DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY / WORLD BANK
FOURTH FISHERIES PROJECT
AQUATIC RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, MANAGEMENT
AND CONSERVATION STUDIES
FRY COLLECTION ACTION PLAN
DRAFT
PL FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION
BY DR. GIASUDDIN KHAN
AUGUST 2002
PROJECT OFFICE
SENA KALYAN BHABAN (7TH FLOOR)
195 MOTIJHEEL C/A
GPO BOX 2608
DHAKA-1000
BANGLADESH
1322-R-53-A
TEL: 02-955-2149
FAX: +880-2-956-5127
E-MAIL: office@gef-fish.com
WEBSITE: http://www.gef-fish.com
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.4
1.4.1
1.4.2
2
THE ISSUES....................................................................................................................... 1
THE COASTAL AQUATIC ECOLOGY OF BANGLADESH (TH) ............................................ 2
The Coastal Environment ................................................................................................ 2
Fisheries Resources and their Exploitation ..................................................................... 3
Key Habitat Dependencies and PL Growth ..................................................................... 4
IMPACT OF PL COLLECTION ON AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY ............................................... 5
Synthesis of Existing Studies ............................................................................................ 5
Regional and International Context............................................................................... 11
ACTION PLAN AND STUDY OBJECTIVES ........................................................................ 12
Background .................................................................................................................... 12
Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 13
APPROACH ........................................................................................................................... 14
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
BASELINE INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 14
ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 14
GIS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 14
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 15
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
4
DISTRIBUTION AND SEASONALITY OF FRY COLLECTION .............................................. 15
Effort .............................................................................................................................. 15
Distribution and Seasonal Use of Gears ....................................................................... 17
CATCH COMPOSITION AND ABUNDANCE ...................................................................... 21
Spatial Distribution of Catch Composition and Abundance .......................................... 21
Seasonal Variation in Distribution of Catch Components............................................. 23
Temporal and spatial changes in abundance of tiger shrimp P. monodon PL .............. 28
Geographical Distribution of Catch Composition and Abundance ............................... 31
Historical Changes in Spatial Distribution and Abundance ......................................... 36
Historical changes in seasonal distribution and abundance ......................................... 37
BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 48
Relative mortality and biodiversity impact assessment ................................................. 48
Areas of major by-catch loss ......................................................................................... 52
Relative Mortality by Gear Type.................................................................................... 56
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 59
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
Feb-16
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 59
Distribution and Seasonality of Fry Collection ............................................................. 59
Catch Composition ........................................................................................................ 59
Gear Distribution and Selectivity .................................................................................. 59
By-catch Seasonality ...................................................................................................... 60
Synthesis ........................................................................................................................ 60
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 61
Seasonal and Closures ................................................................................................... 61
Other Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 61
Further Work ................................................................................................................. 61
Fry Collection Action Plan
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 62
APPENDIX B: THE SHRIMP AND PRAWN FARMING SECTORS IN BANGLADESH ...................................................... 65
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF RESEARCH INTO POST LARVAE COLLECTION IN BANGLADESH ......................................... 5
TABLE 2: CATCH CONSTITUENTS (%) BY REGION (BFRI/BARC, 2001) ................................................................. 6
TABLE 3: TOTAL PRODUCTION AND EFFORT IN BAGDA FRY COLLECTION (1999/2000) ....................................... 15
TABLE 4: PRODUCTION AND EFFORT IN BAGDA FRY COLLECTION IN CHITTAGONG DIVISION (1999/2000) ......... 15
TABLE 5: PRODUCTION AND EFFORT IN BAGDA FRY COLLECTION IN BARISAL DIVISION (1999/2000)................. 16
TABLE 6: PRODUCTION AND EFFORT IN BAGDA FRY COLLECTION IN KHULNA DIVISION (1999/2000) ................. 16
TABLE 7: SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FRY COLLECTING GEARS .......................................... 18
TABLE 8: FFP – GEF SURVEY OF PL GEAR TYPES IN DIFFERENT SAMPLING SITES 2002 ........................................ 18
TABLE 9: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF PL COLLECTING GEARS 1989/90 ....... 19
TABLE 10: SOURCES OF P. MONODON PL AND COST FOR PL IN SAMPLE SHRIMP FARMS UNDER 4 COASTAL
DISTRICTS ............................................................................................................................................. 67
TABLE 11: PRICES FOR GOLDA PL......................................................................................................................... 69
Figures
FIGURE 1: SEQUENTIAL GEAR UTILISATION FOR TARGETING LIFE STAGES OF P. MONODON .................................. 9
FIGURE 2: SCISSOR NET USED TO CATCH PLS IN ECUADOR ................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 3: NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF PL COLLECTION GEARS (DOF 99-00 & GEF 2002) ........................... 17
FIGURE 4: SEASONAL USE OF PL COLLECTION GEARS (BOBP 1989-1990) .......................................................... 20
FIGURE 5: PL AND OTHER CATCH COMPONENTS IN DIFFERENT SAMPLING STATIONS (1999-2000) ..................... 21
FIGURE 6: PL AND OTHER CATCH COMPONENTS BY DISTRICT (1999-2000) ......................................................... 22
FIGURE 7: MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF P. MONODON PLS IN DIFFERENT RIVERS ................................................. 22
FIGURE 8: SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF P. MONODON BY DISTRICT ...................................................................... 24
FIGURE 9: SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF ‘OTHER SHRIMPS’ BY DISTRICT............................................................... 25
FIGURE 10: SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF MACROINVERTEBRATES BY DISTRICT .................................................. 26
FIGURE 11: SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF FINFISH BY DISTRICT ............................................................................ 27
FIGURE 12:CATCH RATES FOR P. MONODON PLS BY DISTRICT (1993 – 1999)....................................................... 28
FIGURE 13: COMPOSITION OF (A) P. MONODON AND (B) OTHER SHRIMP ON SAMPLE CATCHES............................. 28
FIGURE 14:SEASONAL ABUNDANCE OF P. MONODON IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS .................................................... 29
FIGURE 15: CATCH COMPOSITION BY GEAR TYPE (1989/90) ................................................................................ 33
FIGURE 16: GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF CATCH COMPOSITION................................................................... 34
FIGURE 17: HISTORICAL CHANGES IN SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF P. MONODON ..................... 37
FIGURE 18: HISTORICAL CHANGES IN SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF ‘OTHER SHRIMP’ ................ 40
FIGURE 19: HISTORICAL CHANGES IN SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF MACROZOOPLANKTON ...... 42
FIGURE 20: HISTORICAL CHANGES IN SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF FINFISH.............................. 45
FIGURE 21: PEAK BY-CATCH SEASONALITY (BY DISTRICT) .................................................................................. 48
FIGURE 22: SEASONAL VARIATION IN CATCH COMPOSITION IN 1993 (BY DISTRICT) ............................................ 49
FIGURE 23: SEASONAL VARIATION IN CATCH COMPOSITION IN 1996 (BY DISTRICT) ............................................ 50
FIGURE 24: SEASONAL VARIATION IN CATCH COMPOSITION IN 1999 (BY DISTRICT) ............................................ 51
FIGURE 25: AREAS OF MAJOR BY-CATCH LOSS (1990) ......................................................................................... 52
FIGURE 26: AREAS OF MAJOR BY-CATCH LOSS (1993) ......................................................................................... 53
FIGURE 27: AREAS OF MAJOR BY-CATCH LOSS (1996) ......................................................................................... 53
FIGURE 28: AREAS OF MAJOR BY-CATCH LOSS 1999) .......................................................................................... 54
FIGURE 29: AREAS OF MAJOR BY-CATCH LOSS (2002)......................................................................................... 55
FIGURE 30:MORTALITY RATES IN DIFFERENT GEAR TYPES .................................................................................. 56
FIGURE 31: SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF BY-CATCH (ALL SPECIES, MILLIONS) BY GEAR TYPE................................ 56
FIGURE 32: SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF BY-CATCH (P. MONODON, MILLIONS) BY GEAR TYPE............................... 57
FIGURE 33: DISTRICT-WISE CATCH COMPOSITION OF DIFFERENT GEAR TYPES .................................................... 57
FIGURE 34: CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT FOR SHRIMP COLLECTION (1989/90) ......................................................... 57
FIGURE 35: SEASONAL ABUNDANCE OF P. MONODON CATCH (OVER 1 HOUR) ...................................................... 58
FIGURE 36: SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES COMPOSITION (BY GEAR TYPE) 1989-90 .................................... 58
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Acronyms and Abbreviations
1º
Primary
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
2º
Secondary
EUS
Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome
ADB
Asian Development Bank
ESBN
Estuarine Setbag Net
AFO
Assistant Fisheries Officer
FAO
BBS
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics
Food and Agricultural Organisation
(of the United Nations)
BCAS
Bangladesh Centre for Advanced
Studies
FAP
Flood Action Plan
FCD
Flood Control and Drainage
BFRI
Bangladesh Fisheries Research
Institute
FCD/I
Flood Control and Drainage with or
without Irrigation
BOBP
Bay of Bengal Programme
FFP
Fourth Fisheries Project
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
FGD
Focus Group Discussion
BWDB
Bangladesh Water Development
Board
FMC
Fisheries Management Committee
FRSS
Fisheries Resource Survey System
CAGES
Cage Aquaculture for Greater
Economic Security
FSMF
Fish Seed Multiplication Farms
CAP
Community Analysis Package
FTC
Fisheries Training Centre
CAS
Catch Assessment Survey
FTEP
Fisheries Training and Extension
Project
CBFM
Community Based Fisheries
Management Project
GBM
Ganges – Brahmaputra – Meghna
CCA
Canonical Correspondence
Analysis
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIFT
CEN
Coalition for Environmental
NGOs
Genetically Improved Farmed
Tilapia
GIS
Geographic Information System
CNRS
Centre for Natural Resources
Studies
GoB
Government of Bangladesh
GOLDA
Greater Options for Local
Development in Aquaculture
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
CPUA
Catch Per Unit Area
GoN
Government of the Netherlands
CPUE
Catch Per Unit Effort
GPS
Global Positioning System
CZWMP
Coastal Zone Water Management
Programme
GSI
Gonado-Somatic Index
HFMAP
Hilsa Fisheries Management Action
Plan
ICLARM
International Centre for Living
Aquatic Resource Management
DAE
Department of Agricultural
Extension
DEM
Digital Elevation Model
DfID
Department for International
Development
ICZM
Integrated Coastal Zone
Management
dO2
Dissolved oxygen
IMC
Indian Major Carps
DoF
Department of Fisheries
INTERFISH Integrated Rice and Fish
DPD
Deputy Project Director
IUCN
DT
Divisional Trainer (of DoF)
International Union for the
Conservation of Nature
EBA
Endemic Bird Area
IWTC
Inland Water Transport Company
EGIS
Environment and GIS Support
Project for Water Sector Planning
LF
Length Frequency
LFA
Logical Framework Analysis
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
LGED
1322-R-053-A
Local Government and
Engineering Department
NFP
National Fisheries Policy
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
m
Metre(s)
NWRD
National Water Resources Database
m/s
Metre per second
PCD
Project Co-ordinating Director
MACH
Management of Aquatic
Ecosystems through Community
Husbandry
PL
Post-larvae
PMU
Project Management Unit
mg/l
Milligram per litre
PP
Project Proforma
MoEF
Ministry of Environment and
Forest
ppt
Parts per thousand (‰)
SD
Standard Deviation
Ministry of Livestock and
Fisheries
SEMP
Sustainable Environmental
Management Programme
SGR
Specific Growth Rate
SIA
Strategic Impact Assessment
SIS
Small Indigenous Species
MoFL
MoLGRDC Ministry of Local Government,
Rural Development and Cooperation
MoU
Memorandum of Understanding
MoWR
Ministry of Water Resources
MSBN
Marine Set Bag Net
MSY
Maximum Sustainable Yield
Mt
SPARRSO (Bangladesh) Space Research and
Remote Sensing Organisation
SUFER
Support for University Fisheries
Education and Research
Metric tonnes (i.e. 1000 kg)
TAP
Training Activity Plan (FFP)
MTR
Mid-term Review
TFP
Third Fisheries Project
NACA
Network for Aquaculture Centres
in Asia-Pacific
Tk.
Taka (approx. 57 Tk. = 1US$)
UNDP
NEDA
Netherlands Development
Agency
United Nations Development
Programme
VMC
Village Management Committee
NEMAP
National Environment
Management Action Plan
WARPO
Water Resources Planning
Organisation
NFD
National Fisheries Database
WSSV
White Spot Syndrome Virus
NFEP
Northwest Fisheries Extension
Project
WB
World Bank
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1
1322-R-053-A
BACKGROUND
1.1 THE ISSUES
Since the development of shrimp farming in Bangladesh in the 1980’s (see Appendix B: The Shrimp
and Prawn Farming Sectors in Bangladesh for details), the supply of P. monodon PL for stocking in
the extensive ghers has come from a wild fishery that has sprung up around the estuarine rivers and
creeks of SW Bangladesh as well as the rivers and shores of Cox’s Bazar in the east. Over recent year
this has been joined by the demand for the PLs of freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii. The
recent success of P. monodon hatcheries has reduced the number of wild fry being collected
substantially but there is still a strong farmer-driven demand.
Even since the late 80’s, studies have shown that this wild PL collection is not without cost.
Indiscriminate means of fishing resulted in high levels of by-catch with as yet unquantified
biodiversity impacts on the coastal ecosystem and its dependant communities. This has prompted
successive call as for a restriction of the PL collection but only with the advent of a successful shrimp
hatchery sector in the last two years has this become a viable proposition that would not damage the
nationally important shrimp production. The year 2000 was a strong year for PL production from
both wild and hatchery sources, resulting in historically low prices, prompting the formation of the
Shrimp Hatchery Association of Bangladesh (SHAB) who lobbied the Government for a ban on wild
fry collection. DoF then produced position paper on wild PL collection and suggested a seasonal
(Feb-June/July) and spatial (Cox’s Bazar – Teknaf and Sunderbans) ban on wild PL collection. This
management plan was based only on the abundance of wild shrimp and did not consider by-catch
levels. Neither were the social impacts considered in the preparation of the management plan as it was
considered that the PL collection industry was relatively new (i.e. <15 years old), so not relevant. A
subsequent meeting at MoFL turned recommendation into a complete ban as a targeted approach was
considered too difficult to enforce and would require the development of a traceability system. The
ban was announced in September 2001 but after agreement with DFID was put into abeyance in
February 2002.
The issues are fairly simple:
1. Wild PL collection probably has a significant impact on both P. monodon stocks, which are
already threatened by other fisheries (trawling as well as the set bag nets).
2. Wild PL collection also has wider implications to coastal biodiversity and productivity
through the high level of by-catch associated with the indiscriminate methods of collection
used.
3. Although the majority of PLs are collected from the Chittagong - Cox’s Bazar coast, the main
effort is in the SW where catch per unit effort is lower and by-catch levels higher.
4. PL collection in the Sunderbans is considered especially damaging – the ADB/GEF
Sunderbans Biodiversity Conservation Project has recommended a complete ban on PL
collection.
5. Wild PL collection has become an important income generation opportunity for a large
number of people over the last two decades.
6. The increasing success of hatcheries and the acceptability of hatchery-bred PLs indicates that
the proportion of wild fry used will drop from the current 40% (of P. monodon), although
some residual demand (10-15%?) will likely remain. Over the longer-term this issue will
decline in importance.
The challenge therefore is to develop a short-term fisheries management plan that focuses on
biodiversity ‘hotspots’ yet is sensitive to the large numbers of people currently dependent upon PL
collection. Essentially this requires a spatial and temporal analysis of fishing effort, targeted catch
rates and by-catch levels that is then overlaid with a comparative assessment of the socio-economic
and livelihood sensitivities. Based on this, a sensitive ‘exit strategy’ for widespread wild PL
collection and its actors can be devised and presented to the Government for their consideration.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 1
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
1.2 THE COASTAL AQUATIC ECOLOGY OF BANGLADESH (TH)
1.2.1
The Coastal Environment
The Bangladesh coastal zone includes coastal plains, islands, tidal flats, estuaries, neritic and offshore
waters. It extends to the Bay of Bengal at the edge of a wide (about 200 km) continental shelf. The
coastal zone is intersected by a vast river network, a dynamic estuarine system, a drainage basin
covering also parts of India, Nepal, Bhutan and China draining into the Bay of Bengal. The land area
of the coastal zone is about 42,154 km2.
The coast of Bangladesh can be broadly divided into three distinct geo-morphological regions:
1. The western region includes the Sunderbans, world’s largest patch of naturally occurring
mangroves. The Sunderbans stretches farther west into India.
2. The central region is situated between eastern and western regions. Most of the combined flow of
the GBM (Ganges - Brahmaputra - Meghna) system is discharged through this low-lying area.
The lower Meghna river-estuary is highly influenced by tidal interactions and consequential
backwater effect. Heavy sediment inputs from the rivers result in a morphologically dynamic
coastal zone. Cyclones and storm surges bring about most catastrophic damage. The estimated
population in the coastal zone is about 32 million.
3. The eastern region extending from Big Feni River to Badar Mokam, the southern tip of the main
land. This part is more or less unbroken, characterised by flat muddy and sandy beaches, a
degraded natural mangrove forest in the estuarine zone of the Mathamuhuri River. Karnaphuli,
Shangu, Mathamuhuri, Baakhali, and Naf Rivers discharge fresh water through the plains.
