26.3%

Number of Fishers 5,958,744

Percentage of population dependent onfishing

0.58%

Population dependent on fisheries 29,793,720 (approx.)

Contribution of fisheries to GDP 1.3%

245

3.2 Coastal ecosystem

The eastern coast of India is low-lying, with lagoons, marshes, beaches and deltas, while rocky shoresdominate the western coast. The coastal ecosystem comprises coastal wetlands, coral reefs (area of 2,300 sqkm), mangroves (area of 6,700 sq km, of which 1,506 sq km is protected), lagoons and estuaries. Extensiveseagrass beds are found in southern India. There is relatively poor reef growth on the west coast of India,except in the Gulf of Kachchh region. Reef growth becomes more vigorous towards the southern tip ofIndia and around the coast of Sri Lanka.

3.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

3.3.1 Pollution

• The coastal waters off the Indian coast are exposed to pollution from various sources—inland, coastal,offshore and atmospheric. Major pollutants include:

• industrial wastes from leather tanneries, mining, textiles, chemical and other industries;

• sewage from urban centers;

• fertilizers and pesticides from agricultural operations; and

• pollution due to oil exploration and mining, oil refining and transportation, oil spills and bilge dis-charge from ships, etc. Shipbreaking yards are also highly polluting.

3.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

• Mangrove forests have been cleared for aquaculture farms and also for use as firewood and timber.Mangrove habitats have also been affected by increased sedimentation and salinity increase in coastalareas, a consequence also of the reduced freshwater supplies brought about by construction of damsand groundwater mining.

• Coastal wetlands and mangroves have been reclaimed in many parts of the country.

• Coral reef formations have been exploited for saleable products and affected by pollution, sedimen-tation and tidal wave action.

• Overfishing and the use of destructive gear has lead to the depletion of almost all important speciesin Indian coastal waters.

3.3.3 Coastal erosion

Parts of the Indian coastline, especially along the States of Kerala and Karnataka, are vulnerable to erosion,a problem often aggravated by the construction of poorly designed coastal protection structures.

3.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management and status of implementation

India is one of the few countries in the region with a specific legislation for the protection of the coastal zone.The Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991, was issued under the provisions of the Environment(Protection) Act 1986. Other relevant legislation include:

• The Environment Protection Act, 1986

• The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 1994

• Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

246

• Merchant Shipping Act, 1964

• Indian Forest Act, 1927

• Forest Conservation Act, 1980

• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

• Panchayati Raj Act

The CRZ Notification defines the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters,which are influenced by tidal action in the landward side, up to 500 m from the High Tide Line (HTL)and the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL, as the CRZ. The CRZ has been classified intofour categories for the purpose of regulating development activities. Maximum restrictions for regulatingdevelopment and construction activities apply to the ecologically sensitive areas of CRZ-I.

The following are some of the shortcomings identified in the CRZ Notification:

• It aims at regulating activities only within a narrow coastal strip, and does not consider the linksbetween activities in inland and offshore areas that affect the coastal environment in a significantway.

• It completely lacks a seaward component.

• It fails to make provision for stakeholder and public participation at the State level.

The implementation of the Notification has been slow and inadequate. However, it has been used byenvironmental and fishworker groups to draw attention to harmful developments in the coastal zone. Acase in point is the public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court of India against shrimp aquacultureactivities in the coastal zone. The Court ruled: “No shrimp culture farm can be set up within the CoastalRegulation Zone (CRZ) as per the CRZ Notification dated February 19, 1991 issued by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests”.

However, there have been subsequent efforts by the government to dilute the provisions of this Notifi-cation to make shrimp aquaculture a permitted activity in the CRZ. The Aquaculture Authority Bill, draftedby the Agriculture Ministry and passed by the Rajya Sabha in 2000, seeks to clarify that aquaculture is nota prohibited activity within the meaning of said notification.

3.5 Marine protected areas

There are five protected areas declared in India—they are the Gulf of Mannar, Gulf of Kachchh, Wandor,Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve and Rani Jhansi Marine National Park in the Andamans. Besides this,there are a number of sanctuaries declared all along the coast. India has several national parks with mini-mal management.

3.6 International agreements related to the coastal environment

India is a party to:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969.

• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78)

247

4 Indonesia

4.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates 92◦ E to 141◦ E and 7◦ 20’ N to 14◦

S

Length of the coastline 81,000 km

Shelf area 1,713,000 sq km

Population living within 100 km of thecoast

95.9%

Number of fishers 4,668,482

Percentage of population dependent onfishing

2.15%

Population dependent on fisheries 23,342,410 (approx.)

GDP from agriculture sector 16.1%

4.2 Coastal ecosystem

Indonesia is the world’s largest archipelagic State, comprising over 17,000 islands. Its marine ecosystem ishighly diverse and productive. Indonesia is divided into two distinct ecological areas—the islands makingup the western archipelago, including Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan and Bali, and those located off the SundaShelf to the east of Australia, including Sulawesi, Maluku, Irian Jaya and Eastern Sunda Islands.

Indonesia has extensive coral reefs, representing the most significant reef resource in Southeast AsiaThere are over 500 species of coral. Rocky and sandy shores and coral islands characterize the marineecosystem of western Sumatra. There are approximately 50,000 sq km of coral reefs in western and centralIndonesia, slightly more than half of the estimated 85,000 sq km total reef area in Indonesia.

Indonesia has vast tracts of mangroves forests (4.25 mn ha). Mangrove forests were common alongmost of the low-gradient coastlines of the Sunda shelf. Western Indonesia once accounted for 51 per centof Indonesian mangrove forests, but widespread clearing for wood pulp, aquaculture, agriculture andplantations has reduced mangrove cover in western Indonesia by approximately 60 per cent.

4.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

4.3.1 Pollution

• Agricultural runoff from chemical fertilizers applied to rice fields ultimately drain into coastal waters.

• Mining activities cause increased turbidity and heavy metal contamination of coastal waters.

• Marine debris from land-based urban sources and from shipping and fishing vessels has led to float-ing garbage.

• Dumping of industrial wastes, as from tanneries, and the food processing and textile industries,are major contributors to coastal pollution. Marine pollution in western Indonesia is concentratedaround the industrial cities/ complexes of Batam, Padang, Medan, Palembang, Balikpapan, Jakarta,Semarang and Surabaya.

• Domestic sewage is a major source of organic pollution. Large volumes of sewage are released, forexample, into Jakarta’s rivers and coastal waters each day.

248

4.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

• Off Java and Sumatra, reefs are damaged by overexploitation, sedimentation and organic pollution.Coral mining poses a significant threat to the coral reefs of the country. Coral reefs have also been af-fected by destructive fishing practices like blast and cyanide fishing. Reef ecosystems are in relativelybetter shape in the far east and northeast.

• Mangrove forests, especially in the western part of the country, have been depleted by illegal cutting,coastal development and land-based pollution. Mangroves in the east are less impacted.

• The conversion of intertidal zones to rice paddy (sawah) are threatening the salt marsh and mangroveecosystems.

• Land reclamation for purposes of urbanization has led to coastal subsidence and flooding.

4.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

Indonesia has no legislation specific to coastal area management. Legislation relevant to this issue include:

• Environment Management Act, 1997

• Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia regarding Environmental Impact Assessment(No. 51 of 1993)

• Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia concerning the Control of Water Pollution (No.20 of 1990)

• Government Regulation No. 7 of 1973 regarding Control on the Distribution, Storage and use ofPesticides

• Decree of the State Minister for Environment No. KEP-14/MENLH/1994 on General Guidance fordrawing up the Analysis of Impact on the Environment

• Decree of the State Minister of Environment No. KEP-12/MENLH/3/1994 on the General Guidancefor Environmental Management and Monitoring Efforts

• Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia regarding Hazardous and Toxic Waste Manage-ment (No. 19 of 1994)

The Environmental Impact Management Agency (BAPEDAL) in Indonesia, a non-departmental govern-ment agency has developed a marine and coastal pollution control programme to address negative impactson the coastal and marine environment. The programme includes pollution control in seaports, touristbeaches, and in-tanker service zones in the Malaya Strait, Macassar Strait and Lombok Strait (Indonesia,1995).

Several Integrated Coastal Zone Management programmes have been introduced in Indonesia. Besidesthis, Indonesia also has coastal management programmes with regional organization like UNEP, (The EastAsian Sea Management Plan).

4.5 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Indonesia is party to:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

249

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969.

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal—accepted but not ratified.

4.6 Marine protected areas

Indonesia’s MPAs are divided into four types: strict nature reserves, wildlife reserves, national parks andrecreation parks. Existing protected areas total around 2.7 m ha, and the majority is in eastern Indone-sia. MPAs are selected according to eight criteria: diversity, naturalness, representativeness, uniqueness,rareness, size, accessibility and effectiveness.

5 Kenya

5.1 Primary indicators

Geographical co-ordinates 5◦ 40’N to 4◦ 4’S and 33◦ 50’E to41◦ 45’ E

Length of the coastline 608 km

Continental shelf area 8500 sq km

Population living within 100 km from thecoast

7.6%

Number of fishers 43,488

Percentage dependent on fishing 0.13

Population dependent on fisheries 217,440 (approx.)

5.2 Coastal ecosystem

There are eight coastal provinces in Kenya. The country has a narrow continental shelf, with depths drop-ping below 200 m within less than 4 km in most places. The coastal ecosystem comprises coastal forestsand bushland, sandy beaches, grasslands, estuaries, wetlands, mangroves, seagrass beds, seaweeds andcoral reefs. Kenya’s coral reefs are divided between two main areas the southern, almost continuous fring-ing reef system from Malindi to Shimoni (a distance of approximately 200 km), and the more broken-uppatches around the islands of the Bajuni Archipelago, from Lamu and northwards, a distance of approxi-mately 100 km. Mangrove forests cover approximately 530 sq km. Two major rivers drain into the coastalwaters.

5.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

5.3.1 Pollution

• Disposal of industrial wastes into coastal waters from industries concentrated mainly around Mom-basa, is highly polluting.

• Increasing pollution from domestic sewage and solid waste is the most severe pollution challenge incoastal Kenya. Solid wastes from household rubbish and industrial waste materials, including plasticitems, often find their way into the sea with storm water. Wastes from tourist beach hotels are knownto be polluting.

250

• Oil pollution due to the high volume of ship and tanker traffic that passes through the region is athreat to the marine environment.

