Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management : Resource Dynamics and Adaptation [1 ed.] 9780857241641, 9780857241634

Citation preview

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: RESOURCE DYNAMICS AND ADAPTATION

COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENT AND DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT VOLUME 3

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: RESOURCE DYNAMICS AND ADAPTATION BY

SHIMPEI IWASAKI Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, Japan

RAJIB SHAW Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Japan

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2010 Copyright r 2010 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the text, illustrations or advertisements. The opinions expressed in these chapters are not necessarily those of the Editor or the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-85724-163-4 ISSN: 2040-7262 (Series)

Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Howard House, Environmental Management System has been certified by ISOQAR to ISO 14001:2004 standards Awarded in recognition of Emerald’s production department’s adherence to quality systems and processes when preparing scholarly journals for print

CONTENTS List of Authors

vii

Brief Introduction to the Series

ix

Brief Introduction to the Volume

xi

Preface

xiii

List of Tables

xv

List of Figures

xvii

List of Acronyms

xxi

Chapter 1

Introduction

1

Chapter 2 State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

25

Chapter 3 Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

59

Chapter 4 Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

89

Chapter 5 Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

121

Chapter 6

145

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed v

vi

CONTENTS

Chapter 7 Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management

177

Chapter 8

201

References

The Way Forward

209

LIST OF AUTHORS Shimpei Iwasaki Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, Japan Rajib Shaw Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

AUTHORS’ PROFILE Shimpei Iwasaki joined the JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) Postdoctoral Fellowship in Research Institute for Humanity and Nature after receiving his PhD from the Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies at Kyoto University in March 2010. His research has been published and presented in national and international papers and at conferences. He works on a variety of issues related to natural resource management (especially lagoon fisheries management), climate change adaptation, and livelihood security in the Asian countries. Rajib Shaw is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies at Kyoto University, Japan. He has worked closely with local communities, nongovernmental organizations, governments, and international organizations, including United Nations, especially in Asian countries. He is currently the Chair of the United Nations Asia Regional Task Force for Urban Risk Reduction. His research interests include community-based disaster risk management, climate change adaptation, urban risk management, and disaster and environmental education.

vii

BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENT AND DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT This series connects academic research to field practice, strengthening the links among the environment, disaster, and community. It will be grounded in rigorous academic analysis and developed through field evidence and community practice, and thus will provide specific guides to professionals. The series will have a specific focus on community-based disaster risk management, urban environmental management, human security, water community, risk communication, climate change adaptation, climate disaster resilience, and community-based practices.

ix

BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE VOLUME Natural resource management has been a topic of environmental management for the past few years: forest management, land management, coastal zone management. Lagoon areas play an important role in maintaining the delicate balance between the freshwater and brackish water ecosystems. A significant number of coastal populations rely on lagoon resources management (more precisely, fishery resources) for their livelihoods. The lagoon areas are also facing increasing threats from human-induced disasters and climate changes. This book is the first unique attempt to address this issue using case studies for lagoon resource management. Lagoons are characterized by an uncertainty regarding their use in resource management: they are vulnerable physically to various influences not only from the environment but also from adjacent marine and terrestrial areas. Therefore, in the areas that are shallower and where less water is exchanged, fishers are required to develop their knowledge and skills for dealing with change and uncertainty. The complex and dynamic lagoon ecosystem and its fisheries management requires addressing multifaceted aspects. Fisheries serve as the basis for people’s livelihood and food protein, especially in Asian countries. Total amounts of fish landing have maintained an upward trend, but existing fisheries management poses various challenges for ensuring the wise use of fishery resources that are becoming fully exploited or overexploited. Lagoon fisheries need to pay more attention to the various types of fishery domains in order to achieve fisheries management. This book presents a wide variety of lessons learned from case studies from Asian countries (India, Japan, and Thailand) in an attempt to recognize this need. Emphasis is placed on understanding the status of lagoon fisheries and its management and assessing people’s adaptive capacities to respond to changes in the ecological-social-economic system. In all of the case studies discussed, policy makers and practitioners are provided with guidance to enable the best conditions for integrated lagoon fisheries management and related sustainable livelihoods, with particular emphasis on issues of power, institutions, worldviews, and values among relevant stakeholders. xi

PREFACE Although the theoretical importance of institutional designs for commonpool resource management, including lagoon fishery resources, is highlighted in many academic and research works, an actual and applicable framework in which such theory can be seen and tested in practice has not yet been available. Such a practical framework or guidance would be an innovative tool to help bridge the gap between theory and practice. Small-scale fishers would be able to achieve wise use of lagoon fishery resources sufficiently over time. In all of the case studies discussed, policy makers and practitioners are provided with guidance to enable the best conditions for integrated lagoon fisheries management and related sustainable livelihoods, with particular emphasis on issues of power, institutions, worldviews, and values among relevant stakeholders.The goal of this book is to create a framework for sound lagoon fisheries management, aiming to ensure sustainable livelihoods in fishing communities of lagoon areas. This book is divided into eight chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the background and rationale behind the book by highlighting the necessity of adaptive fisheries management, especially for small-scale fishers and in lagoon areas. The next three chapters (Chapters 2–4) focus on case study experience. These studies place an emphasis on research perspectives and concerns. The case study of the Chilika Lagoon fisheries (Chapter 2) reveals the mechanism behind resource-based conflicts. By contrast, the case study of the Saroma Lake fisheries (Chapter 3) presents explicit key factors for successful lagoon fisheries management in other parts of the world. The case study of the Songkhla Lake fisheries (Chapter 4) poses a particular challenge to integrate three dimensions: people’s livelihoods, human security, and environmental hazards. Chapter 5 summarizes a wide variety of lessons learned from these three case studies. Chapter 6 sets out to explore key issues of lagoon watersheds, where the actions of people can have a negative impact on people and the environment downstream. Chapter 7 creates an innovative framework for integrated lagoon fisheries management (ILFM), and Chapter 8 summarizes all the findings and provides better insight to develop adaptive lagoon fisheries management. The research presented in the book was supported by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) research grant to Shimpei Iwasaki for his xiii

xiv

PREFACE

doctoral studies in the Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Japan. Special thanks go to the Ramsar Center Japan for their advice and cooperation. This research work would never have been realized without the inputs and active cooperation of the dedicated professionals at the study fields in Chilika Lagoon, India; Saroma Lake, Japan; and Songkhla Lake and Kuraburi Estuary, Thailand. In Chilika Lagoon, we give our heartfelt thanks to Chilika Development Authority, Assistant Register of Co-operative Societies (Fy) Chilika Circle Balugaon, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Orissa State Fishermen Co-operative Fedration Ltd., Orissa State Disaster Mitigation Authority, Orissa Watershed Development Mission, Pallishree, NGO rooted in a mission of environmental education, India and fishing communities of Chilika Lagoon in our study. In Saroma Lake, we are extremely grateful to Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma, Tokoro, Saroma and Yubetsu Fishery Cooperative Associations and associated local fishers. In Songkhla Lake, we express deep gratitude to Wetland International – Thailand, Prince of Songkla University, Department of Fisheries especially in Songkhla Province, National Institute of Coastal Aquaculture, Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Department of Water Resources and Federation of Fisherfolk in Songkhla Lake. In Kuraburi Estuary, we are extremely grateful to International Union for Conservation of Nature – Thailand, Kuraburi Environment Network and Khao Mae Nang Kaw Network. We hope that this book will make a valuable contribution to the important topic of lagoon fisheries management, especially focusing on the research and policy makers in the field. Our book is one contribution to the field of natural resource management and environmental conservation. We hope that these groups find this book useful. Shimpei Iwasaki Rajib Shaw

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 3.1

Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7

Classifications of Environmental Hazards in the Lagoon Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Category of Lagoon Fisheries Management Ascendancy in Each Field Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Difference of Working Environment in Four Types of Fishing Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fish Traders in Lean and Harvest Seasons. . . . . . . . Fish Trade Places in Lean and Harvest Seasons . . . . Total Amount of Loan Availed by PFCSs from Different Financial Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traditional Fishery Sources in Chilika Lagoon. . . . . Characteristics of Traditional Fisheries among Sub-Caste Groups in Chilika Lagoon . . . . . . . . . . . Major Changes of Fishing Rights in Chilika Lagoon. Comparison of Numbers between Fishery Cooperative Association Members in Saroma Lake and Fishing Population in Japan . . . . . . . . . . Breakthrough of Fishing Rights in Saroma Lake and Its Surrounding Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Changes of Modern Saroma Lake Fisheries . . Distribution of Fishing Gears Used in Songkhla Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Working Population and Ratio of Primary Fishing Population in Male and Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical Overview of Songkhla Lake Fisheries . . . . Land Use Change in Songkhla Lake Watershed between 1993 and 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CPUE of Fishing Gears in Songkhla Lake in 1994–1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Risk Factors for Decline of Fishery Resources . . . . . Expected Adaptation Measures for Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv

..

18

..

21

.. .. ..

36 39 41

.. ..

43 45

.. ..

46 47

..

71

.. ..

72 81

..

97

. .

101 104

.

107

. .

108 111

.

112

xvi

Table 4.8 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3

LIST OF TABLES

Demolition Activities of Illegal Fishing Gears in Songkhla Province in 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identified Problems and Trends of Lagoon Fisheries in Three Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Activities and Involved Stakeholders of Fishery Federation in Three Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characters of Sea Mouth Management in the Cases of Old Mouth and First Mouth . . . . . . . Features of Paradigm Shift of Watershed Development Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-Evaluation of Watershed Management Project Activities in Three Project Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scenario Analysis on Effects of Expected Environmental Conservation Measures . . . . . . . . . Self-Evaluation of NRM Network Activities . . . . . Potentiality of NRM Network Linkages at the Watershed Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Principles and Institutional Performances on CPR Setting in Case Study Sites . . . . . . . . . . . Types and Characteristics of Three Management Pillars for ILFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expected Key Actors and Their Responsibility for ILFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

118

..

127

..

134

..

141

..

147

..

152

.. ..

159 173

..

174

..

183

..

195

..

196

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 3.7 Fig. 3.8 Fig. 3.9

Trend of World Fisheries and Aquaculture Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Global Trends in the State of World Marine Stocks since 1974. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curve of Renewable Stock-Flow Resources . . . . . . . Two Fishing Grounds of Different Productivities. . . Primary Stakeholders in Fisheries Management. . . . . Components of Vulnerability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geographic Characters of the Lagoon Environment.. Image on Fishery Resource Marketing Flow from Fishers to Consumers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map of Chilika Lagoon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend of Mean Maximum/Minimum Temperature in the Chilika Lagoon Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend of Rainfall in the Chilika Lagoon Region. . . Trend of Fish Landing Quantity from 1929 to 2008. . Location of Fishing Grounds in Chilika Lagoon. . . . Starting Year of Loan Finance for Fishing Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map of Saroma Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend of Maximum/Minimum Temperature in the Saroma Lake Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend of Rainfall in the Saroma Lake Region. . . . . Historical Changes in Japan’s Coastal Fisheries Institutions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Fishing Rights Category between Meiji Fishery Law and Fishery Law. . . . . . Fisheries Coordinating Organizations at Multilevel Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend of Fish Landing Quantity and Fishing Population in Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map of Aquaculture Grounds in Saroma Lake. . . . Flow Chart of Scallop Culture in Saroma Lake. . . . xvii

... . . . . . .

2

.. 2 .. 4 .. 7 . 10 . 11 . 14

.. ..

20 26

. . . .

. . . .

29 31 33 37

.. ..

44 60

.. ..

62 63

..

65

..

68

..

69

.. .. ..

70 73 74

xviii

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.10 Fig. 3.11 Fig. 3.12 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5

Fig. 4.6 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10

Fig. 4.11 Fig. 4.12 Fig. 4.13 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4 Fig. 6.5

First Mouth and Old Mouth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend of Scallop Landing Production in the Saroma Lake Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual Trend of Iced-Over Water Days in Saroma Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydrological Map of Songkhla Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . Monthly Mean Temperature in the Songkhla Lake Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend of Rainfall in the Songkhla Lake Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fishing Gears Used in Songkhla Lake through Questionnaire Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monthly Trend of Fish Landing Quantities in Four Interconnected Lakes of Songkhla from January 2003 to December 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seasonality of Fish Landings in Songkhla Lake from 2003 to 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Range of Water Depth in Fishing Grounds.. . . . . . . Fishing Grounds in Songkhla Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pak Ra Wa Water Gate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend of Fish Landings in Songkhla Lake Watershed from 1977 to 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ratio of Alternative Jobs in Songkhla Lake. . . . . . . Institutional Structure of Fishery Co-Management Regime in Songkhla Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location and Establishment Year of Conservation Zones in Songkhla Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical Trends of Fishery Resource Stocks through Comparative Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three Factors behind Closure of Sea Mouth. . . . . . . Maps of Saroma Lake with Social Backgrounds behind Opening of First Mouth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scenery of Dengai Pahad Watershed. . . . . . . . . . . . Institutional Structure of DPPIMP.. . . . . . . . . . . . . Nutrient Loads from Upstream to Downstream of Saroma Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trends of Performances on Fishers-Based Forest Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community Network for Songkhla Lake Watershed Restoration and Development. . . . . . . . .

..

77

..

81

.. ..

84 90

..

94

..

95

..

98

.

100

. . . .

101 102 102 106

. .

109 113

.

116

.

117

. .

130 137

. . .

140 149 151

.

154

.

157

.

165

List of Figures

Fig. 6.6 Fig. 6.7 Fig. 6.8 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 7.5 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2

xix

Emerging Arena for Integrated Songkhla Lake Watershed Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map of Kuraburi Estuary Watershed. . . . . . . . . . . Diagram on NRM Network Building in Kuraburi Estuary Watershed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope of Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management. . Three Basic Approaches on Long-Enduring CPR Institution Enhancement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea Mouth Management Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Lagoon Watershed Management in Four Case Study Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Framework for Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trajectories toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management in Case Study Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Way Forward for the Development of Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

167 168

. .

175 180

. .

185 188

.

191

.

197

.

204

.

206

LIST OF ACRONYMS ACLS BOD CAFL CBFM CBO CD CDA CECLS CFCMS CMM CNSLWRD COD CORIN CPR CPUE CSAL DANCED DOF EAP EIA EmSong FCA FFSL FS FSFT GHQ ILFM IUCN IWC KEN KMNKN KWN

Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma Biological oxygen demand Chilika Aquatic Farm Ltd. Community-based fisheries management Community-based organization Critical depensation Chilika Development Authority Council for Environmental Conservation in Lake Saroma Central Fishermen Cooperative Marketing Society Chilika Matsyasibi Mahasangha Community Network for Songkhla Lake Watershed Restoration and Development Chemical oxygen demand Coastal Resources Institute Common pool resource Catch per unit effort Cultured scallop allowance limit Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development Department of Fisheries Environmental action program Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Management in Songkhla Lake Watershed Fishery cooperative association Federation of Fisherfolk in Songkhla Lake Fishery society Federation of Southern Fisherfolk Thailand General Headquarters of the Allied Forces Integrated lagoon fisheries management International Union for Conservation of Nature International Whaling Commission Kuraburi Environment Network Khao Mae Nang Kaw Network Kuraburi Watershed Network xxi

xxii

MEY MOA MORD MOSTE MSY NCDC NEB NGO NICA NRM OEPP ONEPP OWDM PFCS PIA PRA RCJ RMP RTF SC SCECLS SHG SIFFS SLWC SLWDC UNDP UZFCC WORLP ZFCC

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Maximum economic yield Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Rural Development Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment Maximum sustainable yield National Cooperative Development Corporation National Environmental Board Non-governmental organization National Institute of Coastal Aquaculture Natural resource management Office of Environmental Policy and Planning Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning Orissa Watershed Development Mission Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Project implementing agency Participatory rural appraisal Ramsar Center Japan Revised management procedure Rak Thai Foundation Scientific committee Supporting Committee for Environmental Conservation in Lake Saroma Self-help group South Indian Federation Fishermen Society Songkhla Lake watershed committee Songkhla Lake watershed development committee United Nations Development Programme United zone fisheries coordinating committee Western Orissa rural livelihoods project Zone fisheries coordinating committee

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Fishers and Fishery Resources Our planet’s essential goods and services emanate from the functions of biological diversity. An ecological sphere rich in variety and endowed with highly productive ecosystem services in which fishery resources are present provides attractive benefits. Fishery resource is the primary form of people’s livelihood for survival, especially in coastal areas. It is a major source of food protein for human beings representing at least 15 percent of the average per capita animal protein intake of more than 2.9 billion people [Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2009]. Significant demands for fishery resources create employment opportunities for many people around the world (FAO, 1995). Indeed, the number of fishers, including aquaculturists, has grown faster than the world’s population and faster than employment in traditional agriculture during the past three decades (FAO, 2007a, 2009). In 2004, an estimated 51 million people were making their entire or partial living from fish production and capture (Pomeroy & Rivera-Guieb, 2006), the great majority of these in Asian countries (FAO, 2007a, 2009). According to FAO (2009), it has been estimated that for each person employed in the fishery primary sector, there could be four employed in the secondary sector (including fish processing, marketing, and related service industries). The estimated total population employed in the entire fish industry is approximately 204 million people. The total amounts of fish landing, including aquaculture, have maintained an upward trend, as shown in Fig. 1.1. To a large extent, advanced fishing technology that is efficiently and effectively capable of catching or harvesting fishery resources attracted a large number of fishers and has contributed to an increase in fish landing quantity. 1

2

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Fig. 1.1. Trend of World Fisheries and Aquaculture Production. Source: Modified from FAO (2009).