The coastal zone of Bangladesh houses several natural mangrove forest ecosystems, including the
famous Sunderbans (literally ‘beautiful forests’). These forests are transitional zones between fresh
and marine waters, and are particularly rich in flora and fauna. Sundri, Hertiera fomes, gewa
Excoecaria agallocha and goran Ceriops decandra are the most abundant species among the flora.
Dicotyledonous tree species are represented by 310 genera under 22 families. Rhizophoraceae is
represented by at least 6 species. There are 12 species of shrubs, 11 climbers, 13 orchids and 7 species
of ferns in the Sunderbans. In addition, the forests support 425 species of wildlife including mammals,
birds, reptiles and amphibians. Among fishery resources, the water bodies within Sunderbans harbour
63 species of pelagic fish, 124 demersal species, 24 species of shrimps, 3 lobsters. This mangrove
ecosystem also provides ecological support as nursery for many marine invertebrates including fresh
water giant prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii.
The Sunderbans has been declared a World Heritage Site, being the single largest compact
mangroves. The dimensions and richness of biodiversity in the Sunderbans is also proven by the
availability of 3,033 tons of fish, 375 tons of mud crabs, 3,600 tons of oyster shells and 35 tons of
gastropod shells, which are obtained from the forest every year (Chantarasri, 1994). In addition 1,500
million bagda shrimp P. monodon post-larvae are collected from estuaries within the Sunderbans.
The Sunderbans is currently the attention of the GEF / ADB / GoN Sunderbans Biodiversity
Conservation Project.
The coastal areas are endowed with both fresh and brackish water resources. During monsoon there is
abundant fresh water, whereas during winter there is scarcity. Due to reduced flows during winter, the
surface water systems suffer from saline water intrusion, making the resource unavailable for
agriculture, domestic and industrial use. The ground water aquifers in the coastal districts are under
growing stress of salinisation resulting from over-extraction. Anticipated sea level rise and low river
flows would contribute substantially to this stress. Winter agriculture in the coastal areas is dependent
on ground water. Rural water supply is almost entirely dependent on fresh water source.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 2
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1.2.2
1322-R-053-A
Fisheries Resources and their Exploitation
The key coastal species are shrimp Penaeus monodon (tiger shrimp), Penaeus indicus (Indian white
shrimp), and Metapenaeus monoceros (brown shrimp), hilsa, pomfret, catfish, hairtail, croaker, shark,
Indian salmon, Bombay duck and jewfish. Majority of the traditionally exploited stocks, with the
possible exception of hilsa, are believed to be over exploited. By far the vast majority of species
prosecuted are demersal. The singular exception to this is hilsa, a shad which is euryhaline marine
species and undertakes anadromous migration into the freshwater river systems. Hilsa in the
freshwater river systems are generally reported to be over-exploited. During their spawning migration
gravid hilsa are caught in the rivers and the young hilsa (jatka) are indiscriminately caught in the river
systems during their backward migration to the sea (Miah et al 1997, Mazid 1998, Blaber et al 1998).
Mazid 1998 and Haldar et al 1998 have reported the recent trend of decline in the hilsa catches in the
river systems. Hilsa is highly migratory and a regionally distributed species (BoBP,1985).
The marine fishery sector is believed to comprise some 38,000 vessels employing around 194,000
fishers (and support staff). The number is variable since there are no definitive data available to
corroborate the total number. Estimates of total landings range from around 330,000 to 590,000 t,
valued at Tk 34,000 M or US $ 603 M. 73% of the fleets catch is caught by the commercial gill net
sector. This fleet uses a combination of small meshed gill nets, large meshed gill nets and estuarine
gill nets. Another increasing popular method used by the commercial/intermediate fleet is long
lining. Artisanal/coastal vessels make up some 23% of the total landings composition. These vessels
use estuarine set bag nets and beach seines. Around one third of these vessels also participate in the
small mesh gill net fishery targeting hilsa. These two sectors are commonly referred to as the artisanal
fleet. Together, these two sections of the fleet have 191,000 workers engaged in the sector. The sector
as a whole is believed to be continually growing as the population the coastal villages continue to
increase. The most significant growth area is in the coastal/artisanal fleet. The concern is that the
fishing methods practised by this section of the fleet have no selectivity, and fishing largely takes
place in nursery areas and in river estuaries, thus intercepting under sized migratory species.
In addition to the commercial and artisanal sector, 444,000 workers (124,000 households) are actively
engaged in post larvae collection. Around 2,000 M post larvae are collected annually. There are two
separate target fisheries: one for Penaeus monodon (Tiger shrimp) and another for Macrobrachium
rosenbergii (Giant freshwater prawn). In both fisheries there are high by-catches of other shrimp and
fish species.
Industrial trawlers comprise 75 vessels, of which 45 are shrimp freezer vessels, 7 are finfish freezers
and the remainder, trawlers. The sector accounts for around 5 % of the total catch (12,000 t) and
employs 3,000 workers including on shore support staff. This sector, particularly, the shrimp trawlers,
are known to catch a high quantity of by-catch species (35-45,000 t) (White and Khan 1985, Khan et
al 1994). Whilst this may be landed, the by-catch element is clearly significant in the context of the
relative share of catch (10-20 %) of the total, and its impact on the other fisheries.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 3
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1.2.3
1.2.3.1
1322-R-053-A
Key Habitat Dependencies and PL Growth
Habitat Dependencies
Shrimp productivity has long been associated with inter-tidal vegetation, especially mangrove areas.
Mangrove ecosystems have high measured levels of productivity and although much of this is
recycled within a complex food web, a substantial component is also exported to adjacent sublittoral
areas as leaf litter, detritus and dissolved organic matter. 50-70% of net primary production falls as
leaf litter, which acts as the main source of detritus in the mangrove ecosystem that supports a wide
range of detritivores and their predators. The mangrove root system acts as a sediment trap that
enhances bacterial activity prompting the role of mangrove mud as an important carbon sink.
Mangrove muds are thought to have a high capacity to absorb nutrients and the detritus and dissolved
organic material in mangrove soil support bacterial production in the range of 0.2 - 10 g C m-3 d-1.
Many commercially important aquatic food species such as penaeid shrimp and fish are associated
with mangroves, which provide a nursery ground for juveniles. This may be due the physical refuge
from predation, and also form the greater abundance of suitable zooplankton prey. Typically fishery
yields associated with mangroves are higher than those obtained in adjacent coastal waters.
The shallow mangrove waters, abundance of food, and absence of predators are ideal for young
organisms to thrive. Underneath the mangroves, soft soils provide an excellent habitat for burrowing
prawns and other mud dwellers. The nutrient humic layer provides food for the herbivores found in
the mangroves. Through continuous tidal movements, these nutrients also supply species in
surrounding estuaries and coral reefs. During the postlarvae stage the shrimp enter the estuaries along
the coast to become bottom feeders. In the estuaries the juvenile shrimp feed at the mangrove-water
interface. These areas offer a concentrated food supply of detritus, algae and microfauna and some
protection from predators. Both the growth and survival of the young shrimp are largely dependent on
local salinity and temperature regimes. Juvenile shrimp require copper for their body fluid during
development and thus mangroves soils provide an excellent source for this mineral.
Turner (1977) proved a positive relationship between shrimp yields, the latitude and the area of intertidal vegetation over 25 locations in Asia and the Americas. Pauly and Ingles (1986) took this work
further and hypothesised a nonlinear relationship between intertidal vegetation and the maximum
sustainable yield for shrimp production. The equation that Pauly and Ingles estimate is the following:
Log10 (MSY) = 2.41 + 0.4875 Log10 (vegetation) - 0.212 (degrees latitude)
R = 0.726
These types of quantification analyses are used to calculate the potential fisheries losses resulting
from the loss of mangrove areas.
1.2.3.2
PL Growth and Recruitment
In aquatic populations, the impact of harvesting early life stages on yield and spawning stock biomass
is dependent on details of the recruitment process that are poorly understood. Although overall
survival from the egg stage to recruitment is highly density-dependent, the crucial question with
respect to PL harvesting is whether density-dependence occurs primarily before or after the PL stage
(Lorenzen, unpublished). If density dependence occurs after the PL stage, then the harvesting of PL
would have little effect on recruitment unless spawning stocks are at a very low level. If, on the other
hand, density-dependence occurs mainly before the PL stage and survival from PL to recruitment is
density-independent, then PL harvesting would have a direct and proportional effect on recruitment
and fishery yield. This crucial question is impossible to resolve without a better understanding of the
recruitment process, which may be gained from ecological studies and/or statistical analysis of time
series of fisheries data (including PL catches).
For P. monodon in Bangladesh coastal waters, Khan and Latif (1997) give growth parameters of
l∞=31 cm, k-1.1/year and a natural mortality rate of 2.0/year in the adult phase (l r = 20 cm). Similar
values have been reported from other tropical penaeid shrimp fisheries (Wang et al 1995, Wang and
Haywood 1999).
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 4
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
1.3 IMPACT OF PL COLLECTION ON AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY
1.3.1
Synthesis of Existing Studies
Most marine and freshwater shrimps occupy the coastal, estuarine and brackishwater environment
during early stages of their life cycle. Work on the occurrence and abundance of shrimp and finfish
larvae area is essential to understand the population dynamics and magnitude of the adult stock and
their contribution to fisheries. The knowledge of the seasonal abundance and fluctuation of shrimp
and finfish larvae in relating to time, tide and season and loss of valuable aquatic organisms as bycatch during collection of P. monodon PL as a target species are also helpful for managing the
collection and utilization of shrimp larvae. However, reliable data on catch statistics of shrimp and fin
fish larvae, number of people involved in shrimp fry catching, types of gear used to collect P.
monodon post-larva and effect of shrimp seed collection on aquatic biodiversity is limited and
fragmentary. The previous studies are summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Summary of Research into Post Larvae Collection in Bangladesh
Data period
Title (see Appendix A for full reference)
Institutions
Key authors
03/2001 –
04/2001
Fry collectors’ livelihood study
FFP &
BCAS
AHG Quddus
et al.., 2001
03/1998 –
10/2000
Survey and assessment of shrimp fry and other
aquatic resources
BFRI &
BARC
Shahidul Islam
et al., 2001
1995
Shrimp harvest, fry collection and transportation. In:
shrimp biology and culture management Bangladesh
Momin
Press, Dhaka
Paul, S. K.
12/1992 –
11/1993
A study of the damage caused to crustacean and
finfish larvae during collection of Penaeus monodon
PL in the estuaries of Barguna, Bangladesh
BFRI
SL Rahman et
al.., 1997
1993
Shrimp fry collection. In: Studies of interactive
marine fisheries of Bangladesh.BOBP/WP/89
BOBP
Paul et al.,
1992
The estuarine set bagnet fisheries of Bangladesh. Bay
of Bengal News. Issue no. 47, Madras, India: 1-10.
BOBP
Anon
01/1992 –
12/1992
Extent of damage to different crustaceans and
finfishes in collecting Penaeus monodon PL in
Satkhira Coastal Region
BFRI
MM Islam et
al.., 1996
12/89 –
11/91
Biosocioeconomic assessment of the effect of
estuarine set bagnet on the marine fisheries of
Bangladesh
BOBP
G Khan et al..,
1994
1990
Study on colossal loss of shell fish and finfish PL of
indiscriminate catch of P. monodon PL along the
coastal waters of Cox'’ Bazar and Teknaf.
CU
Alam, M. M,
1990
1990
An assessment of the quantum of damage caused the
zooplankton while fishing bagda shrimp Penaeus
monodon fry in Bangladesh estuaries.
CU
Mahmood N,
1990
1986
Shrimp fry collection (P. monodon) in Satkhira
district, Bangladesh. Fish Development Series 19.
National Swedish Board of Fisheries , Gothenburg,
Sweden
NSBF
Larsson, K
1986
Shrimp fry any to sell? Come to Satkhira,
Bangladesh. Bay of Bengal News, Issue no. 22; 2-6.
BOBP
Funegaard, P.
1980
On the occurrence of post-larvae at Banskhali estuary
and adjacent areas of Cox's Bazar with notes on their
utilisation in aquaculture
CU/UGC
Dhaka
Mahmood N,
YSA Khan
1980
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 5
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
An important work has been carried out through BFRI during the period between 1991 to 2000 on
aquatic biodiversity in the different rivers and shores of south-west viz., Khulna, Satkhira, Bagerhat,
Patuakahali, Barguna and Bhola districts; and south-eastern part viz., Chittagong, Cox’s Bazar, Teknaf
and Noakhali districts. However, they only published the data during the period between March 1998
and October 2000, (Islam et al. 2001). Some of scientists who worked for that project made individual
publications in different scientific journals. The BFRI/BARC report is limited in that they selected
and collected the samples from one or two places from each selected river and gear operated (1.6m x
0.6m) in the shallow waters only for about 10 minutes as a unit effort. Also, the study was considered
only their own sampling data rather than commercial data for examine the aquatic biodiversity. The
sample size was too small for the estimation of more viable and accurate data regarding catch
statistics, loss and aquatic biodiversity during PL collection. However, during the collection of bagda
PL, they mostly identified by catch aquatic organisms up to major taxonomic group. BFRI/BARC
(2001) report did not mentioned the sampling timing (i.e. period or which day of new moon /and full
moon) and tidal phase (i.e. time or period of high tide/low tide), peak availability in relation to tidal
phase etc.
The BFRI/BARC (1998 – 2000) found the proportion of P. monodon up to 10 fold higher in Cox’s
Bazar than other regions
Table 2: Catch Constituents (%) by Region (BFRI/BARC, 2001)
Region
P. monodon
larvae
Min
Max
Other shrimp
larvae
Finfish larvae
Min
Min
Max
Max
Zooplankton
Min
Max
Satkhira
0.2
0.2
7.3
35.6
6.2
7.8
59.3
90.4
Khulna
0.6
0.9
18.9
40.5
1.5
9.9
53.6
87.5
Bagerhat
<0.1
0.2
6.0
42.1
9.6
19.0
58.3
73.7
Patuakahali
<0.1
0.4
12.3
39.6
2.2
18.8
41.4
89.2
Noakhali
0.3
0.3
33.3
35.4
23.2
25.3
38.9
43.1
Cox’s Bazar
2.2
2.4
9.2
14.0
25.7
72.7
52.6
55.3
Islam et al, (2001, BFRI/BARC) also estimated that about 61.7 million, 6.7 million, 14.3 million,
222.8 million, 13.8 million and 816.7 million of bagda PL were harvested in Khulna, Satkhira,
Bagerhat, Patuakahali, Noakhali and Cox’s Bazar coastal region respectively.
Mahmood and Khan (1980), Ahmed (1983), Amin (1977), Hossain (1984), Funegaard (1986), Paul et
al., (1993), Majid (1994a), Majid (1994b), Majid and Haque (1995) and Aquatic Farm Ltd., (1986)
have considered on the abundance of penaeid post larvae and juveniles. Funegaard (1986), Larsson
and Funegaard (1986), Mahmood (1986) described the gears and methods used in fishing of bagda
shrimp fry in the estuarine and near shore waters and where they also examine the sorting procedure
of bagda fry. Funegaard (1986) also made observation on the vulnerability of bagda fry with
simultaneous destruction of zooplankton communities along the coastal belt of Satkhira based on only
6 weeks observation which is too little for highlighting the prevailing condition of shrimp fry fishing
in Bangladesh. Mahmood (1990) paid attention providing a first hand assessment on the quantum of
damage caused to zooplankton while collecting of bagda PL during the period between June, 1982
and July, 1983 in Chakaria, Satkhira and Khepupara. Mahmood (1990) also recorded that for fishing a
single individual of P. monodon PL, 1,631 zooplankton was destroyed. It is worthwhile to mention
here that Mahmood used a rectangular net with low mesh size (0.5mm), whereas mainly the seed
collectors used nylon net with double mesh size (1mm). So, by using gear with selective mesh size
may help to reduce the destruction of aquatic organisms.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 6
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Paul et al., (1993) reported that fry collection increased rapidly in the greater Khulna, Patuakahali,
and Cox’s Bazar region to meet the increasing demand. It was also estimated that average catch rate
of P. monodon larvae was 35 fry/day for PN (push net) and 70 fry/day for FBN (fixed bag net).
Subsequently, approximately 60,000 or more fry collectors were found to be engaged in this activity.
Larsson (1986) and Funegaard (1986) estimated the catch of 200/fry/day/gear (all types mixed) in the
peak season in Satkhira district. Larsson (1986) also noted that in the peak season even 2,000
fry/day/gear were collected.
Khan et al., (1986) worked on the effects on shrimps stock in relation to exploitation manner and
UBINIG (1987) did a short survey work on the status of shrimp fry collectors. In 1993 Khan reported
that about 2,035 million PL were annually collected by the shrimp seed collectors in the whole coastal
region of Bangladesh and which comprises only about 1% of the total larvae catch. The rest of the
catch which composed of other shrimp species, fin fishes and zooplankton were thrown on the sandy
beach to die. He also reported that for indiscriminate killing of other organisms might be affected the
food chain in nature.
Khan et al., (1998) reported that during the period of segregation the seed collectors discarded all
other fries except bagda PL. BOBP (1992) also reported that huge loss of valuable larval fish
resources. Chowdery (1990) reported to collect only 3% of bagda PL, there were 73% of other shrimp
species and 24% of fin fish larvae become destroyed during separation.