• The use of chemicals and fertilizers in agriculture, though still limited, is on the increase.

5.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

Mangroves are being cleared for construction of aquaculture ponds or for salt production. Mangroves arealso being affected by pollution and sedimentation. Coral reefs are under threat from pollution and thesiltation caused by deforestation and destructive agricultural practices. For example, the silt load of over3 mn tonnes per year transported by the Tana river in Kenya, has destroyed corals and seagrasses. Coralreefs are also being destroyed by overfishing and destructive fishing techniques (dynamite fishing, poisonand encircling nets), as well as by collection of aquarium tropical fishes, corals, shells, etc. for tourist andcommercial purposes. The El-Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) had a severe impact on coral reefs in 1997–98. There is overfishing, both in inshore areas and in offshore areas by foreign fleets, largely due to a lackof surveillance and enforcement capacity.

5.3.3 Coastal erosion

The Kenyan coastline is vulnerable to coastal erosion. Several of the famous tourist beaches in the countryare showing severe signs of erosion, forcing tourist hotels to construct seawalls to combat the problem.

5.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

The Coast Development Authority Act provides for the establishment of the Coast Planning Authority(CDA) to plan and co-ordinate the implementation of development projects in the whole of the coastalprovince and the EEZ.

Other related Acts are:

• Government Fisheries Protection Act (Cap 379)

• Fish Industry Act (Cap 378)

• Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 389)

• Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (Cap 376)

• Maritime Zones Act

• The Continental Shelf Act (Cap 312)

• The Fisheries Act (chapter 378)

• Land Planning Act (Cap 303)

• Town Planning Act

• Local Authority Government Act (Cap 265)

• The Water Act (Cap 732)

• Agriculture Act (Cap 318)

• Forestry Act (Cap 385)

In Kenya, integrated coastal area management is being undertaken on a project basis, requiring co-ordination between the CDA and the Kenya Marine Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), the Kenya WildlifeService, the Fisheries Department, the Public Health Department, as well as with other stakeholders. Theco-ordination role of the CDA is made less effective by the lack of an appropriate legislative framework withenforceable policies, regulations and laws. Mechanisms to enforce compliance as well as local institutionalcapacity are still weak.

251

5.5 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Kenya is party to:

• The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969.

Kenya is a partner to the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environmentfrom Land-based Activities.

5.6 Marine protected areas

The MPA system is centrally managed by an independent parastatal, the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS),as either parks (fully protected) or reserves (traditional extraction allowed), and covers over 5 per centof the coastline. The well-established marine parks and reserves in Malindi/Watamu (park and reserve,established 1968), Mombasa (park and reserve, established 1989) and Kisite/Mpunguti (park and reserve,established 1978) are primarily oriented at conservation and tourism use, with significant monitoring andresearch in the last 15 years.

6 Madagascar

6.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates 11◦ 57’ to 25◦ 30’ S and 43◦ 14’ to50◦ 27’ E

Length of the coastline 5,096 km

Population living within 100 km from thecoast

55.1%

Number of fishers 142,666

Percentage of population dependent onfishing

0.98

Population dependent on fisheries 713,330 (approx.)

6.2 Coastal ecosystems

Madagascar, situated in the southern Indian Ocean, has an estimated mangrove forest cover of 3,300 sq kmin the coastal zone, 98 per cent of which is situated on the west coast. About 70 per cent of the mangrovesare in large stands exceeding 500 ha, with the remainder in scattered small patches. Mangrove area underprotection is only 6 sq km. Lagoons, situated on the east coast, cover a total surface area of 60,000 sq km.Coral reefs occur as emergent fringing and barrier reefs, patch reefs and submerged banks and shoals. Theyextend for a distance of 1,000 km though their distribution is discontinuous.

252

6.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

• Pollution.

• Untreated domestic waste.

• Industrial pollution from oil refineries, mines, etc.

• Fertilizer runoff from sugarcane plantations.

6.3.1 Degradation of natural habitats

Corals have been affected by coral mining for construction and for tourist souvenirs. They have also beenaffected by sedimentation.

6.3.2 Coastal erosion

Coastal erosion is a result of natural factors such as shifting rivers, channels, tides and cyclones, as well asanthropogenic factors, including port construction and channel modification.

6.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

In Madagascar, Law 96-025 provides for local management of renewable resources by transferring the man-agement of renewable natural resources, under contract, to rural communities. The management of forests,wild fauna and flora (both aquatic and terrestrial), water and rangeland coming within the State domain orterritorial communities can thus be handed over to local entities. The Law creates a regulatory frameworkfor security in local resource management contracts. Such contracts are entered into by the State, alongwith the commune or the base rural community. A contract provides for the transfer of the management ofa renewable natural resource within a demarcated community area to a given rural community.

The Environmental Charter of 1990 (Law 90-033) provides for obligatory Environmental Impact Assess-ment (EIA) of investment projects liable to affect the environment.

6.5 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Madagascar is a party to:

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969.

6.6 Marine protected areas

There are two protected areas, both of which are in the northeast. The Mananara Nord, a biosphere reservewith terrestrial, intertidal and marine components, includes the islands of Nosy Atafana and surroundingreefs. There are three marine reserves (Tampolo, Cap Masoala and Tanjona), which forms a part of theMasoala National Park. The Nosy Atafana is effectively protected and is closed to all fishing activities.Besides this initiative, there are customary management practices of the coastal people, such as dina, whichis now legally recognized.

253

7 Malaysia

7.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates 1◦ to 7◦N and 100◦ to 120◦ E

Length of the coastline 4,400 km

Shelf area 418,000 sq km

Population living within 100 km from thecoast

98%

Number of fishers 100,666

Percentage of population dependent on fish-ing

0.44 %

Population dependent on fisheries 503, 330 (approx.)

Contribution of fisheries to GDP 1.47 %

7.2 Coastal ecosystem

The Malaysian coast consists of sandy shores interspersed with rocky coasts, mangrove-lined estuaries andlagoons, river deltas, seagrass beds and sheltered tidal flats. The shallow seas support coral reef commu-nities around the offshore islands. The bulk of mangrove forests are found on the west coast. The totalarea under mangroves is about 6,424 sq km, of which 109 sq km is protected. Sarawak, the largest State ofMalaysia, has a coastline of 1,400 km, nearly 30 per cent of Malaysia’s total coastline.

7.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

7.3.1 Pollution

• The discharge of untreated sewage into the sea from urban centres, and of waste from pig farms, hasled to considerable pollution of coastal waters.

• Contamination of coastal waters with heavy metals has been a consequence of industrialization.Agro-based industries like palm oil and rubber processing mills are also highly polluting.

• The widespread and indiscriminate use of pesticides in agricultural operations has contributed tocoastal pollution.

• The high ship traffic near Malaysia leads to oil slicks or oil spills. It is estimated that between 1–5tonnes of crude oil are discharged each day.

7.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

• Seagrass beds are under threat from sand extraction and sedimentation.

• Coral reef degradation is partly a consequence of tourist activities. Coral reefs in the country alsosuffer from organic and sediment pollution and overexploitation.

• Mangrove forests have been cleared for aquaculture purposes. Mangroves have also been affected byorganic and metal pollution and by sedimentation.

• Overfishing and the use of destructive fishing practices have affected the fisheries resource base.

254

7.4 Coastal erosion

Large parts of the Malaysian coastline have been exposed to coastal erosion, aggravated by degradation ofnatural habitats like mangrove forest, and other human-induced factors.

7.5 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

Malaysia has no specific legislation for coastal management. However, related legislation includes:

• Protection of Wildlife Act, 1972

• National Parks Ordinance, 1962

• Environmental Quality Act, 1974

• Fisheries Act, 1985

• Continental Shelf Act, 1966

• Exclusive Economic Zone Act (EEZ), 1984

• Port Authorities Act, 1963

• Maritime Regulations for Sabah, 1999

• Fisheries (Maritime) Sarawak Regulations, 1976

• Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act, 1994

• Waters Act, 1920

• Land Conservation Act, 1960

At the national level, coastal management activities are co-ordinated on a project or programme basisby the Office of the Prime Minister’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. Various agencies areresponsible for different aspects and, in 1992, an Inter-Agency Planning Group (IAPG) formulated a Na-tional Policy on Coastal Resources Management. The Seventh Malaysian Plan (for development from 1996to the year 2000) provides for the development of a National Coastal Zone Management Policy (NCZMP) tospecify principles and guidelines for the ecologically sustainable development of coastal areas. The NCZMPwill complement the National Environmental Policy and associated Action Plan. Marine parks and pro-hibited fisheries have already been established under the Fisheries Act 1985. Under the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA) Order of 1987 all large-scale development projects, such as port expansion andconstruction of resort facilities are required to prepare EIAs prior to project approval by the Department ofEnvironment under the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment.

Problems in implementation include

• overlapping jurisdiction between the Federal and State Governments;

• inadequate monitoring; and

• paucity of funding for conservation and education activities.

7.6 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Malaysia is a party to:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

255

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• Basel Convention on the control of Trans-boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969

7.7 Marine Protected Areas

There are 38 protected areas in Malaysia.

8 Maldives

8.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates 07◦06’N to 00◦ 41’S and 72◦ 32’E to73◦45’E

Length of the coastline 644 km

Population living within 100 km fromthe coast

100%

Number of fishers 22,109

Percentage of population dependenton fishing

7.7%

Population dependent on fisheries 110,545 (approx.)

GDP from fisheries sector 11%

8.2 Coastal ecosystem

The archipelago comprises 26 natural atolls and some 1,120 islands, of which around 200 are inhabited.The marine ecosystem comprises sandy lagoons (falhu), reefs (faru), atoll-lagoons (etherevari), and open-seachannels (kandu). The country owes its physical existence to the coral reefs, which provide the living baseon which the fragile ecosystems are established. There are 187 coral species, with increasing diversity, fromnorth to south. The country is considered to be extremely vulnerable to sea-level rise due to climate changeand global warming.

8.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

8.3.1 Pollution

Waste disposal, in particular sewage and solid waste due to increased tourism activities, is threatening tolead to declines in coastal water quality.

8.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

• Coral mining to meet the demands of the construction industry, especially tourism, has increased thevulnerability of coastal areas to tide and wave-induced erosion.

• El Nino has lead to coral bleaching leading to a 20 per cent loss of coral diversity.

256

• Global warming and the associated sea-level rise poses a serious threat to urban centres, populatedatolls and tourist islands.