Fig. 1.2.

Global Trends in the State of World Marine Stocks since 1974. Source: Modified from FAO (2009).

With regard to the global state of marine stocks, however, existing fisheries management poses challenges for ensuring a wise use of fishery resources. As shown in Fig. 1.2, there has been a consistent downward trend in the proportion of underexploited and moderately exploited marine stocks, and this perhaps could produce more. By contrast, there has been

3

Introduction

an increase in overexploited and depleted marine stocks, from around 10 percent in the mid-1970s to around 25 percent in the early 1990s (FAO, 2009). In other words, fishery resources are becoming fully exploited or overexploited all over the world. The percentage of fish stocks categorized as fully exploited, overexploited, and depleted varies from place to place (ibid.), depending on local fisheries management.

Theory and Management of Fishery Resource Stock Most of the fishery science in the world to date has been devoted to resource stock assessment (Acheson, 1981; Berkes, Mahon, McConney, Pollnac, & Pomeroy, 2001). Theories of fisheries management have been developed mainly in the field of biology and, to some extent, economics, as fish ecology is considered an inevitable component of the management system. Many scholars see fishery recruitment (i.e., numbers of marketable-sized fishery resources that become available) as a function of fishing efforts. Under this notion, fishery resources can be treated as stock-flow resources that are transformed materially into what they produce. A sustainable yield curve, shown in Fig. 1.3, delineates a stock curve of renewable natural resources including fishery resources (Daly & Farley, 2004):1 the x-axis represents the stock quantities that exist and the y-axis represents the resource flows that can be the rate of reproduction relevant to resource harvests. A 451 dashed line means the theoretically maximum rate at which we can extract a given stock (entire stock-flow); the appropriators harvest the resource on or below this line at any given point in time. The nonlinear curve shows the growth rate of each level of resource stock. A harvest at any point that is on a track of the sustainable yield curve, such as Sv and Rv, is equal to the growth in the resource stock, when there is no impact on resource stocks. When the resource is harvested beyond (or below) the track, the result is considered to be overexploitation (or underexploitation). The harvest at Ruv, for instance, will reduce the resource stocks to S, whereas the one at Ru will allow them to K. It is important to note that there is a critical depensation (CD) point at which a critical population or stock level is identified. Below this point, any population or resource stock can no longer survive, even in the absence of human activities. Likewise, the model in the stock-flow space guides efforts at fisheries management with a term called ‘‘maximum sustainable yield (MSY).’’ MSY can be defined as the highest average harvest over time that does not deplete the resource stocks under a given set of environmental

4

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

S″′

R″′

Resource Flows (Growth, Harvest)

MSY 45°

S″ Zero net productivity Q R′

CD Resource Stocks

Legend: CD: Critical Depensation

Fig. 1.3.

R″

S′

S

R

K

MSY: Maximum Sustainable Yield

Curve of Renewable Stock-Flow Resources. Source: Modified from Iwasaki (2010).

conditions. The harvest rate, which is equal to the MSY point, can be sustainable, assuming that natural mortality or human pressures are balanced by stable reproduction and growth. Related to the concept of MSY, considerable efforts by economists are also made, including the revenue occurring from harvesting (yield times the resource price) and the costs of harvesting efforts. These are referred to as ‘‘maximum economic yield (MEY),’’ in which the largest positive gap between total revenues and total costs of resource exploitation is identified.2 The sustainable yield curve represents equilibrium condition over one time period for any given stock. However, it should be kept in mind that we cannot scientifically estimate MSY, MEY, or CD accurate to the nonlinear curve, enough for use in resource management (Armitage, Marschke, & Plummer, 2008; Daly & Farley, 2004). These estimations always involve high complexity and uncertainty, particularly in vulnerable water environments, including lagoon areas. Dietz, Dolsˇ ak, Ostrom, and Stern (2002) argue that the science of fish population dynamics has not been well established. Fish ecology is composed of hosts of structural elements, exhibiting varying degrees of complexity. The elements act together to create a whole that is

Introduction

5

greater than the sum of the parts (Daly & Farley, 2004). Even if fishery scientists have understood the individual parts, the complex system linking each part make it difficult to predict the phenomenon. These theoretical indicators may vary drastically from place to place or from year to year in response to external impacts from anthropogenic pressures (e.g., water pollution and filling in land) as well as in response to changes in climate (typically, the El Nin˜o and La Nin˜a phenomenon). Although many scientists endeavor to shed further light on the ecological mechanism of stock-flow resources accurately, knowledge about the complexity and interconnectedness of ecosystems is still incomplete. A major change in ecological thinking in the past two decades is that nature is complex and that ecosystem processes are dominated by an essential quality of uncertainty (Berkes, 2004; Carlsson & Berkes, 2005). Ecosystems are characterized by nonlinear relations, multiple possible outcomes and limited predictability (Olsson, Folke, & Berkes, 2004). Hence, a broader range of uncertainty for use in resource management should be taken into account. In this respect, there are innovative approaches that consider nonequilibrium conditions with scientific understanding. One of these approaches includes management procedure with simulation analysis. This is based on a set of rules that utilize prespecified data to provide recommendations for management actions (Punt, 2006). Such management procedures have been implemented in many parts of the world (ibid.). For instance, the scientific committee (SC) of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) developed a procedure for determining safe catch limits. In addition, a revised management procedure (RMP), agreed by the SC/IWC in 1992, provided formal management advice for commercial whaling. The RMP is a set of rules that has been tested in simulations that take uncertainty into account (Punt & Donovan, 2007). These rules can incorporate a feedback mechanism to implement harvest control, and result in an ability to deal with situations even when stock structure is uncertain. However, the approach pioneered by the SC is not being used yet to manage commercial whaling, in spite of the effective evaluation of uncertain stock structure. Similar situations that have not reflected the management procedures in implementation or decision rules have been observed, especially in the early stages (Punt, 2006). These reasons may be in part due to a lack of political will and policy coordination among the stakeholders. Furthermore, these are related to difficulties associated with quantifying variable interactions. Although there has been an increasing trend for the use of management procedures, it is expected that implementing management procedures is a major challenge in such vulnerable areas as the lagoon environment. This is how lagoon areas are physically or climatically

6

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

subject to various influences not only from their internal environment but also from adjacent marine and terrestrial places including, watershed areas. These multispecies and multigear fisheries further increase complexity so that the possibility of obstacles to proper fisheries management with the use of management procedures in lagoon fisheries, especially in developing countries, is present.

Tragedy of the Commons and Collective Actions Another focus is also strongly required to highlight that some fishers may not capture enough fishery resources to be wealthy or to sustain their livelihoods unless the fishery operation is subject to social control, including behavior confirmation and social selective incentives toward collective actions. A paramount consideration among fisheries management is the divergence between individual and collective rationality (Berkes et al., 2001). This problem is often quoted in the ‘‘tragedy of the commons’’ (Hardin, 1968) argument, in which each resource user ignores costs imposed on others, resulting in overexploitation of natural resources. Fishery resources are originally terra nullius and are not the subject of private property; individuals can catch fish on a first-come-first-served basis so that the catch belongs to the first taker. As a result, economics discourse presumes that ‘‘rational’’ fishers make demands on the resource until the expected benefits of their actions equal the expected costs. In addition, most fishery resources entail an element of mobility that requires cooperation of the stakeholders toward sustainable fisheries. Even though a fisher manages his or her fishing ground in an appropriate manner, the fishing activity may fail to achieve good fish production because of its overexploitation by others. It is now clear that a tragedy will occur in the absence of management, whether that management comes from central government or local communities. Such cases are even applicable to a situation in which the resources are rich from a macro viewpoint such as S’’ and R’’, shown in Fig. 1.3. With regard to this argument, Gordon (1954) drew considerable attention to the economic incentive for appropriators, citing as an example two fishing grounds of different productivities (Fig. 1.4), which pose a major challenge to the allocation of fishing efforts. Optimum fishing efforts correspond at the point where the marginal productivities are equal on both grounds (Ox and Oy, respectively). However, if individual fishers are free to catch fish on whichever ground they desire, they prefer to fish on ground 1 because an average fish-catch of Oa is greater than of Ob. By and large,

7

Introduction Absence of Fisheries Management (Ground 2 → Ground 1)

Ground 1

Ground 2

a b c AP

AP

MP O

x

MP Fishing Effort O Legend: MP:Marginal Product

Fig. 1.4.

y

Fishing Effort

AP:Average Product

Two Fishing Grounds of Different Productivities. Source: Modified from Iwasaki (2010).

this would not reach stable equilibrium until the average productivity of both grounds was equal. Given that average cost is the same for all grounds and the average productivity of all grounds is brought to equality by the free and competitive nature of fishing, the logical consequence is that the intramarginal grounds yield no rent (ibid.). In other words, the rent that the intramarginal grounds are capable of yielding is dissipated through the misallocation of fishing efforts (ibid.). On this account, a given form of social control among appropriators is extremely important for fisheries management to implement a set of rules that help to govern access to fishing grounds or the behaviors of appropriators.

Adaptive Fisheries Management Given the inherent uncertainties in the management of fishery systems, the adoption of command-and-control measures makes it difficult to achieve effective fishery management from a scientific viewpoint. Instead, many scholars increasingly put high emphasis on the significance of the adaptive management approach (Armitage, Berkes, & Doubleday, 2007; Berkes, 2004, 2005; Carlsson & Berkes, 2005). Adaptive management as an

8

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

approach takes into account uncertainty and assumes that management knowledge is inadequate, thus requiring experimentation and learning in an iterative process (Berkes, 2007). With regard to this, fishery systems throughout the world have traditionally sought to reduce uncertainty and a broad range of risks through the use of a set of norms, institutions and networks of various types (Acheson, 1981). They developed communitybased resource use systems, which tend to be dynamic, going through cycles of crisis and recovery and cycles of institutional renewal (Berkes, 2005). Many community-based management systems have coevolved with resource and ecosystem dynamics and have developed their knowledge and skills of how to live with change and uncertainty (Berkes et al., 2001; Olsson et al., 2004). Fishing requires adjustment to migratory factors and the strong restriction of the Mother of Water; fishers have to cope with various types of elements such as the extent of fish organism distribution on the basis of seasonality and the nature of fish ecology, and tidal fluctuation. The operation is required to adjust itself to these factors, regardless of any time day or night. Many fishers attempt to interact with each other to develop social capital (a set of norms, trust, and networks) as well as share information about fishing activities such as the location of fish concentration and the assessment of fishery resources. These collaborative efforts among fishers have contributed to building a variety of institutional arrangements as adaptive fisheries management in many parts of the world. The arrangements enable fishers to promote collective actions that minimize transaction costs and create local harvest control rules in order to prevent selfish behavior such as free riding. Such collective actions enable crisis avoidance, implicitly or explicitly taking uncertainty into account. In Indonesia, for instance, a comprehensive set of traditional community-based natural resource management practices and decision-making processes have been put in place. These are characterized by various elements that could be incorporated into an experimental and learning-by-doing process (Armitage et al., 2008). One of the representative examples is Sasi, which defines prohibitions on the harvest, capture, or collection of particular natural resources of economic or subsistence value to the community (Pido, Pomeroy, Garces, & Carlos, 1997). Likewise, Padu systems that are based on rotational fishing grounds allocated by lottery are devised in lagoon and estuary areas of Sri Lanka and southern Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu (Atapattu, 1987; Berkes, 2005, 2006; Jayakody, 1996; Jayawardane & Perera, 2003; Lobe & Berkes, 2004). These are species- and gear-specific with rules to define fishing grounds and rights holders, often according to social or caste groups (Berkes, 2006).

Introduction

9

Likewise, Alanya fisheries in Turkey developed an innovative fishing system to optimize fish production at the best fishing grounds, and in turn to allocate these sites by lottery with a rotation provision to ensure that all fishers have an equal chance to fish the best sites (Berkes, 1986, 2005). This system was used to regulate coastal fisheries and solve escalating conflicts over prime harvesting areas (Berkres, 2005). Furthermore, traditional fisheries management in Fiji is based on a clan that regulates the use and management of fishing grounds where master fishers with extensive local knowledge of fish and their habitats are responsible for many decisions affecting the use of certain fishing grounds (Matthews, Veitayaki, & Bidesi, 1998). These procedures of fishing rights areas and permission for outside appropriators are still subject to the fishery system of local ownership of resources in Fiji (ibid.). Such shared visions of fishers and the self-organizing process have the potential to expand desirable adaptive domains of fisheries management. Institutional arrangements that are formally or informally created among fishers can regulate their common interests and adapt to changes in water environment by means of improved fishing techniques, place prohibitions on the harvest, allowing a portion of the catch to escape, ban on taking small juveniles, and so on. However, we should mention that fishers alone can hardly manage fishery resources in the complex contemporary world. Particularly, the current dynamics of lagoon ecosystems being influenced by extra-local shocks combined with rapid anthropogenic pressures increase more uncertain phenomenon and vulnerable situations in fish ecology. Hence, the inadequate knowledge in the use of fisheries management and varying influential sources of water degradation necessitate a close cooperation and risk-sharing between the management agency and fishers. The management process requires collaboration, transparency and accountability so that a learning environment can be created to respond to changes in fish species and their habitats (Berkes, 2004). Indeed, development conceptions are various and controversial among relevant stakeholders because of the multiple uses and values within fishery arenas or spaces. Revenue-oriented policy is a good example that often induces dominant persons/groups such as government officials and business owners to apply for destructive fishing methods or gear practices, accounting for numerous losses of fishery resource stocks. Such practices destroy fish ecology and then undermine people’s capacity to adapt to fishing environments, especially for small-scale fishers. Within a given arena or space, different development visions offset each other and act as a barrier against sustainable fishery development. To ensure that not only fishers and governments but also many other

10

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Government - national - regional - provincial / state - municipal / district - village

Fishers

Fisheries Management

Banks Academic

Water Recreation - scuba diving/ rafting - pleasure boat/ cruise etc.

NGOs

Fig. 1.5.

Fishing Industry - boat owners - fish traders - fish-processing plant - recreational fishery - port etc . Food Industry - hotels/ restaurants - shopkeepers etc. Other Industries - agriculture/ husbandry - forestry/ pasturage - manufacture/ mining etc.

Primary Stakeholders in Fisheries Management.

stakeholders are implicitly or explicitly involved in fisheries management (see Fig. 1.5), the range of participation should be broadened in an appropriate manner. In particular, lagoon fisheries should be elaborated to respond to varying influential sources of climatic and hydrological changes at multiple scales.

VULNERABLE CONTEXTS OF THE LAGOON ENVIRONMENT Theory of Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Environment The term ‘‘vulnerability’’ is a crucial key word of adaptive management to identify and address pressing constraints of fishery operation and related activities, which undermine their security. The origin of this word ‘‘vulnerability’’ lies in the Latin vulnus, meaning ‘‘a wound,’’ and vulnerare, ‘‘to wound’’ (Kelly & Adger, 2000). In particular, Kelly and Adger (2000) pointed out that the word vulnerable derives from the late Latin vulnerabilis which is enlightening and vulnerabilis was the term used by the Romans to describe the state of a soldier lying wounded on the battlefield, that is, already injured therefore at risk from further attack. On the whole, vulnerability can be portrayed as the degree to which a system is susceptible to or unable to cope with negative effects of natural or manmade variability

11

Introduction

and extremes. It provides a better understanding of identifying a range of issues in the complex and uncertain contemporary world. Although a common conceptualization of vulnerability has never been shared among academic and development practitioners (Cannon, 1994; Smit & Wandel, 2006; Ziervogel, Bharwani, & Downing, 2006), it is usually characterized as some forms of the characteristic, extent and frequency of exposures and sensitivity, and people’s capacity to adapt to these hazards. Particularly, a general conceptual model of vulnerability has emerged in the climate change discourse (Smit & Wandel, 2006). The basic components of vulnerability linking fisheries to climate change were shown in Fig. 1.6. In the discipline of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Parry, Canziani, Palutikof, van der Linden, & Hanson, 2007, p. 6) defined vulnerability as ‘‘a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of that system.’’ Likewise, Barnett and Adger (2007, p. 641) argued, ‘‘the vulnerability of people to climate change depends on the extent to which they are dependent on natural resources and

Exposure (E) Nature and degree to which fish production systems are expected to climate change

Sensitivity (S) Degree to which national economies are dependent on fisheries and therefore sensitive to any change in the sector

Potential Impacts (PI) All impacts that may occur without taking into account planned adaptation (E + S) Vulnerability V = f (PI, AC) Adaptive Capacity (AC) Ability or capacity of a system to modify or change to cope with changes in actual or expected climate stress

Fig. 1.6.

Components of Vulnerability. Source: Modified from FAO (2009).