Anon (1995), reported that total catch of P. monodon PL was 1.06 million in Rampal and Mongla
thana of Bagerhat district and Dacope thana of Khulna district during the period of January 1995 to
June 1995. They also observed that during the collection of bagda PL enormous destruction of other
shrimp and finfish larvae by catch was observed and it was estimated about of 216 million. They also
noted that shrimp fry by catch comprises a wide variety of shrimp and fin fish species of some of have
economic importance and others are important for ecological balance of the estuary. These include:
Penaeid (Metapenaeus brevicornis, M. ensis, Parapenaeposis sculptilis, etc.), Sergestidae (Acetes
indicus), Palaemonidae (Macrobrachium rude, Macrobrachium sp.), Clupeidae (Hilsa spp.),
Mugilidae (Mugil sp.), Engraulidae (Stolephorus sp.), Sillaginidae (Illago domina), Gobiidae
(Glossogobius giuris, Apocryples bata), Anguilidae (Anguilla spp.), Cynoglossidae (Cynoglossus sp.)
Tetraodontidae (Tetradon spp) etc.
Rahman et al. (1995, BIDS) reported that in polder 18/19, 22 and 20 under Paikgacha upzilla, seed
collectors killed 700 of different shrimp and fin fish larvae during the collection of each P. monodon
PL as a target species.
Karim (1990) reported the availability of tiger shrimp fry throughout the coastal areas of Bangladesh.
He also mentioned that shrimp fry were available from September to May in the adjacent rivers of
Sunderbans. December to March in the tidal rivers of Satkhira district and from April to August in
Cox’s Bazar district.
Alam (1990) studied the indiscriminate exploitation and quantify the loss of micro and macro aquatic
organisms as a by catch during the collection of P. monodon PL in the Teknaf and Cox’s Bazar areas.
He noted for each P. monodon PL, about 21 other shrimps, 30 finfishes and 46 zooplankton were
damaged. Alam (1990) also made observation that about of 650.5 million P. monodon PL was
harvested in Cox’s Bazar and Teknaf areas.
Ahmed (1981) made observation that the final composition in the behundi fishery in a fixed area of
the river Galghasia under Satkhira district. He was reported that many marine and certain freshwater
migratory fauna appear in the area during particular season or time to use the area as nursery ground.
The fauna composed of shrimps (4 families), fish (17 families), mantis shrimp (1 family) and crab (1
family) and most of them are young. He also conducted a taxonomic survey to make a complete
systematic record of the species so far been reported from Bangladesh and recorded other unknown
available species of both marine and brackishwater habitats. Further he reported that a total of 60
species of prawn belonging to 17 genera and 7 families and among the identified species 15 were
records.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 7
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Shafi and Quddus (1982) described 139 species of bony fishes, 15 species of penaeid shrimps, 2
species of solenocerid shrimps, 10 species of caridean prawns, 3 species of lobsters and 15 species of
crabs from fresh to brackish and marine waters of Bangladesh.
Islam et al., (2001, BFRI/BARC) estimated that for collecting each bagda PL, average of 96 other
shrimps, 19 finfishes and 435 zooplankton are killed in Khulna region. It was an average of 371 other
shrimps, 274 fin fishes and 938 of zooplankton in Bagerhat region; average of 121 other shrimps, 26
fin fishes and 329 of zooplankton in Patuakahali region; 104 other shrimps, 74 fin fishes and 124
zooplankton in Noakhali region; 5 other shrimps, 12 fin fishes and 27 zooplankton in Cox’s Bazar
region during the period between 1998 and 2000.
Islam et al. (1996) reported that in Satkhira coastal region for collecting each P. monodon PL, seed
collectors killed about 38 of other shrimps, 6 of fin fishes and 56 other macrozooplankton.
Islam et al. (1996) also reported that during collection of each P. monodon post-larva, about 17 larval
specimens of other shrimps, larvae of 8 fin fishes and 92 other macrozooplankton were destroyed in
the Meghna estuaries of Bhola district and about of 15 million of bagda PL was collected during
1993. Rahman et al. (1996) investigated that for collection of each bagda PL, about 37 larvae of other
shrimp species, 12 finfishes and 10 macrozooplankton were killed during the process of shrimp seed
collection in Barguna coastal region (Baleshwer and Bishkhali river). He also recorded that about 1.3
billion P. monodon PL was harvested during the year 1993.
Rahman et al. (1999) made observation that for each P. monodon PL collection about 27 other shrimp
larvae, 22 fin fishes and 23 macrozooplankton were destroyed. From the same study it has been
recorded that about 2.9 million man days were found to be engaged in fry catching and 480 million
bagda PL was harvested during 1993 in the Patuakahali coastal region (Andhermanik river and
Kuakata sea shore).
Majid (1994a) reported that 2.25 billion shrimp seeds were collected annually from the coastal and
brackishwater of Bangladesh. However, he noted that indiscriminate killing of other aquatic
organisms including larvae of fin fishes, shrimps and zooplankton by the seed collectors was about of
20 billion a year during the collection of bagda PL.
At present therefore, it is safe to conclude that the marine aquaculture industry worldwide relies to
very large extent and in some countries completely, on wild—caught spawners as well as larvae. This
means that the supply is sometimes uncertain, unpredictable and available only in certain season s of
the year. The pressure of indiscriminate commercial exploitation on wild stock must be relieved,
otherwise the natural cycle of the natural populations will be permanently maimed and the life cycle
disrupted. This would destroy process of stock replacement as well as the species diversity of
estuarine seas. It will not be possible to increase the supply of juveniles for use in aquaculture
operations from wild seed collection. This source will definitely not be a reliable or viable practice, as
it will lead to decimation of natural shrimp resources. Therefore, it is important to sustain the natural
populations Shrimps larvae and other aquatic flora and fauna to maintain the food chain of estuarine
community. Also, to avoid the dependence of natural broodstock and larvae and to have a year round
operation, it is necessary to develop the methods for crustacean broodstock maturation as well as
larvae survival.
1.3.1.1
PL Collection – Effort and Methods
Funegaard (1986), Larsson (1986) and Ali (1987) reported and estimated that 20,000-25,000 people
were engaged in bagda PL collection in Satkhira district in 1985 during the peak fry collection season.
Paul et al., (1995) reported approximately 60,000 or more people were engaged in fry collecting
activities. Chowdhury (1990) estimated that about 75,000 fry collectors were observed only in Khulna
districts. Rahman et al., (1995) recorded that about 2 lakh bagda PL collectors were found in the coast
region of Bangladesh.
BOBP (1992) reported that total number of fishing gear of shrimp fry collection was about 75,000 and
Fatima (1996) reported that in Sundarban region about 60,000 boats are engaged annually in bagda
PL collection.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 8
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Islam et al., (1996) observed that about 45,000-50,000 peoples were engaged in fry catching during
the peak period (Feb./March) in Satkhira region and about 0.19 million man-days were engaged in fry
catching in Bhola district.
Islam et al., (2001, BFRI/BARC) reported that about of 0.51 million man days in Khulna, 0.33
million man days in Satkhira, 0.27 million man days in Bagerhat, 1.8 million man days in Patuakahali,
0.12 million man days in Noakhali and 1.6 million man days were found to be engaged in fry catching
during the period between 1998 and 2000.
Majid (1994b) also reported that 58,000 peoples in Satkhira and 28,000 in Bagerhat region were
engaged in fry catching.
Khan et al (1994) made observation on the effect of estuarine set bag net on the marine fisheries of
Bangladesh. They were found 3 types of gear; push net, drag net and fixed bag net in particular were
used to collecting shrimp fry and the number of gear units 693,000 were recorded during the study
period. They also mentioned that the activities of tiger shrimp collection damage billion of other
valuable penaeid, non-penaeid shrimps, fin fishes and other zooplankton
According to Khan et al, the estuarine setbag net (ESBN) fishery and the shrimp trawl fishery (to
catch brood shrimps) are the three major destructive fishing gears, the combined effect of which has
made the coastal fisheries resource base too sensitive to depletion. Fishing in the artisanal sector is no
longer remunerative. The impact of the trawl fishery on the shrimp PL fishery and the vice-versa was
not visible, because the two fisheries came into operation almost at the same time. But the negative
impact of both of these fisheries was visible on the catches and the overall income of the ESBN
fishers (Khan et al, 1994).
Figure 1: Sequential Gear Utilisation for Targeting Life Stages of P. monodon
Source: Khan et al. (1997)
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 9
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
One species encounters several fishing gears and on the other hand one gear at any area catches a
number of different species, the multi-species and multi-fleet analysis of the fisheries is extremely
important in the context of the development of options for effort redistribution and rehabilitation of
the most vulnerable traditional fisher groups like those artisanal fishermen. This analysis would
normally include the identification of the fishing gear selectivity and optimum mesh size and
optimum effort. But this is a complicated and difficult task and such analysis of the sector to examine
scientific options for management of the sector is almost non-existent, except some attempts made
decade ago (Khan et al 1994).
Identify potential/scope for development of new/under-exploited resources to absorb displacement of
effort in support of livelihoods management within the fisheries sector
Brackishwater estuaries are the meeting point of fauna from three different ecosystems (Marine,
Freshwater & Estuarine). It provides spawning support to the catadromous species (e.g. freshwater
shrimps)and serves as nursery ground for the marine fauna which visit the estuarine environment
during the early phases of the lifecycle. Most of the members of the visiting fish/shrimp stocks are
over-fished in this ground. The level of fishing effort in this ecosystem is the highest.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 10
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1.3.2
1322-R-053-A
Regional and International Context
Although wild PL collection has largely been replaced by hatchery-bred PLs in most countries, the
practise still persists in many places where hatchery supplies are still erratic or the quality unreliable.
One example is Ecuador, whose once wild PL dominated shrimp farming industry is becoming
increasingly dependent upon hatchery produced PLs (see below).
Ecuador has a large shrimp farming industry that has developed over the past 30 years. The industry
has historically relied heavily on wild caught post larvae for stocking ponds. In general, most farmers
have traditionally used wild PL when they were available and hatchery PL when the supply of wild
PL was short. Many observers of shrimp farming in Ecuador have expressed the opinion that the
shrimp farming industry has been moving towards greater reliance on hatchery PL for the past 10 or
12 years - nevertheless, wild PL are still used in large numbers. The recent occurrence of the white
spot syndrome virus (WSSV) disease in Ecuador seems to favour the use of hatchery PL. The disease
can occur in both hatchery and wild PL, but hatcheries can install measures to control diseases so that
farmers can purchase PL free of WSSV and other diseases. In addition, hatcheries have implemented
breeding programs in order to develop improved lines of shrimp that will perform better in ponds.
The shrimp fishery began to decline under a fairly constant trawling pressure in 1977. This was about
the same time that the capture of wild PL for shrimp farming began, and there was immediate concern
by some about the influence of the capture of wild PL on the shrimp fishery. However, there was not
sufficient information to establish any relationship between the wild PL activity and the decline in the
shrimp fishery. Wild PL capture was initially conducted in estuarine habitats, but in 1983, it was
extended to the seashore north of Posorja. In 1985, the shrimp fishery began to decline and there were
conflicts between the shrimp fishermen and those capturing wild PL. The government established a
closed season on trawling from 15 December 1985 to 31 January 1986 and on wild PL from 1 June to
31 July 1986 in an effort to resolve the conflict. There continues to be a closed season on the two
activities, but the dates may vary from year to year.
The principle species of PL captured in Ecuador is L. vannamei and the secondary species is L.
stylirostris. Both species are present year around, but the peak periods are September to May for L.
vannamei and July to February for L. stylirostris. The Gulf of Guayaquil is the major spawning
ground for L. vannamei and the principal spawning areas for L. stylirostris are in Bahia and
Esmeraldas.
The wild PL fishermen (larveros) number between 17,000 and 27,000. As in Bangladesh, the peak
time for catching PL is on high tide at full moon and new moon. The larveros operate nets in waters
up to about 1 m deep. Two types of nets with 2-mm openings are used to capture PL. One net is called
the scissor net (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Scissor net used to catch PLs in
Ecuador
This type of net is most popular in the Guayas
province. The other type of net used mostly in
Esmeraldas and Manabi provinces is called the
airplane net. This net is pulled though the water.
The catch of a net is placed in a bucket of water
and cleared of debris and by-catch.
There is a large by-catch of other aquatic
organisms in PL nets. Estimates vary – one puts
by-catch at 91.6% and is comprised of other
crustaceans (74.89%), fish (15.25%), and
molluscs (1.48%). Others put the by-catch between 70 and 82%. Thus, the by-catch is probably
around 70 to 90%. It is assumed that the by-catch is totally destroyed, for it usually is thrown onto the
ground.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 11
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
1.4 ACTION PLAN AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
1.4.1
Background
In the early stages of development, shrimp farming was restricted to the peripheral land between flood
embankments and the main river systems. However, large profits and poor land-use planning led to its
rapid and uncontrolled expansion into agricultural polders (ghers) and there are now approximately
9,000 farms producing 35,000 tonnes of shrimp annually. Bangladesh produces 2.5% of global
production and shrimp is currently the nation’s second largest export industry
The shrimp aquaculture industry employs over 400,000 people in roles ranging from fry collection to
marketing and processing. The majority of these people, earn a living from collecting shrimp fry and
this is usually carried out by the poorest groups of fishing communities, often the landless, mostly
women and children
Since the introduction of commercial systems, shrimp has been the subject of significant national and
international debate. The debate has often been highly political and, at times, the source of conflict in
rural communities in Southwest Bangladesh. The central issues are environmental sustainability, propoor economic growth, access to resources, and human rights abuses, (the key issues highlighted in
Appendix 1).
The Bangladeshi Government’s commitment is towards support and development of shrimp
aquaculture. However, this commitment operates within a very weak governance and institutional
framework, often promoted by vested and powerful interests. National and international activist
groups have engaged in a campaign against the expansion of the shrimp farming.
The Fourth Fisheries Project (FFP) is co-financed with the Department of International Development
(DFID), The World Bank, Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and the Government of Bangladesh.
The project has a large Coastal Shrimp Aquaculture component. DFID Bangladesh has commissioned
a review of Coastal Shrimp Aquaculture in 2001 to assess its impact on the livelihoods of poor people
in Southwest Bangladesh. This review consisted of studies1 and wide consultation with communities,
civil society and other key stakeholders and was very effective in placing these proposed Fourth
Fisheries Project interventions in the wider context of shrimp sector development in Bangladesh.
Specifically, the review has raised fundamental issues regarding social trends arising from export
focus trade, incentives for pro poor growth and environmental sustainability. The challenge has been
to identify a way forward that reflects the complexity of the issues while retaining the original
principles under which the Fourth Fisheries Project (FFP) was agreed. The conclusions of the studies
were presented to senior DFID staff in the UK in November and feedback from the presentation was
incorporated into a position paper for negotiations on an implementation plan with the Government of
Bangladesh in January 2002.
A number of key areas agreed at a meeting with the Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries & Livestock in
January 2002. The key areas of agreement were as follows:
A number of key areas were agreed at a meeting with the Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries & Livestock
in January 2002. The key areas of agreement were as follows:
Protecting the ecology and biodiversity of coastal river areas - The Government of Bangladesh,
The World Bank, and Department for International Development agree that it is critically important to
establish measures that protect and conserve the biodiversity and ecology of the areas that have
historically been the focus of shrimp fry collectors.
1
Review consisted of 12 studies including :Gender, Economic Assessment, Livelihoods Assessment,
Institutional and Policy Review, Literature Review, Political Analysis
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 12
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Livelihoods of Fry Collectors - It was agreed that it is vitally important for any programme to
engage directly with the people for who rely upon fry collection as key source of their livelihood.
Specifically, we discussed working with the fry collectors to explore improved methods of catch that
would reduce immediate environmental damage and secondly to understand the livelihood
opportunities in this geographical area with a view to exploring alternative livelihoods options to fry
collection.
Current Government of Bangladesh Ban on Fry Collection - It was agreed that the enforcement of
the fry collection ban will be held in abeyance pending further review as to how this can be done in a
way in which the resource and biodiversity are conserved and at the same time the livelihoods of the
fry collectors are protected.
Exploring alternative models - It was agreed that the Government of Bangladesh and the donor
agencies would work together to explore alternative models for the management of this particular
resource under a Fry Collection Action Plan. This would present a range of options and their social,
environmental and economic implications would be presented to the Secretary of Ministry of
Fisheries and Livestock in September 2002 with an agreed timetable for activities, related to the
exploration of alternative models, developed in partnership with the Director General, Department of
Fisheries.
1.4.2
Objectives
The purpose of this study is to:
1. Assess the current state of knowledge regarding PL collection and its biodiversity impacts
2. From both existing studies, supported by a limited data collection programme over May –
July 2002, assess the following:
i. The effort, seasonality and distribution of PL collection
ii. The catch composition of PL collection, including seasonal, spatial and gear-related
variations
iii. The by-catch levels from PL collection, including seasonal, spatial and gear-related
variations
3. Based on this assessment, recommend a preliminary country-wide PL fisheries management
strategy.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 13
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
2
1322-R-053-A
APPROACH
2.1 BASELINE INFORMATION
Section 1.3.1 shows that although a large number of studies have been completed, they vary
considerably in the methods employed as well as the geographical areas covered (see above). The
most consistent work, and therefore the basis for much of this present study, is the BFRI/BARC work
over 1998 – 2000, which covered much of the coastal region over at least two full seasons. As
discussed above, this work fall short in a number of areas, including the emphasis on their own
sampling data (rather than commercial catches), the lack of data on Macrobrachium and a lack of
correlation with tidal and lunar cycles. In addition, the BOBP/FAO/DoF study during 1989/90 and
DoF Marine Wing data (on catch and effort only) have been incorporated where possible.
