An Option for Sustainable Management of
Fishery Resources in Deepor Beel
Co-management Approach
Sujan M. Henkanaththegedara
ECS 740: Fall 2007
Outline
•
Current status of the fishery
– Composition & Production
– Fishery regulation
•
Problems
– Unsustainable fishing practices
– Declaration of Wildlife Sanctuary
– Potential impacts of aquaculture
•
•
Possible solutions
Community based co-management
Fishery Resources
• 61 freshwater fish species
(Saikia 2005)
• 54 indigenous; 5 exotics
• 8 protected species (Wildlife
protection Act, 1972)
• 20 economically important
• 11 collect for ornamental trade
Labeo calbasu
Brachydanio rerio
Nandus nandus
Fishery Production
• Expectation: 90,000 tons/
year (Goswami and
Choudhury 1990)
• Harvest: 245 kg/hectare
(980 tons)
• Comparatively very high
yield (AFDC, Assam)
© Saikia, P A 2005
Fisher Community
• Traditional fishery
• More than 5000 people/1200
families depend on the fishery
• Community fishing during
winters.
© Saikia, P A 2005
© Saikia, P A 2005
Fishery Regulation
• Authority
– Assam Fisheries Development Corporation
– State Fisheries Department
• Lease government parts for commercial
fishery
• Private land owners also lease their
private land
New Proposals
• Development of pen and cage culture for
the rearing and propagation fish (Gauhati
University, Assam)
• Government Authority and some
interested parties propose aquaculture in
fringe areas
• Declaration of Deepor Beel as a Wildlife
Sanctuary
Problems Identified
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Unsustainable fishing practices
Declaration of Wildlife Sanctuary
Possible impacts of garbage dumping
Impacts of siltation
Possible impacts of exotic fish
Conservation implications for protected
species
7. Potential impacts of aquaculture
Problems Identified
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Unsustainable fishing practices
Declaration of Wildlife Sanctuary
Possible impacts of garbage dumping
Impacts of siltation
Possible impacts of exotic fish
Conservation implications for protected
species
7. Potential impacts of aquaculture
Unsustainable fishing practices
• Impacts
– Harmful fishing methods (eg. small mesh
size)
– Potential overharvesting (small size of fish,
possibly collapse the fishery)
• Possible solutions
– Closed areas/closed seasons
– Ban harmful fishing methods
– Close monitoring of illegal fishing
– Fisheries co-management
(Myers et al. 1997; Hambright and Shapiro 1997 )
Declaration of Wildlife Sanctuary
• Impacts
– Limitations to the fishery
– Serious conflicts between local people and
government
– Social and economical problems in local
communities
• Possible Solutions
– 10-20% core wildlife sanctuary
– Rest- Reserved wetland (human activities
permitted up to some extent)
Potential impacts of aquaculture
• Impacts
– Introduction of exotic species
– Pollution
– Eutrophication (mass fish kills!)
• Possible Solutions
– A proper cost-benefit analysis
– If necessary, based on native species
– If necessary, locate beyond the fringe areas
What to do?
• Beel fishery is still UNDERUTILIZED.
• Need to manage the fishery PROPERLY,
– To meet maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
– To improve the living standards
– To fulfill the local protein requirement
– To reduce the unemployment
• What is the need of AQUACULTURE?
What is Co-management?
• A partnership arrangement between,
–
–
–
–
Government agencies
Local fisher community
NGOs
Other stakeholders
• Share the responsibility and authority for the
management of a fishery.
• Integrate local (informal, traditional) and
government management systems.
• Power-sharing between government and
fishermen (Pomeroy 1998).
What is Co-management?
Fishers
External Agent
Government
Aarnayak
Assam Fish. Dev.
Cooperation
Gauhati University
Fisheries
Management
State Fish. Dept.
Local stakeholders
Fisheries Stakeholders
Tourism
Boat owners
Transportation
Fish traders
Money lenders
Modified after Pomeroy 1998
Co-management
Resource-oriented
studies to define
fishery regulations
Proper regulation
of fishing permits
Active
government or
NGO mediation
Implementing
fishery regulations
Monitoring the
fishery
Organize fisheries
co-operative
society
Banning harmful
fishing methods
Social welfare
Maintenance of
fisheries cooperative society
Modified after Amarasinghe and De Silva 1999
Enhance fish
production and
improve living
standards
Acknowledgements
• Dr. Achintya N. Bezbaruah, Civil
Engineering Department, NDSU for his
guidance and support
• Dr. Prasanta Kumar Saikia, Department of
Zoology, Gauhati University, India for kind
sharing of data
• Fellow colleagues for their valuable inputs
References cited
• Amarasinghe, U.S. and S.S. De Silva. 1999. Sri Lankan reservoir
fishery: a case for introduction of a co-management stratergy. Fisheries
Management and Ecology. 6: 387-399.
• Goswami, B. and A.S. Choudhury. 1990. Deepor Beel- A gold mine for
socio-economic upliftment. Press release. INSTER/ Deepor III/ 89- Misc.
3pp.
• Hambright, K. D. and J. Shapiro. 1997. The 1993 collapse of the Lake
Kinneret bleak fishery. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 4: 275-283,
• Myers, R. A., J. A. Hutchings and N. J. Barrowman. 1997. Why do Fish
Stocks Collapse? The Example of Cod in Atlantic Canada. Ecological
Applications. 7: 91-106.
• Pomeroy, R. S. 1998. A process for community-based fisheries comanagement. Naga. January-March. ICLARM. 71-76.
• Saikia, P.K. 2005. Qualitative and quantitative study of lower and higher
organisms and their functional role in the Deepor Beel ecosystem. 96
pp.
• http://gu.nic.in/html/faculty/Zoology.htm. Accessed in 11/28/07
• http://www.co-management.org/. Accessed in 12/08/07
• http://www.seagrant.uconn.edu/COMGMT.PDF. Accessed in 12/08/07
Comments?
Questions?