• The use of illegal fishing methods and destructive gear, though not very common, is threatening tolead to the depletion of some reef and lagoon fisheries.

8.3.3 Coastal erosion

Islands in Maldives are highly vulnerable to coastal erosion due to both natural and human-induced causes.The latter includes improper construction of groynes and other structures, increased exposure to waveaction due to coral mining, etc. Reclamation of land due to increase in population, mainly along the reefedge, also leads to coastal erosion.

8.4 National legislation of relevance to coastal management

• National Environment Protection and Preservation Act of 1993

• Fisheries law of Maldives (No. 5/87)

• Law prohibiting disposal of waste into Northern Harbour of Male, Law No 33/78

• Law on mining, aggregate from Male coastal zone, Law No 34/78

• Law on prohibiting extraction of soil and coral from Male, Law No 55/78

• Law on mining, coral, sand and aggregate, Law No 77/78

• National Environmental Action Plan 1989

Compared to other neighbouring countries, Maldives remains relatively free from urgent environmen-tal problems. Most environmental initiatives have focused on coral reef conservation and management. ANational Environmental Action Plan was drawn up in 1989.

The responsibility of all environment-related matters, and for the enforcement of the National Environ-mental Protection and Preservation Act, rests with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Housing and Environ-ment (MHAHE). This Act makes mandatory an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for any projectthat has a potential impact on the environment. The provisions of this Act, have, however, been poorlyenforced. The scattered spread of the islands makes implementation difficult.

8.5 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Maldives is party to

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• United Nations Conference on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC)

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal (Accepted but not ratified)

• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 1973/ 78)—not signed.

257

8.6 Marine protected areas

The formation of protected areas started in mid-1990. There are 15 key dive sites, which form a part of theMPAs.

9 Mauritius

9.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates

Island of Mauritius between 19◦58’ to 20◦32’S and 57◦ to57◦46’ E

Island of Rodriques between 19◦ 45’ S and 63 ◦ 25 ’

Island of Agalega between 10 ◦ 33 ’ S and 56 ◦ 45 ’

And St.Brandon Island between 16 ◦ 23 ’ S and 59 ◦ 27 ’

Length of the coastline 322.5 km

Shelf area 1300 sq km

Population living within 100 kmfrom the coast

100 %

Number of fishers 10,713

Percentage of populationdependent on fishing

0.91%

Population dependent on fish-eries

53,565 (approx.)

Contribution of agriculture toGDP

10 %

9.2 Coastal ecosystem

The State of Mauritius comprises the islands of Mauritius, Rodriques, St. Brandon and Agalega. Mauritiusis a volcanic island with a mountainous topography. The coast is almost completely surrounded by afringing coral reef system, enclosing 243 sq km of lagoon area into which 50 rivers and rivulets drain. Thereare three kinds of coral reefs around Mauritius—peripheral and sheltered fringing reefs, barrier reefs andlagoon patch reefs. Lagoon waters are generally shallow (2–3 m) and discontinuous, extending up to 8 kmfrom the beach. Mangroves are limited to narrow belts mainly on the southeast coast, near river mouthsor estuaries. Extensive and important seagrass beds of seven species types occur in lagoons. There is notmuch of a continental shelf and water depth reaches 3,000 m within 20 km of the coastline.

9.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

9.3.1 Pollution

• Industries like textiles and sugar mills release effluents in to the sea causing pollution.

• Stone-crushing plants produce dust and suspended particles, sludge and related waste, which con-taminate rivers and lagoons.

• Sewage, solid wastes and waste water are released in to the sea.

258

• The high use of pesticides in sugarcane farming is highly polluting. Runoff from agricultural landsand plantations cause eutrophication (due to use of pesticides) and sedimentation and ultimatelyleading to reef degradation.

9.4 Degradation of natural habitats

• Coral reefs have been affected by destructive fishing methods like dynamite fishing, sedimentation,pollution and by coral mining.

• The coral reef ecosystem is also being affected by tourist activities like the collection and buying ofshells and corals from shallow lagoons and marine parks. For example, black corals are allegedlybeing poached by tourists.

• Overfishing in inshore reef areas.

• Many mangrove stands have been felled to make way for hotels and roads.

• Coastal wetlands, particularly in northern and north-western Mauritius, have been reclaimed forpurposes of tourism and urbanization, causing flooding in many of these areas.

9.5 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

The Environment Protection Act 1991 of Mauritius has specific provisions on coastal zone management—Part VII of the Act deals with coastal and maritime zone management. The emphasis is on protection andpreservation of the coastal and marine environment. Other related legislation includes:

• The Wildlife and National Parks Act, 1993

• The Fisheries and Marine Resources Act, 1998

• Maritime Zones Act

• Ports Act, 1976

A National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) was formulated in 1990. The Ministry of Fisheries andMarine Resources is primarily responsible for ensuring integrated planning and implementation. Vari-ous national agencies and government bodies, including the Mauritius Tourism Promotion Authority, theCentral Water Authority, the Ministry of Environment and Quality of Life, the Ministry of Fisheries andMarine Resources, the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Housing, Lands andTown and Country Planning, among others, have been active in implementing measures for the manage-ment of freshwater resources, energy, land use, transportation in tourist resort areas, and construction incoastal areas.

9.6 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Mauritius is party to

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• United Nations Conference on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

259

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal.

• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocolof 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL) 73/78

9.7 Marine protected areas

There are different kinds of protected areas like fishing reserves, managed natural reserves, marine nationalparks, nature reserves and turtle reserves. There are six fishery reserves and two national parks.

10 Mozambique

10.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates 10◦20’ to 26◦50’S and 30◦12’ to40◦51’E

Length of the coastline 2,770 km

Shelf area 68,000 sq km

Population living 100 kmfrom the coast

59%

Number of fishers 18,000

Percentage of the populationdependent on fishing

0.10%

Population dependent on fisheries 90,000 (approx.)

Contribution of agriculture to GDP 24%

10.2 Coastal ecosystem

Mozambique is divided into 11 provinces, seven of which are coastal. The coast is characterized by diverseand productive ecosystems, including mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass beds, sand dunes, mud flats, estu-aries, deltas, rocky coasts, etc. The country has more that 10 major rivers discharging into the sea, resultingin the formation of extensive mudflats and mangroves. The continental shelf is fairly narrow.

The coastal belt of Mozambique may be divided into three main geomorphic units, which are almostadjacent to one another. These are from north to south; the coral coast, swamp coast and the dune coastwith seagrass beds. The main reef system stretches for 770 km from the Rovuma River in the north, toPebane in the south. Artisanal and commercial fishing and tourism are the dominant uses of coral reefs inMozambique. Mangrove forests are well-developed in the northern and central sectors of the coast, andless so in the southern sector. The total area under mangroves is 925 sq km, of which 211 sq km is protected.

10.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

10.3.1 Pollution

• Industrial discharges and pollution by industries such as textile mills, paper and tyre factories, islimited to the Maputo and Biera regions.

• Domestic sewage and solid wastes are discharged into coastal waters and are a source of pollution.

260

• Coastal agriculture is increasing, as is pollution from the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Farming ofmarginal lands and inappropriate farming techniques are leading to siltation and increased nutrientloadings in near shore waters.

10.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

• Mangroves are being felled and converted into shrimp farms, leading to coastal erosion.

• In northern Mozambique, coral reefs are being exploited for lime production—an important sourceof income for inhabitants. Coral reefs are under pressure from the collection of shells and coral forand by tourists.

• Coastal habitats like sand dunes are being exposed to erosion due to the construction of tourist com-plexes.

• There is increasing pressure on fisheries resources, and signs of overfishing in some areas.

10.3.3 Coastal erosion

This is caused due to active wave and storm action. Another factor is the damming of major rivers. Also,mangrove deforestation and the rapid development of tourism has caused coastal erosion to a lesser extent.

10.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

An Environmental Framework Law and a supporting regulatory framework have been established. Otherrelevant legislation includes:

• Forest and Wildlife Law, 1999

• Land Law and Land Law Regulations, 1997

In the case of coastal zone management, little has been achieved. Some of the problems include:

• Overlaps and gaps in institutional mandates and jurisdictions exacerbated by a lack of co-ordinationbetween agencies with a mandate in the coastal zone.

• Government capacity to enforce regulations weak or non-existent.

• Lack of community involvement in decision-making and management.

• Limited financial capacity for managing coastal resources.

The National Environmental Management Programme (NEMP), a master plan for the environment, wasapproved by the government in 1994. This plan supports community-based sustainable use of resources.The need for integrated coastal zone management was one of the top five priority concerns identified in theNEMP. This led to the development of a draft National Coastal Zone Management Policy and Programme(CZMP). The CZMP aims to address coastal zone issues cross-sectorally, in an integrated and co-ordinatedmanner, The policy focuses on ensuring the sustainable use and conservation of biological and marineresources and in parallel allows for an equitable distribution of the benefits from their use and managementamong local communities, governmental agencies and development agents. The policy aims to optimizethe benefits provided by the coastal zone to all stakeholders and minimize the conflicts between alternativeuses.

261

10.5 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Mozambique is a party to:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convenation on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal (Accepted not ratified)

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969.

10.6 Marine protected areas

MPAs are of different kinds—faunal reserve, game reserves, marine national parks, and national parks andwildlife utilization areas. The first marine national park of Mozambique was created in 1971.

11 Pakistan

11.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates 24◦ to 36◦N and 62◦ to 76◦E

Length of the coastline 1,120 km

Shelf area 50,276 sq km

Population living within 100 km from thecoast

9.1%

Number of fishers 401,407

Percentage of population dependent onfishing

0.2%

Population dependent on fisheries 2,007,035 (approx.)

Percentage contribution of Fisheries toGDP

0.9 %

11.2 Coastal ecosystems

One-third of Pakistan’s coastline falls within the province of Sindh, while the rest is in Balochistan. TheSindh coast is characterized by a broad continental shelf and a coastline marked by a maze of creeks andmangrove covered mudflats of the Indus river delta, and is a rich nursery ground for many fish species.The Balochistan coast is generally mountainous with large bays and a narrow, abruptly descending shelf.Mangrove forests along the coast of Sindh and parts of Balochistan form part of a unique ecosystem. Thetotal area under mangroves is 1,683 sq km, of which 290 sq km are protected. There are no real coral reefsin Pakistan, but in areas where the water is sufficiently clear towards the east, there may be small coloniesgrowing on hard substrate.