Due to the urgent nature of this study, only a limited amount of original data has been used. This has
been collected via the Aquatic Resources Development Management and Conservation Studies
(ARDMCS) component of the Fourth Fisheries project, which is currently undertaking a detailed
study on the biodiversity impact assessment of the shrimp fry collection fishery, to provide policy
decisions in respect of the management and conservation of the coastal aquatic biodiversity. Work is
ongoing and will be used to refine this working PL fisheries management plan over the next two
years.
2.2 ANALYSIS
As discussed above, a key problem has been the disparate nature and poor compatibility of previous
studies. Therefore in order to use the wide rang of previous studies, it has been necessary to crosscorrelate the different data sources and reanalyse using the few common strands of information that
remain.
The data from different sources BFRI/BARC data in particular was reorganized. For ease of
understanding, the data between 1992 and 1994, 1995 and 1996, and 1998 and 2001 was
disaggregated into the years 1993, 1996 and 1999 respectively. Also the coastal areas are sub-divided
into the Khulna (including Satkhira and Bagerhat), Patuakahali (including Barguna and Bhola),
Cox’s Bazar and Noakhali (including Teknaf) regions. The original BFRI/BARC sampling was
wider in geographical terms than this, but was not consistently sampled over the different years.
The primary data of GEF/FFP was also used as described above for interpolation with all other
secondary data. So starting from 1989 the journey for the historical analysis ended in the current year
(2002). The data have grouped as such to provide the cross cutting information on the geographical,
seasonal and historical variation. Personal communications as well as DFID organized workshop
proceedings were also the basis for the over all information to extrapolation purposes as well as
interpretations of the results in an acceptable form/
2.3 GIS ANALYSIS
Geographical distribution of the catches and their composition have been analysed and presented in a
GIS (Geographical Information System) environment. ArcView GIS software Version 3.2 was used
for data analysis. GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers were used to collect the geographical
positioning data from the field by the project enumerators for the purpose of geo-referencing. Where
appropriate the Mouza database was used for substitution of information to feed into the GIS system.
CEGIS (Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services, Dhaka) assisted the GEF
FFP team to analyse the information and map producing in GIS environment.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 14
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
3
1322-R-053-A
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 DISTRIBUTION AND SEASONALITY OF FRY COLLECTION
3.1.1
Effort
According to DoF/ Marine Wing information, Sabbir Ahmed (2002) estimates the total amount of fry
produced annually to be around 3 billion and the corresponding number of people involved was
443,000 (summary in Table 3 below and detail in Table 4 to Table 6).
Table 3: Total Production and Effort in Bagda Fry Collection (1999/2000)
Division
No. of Fry Collectors Fry collected
(million)
SE: Chittagong, Cox’s Bazar, Noakhali
Centre: Barisal & Patuakahali
SW: Satkhira, Khulna and Bagerhat
TOTAL
92,335
(20.8%)
1,863.9
(61.8%)
207,069
(46.7%)
869.5
(28.8%)
143,620
(32.4%)
443,024
280.4
(9.3%)
3,013,800,000
According to BOBP (1989/90) shrimp fry collection during early nineties used to cover the period
from January to July over the coast as a whole, with some variations spatially. The highest effort was
between March and May in the Satkhira and the Cox’s Bazar areas, while the highest effort over the
entire season was in the Satkhira area.
Table 4: Production and Effort in Bagda Fry Collection in Chittagong Division (1999/2000)
Sub-Division
District
Chittagong
Chittagong
Cox’s Bazar
Cox’s Bazar
Noakhali
Feni
Noakhali
Lakshimpur
TOTAL
Feb-16
Thana
Mirasharai
Sitakundha
Banskhali
Anowara
Pahartali
Bandar
Kotowalli
Sandwip
Sub-total
Sadar
Maheshkhali
Chakaria
Kutubdia
Ukhiya
Teknaf
Sub-total
Sonagazi
Hatia
Shudharam
Companiganz
Sadar
Ramgati
Sub-total
No. of Fry
Collectors
2,479
4,070
1,567
2,190
550
809
2,970
14,635
14,500
3,500
5,200
3,200
1,800
18,500
46,700
1,000
10,000
15,000
5,000
31,000
92,335
Fry Collection Action Plan
Collected Fry
(Lakh)
29
564
168
287
90
90
390
1,620
4,200
1,000
850
700
700
2,000
9,450
50
264
5,714
1,540
7,569
18,639 lakh
Page 15
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Table 5: Production and Effort in Bagda Fry Collection in Barisal Division (1999/2000)
Sub-Division
Barisal
Patuakahali
District
Barisal
Jhalakathi
Pirozpur
Bhola
Sub-total
Patuakahali
Barguna
Sub-total
Total
Fry Collectors
3,300
6,530
5,000
10,200
3,215
28,245
55,339
55,245
10,165
44,230
13,845
178,824
207,069
Collected Fry (Lakh)
49.80
180.30
120.60
350.70
1.70
7.03
2326.40
2015.50
50.70
2014.60
1085.30
79.92
Lakh 86.95
Table 6: Production and Effort in Bagda Fry Collection in Khulna Division (1999/2000)
SubDivision
Khulna
District
Bagerhat
Sub-total
Khulna
Sub-total
Satkhira
Sub-total
Total
Feb-16
Fry Collectors
16,900
3,160
1,230
560
21,850
5,320
28,200
1,890
16,700
300
52,410
3,880
5,200
49,400
110
58,590
143,620
Collected Fry
(Lakh)
392
63
204
19
678
104
345
40
162
1
652
85
131
1,254
4
1474
Lakh 2,804
Fry Collection Action Plan
Irregular Fry
Collectors
10,600
2,000
8,000
20,600
4,000
21,000
1,200
15,000
41,200
3,000
3,000
40,000
46,000
107,800
Page 16
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
3.1.2
1322-R-053-A
Distribution and Seasonal Use of Gears
There are generally three types of fishing gears used for shrimp fry collection in the coastal belt of
Bangladesh. The three types are:
 Push net PN (the first type introduced)
 Drag net DN
 Fixed bag net BN (the most recent and widely used PL collecting gear).
3.1.2.1
Distribution
Push net: the traditional push net is now the least used of the three main gear types and is largely
restricted to Chittagong (see Table 7 and Table 8) and Noakhali.
Drag net: the drag net is used on the rivers and estuaries of Barisal and Khulna – they are almost
absent from Cox’s Bazar and Chittagong.
Bag nets: used along the sea coasts of Cox’s Bazar and Chittagong as well as the rivers of Khulna an
Satkhira.
3.1.2.2
Seasonal Use
The main seasonal data for gear use is the older BOBP (1989/90) data (see Figure 4). Satkhira shows
the highest PL gear use, particularly over January and March. Collection in Cox’s Bazar starts later on
February and peaks in April although it continues through to October at much lower levels.
Number and distribution of different types of PL collecting gears (DoF
Figure 3: Number
anddata
Distribution
of PLwith
Collection
Gears
(DoF
99-00 & GEF 2002)
99/00
extrapolated
GEF FFP
current
information)
180000.00
160000.00
140000.00
120000.00
PN
DN
100000.00
BN
80000.00
60000.00
40000.00
20000.00
0.00
Cox's Bazar
Feb-16
Chittagong
Noakhali
Barisal
Fry Collection Action Plan
Khulna
Page 17
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Table 7: Spatial Distribution of Different types of Fry Collecting Gears
Station
Cox's Bazar
Chittagong
Noakhali
Barisal
Khulna
TOTAL
PL
No. of
Collectors Gears
4,250 8,800
4,600 7,500
7,300 8,050
8,700 9,250
7,480 8,025
32,330 41,625
Data June 2002
PL
No. of gears
Gears
Collector
Push
Drag
Push
Ratio
Bag Nets
Ratio
Nets
Nets
Nets
1.0
2.1
825
5,975
1.0
1.0
1.6
2,878
144
2,778
1.0
1.0
1.1
1,110
4,150
6,040
1.0
1.0
1.1
360
7,190
2,100
1.0
1.0
1.1
508
5,483
1,535
1.0
1.0
1.3
5,681 16,967 18,428
1.0
Ratio
Drag
Nets
0.1
3.7
20.0
10.8
3.0
PL
Bag
Collectors
Nets
7.2
46,700
1.0
14,635
5.4
31,000
5.8
207,069
3.0
143,620
3.2
443,024
Data DOF
GEF FFP Estimate PL
Gears
Gears
Collection
Push net Drag net Bag net
Ratio
Ratio
96,696
1
2
11,733
84,963
23,861
1
2
11,840
592
11,429
34,185
1
1
3,358
12,555
18,272
220,160
1
1
8,213
164,036
47,910
154,084
1
1
10,392
112,261
31,431
528,987
1
1
73,158
218,504
237,325
Source: (extrapolated from DoF 1999/2000 data with GEF FFP Sample survey data)
Table 8: FFP – GEF survey of PL gear types in different sampling sites 2002
Station
Site
Cox's Bazar
Teknaf Sea Coast
Sonar Para Sea Coast
Cox's Bazar Sea Coast
Mathamuhuri river
Perki Beach
South Kattoli Sea Coast
Muradpur lunch ghat
Satal Khal
Char Khondakar
Char bata
Char Elahi
Kazirbazar
Bhola
Patuakahali
Quakata
Barguna
Pirozpur
Andhermanik river
Chittagong
Noakhali
Barisal
Feb-16
Grand
Total
(M+F)
900
700
750
1,900
1,300
500
300
2,500
1,100
650
5,000
550
300
5,000
2,500
50
500
350
Total
Fishing
Gears
2,500
2,100
2,200
2,000
2,400
1,000
100
4,000
1,550
750
5,000
750
300
5,000
3,000
50
550
350
Fry Collection Action Plan
Fishers engaged per gear type
PN% PN (N) DN% DN (N)
18
450
0
0
14
300
0
0
3
75
0
0
96
1,920
0
0
27
648
2
54
28
280
5
50
30
30
40
40
20
800
50
2,000
20
310
0
0
0
0
20
150
0
0
40
2,000
0
0
40
300
70
210
0
0
0
0
80
4,000
5
150
80
2,400
0
0
100
50
0
0
80
440
51
180
0
0
BN%
82
86
97
4
83
67
30
30
80
80
60
60
30
20
15
0
20
49
BN (N)
2,050
1,800
2,125
80
1,998
670
30
1,200
1,240
600
3,000
450
90
1,000
450
0
110
170
Page 18
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
Station
Khulna
1322-R-053-A
Grand
Total
(M+F)
Site
Kapatakshi river
Shibsha river
Mixing Place of Coxali, Kalindhi and
Ichamati rivers
Mother river
Mongla river
Pusur river
Total
Fishing
Gears
Fishers engaged per gear type
200
120
1,300
225
100
1,300
4,500
510
850
5,000
550
850
PN% PN (N) DN% DN (N)
10
23
50
113
5
5
25
25
0
0
845
65
2
100
90
4,500
36
200
0
0
59
500
0
0
BN%
BN (N)
40
90
70
70
35
455
8
64
41
400
350
350
Table 9: Spatial and temporal distribution of different types of PL collecting gears 1989/90
Area
Shoreline lenth (km)
Month / Gear
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Feb-16
PN
646
950
1,292
646
760
1,140
2,280
4,636
646
Teknaf
75
DRAG
FBN
PN
3,110
10,885
23,325
31,100
17,105
10,107
8,553
2,643
Cox's Bazar
310
DRAG
FBN
Patuakhali
276
PN
FBN
6,220
1,710
12,440
2,077
30,054
1,385
Khulna
236
DRAG
FBN
5,925
5,925
1,185
948
Satkhira
65
PN
FBN
6,990
46,600
11,650
20,970
6,220
1,108
116,500
17,708
11,650
2,796
1,165
3,728
1,224
2,021
466
1631
1,398
Fry Collection Action Plan
Total
1362
PN
16,671
11,835
24,617
43,396
17,865
31,077
9,693
6,031
4,636
3,133
0
-
FBN
52,525
8,297
149,449
32,481
11,650
2,796
7,385
3,728
1,224
1631
1,398
Page 19
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Temporal
and spatial Gears
distribution
of 1989-1990)
shrimp fry collecting gears 1989/90
Figure 4: Seasonal Use
of PL Collection
(BOBP
140000
120000
100000
Teknaf
Cox's Bazar
Patuakhali
80000
Khulna
Satkhira
60000
40000
20000
0
Nov
Feb-16
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Fry Collection Action Plan
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Page 20
Oct
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
3.2 CATCH COMPOSITION AND ABUNDANCE
3.2.1
Spatial Distribution of Catch Composition and Abundance
Most previous studies have sub-divided catches into three components (i) P. monodon, (ii) ‘other
shrimp, (iii) macro-zooplankton and (iv) finfish larvae.
Over 1993 the abundance of Penaeus monodon was the highest in the district of Bhola followed by
Bagerhat and Patuakahali. In 1996 it was highest in Khulna, followed by Patuakahali and Cox’s
Bazar. Over 1999 Cox’s Bazar had the highest abundance followed by Patuakahali. The catches of
‘other shrimp’ was the highest in Noakhali and the lowest in Cox’s Bazar in 1993 while it showed
the highest in Patuakahali and Bagerhat in 1999. In 1996 the highest was in the south-west (SW)
zone. In general, the ‘other shrimp’ catches dominated in the SW zone followed by the middle zone.
Barisal and Khulna zone also distinctly dominated in the abundance of macro-zooplankton. Finfish
larvae showed a mixed appearance in the spatial abundance. But it’s abundance was generally
noticeably higher towards the SW and Middle zone while lower towards the SE zone.
In the distribution of group wise composition, macro-zooplankton showed the distinctly highest
abundance, while other shrimps and finfishes were at similar level during 1999 in particular. The
highest abundance of macro-zooplankton was in the Barisal zone followed by the SW. P. monodon
always had the lowest comparative abundance (as it is treated as a single species represented group)
and hence it is presented separately in separate figures.
Figure
5: PL
and other
CatchofComponents
in effort)
Different
Samplingbatch
Stations
(1999-2000)
Average
of different
groups
PL (ind/10min
in 1999-2000
in different
sub-stations
2000.000
1800.000
1600.000
1400.000
1200.000
1000.000
800.000
600.000
400.000
200.000
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Teknaf sea shore
Fin Fish
Macrozooplankton
Other Shrimp
P.Monodon
Kutubdia sea shore
Mognama
Cox's Bazar sea shore
Kuakata sea shore
Andhermanik
Baleshwar river
Koyra
Pasur
Mongla
Mongla
Mother
Kholpatua
Kalindi
Ichamati
0.000
Page 21
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Average of different groups of PL (ind/10min effort) in 1999-2000 batch in different districts
Figure 6: PL and other Catch Components By District (1999-2000)
2000.000
1800.000
1600.000
1400.000
1200.000
1000.000
800.000
600.000
400.000
200.000
Fin Fish
Macrozooplankton
0.000
Other Shrimp
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Khulna
Barguna
P.Monodon
Patuakhali
Cox's
Bazar
onthly distribution of Penaeus monodon PL (ind/10min effort) in different rivers during 1999/00
Figure 7: Monthly Distribution
of P. monodon
PLs in Different Rivers
batch
Monthly distribution of Fin fish PL (ind/10min effort) in different rivers during 1999/00 batch
20
900
18
800
16
700
14
600
10
500
8
400
6
300
Sept.
Jul.
May
100
0
1989 – 1990
Feb-16
Teknaf sea shore
Mognama
Nov.
Kutubdia sea shore
Cox's Bazar sea shore
Andhermanik
Kuakata sea shore
Baleshwar river
Pasur
Jan.
Koyra
Mongla
Mother
Mar.
Mongla
Teknaf sea shore
Mognama
Nov.
Kutubdia sea shore
Cox's Bazar sea shore
Andhermanik
Kuakata sea shore
Bal eshwar river
Pasur
Jan.
Koyra
Mongla
Mother
Mongla
Kalindi
Kholpatua
Ichamati
0
200
Kalindi
Sept.
Jul.
May
Mar.
2
Kholpatua
4
Ichamati
12
1999 - 2000
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 22
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
3.2.2
3.2.2.1
1322-R-053-A
Seasonal Variation in Distribution of Catch Components
P. monodon (Figure 8)
According to the BFRI data the abundance of the tiger shrimp P. monodon was generally the highest
during December – February and is lower but still abundant up to June during 1993. The lowest
appearance prevailed during July – November. The seasonal variation is different however in different
part of the coast –for example in Bhola (Barisal) the peak was in the month of January, February in
Bagerhat and July-August in Cox’s Bazar.
During 1993 the highest abundance was found in Bhola followed by Bagerhat. In 1996 the peak
abundance was demonstrated in November followed by Bhola, Patuakahali and Cox’s Bazar during
October in Barisal zone and December in Cox’s Bazar. July – September period appeared to be lean
season for all the districts in general. During 1999 the highest abundance was showed in the months
of July and February (in Cox’s Bazar) and the second highest abundance was shown in June and
February in the Patuakahali district while Satkhira, Bagerhat and Barisal showed lower level of peaks
during February – June period.