12

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

ecosystem services, the extent to which the resources and services they rely on are sensitive to climate change, and their capacity to adapt to changes in these resources and services.’’ Consistent with these definitions, Smit and Wandel (2006) depicted a basic vulnerability relationship that takes into account a broad scale of determinants corresponding to three components (exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity) of vulnerability. The basic relationship of vulnerability can be interpreted by the overlapping sphere where the processes driving exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity are frequently interdependent (ibid.). A combination of socioeconomic, cultural, political, and ecological determinants affects the three fundamental components of vulnerability on both local and broad scales. Exposure and sensitivity are not in isolation but are interdependent in a system and are dependent on the interaction between the characteristics of the system (Smit & Wandel, 2006). The magnitude of the nested properties of the system has been getting stronger as time goes by. For instance, changes in climate have been commonly observed in many parts of the world over the past decades. It is apparent that changes in temperature and rainfall and resulting increases in frequency and intensity of flood and drought events have affected ecological and social systems on the earth. According to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warming atmosphere of the climate system is now unequivocal (Solomon et al., 2007). Climate change poses significant risks to the livelihoods, culture and health of millions of people (Barnett, 2003). Ecological and climatic disasters – hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, flooding, landslides – are becoming more frequent, resulting in devastation to family and communities, especially the poor living in precarious environments (Ogata & Sen, 2003). Related to this, the number of climate-led disaster events and affected populations has been increasing during the last decades according to the data from EM-DAT reference (2010). With regard to fisheries, changes in temperature, even small changes in water temperature, are expected to exert strong pressure upon fish ecology (WWF, 2005). Temperature variations also affect people’s health undermining their capacity for operating the fisheries. Given that the climate is becoming more variable and creating various risks, people will need to adapt to the impacts of changes that are already unavoidable [United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), 2007]. Thus, the last third function (adaptive capacity) of vulnerability is critical in building people’s resilience to climate change, which is largely consistent with indispensable elements of adaptive management. Adaptation is appearance of adaptive capacity and determines an essential factor of what might be regarded as ‘‘dangerous’’ (Smit, Burton,

Introduction

13

Klein, & Street, 1999). Apart from exposure and sensitivity, the extent to which natural ecosystems are ‘‘in danger’’ depends partly on the ability of the impacted systems to adapt (ibid.). Countries or regions with limited economic resources, low levels of technology, poor information and skills, poor infrastructure, unstable or weak institutions, and inequitable empowerment and access to resources have little capacity to adapt (Thomas & Twyman, 2005; UNDP, 2007). Poor communities are highly exposed to extreme hazards because of where they live or their livelihood activities occur (DFID, 2004; Sperling, 2003). Among the poor, however, a case study evidence found that poor farmers have reduced their vulnerability and have increased their adaptive capacity to climate variability by diversifying their strategies and the crops they plant (Ziervogel et al., 2006). It is important to address people’s needs to develop an adaptive strategy to adjust to ecological–social–economic system in response to actual or expected impacts (Smit et al., 1999). As far as adaptation is concerned, there can be categorized into various processes and forms of adaptation (see Berkes & Jolly, 2001; FAO, 2007b; Smit & Wandel, 2006; Smit et al., 1999). The implementation of specific adaptation measures varies according to the contexts of their purpose, timing, scale, and scope. For instance, adaptations in unmanaged natural systems are necessarily autonomous and reactive, whereas public-oriented adaptations are usually planned and may be anticipatory (Smit et al., 1999). Identification of adaptive capacity (adaptation) is context-specific and varies from community to community, among social groups and individuals, and over time (Smit & Wandel, 2006). Fixed variables that represent exposures, sensitivities and adaptive capacity do not help much to identify the contemporary vulnerability in specific areas or communities. Identification requires the recognition of multiple stimuli beyond those related to complex ecosystem, including political, cultural, socioeconomic, institutional, and technological forces (ibid.). Research cannot be achieved to identify the degree of vulnerability without consideration of community perspective. Smit and Wandel (2006, p. 285) addressed this point: ‘‘it focuses on conditions that are important to the community rather than those assumed by the researcher or for which data are readily available. It employs the experience and knowledge of community members to characterize pertinent conditions, community sensitivities, adaptive strategies, and decision-making process related to adaptive capacity or resilience.’’ Case study evidence is therefore critical in helping to address local dynamics and underlying vulnerabilities that explicitly or implicitly lie behind the uncertain structure and function of natural ecosystems (Ziervogel et al., 2006).

14

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Characteristics of the Lagoon Environment The various geographical types of fishery domain, lagoon fisheries, which are targeted in this book, need to take action in order to achieve adaptive fisheries management in a sustainable manner. A lagoon is a body of shallow water separated from the sea by barriers such as low sandy dunes (see Fig. 1.7). The barriers are constantly eroded by waves and wind, requiring continuous sedimentary deposition to maintain the lagoon environment. In other words, lagoon areas are formed and maintained through the sediment transport process (Anthony et al., 2009). Lagoon areas generally are subject to different types of environmental variables. Both extremes of river basins and sea marine are of a dynamic and complex environmental character: these are transitional ecosystems between land and sea and between fresh and marine water. Fresh water from upstream and marine water from the ocean combine in a diverse assemblage of a fresh, brackish, and marine water ecosystem with estuarine Mountain Range

Lagoon Flood Tidal Delta

Dunes

Ocean Marsh Ebb Tidal Delta

Fig. 1.7.

Sea Mouth (Main Tidal Channel)

Geographic Characters of the Lagoon Environment.

Introduction

15

characteristics. With spatial and temporal changes in the lagoon environment, the unique ecosystem is endowed with highly productive natural resources and a valuable biodiversity, enabling a large number of people to survive. Lagoons tend to have low flushing rates because of restricted exchange with the ocean, contributing to high primary productivity (Anthony et al., 2009). Various types of migrating demersal nektonic species (e.g., shrimp, crabs, flounders) depend on shallow lagoon environment as nursery habitats in their early stage (Boynton, Hagy, Murray, & Stokes, 1996). Furthermore, such a diverse and rich landscape in lagoon areas also attracts many visitors and tourists so that there is likely to be a higher possibility of eco-friendly economic development in the base of tourism industry sector. By contrast, lagoon areas are expected to be one of the most vulnerable environmental places. These are often subject to shocks and directional change as in depletion-and-recovery cycles (Berkes & Seixas, 2005). Their geographical location is highly exposed to environmental and climatic factors such as sea-level rise, increased level of inundation and storm flooding, seawater intrusion, coastal erosion, and water pollution. It is apparent that changes in temperature and rainfall, and the resulting increases in the frequency and intensity of flood and drought events, have affected ecological and social systems all over the earth. Ecological and climatic disasters – hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, flooding, landslides – are becoming more frequent, resulting in devastation to family and communities, especially to the poor living in precarious environments (Ogata & Sen, 2003). Indeed, the number of climate-related disaster events and affected populations has been increasing during the last decades according to the data from EM-DAT reference (2010). Under the circumstances, communities in costal areas including lagoons tend to be dependent on climate sensitive resources, particularly aquatic resources and the people do not have the means to adapt fast enough (Ziervogel et al., 2006). The vulnerabilities of those who live in lagoon areas and need to build their resilience to cope with such climatic fluctuation are among the more important challenges in adapting to increasing climate change (FAO, 2007b). Among the poor, the case study evidence found that poor farmers have reduced their vulnerability and have increased their adaptive capacity to climate variability by diversifying their strategies and the crops they plant (Ziervogel et al., 2006). It is important to address people’s needs to develop an adaptive strategy to adjust their ecological-social-economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic change and its impacts (Smit et al., 1999).

16

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Related to the climate variability, lagoons are physically subject to various influences not only from the coastal and brackish environment but also the adjacent marine and terrestrial areas including the watersheds. In general, the salinity level and the patterns of the hydrological cycle play significant roles in maintaining diverse and productive resource conditions in the lagoon environment. To a large extent, these factors are dependent on the volume of fresh water from upstream, tidal variability at intervals as well as changes in wind and weather. Because the natural environment may lose the balance of water influx and efflux from the watersheds or the sea, it may be possible for the fertile ecosystem to collapse. As a result of dam constructions, for instance, the decrease of fresh water volumes from upstream into the lagoon leads to a more saline water environment. Likewise, a large number of particles mainly derived from deforestation and land use change are deposited downstream, thus reducing the water spread area and hindering the exchange of water between the sea and rivers. The deposits promote agglutination and precipitation reactions when they flow into saline water, leading to soil accumulation in the lagoon area especially near the sea mouth. Sedimentation causes shutting off of the sea mouth between the sea and lagoon. Closure of the sea mouth affects the salinity level in the lagoon and many existing fauna and flora are rapidly exposed to danger. The exchange of migratory fish species to move in and out through the channel also can be prevented by sedimentation. Furthermore, lagoons are excessively sensitive to water pollutants from nearby sources or from external sources (upstream and/or sea). In these areas, which are typically shallow and where less water is exchanged, the water quality tends to be degraded mainly due to input loads from rivers and nutrient releases from the sediment (Sato et al., 2007). Indeed, eutrophication in the lagoon environment is becoming more common and more rapid (Boynton et al., 1996; Katsuki, Seto, Nomura, Maekawa, & Khim, 2009). Eutrophication is characterized by excessive phytoplankton and macroalgal blooms that are greatly attributed to anthropogenic pressures. Because of low-lying and shallow areas, human settlements and activities are highly concentrated in many of these areas (Hobo, 1989). Human beings can have an easy access to develop them for the purpose of land reclamation, desalinization, and so on (Tokuoka, 1993; Hirai, 1995). Thus, lagoon systems tend to be human-dominated and are intensively used (Berkes & Seixas, 2005). Accelerated water pollution as a result of population growth and rapid industrialization and urbanization has severely damaged the lagoon water environment, with subsequent negative effects on fish ecology. Massive nutrient salts in the water flow from upstream

17

Introduction

into lagoons cause algae to bloom proliferously. In response to this, the extinction of algae leads to the substantial consumption of oxygen in the biodegradation process, which ultimately gives rise to hydrogen sulfide gas from the bottom water. Such water pollution may bring about the mass mortality of aquatic resources or, what is worse, a critical environmental condition in which they cannot survive. Lagoon fisheries are considered vulnerable in terms of climate variability, the extent of salinity level and water volumes, patterns of hydrological cycles and water pollution, as well as overexploitation by fishers. Table 1.1 indicates classifications of environmental hazards in the lagoon environment according to a category that was presented by UNISDR (2009). Even if all fishers manage their own fishery resources in an appropriate manner, activity may fail to achieve desirable fish production because of environmental destruction by others. Lagoon conservation needs to encompass a range including the surrounding areas at the marine and watershed levels as well as lagoon terrestrial areas. Therefore, elaborate viewpoints of lagoon fisheries at multiscale levels are a must to develop a pathway of sustaining fishery livelihoods. In this sense, a perspective of human relationship over natural resource utilization not only from fishers but also relevant stakeholders provides an essential understanding of underlying issues of lagoon fisheries management. This consideration will require the recognition of multiple stimuli including ecological, socioeconomic, political, and institutional forces, which are illustrated in each case study in detail.

Insecure Situation of Fishers Fishing is an important livelihood for a large number of people in many countries. However, fishing takes place in an uncertain environment and the participants are greatly exposed to natural hazards (Acheson, 1981): constant threats of storm, accidents, and mechanical failure makes fishing a very dangerous situation anywhere in the world. Even though the intertidal zone, including lagoons, are not as dangerous as the open ocean, fishers must retreat in the face of the incoming tide (ibid.). They always face nature’s forces, such as strong heat stroke, cold waves, typhoons, flooding, tsunamis, and so on, constantly leading to risks, when compared to other occupations. Fishing always entails a high degree of physically insecure and life-threatening situations.

18

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Table 1.1.

Classifications of Environmental Hazards in the Lagoon Environment.

Hazard Type Related to Climate Change

Physical Forms or Events

Major Root Causes

Biological hazard

– Outbreaks of epidemic diseases and infections – Weed invasion (shrinkage of water covered area)

– Increase of temperature – Salinity change – Sedimentation

Geological hazard

– Sedimentation/water – Landslides, rockslides, surface shallowness collapses and debris, or mud – Coastal earthquake/tsunami flows – Inundation/surge – Closure of sea mouth – Seawater intrusion – Sea-level rise – Coastal erosion

Hydrometeorological hazard

– Salinity change – Cyclones (also known as typhoons and hurricanes) – Floods – Droughts – Heat waves/cold spells

– Loss or gain of water from evaporation, precipitation, groundwater input, surface runoff, and exchange with the sea – Land use change – Sedimentation – Change of temperature

Technological hazard

– Industrial pollution – Chemical spills – Dam failures

– Unwise use of aquaculture/ factories – Use of pesticides and fertilizers – Sewage contamination – Improper planning/ implementations

Socio-natural hazard

– Overexploitation – Degraded lands and environmental resources

– Lack of environmental awareness – Population growth – Lack of environmental governance

Source: Modified from UNISDR (2009).

Apart from the natural hazards, many fishers living in lagoon areas are often vulnerable in terms of instable fish production and social inequity. There are three underlying root causes of vulnerable fishery livelihoods that become a serious source of stress. First, lagoons are highly exposed to external environmental and climatic forces. Interventions from the sea or

Introduction

19

watersheds may cause the loss of ecological balance in the lagoon environment, which causes changes in the extent of salinity level and water volumes, patterns of hydrological cycle, water pollution, and so on. Under these circumstances, those involved in lagoon fisheries have to reduce the great extent of vulnerable effects by developing an adaptive strategy to adjust to the ecological–social–economic system. Hence, given that the lagoon environment is physically rich in variation, fishers have to coevolve with fishery resources and the ecosystem dynamics to live with change and uncertainty. Second, the uncertainty stems not only from the physical natural environment but also from the social environment in which fishing takes place. The characteristic of the fisheries varies to some extent from place to place. However, it is interesting to note that significant proportions of fishing populations comprise ‘‘small-scale fishers,’’ especially in developing countries. It is estimated that there are 51 million fishers in the world, of whom 50 million (around 98 percent) are small-scale, subsistence, or artisanal fishers (Pomeroy & Rivera-Guieb, 2006). In general, they are continuously living amid severe poverty. India, for instance, is one of the best cases to illustrate this situation as the prominent presence of a ‘‘caste system’’ (a social structure in which classes are determined by heredity) is deeply entrenched in defining the societal status of the fishers (Sekhar, 2004). In local caste hierarchies, the occupation of fishing is regarded as Shudras or out-of-caste (untouchables) by higher castes. Therefore, the term ‘‘smallscale fishers’’ traditionally has been referred to as a minority group due to its so-called low socioeconomic status in most parts of the world. Indeed, the annual yield of fish landing quantity by small-scale fishers has remained a minor portion of the total fish production in contrast to the overwhelming majority of the fishing population. Compared to commercial fisheries, which practice a capital-intensive approach, small-scale fisheries are more labor-intensive and employ a low level of capital intensity and technology (Wagenaar & D’Haese, 2007). Indeed, Tokrisna, Boonchuwong, and Janekarnkij (1997) estimated that the full-time small-scale fishers’ households in Thailand were about 87 percent of the total fishers’ households, which produced around 13 percent of the production of the country. It is reported that commercial (large-scale) fisheries such as trawlers and purse seines destroy the stocks of fishery resources and their ecological habitats, thereby resulting in a smaller catch for small-scale fishers. Intersectoral conflicts between small-scale and commercial operators often have existed in many parts of the world, which has undermined the people’s capacity for fishery livelihoods. Such resource-based conflicts among the fishers may

20

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

undermine adaptive capacity to coevolve with resource and ecosystem dynamics while encroaching upon inalienable human rights and inherent dignity. Apart from fish production, fishers are vulnerable in other contexts. Many fishers are more or less kept in poverty partly because of economic exploitation by fish merchants, who are intermediaries or agents between fishers and retailers or consumers. Importantly, it is worth addressing that although fishery resources are the primary forms of people’s livelihoods, there is still a likelihood of poverty even when fishers make a sufficient catch. Under a money economy regime, the exchange occurring in fish marketing affects fishery livelihoods in various ways. The fishing business stakeholders and their interrelationships are explained in Fig. 1.8. Fishers who generally are confined to fish-catch have limited capabilities and market exposure. Fish merchants, as middlemen, exert a strong influence on the commission business. In a fish marketing economy, some studies show that fish merchants put pressure on fishers to sell their entire catch at lower price in every possible way (Acheson, 1981; Flaherty & Samal, 2005; Hirasawa, 1992; Iwakiri & Neaz, 1982; Misra, 2002; Reis & D’Incao, 2000; Rubinoff, 1999). It is commonly argued that fish merchants exploit fishers in the fish marketing process in combination with money lending.3 Maintenance of fishing livelihoods often requires the purchase and frequent repair of fishing equipment. Moreover, fishers are often forced to push

Fishery Resources

Fishers

Fishers

Rural Area

Urban Area Fish merchants

Fishers

Cooperative Societies

Fish merchants

Retailers

Retailers

Consumers, Hotels, Restaurants, etc.

( Lower Price of Fish )

Consumers, Exporting Companies, Hotels, Restaurants, etc.