262

11.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

11.3.1 Pollution

• Industrial pollutants originate from different sources like steel mills, oil refineries, power stations,tanneries, ship breaking yards, textile mills and pharmaceutical companies that have been built closeto the coast and use the rivers and ocean as a dumping ground. Among these, tanneries are probablythe biggest pollutants. Coastal waters nears Karachi are especially polluted.

• Domestic wastes from households are discharged into water bodies, which eventually flow into thesea.

• Pesticides and herbicide runoffs from agricultural fields are highly polluting and increase the organicload of coastal waters.

11.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

• Mangroves are under major threat and are being cleared for urban expansion and fuelwood extrac-tion. Decline in fresh-water supplies due to the construction of dams has also had a severe affect onmangrove forests.

• Fisheries resources in the country are being affected by overfishing, excess harvesting capacity andthe use of destructive fishing practices. Foreign vessels fishing under joint venture agreements areperceived as contributing to this situation.

11.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

• Pakistan’s Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act, 1976

• Coastal Development Authority Act of Sindh, 1994

• Environmental Protection Act, 1997

These, and several other provincial and federal legislation, have a bearing on coastal resources man-agement. The Pakistan National Conservation Strategy, 1991, and the Coastal Environmental ManagementPlan for Pakistan, 1996, are also of relevance. However, enforcement is known to be weak.

The Coastal Development Authority Act of Sindh, 1994, created the Coastal Development Authority(CDA) for the “development, improvement, and beautification of the coastal areas of Thatta and Badindistricts.” The CDA has not been able to fulfill its mandate, partly due to resource constraints.

The Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, contains new substantive laws dealing with pollu-tion, hazardous waste and environmental impact assessments. Adverse impacts upon the environment byeither private or public sector carries heavy penalties. This is the only legislation with an explicit provisionfor compensation for environmental damages. However, implementation of the Act is still in its initialstages.

11.5 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Pakistan is a party to:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

263

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal—accepted but nor ratified.

• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78).

12 Seychelles

12.1 Primary indicators

Geographical co-ordinates 3◦ 41’ to 10◦ 7’S and 46◦ 15’ to 56◦

18’ E

Length of the coastline 599 km

Shelf area 50,000 sq km

Population living within 100 km fromthe coast

100 %

Number of fishers 1,960

Percentage of population dependenton fishing

2.58%

Population dependent on fisheries 9,800 (approx.)

Percentage contribution of agricultureto GDP

4%

12.2 Coastal ecosystem

Of the 100 islands that make up the Seychelles, Mahe is the largest. Praslin and La Digue are other impor-tant islands. The shallow-water coastal habitats are dominated by carbonate reefs, sandy areas and coralsgrowing on granite boulders. Fringing reefs have developed around the coasts of the granitic islands andoccupy an area of approximately 60 sq km. The two other types of reefs are the platform reefs and atolls.Platform reefs have developed in the Amirantes and Farquhar groups and total over 200 sq km in area. Thecombined area of peripheral reefs in atolls is around 120 sq km.

12.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

12.3.1 Pollution

• Sewage from domestic sources and from beach-based tourist resorts, poses a threat to coral reefs.Solid wastes, from municipal and other sources, also find their way to the sea.

• Industries such as food processing plants, breweries, tuna canneries, paint manufacturing units andother agro-based industries, are known to pollute coastal waters.

• Fuel oil spills and other petroleum products dumped at sea by fishing and other vessels are anothersource of coastal pollution’

• Agricultural and pesticide runoff has also led to coral mortality.

12.4 Degradation of natural coastal habitats

Increase in sea-surface temperature is causing coral bleaching and mortality of coral. In 1997-98, an in-crease of sea-water temperature attributed to the El Nino Southern Oscillation or ENSO drastically affectedshallow-water coral forms.

264

This also appears linked to the general global warming phenomenon. Coastal land reclamation fordevelopment purposes, like construction of houses and airports, has led to increased sedimentation andcoral mortality.

12.5 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

• Environment Protection Act, 1994

• National Parks and Nature Conservancy Act

• Fisheries Act, 1986

• Wild Animals (Turtles) Protection Regulations, 1994

• Fisheries Act, 1986

• Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 2001

• Fisheries Regulation, 1987

• Amendment to the Fishing Regulation, 1987

The Division of Environment under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Planning and Environment, is re-sponsible for policy and programme matters on environmental protection, conservation and forestry. Otherrelevant agencies include the Solid Waste Agency Corporation, Seychelles Fishing Authority, Departmentof Tourism and Transport, Seychelles Bureau of Standards and the Department of Community Develop-ment.

Conflicting views among agencies with a mandate on environmental issues hinders efficient implemen-tation. At the same time, enforcement of existing legislation is weak.

12.6 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Seychelles is a party to

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• United Nations Conference on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969.

12.7 Marine protected areas

In 1973, the first marine protected area of Seychelles was created the Ste. Annes National Park. In Sey-chelles, there are at least five different types of MPAs:

• Marine National Parks (National Parks and Nature Conservancy Act–Cap 141)

• Shell (Mollusc) Reserves (Fisheries Act–Cap 82)

• Special Reserves (National Parks and Nature Conservancy Act–Cap 141)

• Protected Areas (Protected Areas Act–Cap 185)

265

• Strict Natural Reserve (National Parks and Nature Conservancy Act–Cap 141)

Protection of certain marine areas may also take the form of exclusion zones, where some types offishing gears or fishing vessels are prohibited.

13 South Africa

13.1 Primary indicators

Geographical co-ordinates 22◦ 12’ E to 32◦ 9’ W and 16◦ 47’ N to34◦ 84’ S

Length of the coastline 3,000 km

Shelf area 160,900 km

Population within 100 km from thecoast

38.9 %

Number of fishers 10,500

Percentage dependent of fishing 0.02%

Population dependent on fisheries 52,500 (approx.)

GDP from agriculture 5%

13.2 Coastal ecosystem

South Africa’s marine life is diverse, partly as a result of the extreme contrast between the water masses onthe east and west coasts. Three water masses—the cold Benguela Current, the warm Agulhas Current, andoceanic water—make the region one of the most oceanographically heterogeneous in the world. Accordingto the White Paper on Coastal Policy, over 10,000 plant and animal species—almost 15 per cent of the coastalspecies known worldwide—are found in South African waters, with about 12per cent of these occurringnowhere else. Estuaries form an important ecosystem, whose resources are harvested for recreational, andsubsistence or artisanal purposes. The coral reefs and coral communities of South Africa lie between 26◦–27◦ S. These are the most southerly reefs in the western Indian Ocean. The total area under mangrovesis 11 sq km.

13.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

13.3.1 Pollution

• Domestic and industrial wastes, as well as wastes generated from mining activities, are an importantsource of pollution.

• A primary source of sea-based pollution is the shipping industry. Such pollution occurs from acci-dental oil spills, discharge of oily wastes and ballast waters, plastics and other pollutants releasedfrom ships, and ship maintenance activities.

13.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

• Marine Living Resource Act, 1998

• Coastal Zone Management Act

• Sea Birds and Seals Protection Act 46 (1973)

266

• Dumping at Sea Control Act 73 (1980)

• Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships)

• Marine Pollution (Intervention) Act 64

• National Water Act (No.36 of 1998)

• National Environment Management Bill

There are White Papers on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity and onSustainable Coastal Development. The main national policy concerned with integrated coastal zone man-agement is the White Paper on Coastal Policy. It provides for the participation of a broad spectrum ofstakeholders and interested and affected parties.

The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEA & T) is responsible for integrated coastalzone management, marine pollution control and sustainable use and conservation of marine living re-sources. Although the national department bears overall responsibility, provinces play a major role, sincethe Constitution of South Africa gives wider powers to the provinces. The South African Maritime SafetyAuthority (SAMSA), Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) and Department of Minerals andEnergy (DME) are other key bodies dealing with marine environmental protection. A Committee for Envi-ronmental Co-ordination (CEC) and several subcommittees have been established in terms of the Environ-mental Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) to facilitate co-ordination between the responsible bodies.

13.5 International agreements related to the coastal environment

South Africa is a party to:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969.

13.6 Marine protected areas

South Africa has one centrally managed MPA, the St. Lucia and Maputaland Marine Reserve under theKwaZulu-Natal Conservation Service, and one user-management area, the Aliwal Shoal, in which man-aged zones cover all of the coral reef area.

14 Sri Lanka

14.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates 6◦ to 10◦ N and 79◦ to 82◦ E

Length of the coastline 1,770 km (approx.)

Shelf area 27,000 sq km (approx.)

267

Population living within 100 km from thecoast

100 %

Number of fishers 83,776

Percentage of population dependent onfishing

0.44%

Population dependent on fisheries 418,880 (approx.)

GDP from fisheries sector 3%

14.2 Coastal ecosystem

The coastal ecosystem comprises lagoons, estuaries, mangroves, seagrass beds, salt marshes and coralreefs. Mangroves are not so abundant and cover an area of approximately 89 sq km, of which 8 sq kmis protected. Extensive seagrass beds are found in the many estuaries of Sri Lanka where they make asignificant contribution to primary productivity in coastal waters and to coastal fisheries production.

14.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

14.3.1 Pollution

• Domestic sewage and wastes from most urban centres are discharged directly into the sea. Touristactivities are a common source of beach and water pollution.

• Industrial wastes, especially from the textile and paper industry, asbestos-cement plants, leather tan-neries, coconut and rubber-based industries, are major sources of coastal pollution.

• Pesticides and fertilizers, heavily used in agriculture, are major pollutants.

• There is considerable oil pollution from ship traffic along the international shipping route south ofSri Lanka.

• Pollution has also been a result of shrimp aquaculture operations.

14.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

• Mangrove forests are being cut down for aquaculture and agriculture. Mangroves are also being usedfor firewood and timber.

• Degradation of coral reefs is primarily due to coral mining, destructive fishing practices, siltationand blasting of reefs for the construction of navigation channels, and collection of aquarium species.Tourist activities are also contributing to the pressure on coral reefs.

• Lagoons and estuaries are being threatened by urban encroachment, pollutants, siltation and over-fishing.

• Deforestation, poor agricultural practices and encroachment of river banks contribute to siltation—coral reefs are smothered, mangroves, lagoons and estuaries become shallower and coastal watersbecome turbid.

• The practice of dynamite fishing, bottom-trawling, drag-net fishing, bottom-set nets and gill-netsaffects the coral reefs and the benthic population.