3.2.2.2
Other Shrimps (Figure 9)
In 1993 the abundance of other shrimps were very high during the months of April to August in
Satkhira district. The second and third high appearances were during October and December in
Patuakahali and Barisal districts. In 1996 the peak season was found to be during July to September.
The highest peak was in Khulna followed by Bagerhat. Third highest peak was found in Cox’s Bazar
during October – December. In 1999 the general peak season appeared to be during July to November
irrespective of the districts. The district level difference is very clumsy and not very much distinctly
visible. Bagerhat had the distinctly highest abundance with a distinct peak however during the months
of July to September. The second and third highest abundance were in Patuakahali and Satkhira.
3.2.2.3
Macrozooplankton (Figure 10)
In 1993 Cox’s Bazar, Patuakahali and Noakhali showed the highest abundances respective during the
months of October to May, January to May and January to April. The generally acceptable peak
season appeared to fall between the months of January to April. In 1996 the peak and highest
abundance was during May to July in Khulna district followed by Bagerhat in December and July.
Two seasons were identified in 1999 for the area of highest appearance i.e. Barisal for the months of
July to October and March to May. Satkhira demonstrated the highest catch rate in this year in the
month of July (which was probably mostly composed of crab megalopa). The other areas did not
show any prominent season but Patuakahali showed higher appearances during the months of
February to May.
3.2.2.4
Finfish Larvae(Figure 11)
In 1993 Bhola coast demonstrated the distinctly high abundance of finfish larvae particularly during
the peak season between August and December. Noakhali showed a single month peak in February
while the other areas do not show distinct peak season. Satkhira dominated the finfish abundance
being distinctly highest during the months of November to February in 1996. The other areas of
higher peaks are the Patuakahali and Bhola in November, December and April. Barisal and Bagerhat
dominated the catches in 1999. no clear cut season was visible except the month of July when the
catches were the highest in both the areas of high abundance.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 23
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 8: Seasonal Distribution of P. monodon by District
Seasonal distribution of P. monodon in 1993 in districts
A: 1993
18
16
Satkhira (Ichamati)
Bagerhat (Mongla)
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Seasonal distribution of P. monodon by district in 1996
B: 1996
10
9
Satkhira (Ichamati)
Bagerhat (Mongla)
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Seasonal distribution of P. monodon 1999
C. 1999
20
18
Satkhira (Ichamati)
Bagerhat (Mongla)
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Nov.
Feb-16
Dec.
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Fry Collection Action Plan
Jun.
Jul.
Page 24
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 9: Seasonal Distribution of ‘Other Shrimps’ by District
Seasonal distribution of other shrimps by district in 1993
A: 1993
450
400
Satkhira (Ichamati)
Bagerhat (Mongla)
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan.
Feb
B: 1996
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Seasonal distribution of Other shrimps 1996
600
500
Satkhira (Ichamati)
Bagerhat (Mongla)
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
400
300
200
100
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
C: 1999
Seasonal distribution of other shrimp 1999
700
Satkhira (Ichamati)
600
Bagerhat (Mongla)
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
500
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
400
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
300
200
100
0
Nov.
Feb-16
Dec.
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Jul.
Page 25
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 10: Seasonal Distribution of Macroinvertebrates by District
A: 1993 Seasonal distribution of macrozooplankton by district in 1993
400
350
Satkhira (Ichamati)
Bagerhat (Mongla)
300
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
250
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
Noakhali (Meghna)
200
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
150
100
50
0
Jan.
B: 1996
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Seasonal distribution of macrozooplankton in 1996
4000
3500
3000
Satkhira (Ichamati)
Bagerhat (Mongla)
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.*
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Sept.
Oct.
C: 1999
9000
Seasonal distribution of Macrozooplankton 1999
8000
7000
Satkhira (Ichamati)
Bagerhat (Mongla)
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Nov.
Feb-16
Dec.
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Jul.
Aug.
Page 26
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 11: Seasonal Distribution of Finfish by District
A: 1993
1200
1000
Satkhira (Ichamati)
800
Bagerhat (Mongla)
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
600
Bhola coastal region
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
400
200
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
B: 1996
Seasonal distribution of Fin Fish 1996
2000
1800
1600
1400
Satkhira (Ichamati)
Bagerhat (Mongla)
1200
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
1000
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
800
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
600
400
200
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Seasonal distribution of Finfish 1999
C: 1999
1000
900
Satkhira (Ichamati)
Bagerhat (Mongla)
Khulna (Koyra)
Barisal (Baleshwar)
Patuakhali (Kuakata)
Bhola coastal region
Noakhali (Meghna)
Cox's Bazar (Beach)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Nov.
Feb-16
Dec.
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Page 27
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
3.2.3
1322-R-053-A
Temporal and spatial changes in abundance of tiger shrimp P. monodon PL
March-April and September-October are the peak seasons of abundance of P. monodon in Satkhira
district. The overall availability in 1999 was similar to 1993 while 1996 appeared to be a poor year
(see Figure 12). In Khulna the peak season for bagda appeared to be during April to August. Unlike
Satkhira, 1996 was the year of highest abundance in Khulna. In Bagerhat different years showed
different peak seasons but the overall peak season appeared to be during December to June where the
abundance in 1999 was lower than 1993. The peak season may be read as January- June in the
Barguna district. Here the abundance was slightly higher during 1999. No significant season can be
identified in case of Patuakahali district where the catches in all the years appear to have similar
level of abundance. In Bhola the peak season was in December-February where the abundance of P.
monodon shows a sharp decline over the years. In the district of Noakhali January – April was the
peak season in 1993 while there was virtually no catch in the following years. March – May and
August-November was the peak season in Cox’s Bazar district where the abundance was found to
higher during the year 1999 in comparison to the other two years. December- April can be broadly
identified as peak season for Bagda availability. It can be seen that P. monodon had higher abundance
in the SE and lower in other zones and contrary to this, other shrimps had lowest abundance in the SE
and the highest in the middle ground followed by the SW. See Figure 14 for details.
Figure 12:Catch Rates for P. monodon PLs by District (1993 – 1999)
3.500
P. monodon PL (catch/10 min) in different districts
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Khulna
Barguna
Patuakhali
1999
Bhola
Noakhali
1996
1993
Cox's
Bazar
Figure
13: Composition of (a) P. monodon and (b) other Shrimp on Sample Catches
Average of P.Monodon (ind/10 min effort) in 1999-00 batch in
A. P. monodon diffferent sub stations
B. Other shrimp
Average of Other Shrimp (ind/10 min effort) during 1999-00 batch in different sub stations
5.000
350.000
4.500
300.000
4.000
3.500
250.000
3.000
2.500
200.000
2.000
150.000
1.500
1.000
100.000
0.500
50.000
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 28
Teknaf sea shore
Kutubdia sea shore
Other Shrimp
Mognama
Cox's Bazar sea shore
Kuakata sea shore
Andhermanik
Baleshwar river
Pasur
Koyra
Mongla
Mother
Mongla
Kholpatua
Kalindi
Ichamati
Teknaf sea shore
P.Monodon
Kutubdia sea shore
Mognama
Cox's Bazar sea shore
Andhermanik
Kuakata sea shore
Baleshwar river
Pasur
0.000
Koyra
Mongla
Mother
Mongla
Kalindi
Kholpatua
Ichamati
0.000
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Satkhira P. monodon - Historical variation in seasonal
Figure 14:Seasonal Abundance of P. monodon in Different Districts
abundance
A: Satkhira
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
1993
1996
1999
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Jan
Feb
Mar
Aprmonodon
May Jun
Jul
Augvariation
Sep Oct
Nov Dec
Bagherhat
P.
- Historical
in seasonal
abundance
B. Bagerhat
6.00
5.00
4.00
1993
1996
1999
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Jan
FebBarguna
Mar
Apr
May Jun- Historical
Jul
Aug variation
Sep Oct
Nov Dec
P. monodon
in seasonal
abundance
C: Barguna
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
1993
1996
1999
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Jan
Feb-16
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Fry Collection Action Plan
Oct
Nov
Dec
Page 29
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
D: Noakhali
1322-R-053-A
Noakhali P. monodon - Historical variation in seasonal
abundance
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
1993
1996
1999
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Jan
FebPatuakhali
Mar
Apr P. May
Jun -Jul
Aug Sep
Oct in
Novseasonal
Dec
monodon
Historical
variation
abundance
E: Patuakahali
6.00
5.00
4.00
1993
1996
1999
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
F: KhulnaKhulna P. monodon - Historical variation in seasonal abundance
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
1993
1996
1999
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Jan
Feb-16
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Fry Collection Action Plan
Oct
Nov
Dec
Page 30
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
G: Bhola Bhola P. monodon - Historical variation in seasonal abundance
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
1993
1996
1999
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cox'sBazar P. monodon - Historical variation in seasonal
H: Cox’s Bazar
abundance
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
1993
1996
1999
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Jan
3.2.4
3.2.4.1
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Geographical Distribution of Catch Composition and Abundance
Annual changes in Geographical distribution of catch composition and abundance
The GIS-based maps demonstrate the sizes of the CPUE (catch per 10 minutes haul) of combined fry
collecting gears irrespective of the types. The sizes of the pie chart reflects the sizes of the catch
CPUE and hence the relative abundance. The different components of the pie chart reflects the
proportion of different groups of larvae/PL at different geographical locations. The proportion of the
tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon is too small in all cases to be visible for proper reading from these GIS
based map presentations. This is more clear from the other types of graphical presentations which are
also furnished below. The main purpose of this map presentations is to make an easy and instant
glance of the sizes of the other by-catches in a geographically different way which is hardly possible
by any other means of presentations.
The joint survey of the DoF Marine Survey Unit Chittagong and the FAO Bay of Bengal programme
(BOBP) during 1989/90 (Figure 15) suggests that macro-zooplankton is the dominating group of
species in catches all over the coast with particularly higher abundance in the SW. Other penaeid
shrimps have dominance in the Cox’s Bazar district with lower level of appearance in Teknaf area
where macro-zooplankton has occupied about 50%. The catch of finfishes dominated in the middle
ground followed by the SW. This scenario particularly refers to the catches of ‘push nets’ (Figure 15,
A). The catches of fixed bagnets (Figure 15, B) in the same year has different scenario of catch
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 31
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
composition than the push net. Crabs as a single group dominated the catches of the south-west and
the middle ground followed by other zooplankton with reasonably good proportion of the non-penaeid
shrimps. The catches of the south-east (Cox’s Bazar) appeared to be single case of dominant catches
of other penaeid shrimps with good proportion of crab and finfish larvae. It may be noted here that the
data of the DoF/BoBP survey was available in processed form only at a percentage composition basis
and hence the pie charts in the GIS presentation maps did not reflect the differences in the
geographical variation of the size of the total catches.
In 1993 (Figure 16, A) the higher catches were observed in the south-east region and gradually
reduced towards the west. The western zone was dominated by finfish larvae with large proportion of
other shrimps. The proportion of other shrimps were found to be the highest (50%) in the Noakhali
district. Contrary to this, finfishes as well as other shrimps were much lower in the eastern zone where
the catches were mostly composed of macro-zooplankton of which crab larvae were the dominant
species as appeared from the notes of several authors (Islam et al, 1993 ; Khan et al, 1994; Khan,
1999). P. monodon were still comparatively higher in the SE than in the SW.
During the year 1996 (Figure 16, B), Satkhira in the SW was dominated by finfish with small
proportion of other shrimps while in the same zone Khulna and Bagerhat were dominated by macrozooplankton still with small proportion of other shrimps. The catches of the middle ground has finfish
dominancy with some proportion of other shrimps. The SE shows more of the macro-zooplankton
with the reasonable similar proportion of other shrimps as in the other areas. Unlike 1993 it is
noticeable that more than 80% of the total by-catch loss in this year would go in the account of the
SW zone alone. On the other hand the proportion of bagda is negligible compared to the by-catches in
the SW but the SE still has a comparatively better catch of bagda.
In the year 1999 (Figure 16, C) the catches throughout the coast were dominated by macrozooplankton followed by other shrimps but at a much lower proportion. The catches of finfish larvae
was very low. The appearance of bagda was comparatively higher in the SE zone. In general however
more than 90% of the total catch of the year was taken from the SW and middle ground.
The 2002 data Figure 16, D) refers to the month of June only (the first sampling month), of the routine
samples of the GEF fourth fisheries project on the shrimp fry collection and its biodiversity impact on
the coastal aquatic resources. Hence it may not reflect the picture of the year 2002 but is expected to
give some indications, since it falls under the peak season in general terms. It can be seen that almost
100% of the catch of June 2002 in the whole of SW is composed of other shrimps. The other shrimps
also dominates in the catches of Noakhali and Chittagong zones. The middle ground and the SE are
dominated by the catches of finfish followed by macro –zooplankton. Here in this year also the total
catch is dominated by the south-west zone as a whole.
3.2.4.2
Historical changes in geographical distribution of and abundance
As described above that the composition of the P catches are different for different types of PL fishing
gears within a giver geographical area in a given season/month, care has been taken here while
analysing the historical variation of catch composition to keep track of the same type of gear in
identifying the historical changes. Since the majority of the data (the BFRI data for several years, here
separated as the batches of 1993, 1996 and 1999) are drawn from the fixed bagnets (FBN), the present
comparison including the data for other years prior and after the BFRI period i.e. the DoF/BOBP data
for 1989/90 and the GEF Fourth Fishers data for the year 2002 have been made on the basis of the
FBN.
The historical comparison has been made for five consecutive data series at roughly three years
interval starting from 1989/90 up to the current year i.e. 2002. It may be mentioned here that in the
year 1989/90 the sample size was roughly similar to the other years, but the data for different substations have been pooled into one to make regional representation (as appeared in the GIS based
presentation of the year) and that should give equal weight to the results while making comparison, as
appeared from Paul et al (1993).
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 32
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 15: Catch Composition by Gear Type (1989/90)
A: Push Net
B: Bag Net
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 33
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 16: Geographical Distribution of Catch Composition
A. 1993
B. 1996
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 34
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
C: 1999
D: 2002
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 35
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
3.2.5
1322-R-053-A
Historical Changes in Spatial Distribution and Abundance
3.2.5.1
Historical changes in composition and abundance
It may seen in the five maps furnished above that in 1989/90 the catches of fixed bag nets (FBN) in
the SW coast was mainly composed of crabs and other zooplankton (which in the other years
collectively referred to as macrozooplankton), and there was a good proportion of other shrimps (here
referred to as non-penaeid and Acetes shrimp). It is noticeable that finfish larvae had very small
contribution to the SW catch in that year. Later in the 1993 the SW catches broadly shifted to finfish
larvae while the proportion of macro-zooplankton was too low in comparison to the previous year.
The other shrimps however maintained their position in 1993. In 1996 the scenario changed further;
the finfishes, particularly in the Satkhira area mostly occupied rest of the part of macro-zooplankton
and other shrimps. In Khulna and Bagerhat on the other hand the catches were mostly occupied by
macro-zooplankton with small proportion of ‘other shrimps’. In the following year (1999) there were
further changes in the composition. The catches in the whole of SW were occupied by macrozooplankton - finfish larvae were negligible in comparison to the previous year. During the recent
time (year 2001/2) a noteworthy change has occurred to the catches of the SW region to the effect that
almost the entire catches were composed of other shrimps which in other words mean that all the
other groups of species have disappeared from the catches of the SW zone.
In the middle ground in 1989/90 more than 70% of the catch was composed of crab larvae and other
zooplankton (which in the other years collectively referred to as Macro-zooplankton). In 1993 there
was a large shift from the share of macro-zooplankton to finfish and other shrimps. In the year 1996
all groups maintained their shares as in the previous year. In 1999 it was again shifted to macrozooplankton. In the year 2002 there was a mixed composition and changes are not yet visible.
In the south-east zone more than half of the catches were composed of other shrimps, followed by
macro-zooplankton in the year 1989/90. Finfish had a very small share in the catches. There was a big
shift in 1993 to the effect that the most of the share of finfish was occupied by macro-zooplankton and
the later group was distinctly prominent. In the year 1996 and 1999 there was no mentionable change
in the composition. In the year 2002, however there was a change in the composition that there was a
mixed composition with almost equal share of all the three major groups.
Summary
In summary, while making a journey changes over the last 15 years, different zones showed different
patterns of changes in the composition of the catches of FBN. In the south-east zone there was only
one shift observed between 1989/90 and 1993 from finfish to macrozooplankton. In the middle zone
i.e. Barisal and Noakhali a shift was taken place from macro-zooplankton to finfish and back again.
Presently the catches appear to have a naturally balanced composition as in SE zone.
The south-west zone took a shift from macrozooplankton (about two-third macro-zooplankton and
about one third other shrimps) to 60 – 80% finfish (the other shrimps still maintained its share) in first
three years. Over the next phase there was a mixed transfer i.e. the Satkhira took a shift to 80/90%
finfish while Khulna-Bagerhat took a shift to 70/80% macro-zooplankton. In the fourth step, in the
whole of the SW region (and also the middle ground), the catches were shifted into macrozooplankton.