( Higher Price of Fish )

Flow of Fish and Money

Fig. 1.8. Image on Fishery Resource Marketing Flow from Fishers to Consumers. Note: The Size of Money Flow is Comparable to the Number of Fish Sales as a Whole.

21

Introduction

things to the brink to ensure their livelihoods during the lean season. Thus, fishers are eager to borrow money from fish merchants instead of making informal promises to sell their entire catch to these lenders. This give-andtake system leads to the dominant control by fish merchants, resulting in fishers selling their catch at lower than actual market price. Related to this, special attention is also required to understand fish merchants’ behavior and attitude on the marketing negotiation in terms of grade, weight, and quality control of fishers’ catch fish. Their bargaining approach may exert unreasonable dealings with fishermen on a quality and quantity basis, even if the rate of the fish price is equal to market price. Such an exploitative system might push fishers to operate indiscriminately with regard to fish-catch leading to overexploitation of fishery resources. Accordingly, the serious situation pushes them more to the brink for sustaining their livelihoods, thereby resulting in the occurrence of resource-based conflicts and associated insecure situations.

APPROACH To ensure that small-scale fishers can achieve wise use of fishery resources sufficiently over time with a proper framework for lagoon fisheries management, this book discusses case studies in three sites of lagoon areas and one estuary area4 during the period from 2005 to 2009: Chilika Lagoon (India), Saroma Lake (Japan), Songkhla Lake (Thailand), and Kuraburi Estuary (Thailand). Each field site has similar characteristics, but they differ according to a variant system of fisheries management ascendancy, which takes into account factors for selection of field sites. Three types of fisheries management ascendancy are specifically identified in Table 1.2 as ‘‘statebased fisheries’’ (Chilika Lagoon), ‘‘community-based fisheries’’ (Saroma Lake), and ‘‘partnership-based fisheries’’ (Songkhla Lake and Kuraburi Table 1.2.

Category of Lagoon Fisheries Management Ascendancy in Each Field Site. Category of Lagoon Fisheries Management Ascendancy

State-based Chilika Lagoon (India)

Community-based

Partnership-based

Saroma Lake (Japan)

Songkhla Lake (Thailand) Kuraburi Estuary (Thailand)

22

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Estuary). Lessons learned from these case studies will offer deep insights into explicit capacity features in each stakeholder and effective connections to build partnership among relevant stakeholders toward enabling management. The research sharply focuses on fishery resource endowments in the lagoon environment that depend on historical perspective resulting from numerous patterns of internal relationships among the stakeholders and external effects of globalization, development of science and technology, immigration, climate variability, and so on. A historical approach in fisheries management from the past to the present, and the future, is adopted in each case study with due attention of human relationships over fishery resources and related events. This research has been prepared using several methodologies, including qualitative and quantitative data. The methods used include literature reviews, structural questionnaires, participatory rural appraisal (PRA), and key informant interviews. The methodologies differ according to research perspectives as well as varying degrees of political, cultural, economic, institutional, and technological situations. Finally, these research activities are designed to integrate the findings in each field site into a framework for adaptive strategies on lagoon fisheries management, aiming to ensure sustainable livelihoods in fishing communities in lagoon areas. Comparative studies are carried out to aid in identifying similar and variant characters of lagoon fisheries management for adapting or failing to numerous vulnerabilities.

NOTES 1. The explanation of the sustainable yield curve is based primarily on the arguments by Daly and Farley (2004). 2. Biologists tend to take into account reducing effort to obtain MSY, whereas economists believe that efforts of exploitation should be limited to produce MEY (Acheson, 1981). 3. Compared with the negative aspect of the relationship between fishers and fish merchants, fish merchants are capable of exerting stronger influence on fishers’ activities. Fish merchants are a central link between fishers and retailers (or consumers). Their business makes it easy to bring fish to urban areas where fish demand is higher than in rural areas (Ikeguchi, 2002). This comes with a higher price. Furthermore, fishers can save such expenditure as distribution cost, dealing cost, and opportunity cost, while they can remove some risks of marketing activities; they do not need to be troubled with climate factors such as rain, snow, heat stroke, cold wave, and so on (Sarker & Sasaki, 2002). In this sense, fish merchants have a significant effect on developing fisheries and improving fishing livelihoods.

Introduction

23

4. The case study in the Kuraburi Estuary examines at the effectiveness and challenges of natural resource management (NRM) network building, given the importance of partnership building at multiple cross-scale levels. The research places its emphasis on actual and potential effects of NRM network building while understanding each network activity. Based on these analyses, this book draws some implications about the identification of better lagoon watershed management.

CHAPTER 2 STATE-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN CHILIKA LAGOON

PROFILE OF CHILIKA LAGOON Overview of Chilika Lagoon Chilika Lagoon is the largest brackishwater lagoon in the Indian subcontinent, situated at latitude 19128u and 19154u north and longitude 85105u and 85138u east (Fig. 2.1). The lagoon extends from the southwest corner of Puri and Khurdra districts to the adjoining Ganjam district of Orissa state. The pear-shaped lagoon is around 64.3 km long and its width varies from 18 to 5 km. It is connected to the sea through irregular water channels with several small sandy and usually ephemeral islands (CDA, 2008). The average lagoon area is 1,055 km2 which increases to 1,165 km2 during the rainy season and shrinks to 906 km2 during the summer season. Chilika Lagoon becomes less saline during the rainy season due to flood waters from 52 rivers and rivulets. It becomes more saline during the dry season as the supply of flood water is cut off when the south wind begins to blow and saline waters enter from the Bay of Bengal at high (Patro, 2001). The lagoon has three hydrologic subsystems (Mahanadi delta, western catchments, and the Bay of Bengal) influencing the hydrological regimes as shown in Fig. 2.1. The total inflow of freshwater from the Mahanadi delta has been estimated to be 4,912 million cubic meter, accounting for 80 percent of the total water flow. The maximum discharge of 3,182 million cubic meter comes from Makara River, followed by Bhargavi River (1,108 million cubic meter) and Luna River (428 million cubic meter) 25

26

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

INDIA Drainage Watershed Boundary River Lagoon Water Body

0

20 km

Bhubaneswar

Northern Sector

Puri

Central Sector Old Mouth Southern Sector

New Mouth

Catchment along the Sandbar

Fig. 2.1.

Map of Chilika Lagoon. Source: Modified from Ghosh and Pattnaik (2005).

(CDA, 2008). Meanwhile, the western catchments account for 20 percent of the total fresh water flow. Chilika Lagoon itself can be broadly divided into four sectors (northern, central, southern and outer channel) with distinctive ecological

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

27

characteristics in water depth and salinity (see Fig. 2.1). The average depth of Chilika Lagoon is around 191 cm in 2008 (CDA data) but varies from place to place (38 cm–620 cm): 120 cm in the northern sector, 155 cm in the central sector, 225 cm in the southern sector, and 328 cm in the outer channel sector in 2008 (ibid.). Likewise, salinity that acts as an indispensable ecological factor determining the lagoon ecology differs according to the four sectors (9.3 ppt on average): 3.6 ppt in the northern sector, 6.3 ppt in the central sector, 11.0 ppt in the southern sector, and 19.5 ppt in the outer channel sector in 2008 (ibid.). The lagoon, having four distinctive ecological sectors, is a unique assemblage of marine, brackish, and freshwater ecosystems with estuarine characteristics. This mixed combination has endowed it with valuable biodiversity and highly productive ecosystem in which fishery resources present attractive benefits. These valuable characteristics allowed Chilika Lagoon to be listed as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention and became the first Ramsar site of India in 1981. Indeed, diverse types of terrestrial fauna and flora can be observed in and around the lagoon. Chilika Lagoon attracts a great number of resident and migratory birds – more than one million from the Aortic and Central Asian regions such as Himalayas, China, Siberia, Caspian Sea, and so on. Likewise, there are many endangered species living in Chilika Lagoon, which is only one of two lagoons in the world that is home to the Irrawady dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris). The rich lagoon ecosystem supports the livelihood of more than 200,000 fishers and thousands of local people who are engaged in allied fishery business activities including boat operators, food processors, fish merchants, and fish delivery operators (CDA, 2005a, 2008). This valuable ecosystem service provides fishery resources that cater to the needs of Orissa state and other states such as West Bengal, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala states (CDA, 2008). There are reported to be 127 fishing villages in Chilika Lagoon with approximately 12,363 fisher families (ibid.). The linkage between the fishermen and Chilika Lagoon was so close that a regulatory system of traditional fisheries in a niche space among them was developed. The traditional custom was harmonized in an appropriate manner to prevent ‘‘the tragedy of the commons’’ as Hardin (1968) alleged. On the point of fishing occupation, traditional fishermen include seven subcaste groups: Keuta, Niari, Kartia, Kandara, Gokha, Tiara, and Nolia (Mitra & Mohapatra, 1957). Most of them belong to Schedule Caste (SC) and their societal status is quite low, as they belong to the poorest group in the society.

28

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

TREND OF CLIMATIC VARIABILITY IN CHILIKA LAGOON Chilika Lagoon, which is a part of Orissa state, India, is considered to be a climate-sensitive area in India. The socioeconomic condition of the people in Orissa state, including Chilika Lagoon, is strongly influenced by various natural forces (Gupta & Sharma, 2000).

Temperature Chilika Lagoon is typically tropical with average annual maximum and minimum temperatures of 39.9 and 141 C, respectively (CDA, 2010). Changes in temperature, even small changes in water temperature, are expected to exert strong pressure upon fish ecology (WWF, 2005). Temperature variations also affect people’s health undermining their capacity for operating the fisheries. According to the statistical fixed-point observations in two meteorological stations (Bhubaneswar and Puri), it seems that the apparent warming trend has not been seen in Chilika Lagoon (see Fig. 2.2), as opposed to the world’s expectation (Solomon et al., 2007). However, it seems that there is a slight warming trend of mean maximum and minimum temperature, especially in the hottest month.

Cyclones Chilika Lagoon, which covers the Khurda, Puri, and Ganjam districts, is classified as a ‘‘very high damage risk zone (50 m/s)’’ in terms of wind and cyclones. The lagoon is situated along the Bay of Bengal, which is one of the six major cyclone-prone regions of the world. The annual cyclone from the Bay of Bengal normally occurs in the months of April to May and October to November. Increasing warm sea temperature (approximate 26.51 C) in the Bay of Bengal induces the cyclone to become more intense as it gets close to the coastal areas of India (Gupta & Sharma, 2000). On average, every year four to five cyclones strike the coastal regions of India (Shanmugasundaram, Arunachalam, Gomathinayagam, & Lakshnaman, 2000). Coastal districts of Orissa state have been hit by 11 severe cyclones and 55 cyclone storms with a probable maximum storm surge height between 3.2 and 5.5 meters in the last 120 years (Gupta & Sharma, 2000).

Fig. 2.2.

25.0

27.0

29.0

31.0

33.0

35.0

25.0

27.0

29.0

31.0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

1950s (1951 ) 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s ( 2006)

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

13.0

15.0

17.0

19.0

Jan

Jan



Feb

Feb

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

2000s ( 2006)

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

1950s (1951 )

Sep

Oct

Trend of Mean Minimum Temperature in Puri

Mar

2000s ( 2006)

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

1950s (1951 )

Nov

Nov

Trend of Mean Minimum Temperature in Bhubaneswar

Dec

Dec

Trend of Mean Maximum/Minimum Temperature in the Chilika Lagoon Region. Source: India Meteorological Department data.

Jan

May

Trend of Mean Maximum Temperature in Puri

Apr

2000s ( 2006)

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

21.0

23.0

33.0

25.0

27.0

35.0

1950s (1951 )

Trend of Mean Maximum Temperature in Bhubaneswar

37.0

39.0

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon 29

30

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Importantly, in 1999 Orissa state experienced a ‘‘Super Cyclone,’’ its worst catastrophic cyclone in 100 years. The super cyclone swept the entire Orissa coastal area, affecting 15,681,072 people, 14,586 villages, causing 9,893 deaths and damaging 1,661,683 houses (ibid.). Fortunately, Chilika Lagoon avoided much of the possible loss of human life, though the cyclone caused tremendous damage to fishing equipment and houses in and around the lagoon. Cyclones have a short-term as well as long-term impact on fishery livelihoods in terms of damages to vital infrastructures (school, hospital road network) and less access to medical supports, water use, and official loan provision. Those losses were evident in Chilika Lagoon after the 1999 super cyclone, leading to the traumatic perceptions for fishing communities.

Floods Floods are also common in Chilika Lagoon. The majority of the annual rainfall occurs from June to November (Fig. 2.3). The southwest monsoon brings much rainfall from June to September while the northeast monsoon brings some rain in October and November. The highly concentrated rainfall in July and August provoked flooding of the major streams. Chilika Lagoon receives fresh water from 52 channels, especially two principal streams (i.e., River Daya and Bhargavi), which are subbranches of the Mahanadi River system which is prone to be affected by extreme floods. From 1834 to 2007, 76 flood events were recorded in Orissa state (OSDMA, 2007). Although flood control efforts have been completed by the Orissa state government (e.g., construction of dams and weirs), there were 11 flood records during the past quarter century (1988–2007), while there were 32 flood records during the century from 1834 to 1933. The report indicates that vulnerability has been slightly increasing for decades in terms of both frequency and intensity of floods. Indeed, flood events have been continuously recorded in Orissa state since 2003. Due to floods, the fishermen tend to suffer losses or damages of their fishing boats and materials.

VULNERABLE LAGOON ENVIRONMENT AND AMELIORATING MEASURES Chilika Lagoon has experienced severe environmental degradation primarily from siltation since the 1980s. The catchment area of Chilika Lagoon is

Jan

Jan

Mar

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Apr

2006)

)

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Oct

Nov

Nov

Dec

Dec

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

mm

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

mm 120.0

Jan

Jan

Feb

)

Apr

2006)

Mar

2000s (

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Trend of Heaviest 24 Hrs Rainfall in Puri

Mar

2006)

)

1950s (1951

Feb

2000s (

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

1950s (1951

Nov

Nov

Trend of Heaviest 24 Hrs Rainfall in Bhubaneswar

Trend of Rainfall in the Chilika Lagoon Region. Source: India Meteorological Department data.

Mar

2000s (

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

May

Trend of Monthly Rainfall in Puri

Apr

2006)

1950s (1951

Feb

Feb

2000s (

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

)

Trend of Monthly Rainfall in Bhubaneswar

1950s (1951

Fig. 2.3.

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

mm

mm 500.0 450.0 400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0

Dec

Dec

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon 31

32

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

composed of rocky, sandy, and muddy substratum. It contains a wide range of sedimentary particles, that is, clay, silt, sand, gravel, and shell banks (Panigrahy, 2002). Out of those particles, the major element is silt. In combination with anthropogenic pressures such as deforestation, overgrazing, and industrialization, seasonal climate forces such as cyclones and floods bring a large amount of silt into the lagoon. Pattnaik (2005c) estimated that around 1.6 million tons of sediment annually flowed into Chilika Lagoon through Daya and Bhargavi rivers in the northeast of the lagoon, several streams and nallas and by other means. Silt promotes agglutination and precipitation reactions when it flows into salty water, leading to accumulation especially near the sea mouth. This causes a closure of the sea mouth between the sea and lagoon, which affects the salinity level of the lagoon and prevents the exchange of migratory fish species, which account for nearly 80 percent of lagoon fishery catches (Pattnaik, 2005a). In addition, silt accumulation reduces the water spread area and hinders the exchange of water between the sea and river, resulting in decreased salinity and lower availability of fish species in the lagoon. Siltation into the lagoon also encourages a prolific growth of freshwater invasive species. The area of Chilika Lagoon dominated by invasive plants increased 20 km2 in 1972 to 685 km2 in May 2000 (CDA, 2005a). Indeed, the annual invasion was estimated to be 15 km2 (Ghosh, 2002). The spread of the invasive species restricted the feeding as well as the breeding ground of many marketable aquatic species. As a result, these changes reduced the area of fishing grounds in Chilika Lagoon. This led to a loss of income that sends fishers to the brink of poverty. The weed invasion also presents physical difficulties for boat navigation, further undermining people’s adaptive capacity to changes in the lagoon environment. Accordingly, siltation from upstream leading to shrinkage of the water spread area, decrease of salinity, and prolific growth of weed infestation had serious negative impacts on the habitat of wildlife and fishery resources. Indeed, fish landing statistics during several decades showed how fishing activities were hampered by rapid changes in the lagoon environment especially in the 1990s (see Fig. 2.4). As a result, Chilika Lagoon was listed in the Montreux Record in 1993, the principal tool of the Ramsar Convention for highlighting Ramsar sites where an adverse change in ecological character has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur. It created an urgent necessity to step up actions toward wetland conservation in Chilika Lagoon. In an effort to solve this serious situation, Chilika Development Authority (CDA), which was established in 1991, implemented hydrological interventions (opening of a new mouth and dredging of water channels) in

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon MT

33

Trend of Fish Landing Quantity from 1929 to 2008

16000 14000 12000

Yearly Average Fish Landing Amounts 3 Years Average Fish Landing Amounts

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

Fig. 2.4.