268

14.3.3 Coastal erosion

About half of the Sri Lankan coastline, particularly in the south, is exposed to coastal erosion. Constructionof dams, river sand mining, degradation of natural coastal habitats, and improperly constructed hotels,fishery harbours and other structures, contribute to coastal erosion. Sri Lanka will be highly vulnerable toany rise of sea level due to the global warming process.

14.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

Sri Lanka has a long 20-year history of coastal management. The Coast Conservation Act (CCA), 1981, dealsspecifically with coastal problems in a comprehensive way.

Other relevant legislation includes:

• The Marine Pollution Prevention Act, 1981

• National Environment Act, 1980

• Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act No 2 of 1996

• Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No.2 of 1937 (Includes protected marine species used in theornamental fish trade)

• National Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 1998

• The National Aquatic Resources, Research and Development Agency Act No.54 of 1981

• The Natural Resources Energy and Science Authority of Sri Lanka Act No.78 of 1981

• The Urban Development Authority Law No. 41 of 1978 and its Amendment in 1982

• The Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation (LRDC) Act

• The Seashore Protection Ordinance 1979

• The Natural Heritage and Wilderness Act 1980 and its Amendment in 1988

• The Tourist Development Act No.14 of 1968

Under the CCA, Sri Lanka’s coastal zone is defined as the area lying within a limit of 300 m landwardof the Mean High Water Line and a limit of 2 km seawards of the Mean Low Water Line. In the case ofrivers, streams, lagoons or any other body of water connected to the sea, either permanently or periodically,the landward boundary is considered to extend up to 2 km. The Act aims at regulating developmentwithin this narrow zone to prevent environmental degradation, pollution and erosion. It prescribes twoimportant tools for the regulation of development activity, namely the permit system and the EnvironmentImpact Assessment requirement. Special Area Management Projects (SAM) are other coastal managementinitiatives currently underway.

There is a special Coast Conservation Department (CCD) to handle all matters related to conservation ofcoastal resources. It also has the mandate of helping co-ordinate the sectoral activities of the approximately32 agencies with jurisdiction over coastal areas and resources.

There continue to be shortcomings in the Act and in its implementation:

• The narrow geographic definition of the coastal zone, and the fact that most coastal habitats like man-groves, wetlands, etc. are located outside this area, make it difficult for the CCD to initiate integratedmanagement plans.

• Within the Act, while there is provision to regulate activities that alter the physical nature of thecoastal zone, there is no such provision to regulate activities that impact on, for example, its environ-mental quality, such as industrial pollution in inland areas.

• Enforcement and monitoring have been weak.

269

• Public participation in coastal zone planning has been limited.

• There have been problems with the way EIAs have been carried out.

• Jurisdiction over coastal area and resources is distributed between agencies, and inter-agency co-ordination is often weak.

14.5 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Sri Lanka is a party to:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• United Nations Conference on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal (Accepted not ratified)

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC)

Sri Lanka has not ratified the articles of association of the International Convention for the Preventionof Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 1973/ 78).

14.6 Marine protected areas

There are three kinds of protected areas in Sri Lanka—national parks, sanctuaries and natural reserves.

15 Tanzania

15.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates Between 1◦ to 11◦ 45 ’S and 29◦

21’ E

Length of the coastline 1,424 km

Shelf area 17,900 sq km

Population living within 100 km fromthe coast

21.1%

Number of fishers 62,593

Percentage of population dependent onfishing

0.17%

Population dependent on fisheries 312,965 (approx.)

GDP from fisheries sector 2.9%

270

15.2 Coastal ecosystem

Tanzania is situated between the great lakes of Victoria, Tanganyika and Nyasa, with the Rift valley systemon the one hand and the Indian Ocean on the other. There are three main coastal and marine habitats alongthe Tanzanian coast: coral reefs, mangrove forests and seagrass beds. Shallow lagoons, estuaries, mudflats,rocky shores, sandy beaches, dune systems and coastal forests are also to be found. Tanzania has a narrowcontinental shelf of less than 5 km, except in a few areas. Several rivers drain into the Indian Ocean.

Coral reefs are estimated to cover 600 km of the Tanzanian coastline. Mangrove forests are prominentalong river outlets and estuaries. The area under mangroves is 1,155 sq km, of which about 14 sq km areprotected. The Rufiji delta contains the largest single area of mangrove forest in southern Africa. Seagrassand algal beds are extensive on sand and intertidal mud flats, sandy lagoons and at the base of shallowcoral reefs. There are over 300 species of algae reported from Tanzania.

15.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

15.3.1 Pollution

• The main sources of pollution are from domestic, agricultural and industrial sources.

• The use of pesticides and biocides in agriculture has tripled in coastal areas to combat vermin infes-tation. Leaching of pesticides and poisons have led to mortality of corals and other marine life alongthe coast.

• Sewage and other solid wastes (including plastics) from urban areas is an important source of pollu-tion.

• Tourist activities have led to sewage pollution, environmental damage through poorly planned con-struction, damage to coastal and marine habitats and overextraction of natural resources.

• Pollution from industrial sources is mainly concentrated around Dar es Salaam and is mainly fromindustries like agrochemicals, chemicals, breweries, metal, food and textiles.

15.4 Degradation of natural coastal habitats

There has been a decline in area under mangroves all over Tanzania, as mangroves have been cleared forsalt production, agriculture, aquaculture, urban and industrial development, and for firewood, pole andcharcoal production.

Coral mining is considered one of the major contributors to reef degradation along the coast. It has ledto increased erosion, and decline in abundance of fish communities. At the same time, corals have alsobeen affected by destructive fishing practices such as “Kigumi fishing” (dynamiting).

15.5 Coastal erosion

The Tanzanian coastline is vulnerable to coastal erosion. For example, the erosion of the Kunduchi beach,apparently because of the mining of sand at the beach crest, led to the closure of some buildings.

15.6 Legislation of relevance to coastal management

• Marine Parks and Reserves Act, 1994

• Fisheries (Marine Reserves) regulations, 1975

• Environment Conservation Act No. 19, 1983

Other related legislation are:

• The Fisheries Explosives, Poisons and Water Pollution Regulation, 1982 (Amending regulations 26,27and 28 of the Fisheries General Regulations, 1973)

271

• The Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act No. 27, 1980

• Inland Water Transport Ordinance, Cap.172

• Wildlife Conservation Act

• The Public Beach Planning Area Order, 1992

• National Land Use Planning Commission Act, 1984

• Town and Country Planning Ordinance

• National Environmental Policy

The Tanzania government, through the Vice President’s office and the National Environment Manage-ment Council (NEMC), has initiated the Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership in 1997. It aims todevelop an overall framework that supports coastal management at the national and local levels, and todevelop human and institutional capacity for this.

Coastal management is currently being dealt with through a number of bodies and programmes, in-cluding the National Management Plan for the Conservation of Mangroves, the Mafia Island Marine Park,the Tanga Regional Integrated Coastal Management Project, the National Conservation Strategy for Sus-tainable Development, the National Marine Contingency Plan, and the National Environment Action Plan.

These initiatives are still in their initial stages. Problem areas include:

• There is no single agency responsible for co-ordinating coastal management programmes.

• Implementation of existing legislation and plans is weak.

15.7 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Tanzania is party to:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal

• International Convention for the Protection of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 1973/ 78)

• International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation

Tanzania is also party to a regional convention the Convention for the Protection, Management andDevelopment of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region (the Nairobi Conven-tion).

15.8 Marine protected areas

Seven marine reserves have been demarcated in Tanzania under the Marine Parks and Reserve Act. TheAct provides for community-based conservation through the involvement of villagers and local residentusers dependent on a marine park or marine reserve. According to the government, these stakeholdersare involved in all phases of the planning, development and management of the particular marine park orreserve, and are entitled to a share in its benefits.

272

16 Thailand

16.1 Primary indicators

Geographic co-ordinates 5◦ to 21◦ N and 97◦ to 106◦

E

Length of the coastline 2,624 km

Shelf area 394,000 sq km

Population living within 100 km from thecoast

38.7 %

Number of fishers 438,934

Percentage of population dependent on fish-ing

0.71%

Population dependent on fisheries 2,194,670 (approx.)

GDP from fisheries sector 1.9%

16.2 Coastal ecosystem

The coastal ecosystem comprises estuaries, lagoons, coastal wetlands, mangrove forests, seagrass beds andfringing coral reefs. The coastline along the Andaman Sea, including the mainland and small islands, isapproximately 700 km in length. Varied habitats, including coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds androcky shores, are found. The coastline along the Gulf of Thailand is approximately 1,600 km. Coral reefsare found around islands. The total area under coral reefs is 153 sq km and the area under mangroves is2,641 sq km, of which 256 sq km is protected.

16.3 Threats to the coastal ecosystem

16.3.1 Pollution

• The primary sources of land-based pollution are agricultural runoff, coastal aquaculture, industrialeffluents and domestic sewage. Tourist activities, especially beach resorts, are also polluting.

• The primary sources of sea-based pollution are from offshore oil and gas exploration, maritime trans-portation, shipping, oil spills, dredging, etc.

16.3.2 Degradation of natural habitats

• Coral reefs are threatened by pollution and sedimentation.

• Destruction of mangroves is due to conversion into aquaculture farms, mining, salt farming andcoastal construction.

• Overfishing is a result of excess fishing pressure, especially from the commercial fishing fleet. Atpresent, 40 per cent of the marine capture consists of juvenile fish.

• Land subsidence and sea-level rise pose a major threat to the coastal ecosystem.

16.4 Legislation of relevance to coastal management and status of implementation

There are no specific laws on coastal area management. Laws with a bearing on the coastal zone include:

273

• Fisheries Act, 1994

• National Marine Park Act, 1961

• Factory Act, 1992

• Wild Animal Protection and Reserves Act, 1992

• Navigation in Thai Water Act, 1961

• Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, 1992

Key policies emphasizing the sustainable use of fisheries and coastal resources include:

• National Forest Reserves Policy since 1964

• Non-hunting area policy since 1984

• Fishery protection zone policies since 1972, which reserves the 3-mile inshore zone for artisanal fish-eries

The new constitution adopted in 1997 highlights the importance of promoting and supporting pub-lic participation in environmental management and conservation. It specifies individual and communityrights and, in effect, reduces the role of the State as the sole decisionmaker in natural resource management.