Up to this step the ‘other shrimp’ group more or less maintained its share in the in the SW catches all
the time until recently. It is very interesting, but not unexpected that during the current year there has
been a complete shift from all other groups to ‘other shrimps’. It may appear to be an unusual
scenario, but it may be noted here that the 2002 data is a part of the GEF FFP ongoing study and does
not represent a full year like the others described. But on the other hand this data shows a natural
composition of the catches in the other regions and that is why it reasonably validates itself.
It may be noted that the share and the difference of composition of bagda would not be visible and
readable from these maps and hence taken care of in other sections in a more detail fashion.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 36
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
3.2.6
1322-R-053-A
Historical changes in seasonal distribution and abundance
3.2.6.1
Penaeus monodon (Figure 17)
In Satkhira district the abundance of P. monodon PL was too poor to make an assessment of the
seasonal variation. During 1993 and 1996 there was some evidence of seasonal difference, but in 1999
there was hardly any seasonal difference visible. In Khulna district there appeared to be two peak
seasons i.e. during November – January and April – August in an over all condition. In Bagerhat
district the peak abundance was during December – June period and there was not much historical
variation. The only observation may be made to the effect that the abundance of P. monodon declined
over the years in Bagerhat district. In Barguna district, the catches dominated during the months of
February to June and there was not any historical changes in the catch rate or seasonal abundance. In
Patuakahali district historical variation of seasonal abundance is not visible from the results of the
analysis. In the district of Cox’s Bazar distinct seasonal variation was observed neither annually nor
historically.
Although the peak seasons are in most cases different in different areas/districts and the historical
variations are geographically dissimilar, it can be summarized however that the broad season of
higher abundance fall under December to June period and did not show a remarkable historical
change of season.
Figure 17: Historical changes in seasonal distribution and abundance of P. monodon
A: Satkhira P. monodon Satkhira Historical variation of seasonal abundance
3.5
3
1999
1996
1993
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 37
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
P. monodon Khulna - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
B: Khulna
10
9
8
7
6
1999
1996
1993
5
4
3
2
1
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
P. monodon Bagerhat - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
C: Bagerhat
9
8
7
6
5
1999
1996
1993
4
3
2
1
0
Jan.
Feb monodon
Mar.
Apr.
Jun. variation
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
P.
Barguna
- May
Historical
of seasonal
abundance
Nov.
Dec.
D: Barguna
4.5
4
3.5
3
1999
1996
1993
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 38
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
E: PatuakahaliP. monodon Patuakhali - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
8
7
6
5
1999
1996
1993
4
3
2
1
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
Jun.
Jul.
Sept.
Oct.
P. monodon
Bhola -May
Historical
variation
of Aug.
seasonal
abundance
Nov.
Dec.
F: Bhola
18
16
14
12
1999
1996
1993
10
8
6
4
2
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
P.
monodon
Cox's
Bazar
- Historical
variation
of seasonal
abundance
Dec.
H: Cox’s Bazar
20
18
16
14
12
1999
1996
1993
10
8
6
4
2
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 39
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
3.2.6.2
1322-R-053-A
Other shrimp (Figure 18)
In Satkhira there has been a much higher proportion of ‘other shrimp’ over recent years than before,
where they are present over June – December and absent over the first half of the year. A similar
pattern occurs for Khulna, although the recent change is less marked. Bagerhat shows a similar
pattern to Satkhira, with much higher levels of ‘other shrimp’ in 1999 as opposed to 1993. Barguna
has much less marked seasonality in ‘other shrimp’ catches, but also shows a greater abundance in
recent years. Patuakahali is unusual in that it shows there are distinct peaks in March, July and
November and lower levels of the rest of the year. Cox’s Bazar has much lower levels that the
middle and western costal districts, with a low-level peaks between August and November - the ‘other
shrimp’ content during the main PL collection period of January – July is very low.
Figure 18: Historical changes in seasonal distribution and abundance of ‘other shrimp’
A: Satkhira Other shrimps Satkhira - historical variation of seasonal abundance
700
600
500
400
1999
1996
1993
300
200
100
0
Jan.
B: Khulna
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Other shrimps Khulna - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
600
500
400
1999
1996
1993
300
200
100
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 40
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Bagerhat Other shrimps - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
C: Bagerhat
700
600
500
1999
1996
1993
400
300
200
100
0
Jan.
D: Barguna
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Barguna Other shrimps - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
250
1999
1996
1993
200
150
100
50
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
E: Patuakahali
Patuakhali Other shrimps - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
500
450
400
1999
1996
1993
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 41
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
F: Bhola
1322-R-053-A
Bhola Other shrimps - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
140
120
100
1999
1996
1993
80
60
40
20
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Cox's Bazar Other shrimps - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
G: Cox’s Bazar
140
120
100
80
1999
1996
1993
60
40
20
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Figure 19: Historical changes in seasonal distribution and abundance of Macrozooplankton
Satkhira Macrozooplankton - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
A: Satkhira
900
800
700
1999
600
1996
1993
500
July 99 manipulated (original 7669)
400
300
200
100
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.*
Aug.
Sept.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 42
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
B: Khulna
1322-R-053-A
Khulna Macrozooplankton - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
4000
3500
3000
1999
1996
1993
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
C: Bagerhat Bagerhat Macrozooplankton - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
2500
2000
1500
1999
1996
1993
1000
500
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
D: Barguna
Barguna Macrozooplankton - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
6000
5000
4000
1999
1996
1993
3000
2000
1000
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 43
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
E: PatuakahaliPatuakhali Macrozooplankton - Historical variation of seasonal
abundance
4000
3500
3000
2500
1999
1996
1993
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Jan.
F: Bhola
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Bhola Macrozooplankton - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
70
60
50
40
1999
1996
1993
30
20
10
0
Jan.
G: Cox’s
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Cox's Bazar Macrozooplankton - Historical variation of seasonal
Bazar
abundance
400
350
300
250
1999
1996
1993
200
150
100
50
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 44
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 20: Historical changes in seasonal distribution and abundance of finfish
A: Satkhira
Satkhira Finfish - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1999
1996
1993
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
B: Khulna
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Khulna Finfish - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
250
200
1999
1996
1993
150
100
50
0
Jan.
Feb
C: Bagerhat
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Bagerhat Finfish - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
700
600
500
400
1999
1996
1993
300
200
100
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 45
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Barguna Finfish - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
1000
D: Barguna
900
800
700
600
1999
1996
500
1993
400
300
200
100
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
E: Patuakahali
Patuakhali Finfish - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
250
200
150
1999
1996
1993
100
50
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 46
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
F: Bhola
1322-R-053-A
Bhola Finfish - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
1200
1000
800
1999
1996
1993
600
400
200
0
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
G: Cox’s Bazar
Cox's Bazar Finfish - Historical variation of seasonal abundance
250
200
150
1999
1996
1993
100
50
0
Jan.
Feb-16
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Fry Collection Action Plan
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Page 47
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
3.3 BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
3.3.1
3.3.1.1
Relative mortality and biodiversity impact assessment
Seasons of major by-catch loss (Figure 22 to Figure 24)
It can be seen that in Satkhira, October-December and March- May in 1993, October - January in
1996 and September in 1999 were the period of major mortality of non-target species. On average,
September-December may be identified as peak by-catch mortality season.
In Khulna March-May and October- November in 1993, June in 1996 and September to January in
1999 were the peak mortality periods.
In Bagerhat in 1993 it was difficult to identify peak season, because it was different for different
species, in general however April to August may be treated as season for maximum loss of by-catch.
It was June to October in 1996 and May to September in 1999 when major loss occurred. In Bagerhat.
In the districts of Barisal the peak in 1993 was September to December, while it was April-November
in 1996 and September to January in 1999.
In Patuakahali August – January appeared to be the peak season, although the season cannot be
clearly identified in 1993, while the peak loss was in the month of November-April in 1996 and AprilMay and October-December in 1999.
November-June was the peak season for by-catch loss in Cox’s Bazar in 1993 while it was AugustOctober in 1996 and October-December and April-June in 1999.
Figure 21: Peak By-catch Seasonality (by District)
District
Year
J
F
M
A
M
Satkhira
1993
1996
1999
Khulna
1993
1996
1999
Bagerhat
1993
1996
1999
Barisal
1993
1996
1999
Patuakahali 1993
1996
1999
Cox’s
1993
Bazar
1996
1999
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
In summary, September to January was found to be the season that makes highest destruction to the
non-target species, especially in the West and East. The middle districts (Bagerhat and Barisal) tend
to have higher mid-year losses than the others. From Figure 21 it can be seen there is considerable
inter-annual variation that makes such generalisations difficult to fully justify.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 48
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 22: Seasonal Variation in Catch Composition in 1993 (by District)
Satkhira
Khulna
200.00
500.00
180.00
450.00
160.00
400.00
140.00
350.00
120.00
300.00
100.00
250.00
80.00
200.00
60.00
150.00
40.00
100.00
20.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Bagerhat
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Barguna
120.00
160.00
140.00
100.00
120.00
80.00
100.00
60.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
40.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1
Patuakahali
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Bhola
250.00
1200.00
200.00
1000.00
800.00
150.00
600.00
100.00
400.00
Noakhali
1993 – Seasonal variation in catch200.00
composition
50.00
0.00
0.00
00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Cox’s Bazar
00
450.00
00
400.00
350.00
00
P. monodon
Other shrimp
Macrozooplankton
Fin Fish
300.00
250.00
00
200.00
150.00
100.00
00
50.00
0.00
00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
00
00
1
2
Feb-16
3
4
5
6
7
Fry Collection Action Plan
8
9
10
11
12
Page 49
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 23: Seasonal Variation in Catch Composition in 1996 (by District)
Satkhira
Khulna
1200.00
4000.00
3500.00
1000.00
3000.00
800.00
2500.00
600.00
2000.00
400.00
1500.00
1000.00
200.00
500.00
0.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Bagerhat
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Patuakahali
350.00
200.00
180.00
300.00
160.00
250.00
140.00
200.00
120.00
100.00
150.00
80.00
60.00
100.00
40.00
50.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Cox’s Bazar
Bhola
250.00
100.00
90.00
200.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
150.00
50.00
40.00
100.00
30.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
P. monodon
Other shrimp
Macrozooplankton
Fin Fish
Oct Nov Dec
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 50
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 24: Seasonal Variation in Catch Composition in 1999 (by District)
Satkhira
Khulna
4000.00
3000.00
3500.00
2500.00
3000.00
2000.00
2500.00
1500.00
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
1000.00
500.00
500.00
0.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Bagerhat
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Patuakahali
2500.00
3000.00
2000.00
2500.00
1500.00
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
1000.00
500.00
500.00
0.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Cox’s Bazar
450.00
400.00
350.00
P. monodon
Other shrimp
Macrozooplankton
Fin Fish
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Feb-16
Jul
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 51
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
3.3.2
1322-R-053-A
Areas of major by-catch loss
During the early nineties PLs were mainly harvested from the Cox’s Bazar zone and Satkhira. In that
period by-catches of other shrimps were also higher in that proportion in those two districts, but the
by-catches of macro-zooplankton was higher in the SW and middle ground.
Figure 25: Areas of Major By-catch Loss (1990)
P. monodon 1989/90
Other shrimp 1990
Cox's bazar
Patuakhali
Khulna
Satkhira
Cox's bazar
Patuakhali
Khulna
Satkhira
Finfish larvae 1990
Macro-Zooplankton 1990
Cox's bazar
Cox's bazar
Patuakhali
Patuakhali
Khulna
Khulna
Satkhira
Satkhira
It can be summarized from the estimates given in Paul et al (1993) (based on the research work
undertaken by DoF/-FAO/BOBP during 1989/90) that, the production of bagda PL in the SW zone
represents 18% of the total compared to 74% in the SE zone. Catches of bagda in the SE zone was
eight times higher in terms of catch per unit effort (1375 pieces of bagda /day/net) than the SW zone
(170 pieces of bagda/day/net only). Out of the total by-catch produced for the whole coast, 75% was
produced from the SW zone alone. This SW zone possesses much higher biodiversity than the Cox’s
Bazar area as apparent from the proportion of by-catch in the two areas (1:365 in SW and 1:24 in SE).
This shrimp fry collection scenario strongly suggests that the shrimp PL collection process
particularly in the areas of SW zone has a detrimental impact on the coastal biodiversity.
During 1993 period the catches of P. monodon was the highest in Bhola (middle ground) followed by
Bagerhat (SW) and Patuakahali while the other areas have almost equal shares. By catches of other
shrimps were the highest in the Noakhali district and the lowest in the Cox’s Bazar district. By-catch
of macrozooplankton was the highest in Cox’s Bazar followed by Noakhali district. Patuakahali
followed by Khulna produced two-third of the finfish by-catch. Two third of the total production
(total production means total by-catch in all cases as the proportion of P. monodon the target species
was always negligible in comparison to the total catch) was taken from Bhola, Noakhali and Cox’s
Bazar districts.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 52
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 26: Areas of Major By-catch Loss (1993)
Other shrimp 1993
P.monodon 1993
Satkhira
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Bagerhat
Khulna
Khulna
Barguna
Barguna
Patuakhali
Patuakhali
Bhola
Bhola
Noakhali
Noakhali
Cox's Bazar
Cox's Bazar
Macrozooplankton 1993
Fin Fish 1993
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Khulna
Barguna
Patuakhali
Bhola
Noakhali
Cox's Bazar
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Khulna
Barguna
Patuakhali
Bhola
Noakhali
Cox's Bazar
Total 1993
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Khulna
Barguna
Patuakhali
Bhola
Noakhali
Cox's Bazar
Figure 27: Areas of Major By-catch Loss (1996)
Other shrimp 1996
P.monodon 1996
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Khulna
Patuakhali
Bhola
Cox's Bazar
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Khulna
Patuakhali
Bhola
Cox's Bazar
Page 53
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Total CPUE 1996
Fin Fish 1996
Satkhira
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Bagerhat
Khulna
Patuakhali
Khulna
Bhola
Patuakhali
Cox's Bazar
Bhola
Cox's Bazar
The year 1996 was generally a poor year as appeared in the historical analysis in other chapters in this
report. Khulna, Patuakahali and Cox’s Bazar jointly contributed to more than 70% of the bagda
production in this year. Khulna on the other hand produced same amount of other shrimps while
Patuakahali and Cox’s Bazar produced very less amounts of by-catch of other shrimps. Out of the
other shrimps in this year Khulna and Bagerhat produced about 80%. Two third of the finfish bycatch was produced by the Satkhira district alone. Out of the total by-catch SW zone produced about
90% (Khulna and Bagerhat 35% each and 20% by Satkhira district).
During 1999 harvests of P. monodon was dominated by Cox’s Bazar district but there was not
mentionable difference in the share of the other districts. By-catch of other shrimps were more or less
equally shared by the other districts except that Patuakahali produced the highest and Cox’s Bazar
produced the lowest. Maximum proportion of the finfish and macro-zooplankton were produced in the
SW and middle zone. Out of the total by-catch produced in 1999 Barguna was accountable for the
highest proportion and Cox’s Bazar was accountable for the lowest proportion while the other districts
appeared to have more or less equal shares.
Figure 28: Areas of Major By-catch Loss 1999)
Other shrimp 1999
Satkhira
P.monodon 1999
Bagerhat
Khulna
Satkhira
Barguna
Bagerhat
Patuakhali
Khulna
Cox's Bazar
Barguna
Patuakhali
Cox's Bazar
Macrozooplankton 1999
Fin Fish 1999
Satkhira
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Bagerhat
Khulna
Khulna
Barguna
Barguna
Patuakhali
Patuakhali
Cox's Bazar
Cox's Bazar
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 54
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 29: Areas of Major By-Catch Loss (2002)
P.monodon 2002
Other shrimp 2002
Satkhira
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Bagerhat
Khulna
Khulna
Barguna
Barguna
Patuakhali
Patuakhali
Bhola
Bhola
Noakhali
Noakhali
Cox's Bazar
Cox's Bazar
Macrozooplankton 2002
Fin Fish 2002
Satkhira
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Bagerhat
Khulna
Khulna
Barguna
Barguna
Patuakhali
Patuakhali
Bhola
Bhola
Noakhali
Noakhali
Cox's Bazar
Cox's Bazar
Total CPUE 2002
Satkhira
Bagerhat
Khulna
Barguna
Patuakhali
Bhola
Noakhali
Cox's Bazar
Part of the results of the ongoing GEF Fourth Fisheries
v.
study (not conclusive)
reflects that four-fifth of the P.
monodon PL produced in (June) 2002 was contributed by
Cox’s Bazar district and the rest amount by Khulna district.
Out of the other shrimp by-catch more than 50% was
produced in Satkhira district, and Patuakahali and Khulna
contributed to 20% each. The contribution of all other
districts was negligible. Bagerhat and Khulna took the lion
share of macro-zooplankton; and Barguna followed by
Cox’s Bazar, Satkhira and Noakhali took the major share of
finfish by-catch.
Out of the total production of by-catch Satkhira accounted for more than 50%, followed by Bagerhat
and Khulna (20% each). This means that more than 90% of the by catch in 2002 was produced in the
SW zone. This 90% by-catch was made in the SW at the expense of only 20% of the target species.
On the other hand 80% of the target species was produced in SE at the expense of less than 5% of the
by-catch.