Trend of Fish Landing Quantity from 1929 to 2008. Sourcs: DFGO (1970), DFGO and CDA (2005), CDA data.

September 2000 (see Fig. 2.1). The implementations were very successful and contributed to the dramatic wetland restoration in collaboration with research institutions, NGOs, and local people (CDA, 2005a). The opening of a new artificial mouth along the sand spit at a distance of 11 km from Chilika Lagoon and desilitation of new dreged channel exhibited positive impact on the lagoon ecosystem,1 with a spectacular increase in fish landings, as shown in Fig. 2.4. Fish landing of 14,053 metric tons in 2003–2004 was at an all-time record high, compared to the all-time low of around 1,600 metric tons before the interventions. Related to this, the government estimated that fishing family income increased to around 10 times in 2003–2004 as before the interventions in 2000 (DFGO & CDA, 2005). Related to this, the catch per unit effort (CPUE) was estimated to be 8.27 kg per boat a day in 2003–2004 while the estimate was only 1.91 kg per boat a day in 1999–2000 (ibid.). Opening of the new mouth led to promote auto recruitment of fish, prawn and crab juveniles from sea to the lagoon, and vice versa. Besides, the new mouth created comfortable habitat condition of those species at stable and higher salinity level. It is worth noting that 38 species of fish, four species of prawn, five species of crab hitherto not being recorded from Chilika Lagoon have been collected after the implementations. Out of those fish, six species of marketable important fish reappeared. Likewise, the crab landing which had dwindled to around 9 metric tons improved to around 155 metric tons. It is apparent that hydrological interventions contribuited to the dramatic wetland restoration. Accordingly, a Ramsar Advisory Mission visited Chilika Lagoon to review the management actions undertaken in the light of many viewpoints

34

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

and finally concluded that given a commitment to future actions, Chilika Lagoon should be removed from a listed site of the Montreux Record of Ramsar. In other words, Chilika Lagoon was the first Ramsar site from Asia to be removed from the Montreux record. In addition to the honor, CDA got the Ramsar Wetland Conservation Award in November 2002, aiming to recognize and honor contributions of individuals, organizations, and governments around the world toward promoting the conservation and wise use of wetlands.

FISHING ACTIVITIES AND RELATED LIVELIHOODS Fishing Equipment Most fishermen use two types of boat: traditional boats (country boats) numbering 5,607 and motorized boats numbering 1,574 in 2006, according to an interview with an officer of Assistant Fishery Directorate, Balugaon. Normal fishing boats are not feasible to sail there because of the shallowness of Chilika Lagoon, compared to the past when there was an excellent harbor for anchorage in the Indian subcontinent (Raut & Tripati, 1993; Tripati & Vora, 2005). Hence, traditional flat-bottomed country boats made of Sal Wood are in use (ARCSCCB, 2004). These boats can be divided into two categories: danga and naha (Raut & Tripati, 1993). Likewise, traditional fishermen use various types of nets to capture fish, prawn, and crab species. The traditional fishing equipment is mostly made of hemp fibre and bamboo. But net materials such as monofilament, multifilament, and HDPE, which price depends on mesh size and its thickness, also have been used. Pattnaik (2005b) divided such traditional fishing equipment into four different categories; ‘‘drag nets,’’ ‘‘gill nets,’’ ‘‘cast nets,’’ and ‘‘trap nets.’’ According to his survey, there are six types of drag nets, six types of gill nets, two types of cast nets and a large number of trap nets. Out of these varieties, the first three types of nets are operated in the bahani fishing zone, which is located in the entire lagoon, especially in the middle area. By contrast, trap nets are mainly operated near the landward or submerged landmass sites. Fishermen name their nets, given fishing methods, targets of fishery resources, and mesh size of nets. In certain village, for instance, cast nets are called ‘‘khepa jala,’’ cotton nets are called ‘‘suta jala,’’ and nets with which fishermen can capture such ‘‘menjia’’ (lesser mugil) are called ‘‘menjia jala.’’ The way of naming such nets is quite diverse and differs from place to place in

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

35

local context of fishing communities. Thus, the same nets used have several different names, depending on the local people. In this regard, CIFRI (1962) carried out an investigation of Chilika Lagoon fisheries from 1957 to 1961 and pointed out findings on fishing equipment, ‘‘there is a conflict in the status of a number of nets among different authors of earlier publications.’’ The survey revealed 54 numbers of different nets named. Furthermore, fishermen traditionally use such various fishing items to catch fish, prawn, and crab species such as ‘‘baza,’’ ‘‘dhaudi,’’ ‘‘chhana,’’ ‘‘mugra,’’ ‘‘bansi,’’ and ‘‘sika’’ (Pallishree, 2002) as well as ‘‘jala’’ (net). Those items are made mainly of bamboo with some other materials. However, during the past few decades, the traditional fishing equipment and materials have been rapidly converted into synthetic filament materials with fine mesh sizes and thicknesses that can capture small-sized or juvenile fish as well as big-sized or adult fish. According to the questionnaire survey (N ¼ 195), 71 percent of fishermen among the respondents (hereinafter referred to only as ‘‘fishermen’’) used trap nets called ‘‘khanda’’ to capture fish and prawn species in lean season.2 Similarly, 32 percent, 9 percent, and 7 percent of fishermen used gill nets, drag nets, and cast nets, respectively. When it comes to the harvest season, interestingly, 84 percent of fishermen used trap nets (‘‘khanda’’) in the harvest season, increasing 13 percent from the lean to the harvest season. Likewise, 34 percent, 4 percent, and 5 percent of fishermen used the above equipment in harvest season. Fishermen make use of unreliable boat jetties attached to raised ground. On this account, catastrophic cyclones and floods often damaged their fishing materials such as boats, nets, and engines, as well as causing damage to social infrastructures (e.g., community roads and fish landing centers) and their physical goods (e.g., houses). Once such climate hazards occur, community roads are easily damaged by fallen trees. At the same time, poor housing conditions are affected to a great extent and various diseases are caused by this unsanitary environment. Villagers identified fishing boats as most vulnerable to climate change (76 percent). Forty-eight percent reported loss of boats. The loss led to suspension of fishing activities, resulting in disruption to family life. Some fishers apply for loans from fish merchants.

Working environment Fishing activity in Chilika Lagoon is labor-intensive rather than capitalintensive. The survey (N ¼ 195) revealed that most fishermen fish alone

36

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

(31 percent), with two members (28 percent), or with three members (24 percent). On the whole, members of fishing boats in Chilika Lagoon are limited to family or neighbors (45 percent) except single activity (30 percent). The composition of fishing members changes flexibly according to seasonality. It depends on topographical location and fishing methods to catch fishery resources. In northern and central sectors, for instance, many fishermen go to remote fishing grounds to catch fish and prawn species. Given that most of them cannot afford to purchase motorized boats, more labor forces are needed to sail to remote areas of Chilika Lagoon. By contrast, fishermen in the outer channel sector usually go to fishing near their villages. This means that rich ecosystem and shallow water depth in the submerged landmass of outer channel sector enable them to operate their fishing activity without boats. Therefore, the composition of fishing members tends to be small. The working style of fishing activity in Chilika Lagoon depends on four types of fishing methods and seasonality. The differences of working environment in four types of fishing methods are shown in Table 2.1. Most of those who use gill nets and trap nets are likely to stay on their boats especially in harvest season, except those who do fishing near their villages. In the evening, they set up gill nets inside Chilika Lagoon and take a rest in their boats until they collect the traps in the morning. Likewise, they install trap nets such as ‘‘khanda’’ with a box of fine mesh size net for several days, and stay on their boats near their fishing grounds. Such practice is deeply embedded in resource-based conflicts. By contrast, those who use cast nets and drag nets are not required to install their nets inside the lagoon so that

Table 2.1.

Difference of Working Environment in Four Types of Fishing Methods. Drag Net

Cast Net

Gill Net

Trap Net One time before or after sunrise

Fishing time

Few times in a day

Several times in a day

Presence of boat stay Period of Pullout of Nets from Fishing Grounds

No

No

One time before or after sunrise Yes

Immediate

Immediate

An half day

Yes Never (Semipermanent Installment)

37

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon Ratio of Fishing Grounds in Lean and Harvest Seasons % 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Lean Season Harvest Season

North Sector

Fig. 2.5.

Central Sector

South Sector

Outer Channel Sector

Location of Fishing Grounds in Chilika Lagoon.

they can go back to their villages within the day after catching fishery resources. Most days, fishermen go fishing in Chilika Lagoon except during periods of celebration and festival. But there is a tendency for them to fish in the harvest season rather than in the lean season. Importantly, seasonality induces fishermen to prefer to fish on specific fishing grounds. In the lean season, fishermen tend to capture fish or prawn species within their sectors while striving to change their fishing grounds beyond their sectors in the harvest season according to the questionnaire survey (N ¼ 195): the ratio of fishing grounds in the central and outer channel sectors is quite high because of higher fish landing quantities especially in harvest season (see Fig. 2.5). The competition gives rise to resource-based conflicts especially between fishermen and nonfishermen castes with a lack of clear fishing boundaries.

FISH MARKETING STRUCTURE IN CHILIKA LAGOON On the point of fish marketing structure in Chilika Lagoon, three major groups (fishermen, commission agents and mahajans) were identified. Mahajan refers to the dominant group of fish merchants in Chilika Lagoon, whereas commission agents are those who serve as a bridge between fishermen and mahajans for fish delivery. Importantly, the major fish marketing process (from fishermen to commission agents, and then from

38

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

commission agents to mahajans) was observed in Chilika Lagoon. The basic market relationships among them were strongly influenced by indebtedness. In an attempt to procure fish and prawn effectively, mahajans negotiate informal marketing contracts with commission agents and some fishermen; mahajans provide loan finance without any interest to those people in advance and demand that debtors place their entire catch with them. Likewise, commission agents strive to procure plenty of fishery resources from fishermen. Such informal loan finance has tightened the bond among mahajans and commission agents and fishermen. The statistical information (N ¼ 195) on the marketing interaction between fishermen and the four groups (mahajans, commission agents, other fish merchants and consumers), which was conducted in the year of 2005–2006, is described here. In this regard, efforts were made to categorize fish traders and fish trade places according to seasonality (lean and harvest seasons), location (north, central, south, and outer channel sectors), and indebtedness (loaned fishermen – 72 percent, nonloaned fishermen – 28 percent) from fish merchants.

Fish Traders Table 2.2 shows fish traders who have made transactions with fishermen according to location and indebtedness. In the lean season, most of fishermen except in south sector sold their catch to commission agents, followed by retailers and mahajans. By contrast, 84 percent of the respondents in south sector directly made fish transaction with consumers because they have easy access to bustling markets available. Apart from spatial zones, the range of fish traders can be greatly relevant to indebtedness. Loaned fishermen sold their catch to commission agents (66 percent) and mahajans (2 percent), while nonloaned fishermen dealt with commission agents (32 percent) and mahajans (13 percent). As mentioned earlier, commission agents tend to collect plenty of fish and prawn from loaned fishermen by way of informal debt agreement. Due to this, loaned fishermen force to deal their enter catch with their lenders. In contrast, nonloaned fishermen sell their entire catch freely because they do not have any restrictions imposed by fish merchants. This means that they have several options on their fish dealings such as the most favorable market price, convenience, time lag of income, and so on. As can be seen in Table 2.2, the range of their fish trading is greatly diverse when compared to loaned fishermen.

39

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

Table 2.2.

Fish Traders in Lean and Harvest Seasons.

Location/Season

Mahajans

Commission Agents

Retailers

Consumers

Lean Season

North Central South Outer Channel

4% 16% 0% 0%

76% 55% 5% 84%

62% 36% 11% 16%

0% 0% 84% 0%

Harvest Season

North Central South Outer Channel

4% 9% 4% 6%

86% 91% 96% 92%

14% 4% 18% 2%

0% 0% 0% 0%

Loaned Fishermen

Lean Season (A) Harvest Season (B) B–A

2% 6% 4%

66% 95% 29%

26% 9% 17%

22% 0% 22%

Non-Loaned Fishermen

Lean Season (A) Harvest Season (B) B–A

13% 9% 4%

32% 80% 48%

46% 15% 31%

17% 0% 17%

Note: The data included some fishers who sold their catch to multiple fish traders and/or operated the fisheries only in the harvest season.

By contrast, the results are quite different for the harvest season. Most of the fishermen, irrespective of spatial zones and indebtedness, sold their catch to commission agents. Considering the debt dependency particularly, it is expected that the middlemen-cum-lenders take more initiative in collecting plenty of fish and prawn in the harvest season. Interestingly, approximately 81 percent of loaned fishermen in the south sector directly sold their catch to consumers at local markets in the lean season rather than to their lenders (commission agents). Local people explained that their lenders (commission agents) had less concern on their commission business in the lean season than in the harvest season because of less landing fish and prawn. Therefore, most of the commission agents in the south sector never demanded fish dealings with their debtors except during the harvest season. For this reason, the ratio of trade performance between loaned fishermen and commission agents increased to approximately 29 percent. However, it is important to note that 80 percent of fishermen without a loan sold their catch to commission agents (nonlenders) in the harvest season. From the perspective of profit, the fish transaction with commission agents is seemingly not the best choice compared with mahajans or highest bidders in the fish auction. Based on the results of questionnaire survey conducted with

40

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

10 commission agents, the commission fee from fishermen to mahajans varied according to consumer’s preference, quality and size, but classified on the basis of three categories in a purposeful way; nonvaluable fish (e.g., Stolephorus & Thryssa sp.), normal fish (e.g., Mugil cephalus) and valuable fish (e.g., Penaeus monodon). Average profit gain from commission business amounted to Indian Rupee (INR) 2.4 (approximately US$0.05), INR 4.9 (approximately US$0.11) and INR 20.9 (approximately US$0.46) per kilogram, respectively.3 That is, the more commission agents strive to collect valuable fish, the more profit they will get. The results imply that commission agents tend to take more initiative to collect plenty of valuable fish rather than nonvaluable fish. In order to pursue the high profit from commission business especially in the harvest season, they developed ingenious strategies other than informal loan provision, as will be described later. By contrast, nonloaned fishermen could decide the best eligible fish traders without any informal binding so that the decision process was largely based on the preference of each. Nonetheless, in the harvest season, 48 percent of nonloaned fishermen changed traders to commission agents who strive to buy the valuable fish at a better bargain than the nonvaluable and normal fish. The high interaction between nonloaned fishermen and commission agents in the harvest season is beyond all reason tied to the economic incentive. There must be an alternative incentive behind the decision apart from loan provision from commission agents.

Fish Trade Places The fish trade places where fish transactions are made by fishermen are shown in Table 2.3. To some extent, the trade places were characterized in each village environment according to differences in topography and social infrastructure. The north and central sectors of Chilika Lagoon have a concentration of fish landing centers and marketing facilities owned by mahajans where fishermen sold their catch. In the south sector, there are available bustling markets enabling the fishermen to have easier access in terms of marketing activities. In contrast, most of the fishermen in the outer channel brought their catch to their villages where there were neither local markets nor landing centers to do the trading. As for loaned fishermen, by contrast, the trade places were largely consistent with the preference of their lenders (mostly commission agents). Many commission agents lived in the same or neighboring villages so that the lenders demand the debtors to bring the fish to the village. For this

41

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

Table 2.3.

Fish Trade Places in Lean and Harvest Seasons.

Location/ Season Boat-to- Landing Mahajans In the Boat Center Facility Villages Lean Season

Market Places

Near Ponds

North Central South Outer Channel

26% 25% 0% 0%

74% 43% 0% 0%

2% 20% 2% 0%

0% 7% 23% 100%

0% 2% 75% 0%

0% 9% 0% 0%

Harvest Season North Central South Outer Channel

84% 86% 91% 6%

10% 9% 5% 0%

2% 9% 2% 8%

4% 0% 14% 90%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

Loaned Fishermen

Lean Season (A) Harvest Season (B) B–A (%)

10% 61% 51%

26% 5% 21%

2% 5% 3%

42% 31% 11%

20% 0% 20%

3% 0% 3%

Non-Loaned Fishermen

Lean Season (A) Harvest Season (B) B–A (%)

20% 64% 44%

43% 13% 30%

15% 7% 8%

11% 18% 7%

17% 0% 17%

0% 0% 0%

Note: The data included some fishers who sold their catch to multiple fish traders and/or operated the fisheries only in the harvest season.

reason, loaned fishermen tend to make village transactions with commission agents, especially in outer channel sector. In the harvest season, however, most of the fishermen changed trade places. The statistical data was overly reliant on particular trade places (boat-to-boat). Except for the outer channel sector, fish dealing was highly concentrated on the boat near fishing grounds where commission agents go all the way to procure plenty of fish and prawn from fishermen. Interestingly, nonloaned fishermen (64 percent) as well as loaned fishermen (61 percent) made a boat-to-boat transaction with commission agents inside Chilika Lagoon. It is important to note that the highest proportion of boatto-boat trade is in strict correspondence with particular traders (commission agents). This fact helps to understand the dominant distributional interaction between fishermen and specific fish merchants.