The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), as one of the management tools for project decisionmakingin order to minimize the environmental impact created and resource depletion, is in use in Thailand. TheOffice of Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP) is responsible for identifying the type and size ofproject of activities for which mandatory EIA is required. Of late, public hearings have been conducted insome large projects, that is, mass transit systems. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is becoming an importantissue.

In Thailand, there are several departments responsible for coastal area and fisheries issues. For exam-ple, the National Environmental Board is the main body determining the national coastal resource andenvironment policy and the Office of Environmental Policy and Planning co-ordinates integrated coastalzone management. Other agencies playing major roles in coastal resources and fisheries management in-clude the Pollution Control Department, the Harbour Department, the Department of Fisheries, the RoyalForestry Department, the Department of Local Administration, the City Planning Department, the Depart-ment of Industrial Work, and the Department of Environmental Quality Promotion. The Pollution ControlDepartment has set Environmental Quality Standards.

Implementation of coastal areas management programmes has been weak for some of the followingreasons:

• The lack of co-ordination between the various agencies with a mandate for coastal management andfisheries issues has led to some duplication of efforts undertaken by them.

• At the same time, conflicts among State agencies over the use of coastal resources, arising from theirdifferent objectives, such as conservation, productivity increases and tourism promotion, are not un-common.

• Procedures for law enforcement are centralized and complicated and implementation is weak. At thesame time, violators exploit loopholes in the law.

• The government lacks an appropriate process to prioritize environmental problems and projects.

• There is no specific legislation on coastal area management.

• The economic crisis in Thailand has led to a reduction in the budget available for coastal resourcesmanagement and has accelerated resource exploitation.

• Limited participation of local communities in coastal management initiatives.

274

16.5 International agreements related to the coastal environment

Thailand is a party to:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—signed but not ratified.

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR)

• Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)—signed, not ratified.

• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78)—not signed.

275

Table 1: International Agreements and Conventions Ratifiedby Selected Countries in the Indian Ocean Region

UNCLOS UNFCCC CBD CITES RAMSAR Basel Con-vention

CLC69

Marpol73/78

Stradd/HighlyMig FishStocks

Australia R R R R R R – R RBangladesh R R R R R R – – SIndia R R R R R R R R –Indonesia R R R R R S R R SKenya R R R R R S R R –Madagascar R R R R R S S – –Malaysia R R R R R S R R –Maldives R R R – – S R – RMauritius R R R R R S R R RMozambique R R R R – S R – –Pakistan R R R R R S R R SSeychelles R R R R – S R R RSouth Africa R R R R R S R R –Sri Lanka R R R R R S – R RTanzania R R R R R S – – –Thailand S R S R R R – – –

LegendUNCLOS 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and FloraCLC 69 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution DamageRAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Wa-

terfowl HabitatBasel Convention Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Haz-

ardous Wastes and Their DisposalMARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ShipsStradd/Highly Mig Fish Stocks Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly

Migratory Fish stocks

R RatifiedS Signed– Not Signed

276

Table 2: Comparison of Primary Indicators

Length ofthe coast-line (inkm)

ShelfArea (insq km)

Populationliving within100km fromthe coast(percentage)

Number offishers

Percentageof pop-ulationdependenton fishing

Percentagecontributionof fisheries toGDP

Australia 66,530 2,065,000 89.8 15,800 0.08 0.2

Bangladesh 480 66,400 54.8 1,444,960 1.08 4.0

India 8,118 500,000 26.3 5,958,744 0.58 1.3

Indonesia 81,000 1,713,000 95.9 4,668,482 2.15 16.10 *

Kenya 608 8,500 7.6 43,488 0.13

Madagascar 5,096 55.1 142,666 0.98

Malaysia 4,400 418,000 98 100,666 0.44 1.5

Maldives 644 100 22,109 7.70 11.0

Mauritius 322.5 1300 100 10,713 0.91 10*

Mozambique 2,770 68,000 59 18,000 0.10 24*

Pakistan 1,120 50,276 9.1 401,407 0.20 0.9

Seychelles 599 50,000 100 1,960 2.58 4*

South Africa 3,000 160,900 39.9 10,500 0.05 5*

Sri Lanka 1,770 27,000 100 83,776 0.44 3.0

Tanzania 1,424 17,900 21.1 62,593 0.17 2.9

Thailand 2,624 394,000 38.7 438,934 0.71 1.9

*GDP from Agricultural sector (fisheries and agriculture combined)

277

Tabl

e3:

Mai

nth

reat

sto

coas

tale

cosy

stem

sin

coun

trie

sof

the

Indi

anO

cean

Reg

ion

Cou

ntri

esPo

llut

ion

Deg

rada

tion

ofN

atur

alH

abit

ats

Coa

stal

Eros

ion

Cor

alR

eefs

Man

grov

esFi

sher

yR

esou

rces

Aus

tral

iaLa

nd-b

ased

sour

ces,

incl

udin

gdo

mes

tic,

indu

stri

alan

dag

ricu

ltur

alw

aste

sBe

ach

litte

r

Blea

chin

gof

cora

lsdu

eto

EN

SOef

fect

.In

appr

opri

ate

coas

tal

cons

truc

tion

has

affe

cted

coas

tal

wet

land

s

Intr

oduc

tion

ofno

n-na

tive

spec

ies

thro

ugh

balla

stw

ater

disc

harg

eO

verfi

shin

g

Bang

lade

shIn

dust

ries

like

text

iles,

stee

l,le

athe

r,ag

roch

emic

alD

omes

tic

was

tes

Agr

icul

tura

lwas

tes

Oil

pollu

tion

from

ship

traf

fic

Con

vers

ion

toaq

uacu

ltur

efa

rms

Cut

ting

for

fuel

woo

dan

dti

mbe

rIn

crea

sein

sedi

men

tati

on,

salin

ity,

silt

atio

n

Ove

rfish

ing

inin

shor

ew

ater

sD

estr

ucti

vefis

hing

prac

tice

s

Impr

oper

cons

truc

tion

ofst

ruct

ures

such

asbr

eakw

alls

,por

ts

Indi

aIn

dust

rial

was

tes

Dom

esti

cw

aste

sPe

stic

ides

and

fert

ilize

rsfr

omag

ricu

ltur

also

urce

sO

ilfr

omsh

iptr

affic

Sedi

men

tati

onan

dsi

ltat

ion

Expl

oite

dfo

rsa

leof

com

mer

cial

prod

ucts

,sh

ells

,etc

.

Con

vers

ion

toaq

uacu

ltur

efa

rms

Cut

ting

for

fuel

woo

dan

dti

mbe

rIn

crea

sein

sedi

men

tati

on,

salin

ity,

silt

atio

nR

ecla

mat

ion

ofw

etla

nds

and

man

grov

esfo

rur

ban

deve

lopm

ent

Des

truc

tive

fishi

ngpr

acti

ces

and

over

fishi

ng

Incr

ease

dsi

ltat

ion

and

sedi

men

tati

ondu

eto

cons

truc

tion

ofem

bank

men

tsan

ddy

kes,

poor

lyde

sign

edco

asta

lst

ruct

ures

Indo

nesi

aD

omes

tic

sew

age

Indu

stri

alw

aste

sfr

omm

inin

g,ta

nner

ies,

food

proc

essi

ng.

Agr

icul

tura

lrun

offw

ith

chem

ical

fert

ilize

rsM

arin

ede

bris

from

land

-bas

edso

urce

s,sh

ippi

ngan

dfis

hing

acti

viti

es

Ree

fsar

eda

mag

edby

over

expl

oita

tion

,se

dim

enta

tion

and

orga

nic

pollu

tion

,as

wel

las

byde

stru

ctiv

efis

hing

prac

tice

sC

oral

min

ing

Ille

galc

utti

ngof

man

grov

efo

rest

sD

egra

dati

ondu

eto

coas

tald

evel

opm

ent

and

land

-bas

edpo

lluti

onC

onve

rsio

nof

inte

rtid

alzo

nes

topa

ddy

field

s

Ove

rfish

ing

Des

truc

tive

fishi

ngpr

acti

ces

like

cyan

ide

fishi

ng

Land

recl

amat

ion

for

coas

tal

deve

lopm

enth

asle

dto

subs

iden

cean

dflo

odin

g

278

Cou

ntri

esPo

llut

ion

Deg

rada

tion

ofN

atur

alH

abit

ats

Coa

stal

Eros

ion

Cor

alR

eefs

Man

grov

esFi

sher

yR

esou

rces

Ken

yaIn

dust

rial

was

tes

arou

ndM

omba

saD

omes

tic

was

tes,

solid

was

tes

and

sew

age

Oil

disc

harg

efr

omsh

iptr

affic

Che

mic

als

and

fert

ilize

rsfr

omag

ricu

ltur

alru

n-of

f

Silt

atio

nca

used

byde

fore

stat

ion

and

dest

ruct

ive

agri

cult

ural

prac

tice

sEN

SO

Con

vers

ion

toaq

uacu

ltur

epo

nds

orfo

rsa

ltpr

oduc

tion

Deg

rade

ddu

eto

silt

atio

nan

dse

dim

enta

tion

Des

truc

tive

fishi

ngpr

acti

ces

Ove

rfish

ing

byfo

reig

nfis

hing

fleet

Col

lect

ion

ofaq

uari

umfis

h

Con

stru

ctio

nof

stru

ctur

esfo

rto

uris

mde

velo

pmen

t

Mad

agas

car

Unt

reat

eddo

mes

tic

was

tes

Indu

stri

alpo

lluti

onfr

omoi

lre

finer

ies,

min

es.