In summary, over the last fifteen years, it is apparent that the SW zone produces highest amount of
by-catch for a very small benefit in terms of catching the target species while the situation in the SE
zone is just the opposite. This finding strongly supports the interpretation made by Paul et al (1993),
Khan et al (1994), Khan (1999), and many others.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 55
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
3.3.3
1322-R-053-A
Relative Mortality by Gear Type
3.3.3.1
Rate of mortality in different gear types
Push net (PN) has higher composition of P. monodon than the fixed bag net (FBN) as appeared from
the results of the BoBP/FAO-DoF in 1989/90. The amount of by-catch also appear to be higher in the
FBN. Penaeus indicus appear in very high amount in the FBN catches.
The total catch of P. monodon was distinctly higher in the push nets than the Bag nets particularly in
the SE (Cox’s Bazar) zone where the major part of the annual production took place in 1989/90. On
the other hand, in respect of the SW zone (Satkhira district) where the absolute majority of the bycatch was produced in the same year, the distinct majority of the by-catch was produced by the fixed
bag nets (FBN).
In the month of June 2002 (GEF, FFP ongoing study) it was found that in Chittagong the FBN
produced the absolute highest amount of by-catch, P. indicus is the most mentionable. In Cox’s Bazar
on the other hand PN has more by-catch than the BN.
Figure 30:Mortality Rates in Different Gear Types
A: Percentage composition of Push net 1989/90
B: BoBP/DoF FBN catch 1989/90 composition
80.0
70.0
60.0
60
50.0
40.0
50
30.0
40
20.0
10.0
30
Cox's bazar
Khulna
Patuakhali
Satkhira
P.indicus
P. monodon
M. brevicornis
M. monoceros
P. sculptilis
0
P. stylifera
Other penaeids
Finfish larvae
10
Nonpenaeids
Crab
20
Jellyfish
Zooplankton
Acetes shrimp
Khulna
Patuakhali
Cox's bazar
Teknaf
Satkhira
P. monodon
P.indicus
M. brevicornis
M. monoceros
P. sculptilis
P. stylifera
Other penaeids
Finfish larvae
Nonpenaeids
Crab
Jellyfish
Zooplankton
Acetes shrimp
0.0
distribution
of totalof
production
of by-catch
Figure 31:Spatial
Spatial
Distribution
By-catch(million)
(all species,
millions) by Gear Type
species by gear types 1989/90
140000
120000
100000
PN
BN
80000
DN
60000
40000
20000
0
Teknaf
Feb-16
Cox's Bazar
Patuakhali
Khulna
Satkhira
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 56
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 32: Spatial Distribution of By-catch (P. monodon, millions) by Gear Type
1200
1000
800
PN
BN
DN
600
400
200
0
Teknaf
Cox's Bazar
Patuakhali
Khulna
Satkhira
Figure
33:wise
District-wise
Composition
District
variation in catchCatch
composition
of different gear of Different Gear Types
A. Chittagong
B: Cox’s Bazar
types - Chittagong 2002
350
2500
300
2000
250
P.monodon
Other shrimps
Macro-zooplankton
Finfish
200
P.monodon
Other shrimps
Macro-zooplankton
Finfish
Total
1500
150
1000
100
500
50
0
PN
BN
0
DN
PN
BN
DN
Figure 34: Catch Per Unit Effort for Shrimp Collection (1989/90)
A: Teknaf
B: Cox’s Bazar
6000
4000
1989/90 MSI Cox's Bazar (PL/ one hour)
P. monodon
Other Shrimp
Fin fish
Other Zooplankton
5000
P. monodon
Other Shrimp
Fin fish
Other Zooplankton
3500
3000
4000
2500
3000
2000
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
0
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
0
Mar
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Page 57
Jan
Feb
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Figure 35: Seasonal Abundance of P. monodon Catch (over 1 hour)
A. Teknaf
B. Cox’s Bazar
Seasonal distribution of abundance (catch/one hour) of P. monodon
at Cox's Bazar Station
Seasonal distribution of abundance of P. monodon (catch/ one hour)
at the Teknaf coast in 1989/90 MSI, CU
120
160
P. monodon
140
100
P. monodon
120
80
100
60
80
60
40
40
20
20
0
Mar
Apr
May
3.3.3.2
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
0
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Spatial distribution of by-catch loss due to gear types
In general bag nets (FBN) appeared to produce more by-catches particularly other shrimps and macrozooplankton, but it is very difficult to distinguish the spatial characteristics of the damage factor of
this type of gears (because this figure is the percentage of different species within a given type of net).
Future data, being collected under the GEF, FFP will be able to make a difference.
Figure 36: Spatial
ofspecies
Speciescomposition
Compositionby(by
Gear
Type)
1989-90
Spatial Distribution
Distribution of
gear
types
1989/90
90
80
P. monodon
Other penaeid Shrimp
Non-penaeid shrimps
Finfish Larvae
Macro-zooplankton
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PN
BN
Teknaf
Feb-16
DN
PN
BN
Cox's Bazar
DN
PN
BN
Patuakhali
DN
PN
BN
Khulna
Fry Collection Action Plan
DN
PN
BN
DN
Satkhira
Page 58
Jan
Feb
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
4
1322-R-053-A
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 SUMMARY
This study summarises the findings of a number of previous reports, in particular that by BOBP
(1989/90), BFRI/BARC (1991-2000), DoF (1999-2001) and GEF/FFP (2002). Aggregation of the
data has been complicated by the wide different in sampling techniques used as well as the timing and
location of sampling but a reasonable degree of complementarity has been achieved.
4.1.1
Distribution and Seasonality of Fry Collection
The major effort in fry collection takes place in the central and south-western coastal districts.
However whilst these together account for nearly 80% of effort, they produce less than 40% of the
target P. monodon PL supply.
Division/District
SW: Satkhira, Khulna & Bagerhat
Centre: Barisal & Patuakahali
SE: Chittagong, Cox’s Bazar & Noakhali
TOTAL
No. of Fry
Collectors
143,620
(32.5%)
Fry collected
(million)
280.4
(9.4%)
207,069
(46.7%)
869.5
(28.8%)
92,335
(20.8%)
443,024
1,863.9
(61.8%)
3,012.8
There is also a difference in seasonal distribution of effort. In the SW effort is concentrated in a few
months between January and May. In marked contrast, the SE areas of Cox’s Bazar and Chittagong
show a much longer season with lower intensities of effort, with significant collection continuing
through to September with the main period of collection over January to July.
4.1.2
Catch Composition
Catch rates of P. monodon tend to be much higher in the east (3-5 PL/hour) than the west (1-2
PL/Hour) in sample catches over 1993 – 1999. Conversely, catches of ‘other shrimp’ in the east are
very low (<50 individuals per hour) compared with the middle coastal districts (100-350 individual
per hour) and the west (50-200 individuals per hour). There is also considerable seasonal variation catches of P. monodon are reasonably consistent in Cox’s Bazar whilst western districts show a
seasonal peak over February – May/June with much lower catches over the rest of the year.
Macrozooplankton levels in the south-east are lower than the SW but show an earlier seasonal peak
between March and July (in Cox’s Bazar and Patuakahali) as opposed to July to August in Satkhira
and Khulna.
4.1.3
Gear Distribution and Selectivity
The traditional push net is now the least used of the three main gear types and is largely restricted to
Chittagong and Noakhali. The drag net is used on the rivers and estuaries of Barisal and Khulna and
is almost absent from Cox’s Bazar and Chittagong. The fixed bag nets are used extensively along the
sea coasts of Cox’s Bazar and Chittagong as well as in the rivers of Khulna and Satkhira.
Push nets showed a much higher selectivity for P. monodon than the fixed bag nets. These bag nets
showed higher levels of by-catch, especially when used in Satkhira. Thus the particular use of bag
nets in the SW is particularly destructive - the extensive use of the more selective push nests in the SE
also accounts for the low by-catch levels there.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 59
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
4.1.4
1322-R-053-A
By-catch Seasonality
By-catch levels reflect both the regional variations in effort and the great selective described above.
In the SW (Satkhira and Khulna) the main period of by-catch coincides with the maximum effort over
March to May, although this was not confirmed in either the 1996 nor 1999 surveys. Another period
of high by-catch levels, reported on both the 1993 and 1996 surveys, was October to December - a
period when PL fishing is at its lowest level.
Bagerhat seems to have high levels of by-catch over the middle of the year, starting at the end of the
PL collection season in April – May. Barisal continues this trend with the main by-catch period being
at the end of the year away from the PL collection effort. In Cox’s Bazar by-catch levels seem to
coincide with the main PL collection period of January – June.
District
Satkhira
Year
1993
1996
1999
Khulna
1993
1996
1999
Bagerhat
1993
1996
1999
Barisal
1993
1996
1999
Patuakahali 1993
1996
1999
Cox’s
1993
Bazar
1996
1999
4.1.5
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Synthesis
This overview study confirms the results of previous reports that indicate that fixed bag nets are a
highly destructive gear with poor selectivity and less scope for mitigation through manual sorting.
Their rapidly increasing use, especially in the estuaries of the SW is largely responsible for the high
levels of by-catch seen. The south-west also sees lower ‘catch per unit effort’ of P. monodon than the
South east, thus further increasing by-catch levels. There are also marked seasonal differences in
effort and by-catch levels between the different coastal districts, but also subject to considerable interannual variations.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 60
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.2.1
Seasonal and Closures
1.
As can be seen from the figure on the previous page, the highest levels of by-catch appear to
coincide with the period September to January – at this time there is little demand for PLs for
aquaculture so a general ban on PL collection could be considered over this period.
2.
In the SW there is also a case for banning PL collection over the March – May period as this
is also one of high by-catch levels. However this seasonal ban could be restricted to fixed bag nets,
allowing the push net fisheries to continue until further studies can produce more targeted
management measures for these gears, which are usually operated by poorer people without access to
boats.
3.
The Sunderbans Biodiversity Conservation Project has produced a management plans for the
key fisheries in the project area – this recommends that PL collection is completely banned in the
project area.
4.2.2
Other Mitigation Measures
4.
Over the short-term, other mitigation measures might be appropriate, including:
4.2.3
i.
to trial and train PL collectors in the use of PL aggregation devices such as leaves and
aquatic plants to reduce by-catch levels; and
ii.
encourage the use of P. indicus in aquaculture to sustain push net incomes, especially in
the south-west .
Further Work
5.
This study has revealed the short-falls of previous studies and their lack of compatibility. It is
therefore proposed that the GEF/FFP project learn from these failings and conduct a further year’s
data collection in order to refine the findings of this study.
6.
There is no clear understanding of the population regulatory mechanisms operating in shrimp
PL and by-catch organisms. If density-dependant regulatory mechanisms do act beyond the PL stage
then the productivity impact of limited PL collection (i.e. through the use of push nets) is likely to be
minor. This need further investigation through further examination of P. monodon catch data.
7.
One key area that has not been explored in this study is the down-stream impacts of PL
collection and the general use of fixed bag net fisheries on coastal shrimp and fish populations. This
is essential to balance the livelihood benefits of PL collection with the as yet unquantified reduction in
livelihood opportunities for the coastal populations in general. These have been in decline as a result
of general over-fishing throughout the marine and coastal zone but may have been exacerbated
through PL collection. The ecological elements of this will be explored by the GEF project over 2003
but the socio-economic and livelihood implications also need investigation.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 61
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Appendix A: References and Bibliography
Sonnenholzner, S., L. Massaut, C. Saldias, J. Calderón and C. Boyd (????). Case Study I: Use of
Wild Post Larvae
Abedin J, Islam S, Chandra G, Kabir Q: Freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) sub sector
study in Bangladesh 2001
Abedin J, Islam S, Chandra G, Kabir Q: Freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) sub sector
study in Bangladesh 2001
Ahmed K: HACCP Compliance in the shrimp processing industry in Bangladesh, (ATDP), 2000
Ahmed N: Socio economic aspects of freshwater prawn culture development in Bangladesh. PhD
Thesis, University of Stirling, UK; 320 pp, 2001
Alam, MM 1990. Study on the colossal loss of shellfish and finfish post-larvae of indiscriminate
catch of Penaeus monodon post larvae along the coast of Cox's Bazaar and Te... MSc Dissertation.
Dept of Marine Biology, Inst. of Mar. Sci., University of Chittagong, Bangladesh pp 10-45
Alim M. A., Chowdhury M. M. H. and Nabi S. M. N. Polyculture of fish (Labeo rohita,
Hypopthalmichthys molitrix & Puntius gonionotus) with prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) in gher
farming systems, GOLDA, CARE Bangladesh, 1998
Angell C.L: Promotion of small-scale shrimp and prawn hatcheries in India and Bangladesh, BOBP
Rep 66, 1994
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics: Report on Bangladesh Census of Manufacturing Industries (CMI),
1991-1992)
Begum A and Nazumal Alam S.M: Social aspects of coastal shrimp aquaculture in Bangladesh: case
study 1, Caritas, Bangladesh, July 2000
Biology of Penaeid shrimp populations exploited by Estuarine Set Bagnets
CARE: Report on Training Needs Assessment of GOLDA Gher Farmers – Project CARE –
Bangladesh March, 1999
Centre for Policy Dialogue: CPD – UNEP/UNCTAD workshop on assessment of environmental
impact of structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) in Bangladesh and the issue of sustainable
development. Centre for Policy Dialogue, May, Dhaka, 1998
Chowdhury, S.N: Performance of carp and shrimp farms in Bangladesh, Vol II No 4 p 11-17, 1997
Chowdhury Z.H: Network/Political Analysis study of the Shrimp Component of the Social feasibility
studies for the Forth Fisheries Project, DOF / DIFD, 2001
Datta G.C, Kabir K, Islam M.S, Alim M.A and S.M.N. Nabi: Existing management practices of
freshwater gher farming in Southwest Bangladesh in 1998, GOLDA, CARE Bangladesh, 1998
Deb A.K: Fake blue revolution: environmental and socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture in the
coastal areas of Bangladesh, Ocean & Coastal Management 41, 1998 (pp 63-88)
DFID: Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, What contribution can we make? DFID, Papers presented at the
Department for International Development’s Natural Resource Adviser’s Conference, July 1998
Frontline: Dangerous business: Prawn farms threaten the Sundarban ecosystem, 14-20 August, 1994
GOLDA, CARE Bangladesh, 2000
Hossain MA 1984. Studies on the zooplankton communities of the Mathumuhuri river estuary with
special reference to shrimp larvae during the south-west monsoon. MSc Dissertation. Inst. of Mar.
Sci., University of Chittagong, Bangladesh 38 pp
Islam S, Ahmed S.U, Khan S.A: Survey and assessment of shrimp fry and other aquatic resources of
Bangladesh, BARC, 2001
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 62
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Islam, MM., SL Rahman, GC Haldar, MA Mazid and N Mahmood (1996). Extent of damage to
different crustaceans and finfishes in collecting Penaeus monodon post-larvae in Satkhira Coastal
Region. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India. Vol.38, No. 1 & 2. pp 7
Islam, MM., SU Ahmed and Md SA Khan 2001. Survey & assessment of shrimp fry and other
aquatic resources. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council Contract Research Project (ARMP)
IDA Credit 2815-BD. Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute, Paikgacha, Khulna, Bangladesh. Pp
66
Karim M and Stellwagen J: Shrimp Aquaculture, Fourth Fisheries Project, Preparatory Phase for
National Fisheries Sector Development Programme, DoF, 1998
Karim M: Uniting to prevent a crisis: Case study of an effort to assist the shrimp export industry,
ATDP-II/ The Louis Berger Group, Inc
Karim M: Present status of Golda (Macrobrachium rosenbergii): Agro Industries and Technology
Development Project (ATDP) / IFDC, 1999
Karim M: Status of Golda (Macrobrachium Rosenbergii) culture in Bangladesh, Agribusiness
Bulletin, 1999
Karim M: Strategies for increased production of shrimp on a sustainable basis. Paper presented at the
workshop on shrimp industry in Bangladesh, Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters’ Association /
Export Promotion Bureau and the USAID funded Agrobased Industries and Technological
Development Project, Hotel Sonargaon, 26 June 1999, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Khan, G., MS Islam, MG Mustafa, MN Sada,ZA Chowdhury 1994. Biosocioeconomic assessment of
the effect of estuarine set bagnet on the marine fisheries of Bangladesh. Bay of Bengal Programme
(BOBP/WP/94), Madras, India pp 28
Macfadyen, G, Aeron-Thomas, M, Saleh:, The Costs and Benefits of Bagda Shrimp Farming in
Bangladesh – An economic, financial and livelihoods assessment, Fourth Fisheries Project, BCAS /
MRAG / Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd, 2001
Mahmood N, 1990. An assessment of the quantum of damage caused the zooplankton while fishing
bagda shrimp Penaeus monodon fry in Bangladesh estuaries. Proc. 7th Nat. Zool. Conf., Bangladesh
87-94.
Mahmood N, YSA Khan 1980. On the occurrence of post-larvae at Bankhali estuary and adjacent
areas of Cox's Bazar with notes on their utilisation in aquaculture. Final Report. Re. Prog., UGC
Dhaka, p 26
Maniruzzaman M: Intrusion of commercial shrimp farming in three rice growing villages of Southern
Bangladesh: its effects on poverty, environment and selected aspects of culture (PhD thesis,
University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 1998
Motoh H and P Buri 1980.Identification of the post larvae Penaeus monodon appearing along coastal
waters. Aquaculture Dept., SEAFDEC, Quarterly(2nd) Res. Rep. 4 (2) 15-19
Muthu MS 1978. Larval development-specific identification of penaeid post-larvae found in
brackishwater areas in coastal aquaculture. Marine prawn culture. Part 1 larval development of Indian
prawns. CMFRI, Bull (28) 86-90.