FISHERY LIVELIHOOD CONDITIONS The livelihoods of fishing communities largely depend on the fisheries from Chilika Lagoon. Most fishers (97 percent) have no secondary occupation, so fishing is the sole source of income. Their profits are equally distributed

42

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

among fishing members. However, given that there are crew members who do not own fishing materials such as nets, boats, and engines, this profit sharing usually is divided by the total numbers of crew members and fishing materials (nets, boats, and engines). For example, suppose that there are two crew members and one fisherman who owns the nets and boats. The net and boat owner will receive three-fifths of the profits (one manpower, nets, and boats), whereas each crew member will receive one-fifth of the profits. In short, each fishing material is counted when tallying the profits. Apart from this profit-sharing system, some fishermen apply the distribution at a fixed rate, such as 80-for-20 percent. Household incomes per month in 2007 (N ¼ 100) were INR 1,261 (approximately US$31) in the lean season and INR 2,429 (approximately US$59) in the harvest season, respectively.4 Their incomes are not sufficient to cover their living expenses in the lean season, especially during the monsoon period, because they often cannot go fishing due to extreme rainfall and strong winds. Maintenance of fishery livelihoods often requires the purchase or repair of fishing equipment, these being high exhaustive goods. Moreover, they often face with difficulties in ensuring their livelihoods during the lean season. As a result of this, 90 percent of households in 2007 borrowed money from fish merchants at an average of INR 29,483 (approximately US$716) with interest free. The loan provisions are addressed through purchasing or repairing fishing equipment, instead of informal fish trade promises at lower price. It would seem very difficult for fishermen to pay off the debt given the huge gap between the loan amount and fishery income. As a result, the dependency pushes households to the brink and led to the nearly-defunct fishery cooperative societies in terms of fish marketing (Iwasaki & Shaw, 2008). Because of a lack of money, around 50 percent of households have poor housings that are highly vulnerable to climate hazards. On this account, expenditures for food and fishing equipment were regarded as the highest priorities while electric products and savings were identified as lowest ones. Confronted with severe fishery livelihood conditions, private and government banks provided loans to the fishermen with the goal of reducing dependency on fish merchants. In this regard, however, the attempts failed as a result of loan defaults with the psychology of ‘‘loan waiver’’ (Samal & Meher, 2003a); debtors could easily escape the duty for loan repayment from the lenders while continuing to lie about who were debtors. Indeed, Table 2.4 shows that only 56.5 percent, 48.8 percent, and 10.3 percent of total loan amounts were repaid to private banks, government banks and National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC), respectively (ARCSCCB, 2005a). On this account, the

43

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

Table 2.4.

Total Amount of Loan Availed by PFCSs from Different Financial Sources.

Amount of Finance Amount of Demand Collection Balance

Bank

Government

NCDC

38,75,150 38,75,150 21,91,284 (56.5%) 16,83,866 (43.5%)

11,27,500 11,27,500 5,50,696 (48.8%) 5,76,804 (51.1%)

24,48,960 22,18,996 2,29,366 (10.3%) 19,89,630 (89.7%)

Note: Unit: Indian Rupee. Source: Modified from ARCSCCB (2005a).

formal banking institutions were forced to withdraw the loan scheme for small-scale fishermen. It created more space for control of the fish economy by fish merchants combined with informal money lending, resulting in the high vulnerability of livelihood conditions. Keep in mind that hydrological interventions (opening of a new mouth and dredging of water channels) in September 2000 that had a positive impact on fisheries enhancement with a spectacular increase in fish landings may not deserve much attention. Indeed, the wetland restoration enabled fishermen to catch more fishery resources drastically as shown in Fig. 2.4. However, many fishermen (N ¼ 195) still have been depending on money lenders for financing as a matter of fact, even after opening of the new mouth in 2000 (see Fig. 2.6). Furthermore, perpetual conflicts over fishery resources among those involved in fisheries (referred to as resource-based conflicts) have still remained in Chilika Lagoon especially since the 1970s, despite the increase in fish landing quantity. The underlying issue of ongoing poverty conditions and resource-based conflicts may not be directly attributed to the extent of natural resource stocks. Therefore, elaboration requires seeking other factors behind the underlying roots of poverty and resource-based conflicts in Chilika Lagoon fisheries. Approximately 25 percent of people over 15 years old (N ¼ 410) had no educational experience in 2007, whereas only around 5 percent were able to enter college or university. Most people (59 percent) dropped out before high school. On this account, only 55 percent of people can read and write in their native language (Oriya), resulting to various constraints on alternative jobs, health care and formal credit taking that are largely linked to capacity enhancement. Lower education limits alternative jobs except fishing and related industries so that there is an increasing trend of fishing population in Chilika Lagoon. It creates high competition over limited fishery resources and triggers disputes among fishers. More importantly, children who have

44

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

35 30 25 20 15 10

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

0

1985

5

1984

Number of Loaned Fishermen

Starting Year of Loan Finance for Fishing Gears 40

Year

Fig. 2.6.

Starting Year of Loan Finance for Fishing Equipment.

started fishing can be commonly observed in Chilika Lagoon. They are more vulnerable to climate variability and extreme events than the adults, but there is no choice for them but to engage in fisheries. The root cause for this is mainly attributed to the lack of household income, but it also is linked to formal schooling. According to the problem tree analysis, some people in the outer channel sector tend to be reluctant to go to high school because of caste discrimination. Most high schools are situated in nonfishing villages where a sense of caste discrimination strongly prevails, leading to one or more obstacles for entering high school.

TRANSITION OF FISHERY ECONOMY IN CHILIKA LAGOON From this, the chapter begins with the historical discussion on fishery resource allocation and subsequent events in Chilika Lagoon during the period from the British rule to the present. During the British rule in India, Chilika Lagoon was in the hands of several owners including the erstwhile Rajas, Zamindars,5 local landlords, and the government. There were large numbers of owners of fishing grounds, more than 1,000 as a result of frequent partitions among owners (Mitra, 1946). Except for some areas that were open-access, the owners leased out the fisheries to fishermen instead of imposing tax on the fishing grounds. According to the record of the British land settlement for Orissa in 1897–1898, the exclusive enjoyment of fisheries in Chilika Lagoon was granted to fishing communities (Ram, Rama Rao, &

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

45

Ghosh, 1994). However, private owners often leased fishing rights to the highest bidders who were outside Bengali merchants. These merchants, in turn, subleased the rights to fishermen at higher rates claiming monopoly rights for receiving the entire catch from their respective fishermen (Mitra, 1946). The fish trade provided fishermen with less income and kept their livelihood conditions poor.

CHARACTERISTICS OF TRADITIONAL FISHERIES IN CHILIKA LAGOON Before modern times, fishing access was determined on the basis of the species caught (Sekhar, 2004, 2007). Fishing grounds were classified into five types of fishery sources, according to the changing tidal environment and active fishery seasons for different fish species/groups, particularly mullets and prawn. In the local language, these sources are called ‘‘Jano,’’ ‘‘Bahani,’’ ‘‘Dian,’’ ‘‘Uthapani,’’ and ‘‘Khati (Prawn),’’ as presented in Table 2.5 (OSFCFL, 2002; Pattnaik, 2005b). Jano sources are large enclosures erected with the help of split bamboos in shallow areas of Chilika Lagoon. Bahani sources are for net fishing operation located in the entire lagoon, especially in the middle area. Dian sources are located mostly on the landward sides near jano areas. Only in the monsoon season, soil impoundments were made in the submerged broad landmass areas, taking advantage of the character of the fish and prawn moving in the shoal against the water current. Uthapani sources are rainwater harvesting system located in the shallow areas adjacent to shore lines around islands after a monsoon. Prawn (Khati) sources are for trap nets operation of prawn located mainly in the outer channel sector of Chilika Lagoon. Table 2.5. Sources Jano Bahani Dian Uthapani Khati (Prawn)

Traditional Fishery Sources in Chilika Lagoon.

Operation Period

Fishing Grounds

September to February Throughout the year July to October July to September February to July

Shallow areas of Chilika Lagoon The entire lagoon Landward sides of ‘Janos’ Shallow areas adjacent to shore lines around islands Mainly near the mouth of Chilika Lagoon

Sources: Modified from OSFCFL (2002), Pattnaik KA (2005b).

46

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Table 2.6.

Characteristics of Traditional Fisheries among Sub-Caste Groups in Chilika Lagoon.

Fishing Group

Fishing Population

Fishing Gear Used

Keuta

67.1%

Nets

Kandara

14.3%

Traps (Dhaudi and Thattas) Bamboo traps (Bojas and Thattas) Drag nets and Cast nets

Main Species They Fish

Areas in which They Fish

Different brackish and freshwater fish Prawns and crabs

Middle part of the lagoon Middle part and mouth of the lagoon Lagoon periphery

Tiara

7%

Prawns

Nolia

7%

Niari

1–9%

Nets

Marine fish

Kartia

2–7%

n.a

Gokha

0–2%

Depends on each village (bamboo traps and nets) Drag nets and Cast nets

Near the mouth of the lagoon and adjoining open area Near the mouth of the lagoon n.a

Marine fish

Open sea

Marine fish

Sources: Information on fishing gear used about Gokha, fishing population and Kartia from Mitra and Mohapatra (1957), other information from Sekhar (2004, 2007)

Recognizing this, a particularly original custom evolved among the local fishermen in each subcaste group (Ram et al., 1994). Each subcaste group used to catch specific fish and prawn species with different types of traditional fishing equipment and fishing grounds (Table 2.6). For instance, the Keuta subcaste group used only nets in the middle area of Chilika Lagoon, whereas the Tiara subcaste group used only bamboo traps (locally called bozas and thattas) at the edge of the lagoon. The fishing communities limited themselves to catching only certain fish species. Moreover, some of fishing communities used to fish together for equal shares of their catches. Each community promulgated their own rules in order not to overlap with other subcaste groups for fishing. The traditional custom was harmonized in an appropriate manner to prevent occupational competition. In India, such a regulatory system of traditional fisheries in a niche space among the sympatric castes is commonly observed (Deb, 1996). Keep in mind that some nonfishermen castes (hereinafter referred to only as ‘‘nonfishermen’’) also were used in the fisheries of Chilika Lagoon at that time. But their activities were limited to gathering ‘‘food’’ for their own consumption. Fishing as a profession was considered to be a low-caste job (Das, 1993).

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

47

CHANGING FISHERY GOVERNANCE The traditional fishermen in Chilika Lagoon have been subjected to major changes in fishery governance systems that were controlled by governors (see Table 2.7). The first major change occurred in 1953 with the enforcement of the ‘‘Zamindar Abolition Act’’. After the enactment of the law, from 1953 to 1959, the fishery sources of Chilika Lagoon were leased out through open auction under the supervision of Anchal Adhikari, a regional government officer (Samal & Meher, 1999). This governance system was a transition period wherein the possession of the estates was transferred from erstwhile Rajas and Zamindars to the Revenue Department of the Orissa State government. The records of the Tahasildar6 revealed that, during this period, the majority of fishing rights were leased out to fishermen and a relatively small number of fishing rights was allocated to nonfishermen in mostly unproductive Dian and some important Jano sources (Das, 1993). In those days, the socioeconomic condition of fishermen was very low because of the control of fish merchants. To cope with the situation of suffering from the negative dependency, the fishermen in Chilika Lagoon strived to have a united effort to improve their poor situation from fish merchants. In 1923, first attempt to counter the exploitation from them brought about formulation of fishery cooperative society called as ‘‘Balugaon Fishermen Cooperative Stores Ltd.’’ The range of cooperative activities Table 2.7.

Major Changes of Fishing Rights in Chilika Lagoon.

Period British Colonial Rule before 1952 Control by Anchal Adhikari (1953–1959) Control by Revenue Collectors (1959–) From late 1980s to 1993 Fishing Lease Guideline in 1991 Orissa High Court in 1993 Supreme Court in 1996 Orissa Legislative Assembly in 2002

System in Chilika Lagoon Several owners in Chilika Lagoon including the Rajas, Zamindars, local landlords, and the government. Open auction system mostly to fishermen Lease out mostly to Primary Fishermen Cooperative Societies Large-scale prawn culture project was organized but it was cancelled due to opposition movements by fishermen. Allocation of fishing rights was officially granted to nonfishermen as well as fishermen 30% of fishing rights to nonfishermen Prohibition of aquaculture within 1,000 meters of Chilika Lagoon Orissa Fishing in Chilika Lake bill was drafted but failed to pass the bill because of strong resistance from fishermen.

48

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

extends to the police stations of Tangi, Brahmagiri, Krushnaprasad, Banpur, and Ramha, which were almost submerged by the lagoon. One of the main objective activities was to act as agent of fish or agricultural products, in order to prevent them from theft, to encourage self-help and cooperation among the members, and to promote development of cooperative ideas and enterprises. Accordingly, the cooperative society associated with construction of village roads and minor irrigation, and banking business to take up subleasing fishery industry to sell seeds, fishing materials, and so on. Inspired by the formulation of Balugaon Fishermen Cooperative Stores Ltd., the Orissa government introduced new fisheries management institutions with the help of Canadian experts. A dual cooperative structure was designed in which an apex body was at the top and the Primary Fishermen Cooperative Societies (PFCSs) was at the village level (ARCSCCB, 2005a; Samal & Meher, 1999). On the basis of the design, the Central Fishermen Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. (CFCMS) and Assistant Register of Co-operative Societies Chilika Circle Balugaon (ARCSCCB) were established in 1959 for granting fishing license and marketing and for supervising PFCSs, respectively (ibid.). In the same year, the revenue collectors of Puri and Ganjam districts took over the fisheries management in Chilika Lagoon while the open auction system of Anchal Adhikari was suspended. The collectors leased fishing rights to CFCMS, which in turn subleased them to PFCSs. Importantly, the fishing rights were granted in favor of the local fishermen through PFCSs. However, some portions that were not taken on lease by CFCMS were bade through open auctions by concerned Tahasildars (Das, 1993). The records of CFCMS between 1959 and 1988 showed that 212 sources of jano, bahani, and prawn (khati), comprising significant fishing rights for the fisheries, were subleased to PFCSs but 96 sources, comprising 88 dians, 4 janos, and 4 prawns (khatis), were subleased to nonfishermen (ibid.). In addition to the enjoyment of fishing rights, as a result of these efforts PFCSs actively sought to introduce cooperative fish marketing activities. These aimed to liberate fishermen from exploitative marketing control by fish merchants. Such attempts can be considered to have reduced to some extent the monopoly of fish merchants (Mitra & Mohapatra, 1957; Roy & Sahoo, 1962; Samal & Meher, 2003a). Despite these efforts, these cooperative activities have not been gradually functioning except a few PFCSs (Samal & Meher, 2003b), mainly as a result of indebtedness from fish merchants and the defective management of cooperative fish marketing system. In the former, there have been a large number of failures in projects that introduced loan finance to small-scale fishermen (see Table 2.4). These failed as a result of loan defaults with the psychology of

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

49

‘‘loan waiver’’ (Samal & Meher, 2003a); the debtors could easily escape the duty for loan repayment from the lenders while continued to tell a lie on who were debtors. In the latter, it is important to note that inappropriate business of cooperative fish marketing activities was practiced by PFCSs. Each cooperative used to sell nonvaluable fishery resources (e.g., Stolephorus & Thryssa sp.) to retailers and consumers within their villages, and the profit was then distributed to each member. By contrast, the remaining nonvaluable fish and valuable fishery resources (e.g., Penaeus monodon) was packed with ice and delivered to the government marketing agency near Chilika Lagoon or directly to ‘‘Godi’’ (middlemen) outside Orissa state, frequently in Calcutta. In the fish trade process, however, there was a long time lag of fish profit distribution from the government agency (CFCMS) or from fish merchants to each member; it took 26 days on average, according to interviews with eight PFCSs. As for the path from their cooperatives to each member, it took many days to receive their profits as a result of an inefficient profit-sharing management system. Thus, each member could not receive their profits in a short time from their cooperatives. Such inefficiency caused each member to be threatened with survival along with a decrease in fishery resources in Chilika Lagoon. Accordingly, they gradually were forced to sell their catch to fish merchants for immediate profit.