Fert

ilize

rru

noff

from

suga

rcan

epl

anta

tion

s

Cor

alm

inin

gC

oral

colle

ctio

nfo

rcu

rios

Sedi

men

tati

on

Port

cons

truc

tion

and

chan

nel

mod

ifica

tion

Nat

ural

caus

eslik

esh

ifti

ngri

vers

,ca

nals

Mal

aysi

aU

ntre

ated

dom

esti

cse

wag

eIn

dust

rial

was

tes

from

palm

oila

ndru

bber

-bas

edin

dust

ries

Hea

vym

etal

pollu

tion

Pest

icid

eru

noff

from

agri

cult

ural

field

sO

ildi

scha

rge

from

ship

traf

fic

Org

anic

pollu

tion

Sedi

men

tati

onC

oral

colle

ctio

nfo

rcu

rios

Con

vert

edto

aqua

cult

ure

farm

sO

rgan

icpo

lluti

onSe

dim

enta

tion

Ove

rfish

ing

Des

truc

tive

fishi

ngpr

acti

ces

Incr

ease

expo

sure

toer

osio

ndu

eto

degr

adat

ion

ofm

angr

oves

and

othe

rna

tura

lha

bita

ts

Mal

dive

sSe

wag

ean

dso

lidw

aste

from

dom

esti

can

dto

uris

tact

ivit

ies

Cor

alm

inin

gfo

rco

nstr

ucti

onpu

rpos

esEN

SOG

loba

lwar

min

gan

dse

a-le

velr

ise

Col

lect

ion

ofaq

uari

umsp

ecie

s

Des

truc

tive

fishi

ngpr

acti

ces

have

affe

cted

som

ere

efan

dla

goon

fishe

ries

Impr

oper

cons

truc

tion

ofgr

oyne

san

dot

her

stru

ctur

esIn

crea

sed

expo

sure

tow

ave

acti

ondu

eto

cora

lmin

ing

Mau

riti

usIn

dust

rial

pollu

tion

from

text

ilean

dsu

gar

mill

sD

omes

tic

was

tes—

sew

age,

solid

was

tean

dw

aste

wat

ers

Pest

icid

efr

omsu

garc

ane

field

s

Cor

alco

llect

ion

for

com

mer

cial

purp

oses

Deg

rada

tion

due

tode

stru

ctiv

efis

hing

prac

tice

s,se

dim

enta

tion

,po

lluti

on,a

ndco

ral

min

ing

Felli

ngof

man

grov

esfo

rco

nstr

ucti

onpu

rpos

esR

ecla

mat

ion

ofla

ndfo

rur

bani

zati

onan

dto

uris

mde

velo

pmen

t

Des

truc

tive

fishi

ngpr

acti

ces

Ove

rfish

ing

inin

shor

ere

efar

eas

279

Cou

ntri

esPo

llut

ion

Deg

rada

tion

ofN

atur

alH

abit

ats

Coa

stal

Eros

ion

Cor

alR

eefs

Man

grov

esFi

sher

yR

esou

rces

Moz

ambi

que

Indu

stri

aldi

scha

rges

from

text

ile,

pape

ran

dty

refa

ctor

ies

Dom

esti

cw

aste

sC

oast

alag

ricu

ltur

alru

noff

Cor

alm

inin

gC

oral

and

shel

lco

llect

ion

for

trad

e

Con

vers

ion

toaq

uacu

ltur

efa

rms

Incr

easi

ngpr

essu

reon

the

fish

reso

urce

sD

ueto

fact

ors

like

cons

truc

tion

ofto

uris

mco

mpl

exes

,lo

ssof

man

grov

efo

rest

s,da

mm

ing

ofri

vers

Paki

stan

Indu

stri

alw

aste

sfr

omst

eelm

ines

,oi

lrefi

neri

es,p

ower

stat

ions

,sh

ipbr

eaki

ngya

rds

Dom

esti

cw

aste

sPe

stic

ides

and

herb

icid

esfr

omag

ricu

ltur

alfie

lds

Extr

acti

onfo

rfu

elw

ood

and

tim

ber

Rec

lam

atio

nfo

rur

ban

expa

nsio

nIn

crea

sed

salin

ity

asfr

esh

wat

eris

dive

rted

byda

ms,

etc.

Des

truc

tive

fishi

ngpr

acti

ces

Ove

rfish

ing

Fish

ing

byfo

reig

nfle

ets

Seyc

helle

sD

omes

tic

was

tes,

mos

tly

sew

age

and

solid

was

tes

Indu

stri

alw

aste

sfr

omfo

odpr

oces

sing

plan

ts,b

rew

erie

s,tu

naca

nner

ies,

etc.

Sea-

base

dpo

lluti

on—

oilf

rom

ship

sA

gric

ultu

ralr

unof

f

ENSO

,inc

reas

ein

sea-

surf

ace

tem

pera

ture

affe

cts

the

cora

lree

fsLa

ndre

clam

atio

nha

sle

dto

sedi

men

tati

on

Coa

stal

land

recl

amat

ion

for

deve

lopm

ent

purp

ose

Sout

hA

fric

aD

omes

tic

was

tes

from

urba

nce

ntre

sIn

dust

rial

was

tes—

was

tes

from

min

ing

acti

viti

esSe

a-ba

sed

pollu

tion

—oi

lfro

msh

ips

EN

SO,i

ncre

ase

inse

a-su

rfac

ete

mpe

ratu

re

SriL

anka

Was

tes

from

dom

esti

can

dto

uris

tac

tivi

ties

Indu

stri

alw

aste

sfr

omte

xtile

,pa

per,

coco

nut,

rubb

er-b

ased

indu

stry

,lea

ther

tann

erie

s,ce

men

tpl

ants

and

aqua

cult

ure

farm

sA

gric

ultu

ralr

unof

fO

ilpo

lluti

onfr

omsh

iptr

affic

Cor

alm

inin

gBl

asti

ngof

cora

lree

fsfo

rco

nstr

ucti

onof

navi

gati

onch

anne

lsSi

ltat

ion

Des

truc

tive

fishi

ngpr

acti

ces

like

dyna

mit

ing

Col

lect

ion

ofaq

uari

umsp

ecie

s

Fuel

woo

dan

dti

mbe

rex

trac

tion

Con

vers

ion

toag

ricu

ltur

ean

daq

uacu

ltur

efa

rms

Sedi

men

tati

onan

dsi

ltat

ion

Des

truc

tive

fishi

ngpr

acti

ces

Dyn

amit

efis

hing

,tr

awlin

gan

ddr

ag-n

etfis

hing

Rec

lam

atio

nof

coas

tala

reas

for

deve

lopm

ent

purp

oses

Con

stru

ctio

nof

dam

s,fis

hing

harb

ours

and

othe

rst

ruct

ures

280

Cou

ntri

esPo

llut

ion

Deg

rada

tion

ofN

atur

alH

abit

ats

Coa

stal

Eros

ion

Cor

alR

eefs

Man

grov

esFi

sher

yR

esou

rces

Tanz

ania

Agr

icul

tura

lrun

off

Was

tes

from

dom

esti

can

dto

uris

tac

tivi

ties

Indu

stri

alw

aste

sfr

omag

roch

emic

als,

chem

ical

s,br

ewer

ies,

and

text

ilein

dust

ries

arou

ndD

ares

Sala

am

Cor

alm

inin

gD

estr

ucti

vefis

hing

prac

tice

slik

edy

nam

itin

g

Con

vert

edto

agri

cult

ural

and

aqua

cult

ure

farm

sFu

elw

ood

and

char

coal

extr

acti

onC

lear

edfo

rur

ban

and

indu

stri

alde

velo

pmen

t

Sand

min

ing

for

cons

truc

tion

Thai

land

Agr

icul

tura

lrun

off

Indu

stri

alw

aste

sW

aste

sfr

omdo

mes

tic

and

sew

age

acti

viti

esO

ilw

aste

sfr

omsh

ippi

ngan

dof

fsho

rem

inin

g

Cor

alre

efs

affe

cted

byse

dim

enta

tion

and

pollu

tion

Con

vers

ion

toaq

uacu

ltur

efa

rms,

salt

prod

ucti

on,

min

ing

Ove

rfish

ing,

espe

cial

lyby

the

com

mer

cial

fishi

ngfle

et

281

Tabl

e4:

Reg

iona

lArr

ange

men

tsre

late

dto

Coa

stal

Are

aM

anag

emen

tin

the

Indi

anO

cean

Reg

ion

Nam

eO

bjec

tive

Mem

ber

stat

esSe

cret

aria

tO

ther

info

rmat

ion

East

ern

Afr

ican

Coa

stal

Are

aM

anag

emen

t(S

EAC

AM

)

Toac

tas

aca

taly

stfo

rad

vanc

-in

gco

asta

lm

anag

emen

tin

East

ern

Afr

ica

Erit

rea,

Ken

ya,

Tanz

ania

,M

ozam

biqu

e,C

omor

os,

Reu

nion

,M

adag

asca

r,Se

yche

lles

and

Mau

riti

us,

Sout

hA

fric

a

Moz

ambi

que

The

Secr

etar

iata

ssis

tsEa

ster

nA

fric

anco

untr

ies

toad

-va

nce

thei

rIC

ZM

prog

ram

mes

.R

athe

rth

anim

ple-

men

ting

coas

tal

man

agem

ent

proj

ects

itse

lf,

SEA

CA

Mpr

ovid

esin

form

atio

nan

dbu

ilds

capa

city

inco

untr

ies

toim

plem

entt

heir

ICZ

Mpr

ogra

ms.

Itpl

aces

part

icul

arem

phas

ison

com

mun

icat

ing

the

less

ons

lear

ned

from

the

regi

onal

expe

rien

cein

ICZ

Man

dfr

omot

her

de-

velo

ping

coun

trie

s.T

heSe

cret

aria

tal

sow

orks

clos

ely

wit

hot

her

regi

onal

prog

ram

s

East

ern

Afr

ican

Act

ion

Plan

ofth

eR

egio

nal

Seas

Prog

ram

me

ofU

NEP

(EA

F)

Prot

ecti

on,

man

agem

ent

and

deve

l-op

men

tof

the

mar

ine

and

coas

tal

envi

ronm

ent

ofth

eEa

ster

nA

fric

anre

gion

Som

alia

,K

enya

,Ta

nzan

ia,

Moz

ambi

que,

Com

oros

,R

euni

on,

Mad

agas

car,

Seyc

helle

san

dM

auri

tius

Reg

iona

lC

o-or

dina

ting

Uni

t/R

CU

/EA

F,lo

cate

din

Sey-

chel

les

The

Nai

robi

Con

vent

ion,

prov

idin

gth

ele

-ga

lfr

amew

ork

for

the

1985

Act

ion

Plan

,w

assi

gned

in19

85,

toge

ther

wit

htw

opr

otoc

ols,

incl

udin

gon

eon

co-o

pera

tion

inco

mba

t-in

gm

arin

epo

lluti

onin

case

sof

emer

genc

y.