Nabi 1 S. M. N, Alim M. A, Datta G.C: Clinical symptoms of diseases found in freshwater prawn,
Macrobrachium rosenbergii in Southwest Bangladesh
Nabi S. M. N, Alim M. A. and Datta G. C: Culture of Tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon in freshwater
gher farming systems, GOLDA, CARE Bangladesh, 2000
NACA (Leung and Sharma editors): Economics and Management of Shrimp and Carp Farming in
Asia: a collection of research papers based on the ADB/NACA farm performance survey, April 2001
Nuruzzaman, Anwari B, Shahjahan, Maniruzzaman: The dynamics and diversity of shrimp farming in
Bangladesh, DOF / DFID, 2001
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 63
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Pauly, D and J. Ingles (1986). The relationship between shrimp yields and intertidal vegetation
(mangroves): p 277-283 In IOC/FAO Workshop on Recruitment in Tropical Coastal Demersal
Communities. Ciudad del Carmen. Campeche, Mexico. 21-15 April 1986
Pokrant B, Reeves P: Putting Globalisation in its place: Globalisation, liberalisation and exportorientated aquaculture in West Bengal and Bangladesh, South Asia, Vol XXIV, no 1 (2001) pp 159184
Quddas A.H.G, Kashem M.B, Alam S, Mainuddin K, Mallick D: Fry collectors livelihood study,
Feasibility Study for the Fourth Fisheries Component (FFP), BCAS, 2001
Quddas.A.H.G, Hossain. H.I, Mallick.D, Roy, M, Khan. A.H: Livelihood Analysis under shrimp
sector social feasibility studies of the Fourth Fisheries Project, DOF / DFID 2001
Quddus, AHG., MB Kashem, S Alam, K Mainuddin and Dwijen Mallick (2001). Fry collectors’
livelihood study. Feasibility study for the Shrimp Component of the Fourth Fisheries Project.
Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Dhaka, Bangladesh pp 45
Rahman, SL., MM Islam, ME Hoq, GC Haldar and SU Ahmed 1997. A study of the damage caused
to crustacean and finfish larvae during collection of Penaeus monodon post larvae in the estuaries of
Barguna, Bangladesh. Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute. Bangladesh J. Fish. Res., 1 (1) 41-46
Rosenberry, B. (1993) Shrimp farmers ravage the environment and people in Bangladesh. World
Shrimp Farming, 18(5):8-9
Rutherford S: Financing the Small Fry CARE, Bangladesh, date
Wang, YG & Haywood M (1999). Size dependent natural mortality of juvenile banana shrimps
Penaeus merguinensis in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 50:
313-317
Wang YG, Thomas MR and Somers IF (1995). A maximum likelihood approach for estimating
growth from tag-recapture data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 252-259.
Williams D and Khan A.K: Freshwater prawn farming in gher systems: indigenous technology
developed in south-west Bangladesh, GOLDA Project, CARE Bangladesh, 2001
Zafar M and N Mahmood 1994. Occurrence and abundance of penaeid post larvae of the genera
Penaeus, Metapenaeus and Parapenaeopsis in the estuarine waters of Satkhira, Bangladesh.
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 64
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Appendix B: The Shrimp and Prawn Farming Sectors in Bangladesh
A. Overview of Shrimp and Prawn Culture
The shrimp and prawn2 culture sector of Bangladesh is seen as having become very important in
economic terms contributing significantly to foreign exchange earnings and employment generation in
rural areas. In 2001-2002, Bangladesh achieved the highest ever export earnings from the fisheries
sector (Tk 18,851 M (US $330 M), of which 89% was derived from frozen shrimp (29,713 t) 3. The
combined production from marine and brackish water ponds and from freshwater ghers is estimated
to be around 42,900 tonnes (unprocessed weight), 76% coming from extensive aquaculture and 24 %
from inland farming. The total area under production is estimated to be equivalent to 200,000 ha of
which 170,000 ha is orientated towards the production of Penaeus monodon culture, whilst the
remaining 30,000 ha is orientated towards Macrobrachium rosenbergii. This compares with a total
52,000 ha and 3,500 ha in the mid 1980s respectively. The total production area is believed to have
expanded by approximately 20 % per annum in the last 15 years4. However, despite the comparative
lower levels of production of Macrobrachium, the growth in this species production has more than
doubled over the same period.
Bangladesh shrimp culture is practiced in brackish, saltwater and fresh water. The main cultivated
species is Penaeus monodon (tiger shrimp), more commonly referred to as bagda. The total farm
production of this species in 2001 was 25,000 t (representing 58 % of the total). The other cultivated
species include Macrobrachium rosenbergii (golda or Giant Freshwater Prawn), accounting for
11,942 t, or 28 % of the total, Metapenaeus monoceros (Horina or brown shrimp), Penaeus indicus
(Chaka or Indian white shrimp), Penaeus semisulcatus (Green tiger shrimp) and Penaeus
merguinensis (Banana shrimp) that make up a further 2,891 t (7 %), 850 (2 %), and 2,211 t (5 %)
respectively. Whilst production is orchestrated to producing bagda and golda, a small amount of
other shrimp species are also grown as a result of the influence of poor screening and wild shrimp PL
being trapped in the tidal ponds.
There are two systems in operation: extensive gher culture, which is used to produce marine and
brackish water species, referred to as bagda culture; and fresh water gher / pond culture used to
produce golda. There are an estimated 37,397 (2002) farms culturing marine and brackish water
species (P. monodon, M. monoceros, P. indicus, P. semisulcatus and P. merguinensis), with a further
105,000 5 farms producing Macrobrachium rosenbergii.
Farm management practices are of two types, extensive and improved extensive culture system. There
are presently no semi-intensive farms in operation anymore. Attempts to evolve farms into a semiintensive system took place in Cox’s Bazar in the early 1990s. There were 37 Semi intensive farms
covering an area of 218 ha. The farms are no longer under semi intensive culture following the
outbreak of White Spot disease in P. monodon from 1994 onwards.
2
According to FAO, shrimp are predominantly marine species (i.e. P. monodon) and prawn are freshwater (i.e.
M. rosenbergii)
3
There is considerable doubt in respect to the accuracy of figures used. DoF calculate production as 64,000 t while
the quantity of exports in the last 5 years has ranged from 18,000 – 29,000 t. Even if allowing for processing i.e.
discounting the weight to processed weight equivalents would result in an overestimated yield of 42,000 t product
weight less, 500 t of this is derived from marine catch production. In reality, production yields per hectare (bagda and
golda combined) average 214 kg hectares from 200,000 ha. This suggests an annual production from marine shrimp
farms of 43,880 t (assuming a yield loss of 36.9 % if all the product processed) of 28,000 t. Total 2001-2002 exports
amounted to 29,719 (was processed). The average recorded price is $ 10.7 / kg whereas the international average price
for monodon is $ 13.52 /kg.
4
Banks, R., pers. comm..
5
Abedin J, Islam S, Chandra G, Kabir Q, 2001
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 65
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Most farms lie within Polders. The average farm size has been reducing gradually6 with farmers
surrendering leases7 and small holders dividing large ponds into ghers. Inside TFP polders, 93% of
total farms are below 10 ha (average 3.8 ha as per BCAS census 2000) while in general for the four
coastal districts about 80% of total farms fall under 7.5 ha. This contrasts with DOF 1998 data
showing average bagda farm size of 9.5 ha. All farms lie within the inter tidal range with the tidal
range varying between 1 and 2. 5 m. Only a very small minority of the farms use Low Lift Pumps
(LLPs) and water is this accessed from salt canals.
Most of the farms (80%) are operated by their owners. The remaining 20% or so are tenant operators
leasing in land from local as well as absentee owners of private shrimp land8.
The distinctions between the Khulna district and Cox’s Bazar are the type of rotation, salinity and the
average size of farm. Khulna farms largely alternate between shrimp and rice, the exception being
Satkira where the majority of farms are exclusively dedicated to shrimp production. Farms in Cox’s
Bazar alternate between shrimp and salt. This differential is attributed to seasonal variations in
salinity. Those within a close proximity to the sea and with a greater distance from the key river
systems of the Madhamati, and the Atharabanki and Pusur tributaries, remain in shrimp production for
much longer. Where river salinity is high all year round, shrimp is cultured almost perennially. Such
farms are found in Syamnager, Koira and Assuni thanas in the south west, and Taknaf, Maheshkhali
and Cox’s Bazar in the south east.
PL stocking practice varies area wise. In Bagerhat and Satkhira, major stocking takes place after
February with production extending to July while in Cox’s Bazar majority start stocking one month
earlier in January with production extending to July. Stocking continues in several instalments,
usually each month.
The average stocking rate is 1.6 PL per square meter (15,808 PL/ha – around 15,000 PL/ha) while
large number of farmers were stocking about 3 PL per square meters (29,640 PL/ha – around 30,000
PL/ha). Farmers were stocking both wild and hatchery PL almost in equal proportion in year 2000.
However, the dependency on wild caught PL increased in 2001 as a result of deliberate attempts by
the Hatchery owners to wind down production in order to increase the price of their product. The
average PL price from wild source was Tk 0.86 PL (Tk 860/100PL) while for hatchery source it was
Tk 0.74 per PL (Tk 740/1000PL). Wild PL is sold at 12% above the price hatchery produced PL .
Per ha bagda (monodon) shrimp production averages 197 kg / ha. Of this, monodon production has
been higher in Satkhira (147 kg/ha), next highest yield was in Khulna (101 kg/ha) and the lowest in
Cox’s Bazar (76 kg/ha). The production of other shrimp and finfish was also higher in Satkhira and
lowest in the Khulna district. DOF data however shows much closer yield figures for the four districts
(Khulna 199 kg, Bagerhat 188 kg, Satkhira 159 kg and Cox’s Bazar 216 kg per hectare). Most farms
produce 2 crops per year.
6
FFP op cit
7
: Historically investment was discouraged in larger ghers because leases were short term (1-3 years). Karim and
Stellwagen, 1998
8
FFP, op cit
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 66
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
B. Post Larvae Supply
Penaeus monodon
There are two sources of shrimp in Bangladesh, one is from capture and the other is from culture
origin. The capture comprises catch from estuarine and marine waters. The culture origin, on the other
hand comprises brackish water shrimp culture and from fresh water prawn culture. Table 10 below
shows the variation in source of supply between wild and hatchery PL.
Table 10: Sources of P. monodon PL and cost for PL in sample shrimp farms under 4 coastal
districts
Satkhira Khulna Bagerhat
Cox’s
Bazar
All
Source (per cent)
Wild
23
28
45
73
50
Hatchery
77
72
55
21
50
Wild
0.97
0.96
0.98
0.79
0.86
Hatchery
0.8
0.62
0.99
0.51
0.74
55%
-1%
55%
16%
Cost of PL (Tk/PL)
Wild fry margin 21%
Source: FFP, 2001
Wild bagda PL is collected through a series of centres in the coastal regions. Cox’s Bazar supplies the
greater part of the supplies (around 75 %). PL in this area is abundant between April and May but
continues for almost the full year. The major culture in the Khulna region is from February to July
but continues in high saline areas up until November. Wild PL is also found in Khulna, Satkhira,
Bagerhat, Patuakahali, Bhola, Noakhali and Lakshimpur. An estimated 1,500 - 2,000 M PL is
collected from these areas. However, recent indications are that the average PL collected per person
is falling drastically.9
Wild fry has historically been preferred because it is perceived to have a lower mortality, it is locally
available and it is available on demand throughout the year.
There are currently 45 P. monodon hatcheries in Bangladesh, all of which are located in the Cox’s
Bazar area, which has suitable salinity conditions. Flow through systems are used. Sold as PL15-20,
(20-25 day old larvae) the hatchery period takes place from January to April. It is believed that the
current method of collection causes high stress. High mortality and premature abortion are reported
in many hatcheries. The major constraint to hatchery production is the temperature. Salinity is ideal
between the months of November to April, but without heaters, November to January production, is
considered to be too cold. After April, the salinity quickly declines. Total production of hatchery
PL’s is estimated to be 1,360 M. Each plant produces around 28 M PLs per cycle. One tank holds
30,000 PL, each tank holds 30 t of water. One mother produces 7-8,000. Production capacity is
estimated at 4,000 M. Total annual demand is 3,000 M.
The cost of production ranges from Tk 100 to Tk 270 /1000. High costs include high price of feed
(brine shrimp cysts) and the use of antibiotics. Transport costs are also high (Tk 54 / 1000). Air
freight is used for hatchery produced PL as it reduces mortality significantly.
9
FFP, op cit
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 67
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
PL production from hatcheries has already surpassed the existing demand in the market as of 2001.
Wild collection has reportedly fallen drastically this year. Marketing of hatchery PL is stabilizing in
the field gradually. Presently, more than 50% farmers were found stocking hatchery PL while
stocking from wild source was decreasing rapidly.
Prices of wild caught PL are marginally above hatchery produced PL.
historically been created for three reasons:
Price differences have
(a) Wild caught PL is more robust and has a lower mortality rate (40 % as compared with 60-80 %
for hatchery produced PL) and can command a higher premium.
(b) Hatchery produced PL is associated with the perception of a higher likelihood of contracting
White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV). This is largely because the outbreak of the WSSV was
associated with (imported) hatchery produced PL
(c) Hatcheries and wholesalers deliberately reducing the supply of hatchery produced PL against the
background of a shortage in supply so as to force an upward shift in the market.
Hatchery PL is supplied at 12-15 days, whereas wild PL is supplied at between 15-25 days. Usually
wild caught PL is stocked by remote farmers while hatchery produced PL increasingly popular in the
farms with better transportation network. The proportion of wild and hatchery PL stocked is
narrowing, partially because despite the high mortality rate of hatchery PL against wild PL, the prices
are marginally lower. Equally, nursery ponds have in some cases reduced the mortality levels
traditionally associated with hatchery PL. Wild PL is largely available throughout the year, whereas
hatchery PL is available only during late February to June, those who stock early, depend on wild PL.
Farmers are still unaware of the demerits of early stocking, particularly during November to mid
February because of cold weather.
Macrobrachium rosenbergii
The majority, more than 90 % of golda PL is derived from wild sources: 60 % from Khulna; 35 %
from Comilla and Noakhali; and 5 % from Cox’s Bazar. As a result of expanded culture initiatives,
there appears to be an acute crisis in the availability of golda PL.
There are 34 golda hatcheries spread throughout the country, with 15 are in the Khulna district and a
further 9 in Chittagong district. There are 15 hatcheries reported to be in production10, producing an
average 2.7 M PL. Each factory is producing an average 13 % of its total production capacity.
All the hatcheries use closed systems. The lack of growth in production of hatchery PL is constrained
by:

the lack of technology,

availability of brackish water in close proximity to the plants (required to be 10-12 ppt)

the perception that wild caught PL is more robust.

the perception is that hatchery produced PL has a slower growth rate
Golda hatchery produced PL has a higher price because it is required to be older, more than 35 days. .
Therefore, most of the available PL (presently perceived to be around 90 %) is wild caught in
estuarine river systems. Generally, a similar collection processes is used as with bagda PL but
discarding is much reduced. The distinction is that in this industry wild caught PL tends to be beyond
the post larval stage (4-7 cm). Major problems occur in the transportation of golda PL from the river
systems11.
10
Abedin, op cit
11
Transported by boat, rickshaw, van, bus, tempos and bicycles. Metallic containers e.g. aluminium handles
(aluminium container with rope handle), galvanised iron drums, are used for transportation by road. Boats are used for
long distances. Containers are placed on open deck of the transport and exposed to heat thus creating large-scale
stress on the animals. The holding water is often changed with canal / pond water without any consideration to
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 68
FFP Aquatic Resources Development, Management and Conservation Studies
1322-R-053-A
Most PL collectors sell to farias, who subsequently transport wild PL to the Arats (Wholesale depots).
These arats are usually the same intermediaries which handle hatchery produced PL. The aratdars may
sell directly to farmers or through a network of additional farias.
In 2001, the cost of golda PL was about three times that of the previous year, and 3 times that of
bagda12. The current price (April 2002) of wild PL is Tk 3,000 per ‘000 PL which is nearly 40%
higher than the 2001 price (Tk 1,500-1,600 per ‘000 PL), see Table 11 below. Hatchery PLs are only
marginally cheaper currently selling for Tk 100-200 less per ‘000 PL (CARE, 2001). Most
wholesalers and hatcheries offer credit when selling to farmers. This is because most farmers have
high indebtedness.
Table 11: Prices for Golda PL
Year Price (Tk / ‘000)
485
1998
882
1999
1,142
2000
1,500
2001
2,200
PL Price (Tk/'000)
1997
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1997
1998
1999
2002
3,000
Source: CARE. 2001
2000
2001
2002
Year
shrimps physio-chemical requirements. Large-scale mortalities result. Use of oxygen during transport is uncommon.
(95 % transported without artificial quantum) Karim, 1999. Only hatchery produced larvae are transported with O2
12
CARE: Costs and benefits of Golda production, 2000
Feb-16
Fry Collection Action Plan
Page 69