GROWING CONFLICTS IN CHILIKA LAGOON Over several years, the fishermen who were traditionally engaged in the fisheries of Chilika Lagoon have faced various threats from outside. A large number of refugee fishers, especially those from the adjacent West Bengal state and Bangladesh, settled and started to do fishing in the areas from Kaluparaghat to Rambha without licenses. The illegal fishing encroachments by the refugees gradually impeded fishers’ activities and caused major clashes. In 1989, the growing hostility among fishermen eventually led to the formation of a representative group called ‘‘Chilika Matsyasibi Mahasangha’’ (CMM) (Chilika Fishermen Federation), to protect the interests of fishermen and evict the refugees, albeit temporarily. The new entrants in Chilika Lagoon included not only the refugee fishers but also other caste people (nonfishermen) living in and outside Chilika Lagoon. Before the independence of India, nonfishermen used to consider fishing as a low profession based on the ideology of Casteism (Das, 1993; DFGO, 1971), but this view drastically changed later. Improved fishing

50

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

equipment and high demand in international markets for prawn attracted a number of nonfishermen including those belonging to the upper castes. Specifically, there has been a rapid increase in the price of prawn; from INR 35 (approximate US$4.44) per kilogram in 1980 to INR 250 (approximate US$8.88) in 1992 and further to INR 550 (approximate US$ 11.65) in 20017 (Samal, 2002a). The attractiveness of improved fishing equipment and high prawn demand induced many poor and rich nonfishermen alike to enter the fishing industry in Chilika Lagoon. However, most of the fishing grounds (fishery resources) were principally subleased from CFCMS to affiliated PFCSs, which enabled only members to fish in their lease areas. Because of this situation, nonfishermen began to bring forward a claim for personal enjoyment of fishing rights to the Orissa government. Every time a claim was challenged, the government had reiterated the fact that the ‘‘fishermen’’ in Chilika Lagoon had the traditional right to fishing and as such, enjoyment of all fishery sources would be given in favor of PFCSs (Das, 1993). These settlements by the government, however, did not have their intended effects. Nonfishermen started fishing and encroached on fishing grounds owned by PFCSs or occupied unauthorized fishing grounds inside Chilika Lagoon. Such illegal fishing activities gradually led to chronic conflicts between fishermen and nonfishermen. Between 1988 and 1993, a total of 187 disputed cases were filed with the Orissa Revenue Department (ibid.). Why did perpetual conflicts occur across Chilika Lagoon? One of the main triggers is the boundary issue as it relates to fishing grounds. In the past, each fishing ground was identified only by nomenclature but not by area or boundary (OSFCFL, 1996). The ambiguous demarcation sometimes led to internal disputes even among fishers of neighboring fishing grounds (OSFCFL, 1996; Samal & Meher, 1999). Exposure to unclear boundary of the fishing grounds led to a survey of fishery zoning conducted by the Orissa government in 1962. However, the survey failed to draw out precise boundaries, resulting in further disputes (ibid.). The erroneous demarcation created vacant areas which became fishing grounds controlled mostly by nonfishermen called ‘‘Gramatalis’’ (Samal & Meher, 1999). This illegal possession of fishing grounds created a strained atmosphere, which at times ended up in serious conflicts. In an effort to ease tensions, the government forcibly carried out the survey again in 1988. However, it failed to demarcate the grounds in an appropriate manner due to many flaws (ibid.); discrepancies between the recorded areas and the areas under the actual possession of the fishermen and nonfishermen were found and needed to be reinvestigated (ibid.). The ambiguous boundary status of fishing grounds

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

51

enabled nonfishermen to encroach on fishing grounds owned by fishermen or to occupy unauthorized fishing grounds inside Chilika Lagoon. In addition, perpetual conflicts were more or less linked to prawn culture practiced largely by nonfishermen. In the 1970s, some of these nonfishermen started to adopt ‘‘prawn gherry’’ (Flaherty & Samal, 2005), which is made either of earthen embankment or bamboo and a net enclosure (Samal, 2002b; Samal & Meher, 1999). Many of the agricultural lands in the fringe areas of Chilika Lagoon were converted for prawn culture (Samal & Meher, 1999; Supreme Court of India, 1997). However, gherry culture reduced the tidal flushing, which causes sedimentation of large denser particles in the immediate vicinity of the gherries. The sedimentation prevented exchange of migratory fish and prawn juveniles, which contributed to the loss of habitat of those species. Subsequently, villagers, who already lacked access to clean drinking water, and their agricultural lands were exposed to the adverse impacts of saline soil. Thus, gherry culture is considered responsible for the most critical damages (Patra, 2005). It seems that the root of gherry culture as a catalyst was consistent with several projects that encouraged nonfishermen as well as small-scale fishermen to start prawn culture in the 1980s. In 1981, the Orissa government announced the lease principles for brackishwater areas including Chilika Lagoon. According to the policy, 25 percent of the areas requiring comparatively higher investment would be allotted to entrepreneurs, companies, and so on. on a 15-year lease (Mohanty, 1992). At that time, there was great scope for such augmentation if prawn culture could be rationalized. Accordingly, the government came out with this policy with the aim of increasing revenue, not considering other relevant aspects (Orissa High Court, 1994). The revenueoriented policy might have contributed to inducing a trigger that nonfishermen were implicitly allowed to enter the fisheries of Chilika Lagoon and operate the gherry culture in defunct and silted fishing grounds. Furthermore, resource-based conflicts were accelerated by the transfer of fishing rights from PFCSs to nonfishermen. There were some reports that nonfishermen clandestinely seized the fishing rights from PFCSs conferred by CFCMS (Das, 1993; OSFCFL, 1996; Ram et al., 1994; Samal, 2002a; Samal & Meher, 1999). Das (1993) estimated that 42 PFCSs out of a total number of 49 have sublet their fishing rights to third parties between 1988 and 1992. As prawn culture requires a lot of money for investment, most of PFCSs or fishermen were unable to afford it. Moreover, nonfishermen exploited PFCS members who were mostly indebted for fishing activities and for their daily living, by inducing them to part with their fishing rights in exchange for substantial payment (ibid.). Against this background, the

52

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

government had little power to control these transactions. Therefore, such detrimental practices prevailed in Chilika Lagoon and gave rise to conflicts, especially between fishermen and nonfishermen.

ALLOCATION CHANGES AND ITS IMPACTS Before 1990, the government was resolute that the fishing rights in Chilika Lagoon be settled in favor of the PFCSs. This settlement legally enabled fishermen to enjoy exclusive fishing rights. However, the entry of nonfishermen increased and gradually changed the structure of utilization of fishery resources in Chilika Lagoon. To a great extent, the changing situation was consistent with a series of decisions related to fishing rights. The study examines the history of major allocation changes in the fisheries of Chilika Lagoon, showing how much the government decisions induced resourcebased conflicts between fishermen and nonfishermen.

Large-Scale Prawn Culture Project A prime example of the changing situation was a joint project of Orissa state and Tata Corporation in the form of ‘‘Chilika Aquatic Farm Ltd.’’ (CAFL). The project was supposed to lease out 1,400 hectares initially for prawn culture in 1986 (CBA & KYS, 1992). On subsequent discussions in December 1991, CAFL was allowed possession of 400 hectares near the village of Panaspada in Puri district. However, 14,000 fishermen from 26 neighboring villages of Brahmagiri block fished in the project site (ibid.). Development in this area would seriously hamper the flow of runoff silt from upstream and destroy fishery resources and the ecosystem. For this reason, many of the fishing communities in Chilika Lagoon came together to oppose the project. A wave of collective actions among the fishermen was taken in collaboration with several volunteer groups (CBA & KYS, 1992; Samal & Meher, 1999); the fishermen organized themselves for a movement under the banner of ‘‘Chilika Bachao Andolana’’ in which ‘‘Meet The Student,’’ a student forum of Utkal University have struggled CAFL activates against shrimp culture (ibid.). Furthermore, unity among fishing communities of Chilika Lagoon was created in the form of ‘‘Chilika Suraksha Parishad’’ (Chilika Conservation Forum), ‘‘the Chilika Banchao Andolan’’ (Save Chilika Movement), and so on. These movements agitated many crowds by way of gherao, sit-in strike, and padyatra.8 In one instance,

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

53

around 8,000 fishermen and their relatives including representatives of CMM disrupted a session of Orissa state assembly demanding and putting political pressure to form a committee under the chairmanship of the chief minister (CBA & KYS, 1992). A series of demonstrations involving many stakeholders eventually led CAFL to withdraw the plan.

Allocation Changes of Fishing Rights The Orissa government formulated a guideline in 1991 that took effect on January 1, 1992. This guideline regulated the settlement of fishing rights in Chilika Lagoon. It was a drastic allocation change of fishery resources. The guideline defined two categories of fishing rights – ‘‘capture’’ source and ‘‘culture’’ source – according to fishing equipment and methods employed. On the basis of the category, the guideline stated that fishing rights should be granted to fishermen as well as to nonfishermen. This was the first time the settlement officially allowed nonfishermen to share limited fishing grounds (especially for culture sources) and take part in fishing activities which were regarded as a privilege to fishermen in the past. The guideline meant excluding traditional fishermen in the fisheries of Chilika Lagoon to some extent, which made them lose their pride in their occupation as well. Thirty-six PFCSs submitted a petition to the Orissa High Court against the settlement. The petitioners strongly criticized the grants of fishing rights to nonfishermen who were inhabitants of the neighboring villages (Orissa High Court, 1994). In an attempt to look into the matter for trial, the Orissa High Court appointed a Fact Finding Committee. On November 23, 1993, as a result of several investigations by the committee, the court reached a conclusion that even if the nonfishermen may not be entirely in the right, the reality could be ignored that the nonfishermen fished extensively (ibid.). Following this, the court ruled that the ratio between fishermen and nonfishermen should be 60:40 (ibid.). Furthermore, the maximum extent of culture sources in Chilika Lagoon would be 20,000 acres (8,093 hectares), out of which 6,000 acres (2,428 hectares) were to be operated by fishermen and the remaining by nonfishermen (ibid.). The judgment was also given for joint and equal sharing of landmass by PFCSs and nonfishermen (ibid.), which ignored the strained relationship between fishermen and nonfishermen. Based on these directions by the Orissa High Court, a new guideline for settlement of fishing rights in Chilika Lagoon was issued in 1994. Modifications were made so that the new guideline defined ‘‘capture’’ and ‘‘culture’’ sources precisely and clarified the resource allocation between

54

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

fishermen and nonfishermen. However, the guideline did not make any significant changes in comparison to the previous policy in 1991 (Samal & Meher, 1999). Furthermore, no role was assigned to concerned departments when the new policy was put forward. As a result of this new settlement, many portions of the fringe areas of Chilika Lagoon were allowed to be converted legally from traditional fishing grounds to prawn culture areas. Samal (2002b) noted that 42,000 acres (16,996 hectares) of Chilika Lagoon became idle as a result of gherry operations. The exposure to serious threats was unbearable for poor fishermen and PFCSs. Inevitably, the resourcebased conflicts grew increasingly worse.

Impacts of the Judicial Settlement on Gherry Operation The conflicts related to prawn culture took place not just in Chilika Lagoon but also in many of the coastal states in India. In view of heavy clashes, public interest litigation (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 561 of 1994) from Tamil Nadu state was submitted to the Supreme Court of India against hazardous prawn culture (Aquaculture Authority, 2001; Supreme Court of India, 1997). On December 12, 1994, the Supreme Court of India directed all the coastal states of India including Orissa not to permit any industry to be set up in areas at least 500 m from sea water at maximum high tide (ibid.). Following this decision, an important judgment dated December 11, 1996 was pronounced directing that no aquaculture industry shall be constructed or set up within 1,000 m of Chilika Lagoon (ibid.). The ruling was unacceptable to existing prawn farmers because it meant closing their business. Thus, their operations continued and prevailed in many parts of the fringe areas of Chilika Lagoon despite the directive. Amid the growing frustrations of fishermen in response to the revisions in fishing rights, the resource-based conflicts finally resulted in a police firing in May 1999. Four fishermen were killed in a certain village where gherry demolition was conducted under the initiative of Chilika Fishermen Federation, locally called as CMM (Das, 2005; Patra, 2005; Samal & Meher, 1999). Because of this incident, the Orissa government came to a decision to prohibit any gherry operation in Chilika Lagoon. Nevertheless, gherry operations mostly by nonfishermen still continued to be illegally practiced in more than 10,000 hectares (11 percent of lagoon area) (Mohaptra, Mohanty, Mohanty, Bhatta, & Das, 2007).

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

55

Other Factors Leading to Insecurity The underlying causes of resource-based conflicts are linked to three factors along resource allocation change. First, the rapid growth of the fishing population increased the likelihood, duration, and intensity of the conflicts. An amazing trend of population growth can be observed in and around Chilika Lagoon. In the 1970s, there were approximately 48,000 fishermen, out of whom 8,000 were described as full-time fishermen (Senapati & Kuanr, 1977). In contrast, population has been increasing and totaled to 122,339 in 2005, of which 30,936 were estimated to be full-time fishermen (ARCSCCB, 2005a). Special attention should also be paid to count the population of nonfishermen which has also been increasing. The population growth may have contributed to the likelihood of creating various types of conflicts over fishery resources between fishermen and nonfishermen, fishermen and fishermen, and nonfishermen and nonfishermen. Second, available fishing areas have been shrinking year after year as a result of upstream siltation. Exposure to silt accumulation reduces the water spread area and hinders the exchange of water between the sea and lagoon, resulting in decreased salinity level and subsequent prolific growth of freshwater invasive species. For example, a weed invasion presents physical difficulties for boat navigation, sometimes leading to collisions and the subsequent disputes among fishers. By contrast, tidal and seasonal environmental change makes it difficult for policy makers to demarcate each fishing source properly, which may have encouraged fishers to encroach on other fishing grounds. In fact, 20,000 acres (8,093 hectares) have been unlawfully encroached upon mostly by nonfishermen (Samal, 2002b; Samal & Meher, 1999). Third, most of those involved in fishing, irrespective whether they are fishermen or nonfishermen, have introduced improved fishing equipment since the 1970s. According to the first survey during the period from November 2005 to February 2006, more than 70 percent of the fishermen utilized ‘‘khanda’’ (trap nets) for fish and prawn capture. Khandas cover a large portion of Chilika Lagoon and are set up inside Chilika Lagoon for several days. After the khandas are cleaned, fishermen again quickly set up these nets. In this sense, khandas are semipermanently installed inside Chilika Lagoon throughout the year. Such a practice obstructs other fishing methods in the areas fixed by khandas and gives less access to the limited fishing grounds. In particular, the boundary of each fishing ground, which tends to be shallow as a result of environmental changes, is easily occupied by khandas.

56

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

IMPACTS OF RESOURCE-BASED CONFLICTS Until now, resource-based conflicts still prevail in Chilika Lagoon. At an earlier time, the conflicts had taken on a violent character and the sense of insecurity spread in all fisherman villages (Pattnaik, 2007; Samal & Meher, 1999). In addition to the revisions of fishing rights, there have been increasing threats by nonfishermen, even within fishing grounds where the fishermen were granted by the Orissa government through PFCSs. Some powerful vested interest groups called ‘‘mafias’’ carry out unlawful fishing activities that threaten fishermen with deadly weapons in order to exercise monopoly of the fishing grounds for prawn culture (Das, 1993). For instance, mafias forcibly occupied 4,130 acres (1,671 hectares) of fishing grounds, which were leased out to PFCS by the government (Dharitri, 2006). This situation occurred because the defective demarcation of each fishing ground by the government enabled nonfishermen to encroach on fishing grounds owned by fishermen or to occupy unauthorized fishing grounds inside Chilika Lagoon. As a result of this, destruction and theft of fishing equipment have become ordinary occurrences in many portions of the fishing grounds in Chilika Lagoon. In an area where fishing grounds are highly vulnerable to encroachments by others, fishermen began to find it necessary to watch over their territory throughout the day; otherwise, their nets might be destroyed and their grounds occupied by others. Accordingly, most of the fishermen strived to stay on their boat near their grounds for several days especially during the harvest season9 (Iwasaki, 2007a; Iwasaki & Shaw, 2008); some boat members returned to their villages for a few days to rest while the others stayed near the grounds for monitoring. In this situation, fishermen are vulnerable to climate variability and extreme events such as cyclones, floods, heat and cold waves, and so on. These exposures may undermine their health conditions and interfere with daily fishing activities, resulting in severely affected fishery livelihood.

SUMMARY These findings revealed that fishers living in and around Chilika Lagoon remained poor even as there was a spectacular increase of fish landing quantities following successful hydrological interventions. The exploitative situation between fishermen and fish merchants has been embedded in fish

State-Based Fisheries Management in Chilika Lagoon

57

marketing structure of the Chilika Lagoon: mahajans, through commission agents, were identified as the dominant group in the marketing process of fisheries in Chilika Lagoon. This situation leads fishermen to operate indiscriminately with regard to fish catch, which can bring about failures in resource-based development (Misra, 2002). The major reasons behind the dominant fish marketing structure are largely linked to two factors. First, the interaction among fishermen, commission agents, and mahajans was strongly affected by indebtedness. The dependency on loan financing contributed to the building of an informal mechanism of dominant marketing structure among these groups. However, the loan provision approach per se is not applicable in the harvest season. Together with the factor of indebtedness, the exploitative situation has been triggered by resource-based conflicts especially between fishermen and nonfishermen. So far, many fishermen have been forced to stay on their boat near their fishing grounds for days on end to guard against illegal encroachments by others. Therefore, there is little choice but to sell their catch to commission agents by boat-to-boat transaction, especially during the harvest season. Such an insecure situation was deeply embedded in the natural resource allocation system. In-depth field observations from case studies revealed that fishery resource stocks themselves might not be an underlying issue of human insecurity. Chilika Lagoon fisheries have been faced with both situations of resource scarcity and abundance before and after 2000, when hydrological interventions impacted positively on fisheries enhancement with a spectacular increase in fish landing quantities. Irrespective of both experiences, insecure situations among fishers driven by resource-based conflicts in the lagoon have existed, especially since the 1970s. The case of Chilika Lagoon fisheries historically has been governed by the state. This ignored local strained relationships between fishermen and nonfishermen, while failing to demarcate fishing boundaries in an appropriate manner. In other words, neither clear fishing boundaries nor consensus building toward the adoption of resource allocation change were achieved. The resource-based conflicts, which have been happening in Chilika Lagoon, are considered to be a result of the lack of these considerations. A strong political will is imperative at least, in order to make the government to play a more effective role to deal with the insecurity environment. Realistically, a feasible approach may be to define the ambiguous demarcation of leased grounds precisely. Afterward, considerable efforts will be required to ensure confidence among relevant stakeholders to involve people’s participation and then develop consensus building over the reallocation of fishing rights.