Inte

r-go

vern

men

tal

Oce

anog

raph

icC

omm

issi

on’s

Reg

iona

lC

om-

mit

tee

for

the

Co-

oper

ativ

eIn

vest

igat

ion

ofth

eN

orth

and

Cen

tral

Wes

tern

Indi

anO

cean

(IO

CIN

CW

IO)

Iden

tify

prio

riti

esfo

rm

arin

ere

-se

arch

,oc

ean

and

coas

tal

obse

rva-

tion

s

Reu

nion

,K

enya

,M

ada-

gasc

ar,M

auri

tius

,Moz

am-

biqu

e,Se

yche

lles,

Som

alia

and

Tanz

ania

Pari

s,Fr

ance

The

IOC

INC

WIO

isa

regi

onal

subs

idia

ryof

the

inte

r-go

vern

men

tal

Oce

anog

raph

icC

omm

issi

onof

UN

-ES

CO

,tha

tmee

tsev

ery

4–5

year

sto

defin

ea

wor

kpl

anfo

rth

ew

este

rnIn

dian

Oce

anR

egio

n.Th

ecu

rren

tAc-

tion

Plan

sco

vers

the

peri

od19

97–2

000

The

proj

ects

ap-

prov

edby

the

regi

onal

com

mit

tee

incl

ude:

Biod

iver

-si

tyan

din

vent

ory

ofcr

itic

alha

bita

ts(s

eagr

ass

beds

,co

ralr

eefs

and

man

grov

es);

and

Rec

ruit

men

tand

stoc

kas

sess

men

toffi

sher

ies

reso

urce

s

SAR

ECR

egio

nal

Mar

ine

Scie

nce

Prog

ram

me

(SID

A-S

AR

EC)

SID

Asu

ppor

tsth

em

arin

esc

ienc

epr

ogra

mm

efo

rth

eEa

ster

nA

fric

anre

gion

.Th

epr

ogra

mnm

eun

der-

take

sre

sear

chan

dtr

aini

ngac

tivi

ties

aim

edat

prov

idin

gth

esc

ient

ific

ca-

paci

tyre

quir

edto

form

ulat

em

an-

agem

ent

mea

sure

sfo

rth

esu

stai

n-ab

leus

eof

coas

tal

and

mar

ine

re-

sour

ces

inth

ere

gion

.

East

Afr

ican

coun

trie

sTh

eSI

DA

-IO

Cpr

ogra

mm

esai

mto

build

uphu

man

and

infr

astr

uctu

reca

paci

ties

inth

ere

gion

.Th

eybo

thpo

olth

eir

reso

urce

sto

geth

erfo

rth

epr

ogra

mm

e.Th

eSA

REC

-IO

Cpa

rtne

rshi

pus

edth

eIO

Cre

gion

alsu

b-si

diar

ybo

dy,I

OC

INC

WIO

toes

tabl

ish

regi

onal

mar

ine

trai

ning

and

rese

arch

prio

riti

esfo

rth

ere

gion

.

282

Nam

eO

bjec

tive

Mem

ber

stat

esSe

cret

aria

tO

ther

info

rmat

ion

Reg

iona

lEnv

iron

-m

ent

Prog

ram

me

ofth

eIn

dian

Oce

anC

omm

is-

sion

(IO

C)

Topr

omot

ea

regi

onal

polic

yfo

rth

esu

stai

nabl

em

anag

emen

tof

the

nat-

ural

reso

urce

sin

the

five

mem

ber

Stat

es

Isla

ndSt

ates

:Com

oros

,Re-

unio

n,M

adag

asca

r,M

auri

-ti

usan

dSe

yche

lles.

Seyc

helle

sTh

epr

ogra

mm

epr

ovid

essu

ppor

tfo

rna

tion

alpo

li-ci

eson

Inte

grat

edC

oast

alZ

one

Man

agem

ent

(IC

ZM

),w

hich

enco

urag

esth

ede

velo

pmen

tof

aco

here

ntgl

obal

appr

oach

toth

em

anag

emen

tof

natu

ral

re-

sour

ces

inth

ese

isla

ndSt

ates

East

Asi

anSe

as–

Reg

iona

lco

or-

dina

ting

unit

ofU

NEP

Con

cern

for

the

cons

eque

nces

and

caus

esof

envi

ronm

enta

lde

grad

a-ti

on,

and

enco

mpa

ssin

ga

com

pre-

hens

ive

appr

oach

toco

mpa

ctin

gen

-vi

ronm

enta

lpr

oble

ms

thro

ugh

the

man

agem

ent

ofm

arin

ean

dco

asta

lar

eas.

Aus

tral

ia,

Cam

bodi

a,C

hina

,Ind

ones

ia,R

.Kor

ea,

Mal

aysi

a,Ph

ilipp

ines

,Si

ngap

ore,

Thai

land

and

Vie

tNam

Bang

kok

Its

man

date

isto

co-o

rdin

ate,

whe

reap

prop

riat

e,th

eac

tivi

ties

ofgo

vern

men

ts,

non-

gove

rnm

ent

orga

niza

-ti

ons,

dono

rag

enci

es,U

Nag

enci

esan

din

divi

dual

sin

cari

ngfo

rth

em

arin

een

viro

nmen

tsof

East

Asi

anse

as.

Apa

rtfr

omco

-ord

inat

ion,

the

Uni

tob

tain

sfu

nds

toca

rry

out

mar

ine

man

agem

ent

issu

esan

dis

the

lead

agen

cyfo

rth

eU

nite

dN

atio

nsin

mar

ine

envi

ronm

en-

talm

atte

rsin

the

Reg

ion.

The

Sout

hA

sia

Co-

oper

ativ

eEn

viro

nmen

tPr

o-gr

amm

e(S

AC

EP)

Tofo

ster

subr

egio

nal

co-o

pera

tion

inth

ear

eas

ofsu

stai

nabl

ede

velo

p-m

ent.

Afg

hani

stan

,Ba

ngla

desh

,Bh

utan

,In

dia,

Mal

dive

s,N

epal

,Pa

kist

anan

dSr

iLa

nka.

Col

ombo

The

prog

ram

me

area

sin

clud

e:ap

acit

ybu

ildin

gan

din

-st

itut

iona

lstr

engt

heni

ng;c

onse

rvat

ion

and

sust

aina

ble

use

ofbi

odiv

ersi

ty;e

cosy

stem

sco

nser

vati

onan

dm

an-

agem

ent;

Envi

ronm

enta

linf

orm

atio

nan

das

sess

men

t;ed

ucat

ion

and

enha

ncem

ento

faw

aren

ess.

IOC

Reg

iona

lC

omm

itte

efo

rth

eC

entr

alIn

dian

Oce

an(I

OC

IND

IO)

Prom

otin

gm

arin

esc

ient

ific

inve

sti-

gati

ons

and

rela

ted

ocea

nse

rvic

es,

wit

ha

view

tole

arni

ngm

ore

abou

tth

ena

ture

and

reso

urce

sof

the

ocea

ns

New

Del

hiTh

eIO

Cco

-ope

rate

sw

ith

wit

hot

her

orga

-ni

zati

ons

and

prog

ram

mes

,in

clud

ing

UN

EP,

IMO

etc.

The

reis

asp

ecifi

cfo

cus

onIn

-te

grat

edC

oast

alA

rea

Man

agem

ent

and

Mar

ine

Pollu

tion

.

The

Stra

tegi

cPl

anof

Act

ion

onth

eEn

viro

nmen

t(S

PAE)

ofth

eA

SEA

N

Sets

out

spec

ific

and

mea

sura

ble

ac-

tion

sfo

rth

eob

ject

ives

inth

eH

aN

oiPl

anof

Act

ion

ofth

eA

SEA

N

Brun

eiD

arus

sala

m,

Cam

bodi

a,In

done

sia

Laos

,M

alay

sia,

Mya

n-m

ar,

Phili

ppin

esSi

ngap

ore,

Thai

land

Vie

tNam

Jaka

rta,

Indo

nesi

aTh

eac

tion

plan

has

apr

ojec

ton

the

“Reg

iona

lC

o-or

dina

tion

for

Inte

grat

edPr

otec

tion

and

Man

agem

ent

ofC

oast

alan

dM

arin

eEn

viro

nmen

t”

283

17 Selected References

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics, www.abs.gov.au .

2. Australian Institute of Marine Science, www.aims.gov.au/index-ie.html

3. Barkat, Abul and Roy, Prosanta K., 2001: Marine and Coastal Tenure/ Community- Based PropertyRights in Bangladesh: An Overview of Resources, and Legal and Policy Developments. In Marineand Coastal Resources and Community-based Property Rights: A Philippine Workshop. 12 - 15 June,2001.

4. Convention on Biological Diversity, www.biodiv.org

5. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, www.cites.org

6. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR), www.ramsar.org

7. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United Nations, www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

8. FAO, Country Profiles, www.fao.org/fi/fcp/fcp.asp

9. FAO, 1999: Number of Fishers-1970-1996, FAO Fisheries Circular No. 929, Revision 1, FAO: Rome

10. FAO, 1999: FAO Project for the Protection and Management of the Marine and Coastal Areas ofEastern Africa (EAF/5), 1999: Strategic Action Plan for Land-Based Sources and Activities Affect-ing the Marine Coastal and Associated Fresh Water Environment in the Eastern African Region.www.unep.org/water/regseas/eaf5/home.htm)

11. Holmgren, Staffan, 1994: An Environmental Assessment of the Bay of Bengal Region, SWEDMAR.BOBP/REP/67.

12. Integrated Coastal Management Profile, www.icm.noaa.gov/country/{\acro{ICM}}-pro.html

13. Nissapa, Ayut; Masae, Awae; Jungrungrot, Vichot; and Boromthanarat, Somsak, 1999: Managementof Fisheries, Coastal Resources and Coastal Environment in Thailand: Institutional, Legal and PolicyPerspectives, Working Paper No.1, Policy, Legal and Institutional Studies, ICLARM/ CORIN/ SIDA.

14. Reefbase, www.reefbase.org .

15. Sheppard, Charles. Eds. 2000: Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation. Volume II-Regional Chapters: The Indian Ocean to The Pacific.

16. Titahelu, Ronald Z. 2001. Marine and Coastal Natural Resources and Community-based PropertyRights: Indonesian Experience. In Marine and Coastal Resources and Community-based PropertyRights.

17. United Nations Environment Programme, www.unep.org .

18. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, www.unfccc.de .

19. Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA), www.wiomsa.or.tz .

20. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, www.wcmc.org.uk .

21. World Resource Institute, The Earth Trends, Environment Information Portal. (2000-2001) (www.wri.org )

284

Posters

285

286

287

288

Maps

289

290