58

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

NOTES 1. The value of salinity level changed from 8.9 ppt during 1999–2000 to 11.45 ppt during 2001–2002 and 14.675 ppt during 2004–2005 (CDA data). Accordingly, the area infested with water hyacinth decreased following the opening of the new mouth due to an increase in salinity level. The weed-spread area of the lagoon changed from 508.51 sq km in May 2000 to 157.05 sq km in May 2001 (CDA, 2005a). By contrast, sea grasses were drastically recovered from 24.8 sq km in April 1999 to 86.84 sq km in June 2004 in the estuary, lagoon, and shallow open shelves of the seacoast, which serves as a nursery ground for a large number of fish and invertebrate species. Sea grass provides an important habitat for turtles and other creatures listed in IUCN. 2. Seasonality was purposely divided into two seasons (lean and harvest seasons). The seasonal difference is derived from quantity and profit from fish and prawn landings; fishermen catch more from March to August and less in the remaining months. 3. An exchange rate of US$1 ¼ INR 45.85 is used for data from 2005. 4. An exchange rate of US$1 ¼ INR41.20 is used for data from 2007. 5. The term Zamindar refers to an official in British colonial India who was assigned to collect land taxes in his district. 6. The term Tahasildar refers to an official who carried local government responsibility and had certain fiscal and administrative powers over the villages and municipalities within its jurisdiction. 7. An exchange rate of US$1 ¼ INR 7.89 in 1980, INR 28.14 in 1992 and INR 47.23 in 2001 are used. 8. The term Padyatra is described as a procession where people walk on foot, initially as a small group, but become larger as it passes the streets. 9. In the coastal area of Chilika Lagoon, some fishing grounds are close to the villages. Because the fishermen can be more productive, comfortable, and safe in the village, they try to monitor illegal encroachments by others from the safety of their villages.

CHAPTER 3 COMMUNITY-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN SAROMA LAKE

PROFILE OF SAROMA LAKE Overview of Saroma Lake Saroma Lake is the largest lagoon in Japan, situated at latitude 44105u07v and 44111u58v north and longitude 143140u06v and 143158u14v east (Fig. 3.1). It is located in the northeast of Hokkaido along the Okhotsk sea. The size and circumference of the lake area is around 151 km2 and 91 km, respectively. The pear-shaped lagoon is around 25.7 km long and around 9.5 km wide. The lake has semiclosed estuaries with sea mouths between Okhotsk sea and lake. In the lake, two artificial sea mouths have been excavated, where the water exchange can be maintained. These are around 300 and 50 m wide. Approximately 90 percent of the total inflow from the sea to the lake passes through the former mouth, which was opened in 1927. The salinity level in Saroma Lake is almost similar to that of the Okhotsk sea due to the active tidal water exchange through the two mouths. An average water depth in Saroma Lake is 14 m, approximately 18 m deep at the deepest point. The lake receives fresh water from 13 rivers, particularly two principal streams (i.e., River Saromabetsu and Baro), where a large quantity of freshwater and subsequent sediments and nutrients are supplied into the lake. In 1958, Saroma Lake and its surrounding areas are designed as a quasinational park in Japan. The lake environment holds a pride of place as a significant beauty of nature. The rich ecosystem function and service attract a great deal of attention from both local people and tourists. For instance, Saroma Lake is regarded as a famous site where many people admire a great view of the sunset over the lake. When it comes to winter season, a diverse of wild animals such as eagles, swans, and seals can be seen on ice within 59

60

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT N

First Mouth Japan

5 km Okhotsk Sea Second Mouth Old Mouth

Saroma Lake

Hokkaido

Fig. 3.1.

Map of Saroma Lake.

the lake. In particular, Wakka wild flower garden which is located on the eastern coast of Saroma Lake serves as valuable biodiversity. The place has been appointed as a Hokkaido heritage site. The garden is the largest coastal vegetation site on the long spits in Japan where more than 300 flora including naturalized plants can be observed. Indeed, Ryotaro Shiba who is a great representative Japanese writer wrote down in his book of ‘‘Okhotsk Kaido,’’ saying ‘‘at that time their life dependent on the collection of food, Tokoro area (which is a part of the Saroma Lake region) must be the richest place in the world’’ (Shiba, 1999, p. 98). The sea of Okhotsk is considered one of the richest north temperate marine ecosystems in the world and one of the most biologically productive of the world’s seas. Thus, the lake environment connecting to the sea of Okhotsk endows with highly productive environment in which fishing is a principal benefit represented. The lake covers three municipalities (Tokoro town in Kitami city, Saroma town in Tokoro county, and Yubetsu town in Monbetsu county) where in September 2006, there are 16,384 residents and 6,228 households in and around the lake (Hokkaido Government data). Out of these, 421 fishers (6.8 percent out of all households) are members of three fishery cooperative associations (FCAs) in Saroma Lake which were established in 1948 (Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma [ACLS], 2010). Trend of Climatic Variability in Saroma Lake Saroma Lake which is a part of Okhotsk coastal region has unique meteorological and climatological features. It is considered to be

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

61

climate-sensitive area in Japan especially in winter season, thereby causing vulnerable socioeconomic condition in Saroma Lake fisheries. Annual Variation of Meteorological Parameters Saroma Lake connecting to the sea of Okhotsk is typically subarctic climate. It is characterized by pelagic and ice-covered ecosystem. In winter season, the lake becomes totally or partially ice coverage while drift ice, which starts forming at points where the Amur River to the north in Sakhalin flows into the sea of Okhotsk, surges into the lake. During the period from 1977 to 2008, average annual maximum and minimum temperatures are 32.41C and 21.51C, respectively (Japan Meteorological Agency, 2009). High water temperatures and high salinity levels observed from May to October derive from the Soya warm current, which is dominant in summer season. By contrast, low temperatures and low salinity levels observed from November to April drive from the East Sakhalin cold current, which is dominant in winter season (Sato et al., 2007). Importantly, similar to the world’s expectation (Solomon et al., 2007), it seems that there is a slight warming trend of maximum and minimum temperature especially in the winter season (Fig. 3.2). Changes in temperature, even small changes in water temperature are expected to exert strong pressure upon fish ecology (WWF, 2005). In particular, the warming trend of temperature in the Saroma Lake region affects duration of complete ice coverage in Saroma Lake, leading to an abrupt increase in chemical oxygen demand (COD) (Shiomoto, 2008). The shorter duration of complete ice coverage also allows drift ice to surge into the lake, causing severe damages to fishery facilities for aquaculture in the lake. On average, annual precipitation is 687 mm in Tokoro town, 764 mm in Saroma town, and 690 mm in Yubetsu town, respectively, during the period from 1976 to 2008 (Japan Meteorological Agency, 2009). Compared to the average rainfall (1,714 mm) in Japan, the total quantity of rainfall in the lake area is smaller. The majority of the annual rainfall occurs from August to September. Interactions between typhoons and weather front stalled over Hokkaido region bring much rainfall in the period. In the meantime, heavy rainfall occurs at times when warm front approaches toward frontal cyclone. Importantly, there is an increasing trend of annual rainfall in the Saroma Lake region (Fig. 3.3). The increase of annual rainfall can cause various impacts on the lagoon ecosystem being composed of fragile equilibrium conditions. In particular, land use from upstream may bring more sediment with organic matter and nutrients into the lake. Bottom sediments of the lake are mostly composed of silt and clay except for the

Fig. 3.2.

Trend of Maximum/Minimum Temperature in the Saroma Lake Region. Source: Japan Meteorological Agency (2009).

62 INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

mm

1976

1979

1979

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

Trend of Rainfall in Tokoro Town

1982

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2003

2006

2006

mm

1976

Yubetsu Village

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1979

1982

1985

1991

1994

1997

2000

Saroma Village

Okhotsk Sea

1988

Trend of Rainfall in Saroma Town

2003

Tokoro Village

2006

Trend of Rainfall in the Saroma Lake Region. Source: Japan Meteorological Agency (2009).

1985

Trend of Rainfall in Yubetsu Town

1982

Fig. 3.3.

0 1976

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

mm

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake 63

64

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

small bank and sand bar near the Okhotsk sea where sandy sediments are exposed (Matsuoka, 1987). Changes in land use combined with increase of rainfall resulted in water pollution such as red tide occurrence as well as sedimentation especially near the sea mouth. In this sense, the climatic factor shall be taken into consideration to adjust to ecological-socialeconomic system in response to actual or expected impacts.

Fisheries Management System in Japan Highlighting unique and distinct characteristics of fisheries management system in Japan is indispensable for understanding the institutional structure behind Saroma Lake fisheries. Much of the fishery literature has placed significant focus on coastal fisheries management in Japan with excellent achievement on regulation of domestic fishery operation and the adjustment and control of coastal fishing grounds (Berkes, 1986; Berkes, Mahon, McConney, Pollnac, & Pomeroy, 2001; Iwakiri, 1974; Jentoft & McCay, 1995; Makino & Matsuda, 2005; Pomeroy & Berkes, 1997; Tokrisna, Boonchuwong, & Janekarnkij, 1997; Yamamoto, 1998). Japan is one of the most prominent fishing countries where community-based fisheries management (CBFM) has been developed, rather under the framework of measures instituted by central governments. Yamamoto (1998) argues that the features of successful CBFM in Japan generally consisted of two principles: territorial use right in fishing grounds and coordination of fishery resource allocation system between regional fishery coordination committee and local FCAs. These principles led to sound fisheries management in Japan that provides regulatory authority at the national and regional levels and decision-making power at the community level (Pomeroy & Berkes, 1997). Fig. 3.4 summarized the changes in Japan’s coastal fisheries institutions. From a view point of archaeology, it is obvious that the old Japanese used to harvest fishery resources for thousands of years. A great deal of evidence such as shell mounds and rudimentary fishing equipment have been found in many places, indicating an estimation that the existence of the fisheries can be traced back to the middle and late phases of Jomon period (10,000 BC to 300 BC). Since then, the people have strived to develop institution building in order not to overexploit fishery resources in various regions. Apart from natural resources in terrestrial areas, most of fishery resources entail elements of invisibility and mobility with uncertain character that require cooperation of the stakeholders. With regard to this, a first record

65

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

Before Edo Era (- 1602) •A diverse of fishing regulations were developed with a process of trial and error at the community level in many parts of Japan coast

Early Feudal Edo Era (1603 – about 1700) •Communities controlled their adjacent coastal areas and were responsible for establishing local rules governing use of these areas.

Later Feudal Edo Era (About 1700 – 1868) •Development of laborinvasive and capitalized fisheries. Fishery operation was dominated by a handful of wealthy fishers

Present Fishery Law •Fishing rights, as exclusive real rights, were granted to both fishery cooperative associations and individuals.

Meiji Fishery Law (1901 – 1945) •Fishing rights, as exclusive real rights, were granted to both fisheries societies and individuals.

Modernization Period (1868 – 1901) •The government introduced a top-down fisheries management system, but the scheme was failed. Instead, local fishers managed their fishery operations.

Fig. 3.4.

Historical Changes in Japan’s Coastal Fisheries Institutions.

on fisheries management in Japan was written down in Nihon-shoki, which is the oldest chronicles of Japan; in 676, specific trap operations that were water harvesting system in a stream with installation of small dam shall be seasonally banned during the period from 1 April to 30 September. The decision-making was likely to prevent the fishers from catching juvenile fishery resources. Such a regulation was further developed with a process of trial and error at community level in many parts of Japan. Prior to the Edo era (1603–1868), resource access and utilization of mountains, rivers, bushes, bogs, and coasts were basically open to all and free from levies. In the Edo era, however, feudal government (Tokugawa dynasty) introduced a set of standardized fishing regulations in a policy of Ritsuryo-Yoryaku, which was designed in 1741. The basic components of this policy were to define boundary between surf and offshore zones, though the clear territorial demarcation varies from place to place on the basis of local rules determined by relevant stakeholders. Fishing grounds were purposefully divided into two groups: surf fishing and offshore fishing zone. According to the two categories, local lords partitioned the former waters and allocated them to local communities, instead of levy collection of fishery operations.1 The rights to enjoy specific fishing grounds were exclusively separated from other communities, leading to vested property in these grounds. Each local community had an autonomous management body that

66

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

determined appropriate rules for fisheries management. The institutional structure enabled the fishers to manage their territorial fishing grounds at community level with due responsibility of resource conservation and allocation among them. To a great extent, such CBFM contributed to better achievement on the adjustment and control of fishing grounds in an appropriate manner. By contrast, offshore fishing zones were not under the control of local lords where anyone could do fishing as the open access, irrespective of where they were. In the Meiji era (1868–1912), fisheries management system was more and more institutionalized in Japan. The Meiji central government changed the entire framework of governing system in Japan toward modernization. The implementations include fisheries management system adopted in Edo era, leading to restructuring and consolidation under the control of the Meiji central government. In 1875, the central government introduced fishing license system, which was aimed to restructure the existing customary fishing rights, but the attempt was failed due to strong objections especially from district administrative agencies and fishing right holders. The Bureau of Fisheries was established under the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce in 1885, in order to solve overexploitation of fishery resources and subsequent widespread conflicts among fishers (Makino & Matsuda, 2005). Then, the central government enacted the Fishermen’s Union Regulation in 1886, which encourage fishers to institutionalize local united bodies called ‘‘fishery societies (FSs).’’ These bodies could play an important role in acquiring their exclusive fishing grounds and coordinating relevant stakeholders over territorial boundaries and related operations. It is important to note that the Meiji Fishery Law was enacted in 1901 (amended in 1910). This law established a series of rules that constituted the indispensable basis for current fisheries management system in Japan. It laid down fishing rights, licenses, and regulations. Fishing licenses were issued to individuals in offshore and distant water fisheries. With respect to inland and coastal water fisheries, fishing rights were granted to both fishery societies and individuals, and classified into four categories (Makino & Matsuda, 2005): (i) set-net fishing rights; (ii) specific fishing rights for beach, seines, boat seines, and so on; (iii) aquaculture rights for oyster, pearl, seaweeds, and so on; (iv) exclusive fishing rights. Exclusive fishing rights were further classified into traditional exclusive fishing rights (based on Osumi-tsuki granted by local lords in the feudal Edo era) and new exclusive fishing rights (newly granted by the Meiji Fishery Law). In this respect, exclusive fishing rights were granted to only fishery societies so that local communities forced to organize their own fishery societies for acquirement

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

67

of these rights (Yamamoto, 1998). The exclusive fishing rights were areabased fisheries where the rights holders can catch all fishery resources. These were valid for 20 years and then could be renewed. Meanwhile, the other rights, which were granted to individuals, were valid for five years in the same way. It is worth noting that the nature of these fishing rights took on property aspect and could be sold, leased, transferred, and collateralized. Hence, many fishing rights got into the clutches of some people, resulting in vulnerable livelihood conditions for many fishers,2 in terms of right absentee for fishery operation (which they forced to become just labors). In response to this, the Meiji Fishery Law was further amended in 1933. The revision was to allow all fishery societies to entitle to a right for economic activities such as cooperative fish marketing. If the societies were willing to take on the activities, their bodies would be transformed into ‘‘fishery cooperative associations (FCAs)’’, which were divided into three categories, in terms of varying responsibility: limited liability, unlimited liability, and warranty. Promotion of economic activities by FCAs triggered one of key clues to liberate a major obstacle of negative dependency between fishers and fish merchants and enhanced people’s ownership over fishing rights among the fishing communities. In the aftermath of World War II, Japan was under the occupation of the General Headquarters of the Allied Forces (GHQ) that implemented a wide variety of fundamental reforms in Japan. As part of these reforms, the Meiji Fishery Law was abolished so that all valid fishing rights were nullified, instead of compensation for loss of the rights. Then, all FSs and FCAs were replaced by new FCAs in a democratic manner so that Fishery Cooperative Law was enacted in 1948. Furthermore, the current Fishery Law was enacted in 1949. Within the new legal framework, fisheries management system were classified into three categories: (i) fishing licenses for offshore and distant water fisheries, (ii) fishing rights for inland and coastal water fisheries, and (iii) free fisheries (the others including recreational fishing). With respect to inland and coastal water fisheries, fishing rights were divided into three categories: (i) large-scale set-net fishing rights, (ii) aquaculture (demarcated) fishing rights, and (iii) common fishing rights (only for FCAs). On the point of common fishing rights, it is divided into five types3 and entitled to the local FCAs for its management given that the fishers jointly do fishing in common public waters. The shifts of fishing rights system from the Meiji Fishery Law to the current Fishery Law are shown in Fig. 3.5. With regard to the large-scale set-net fishing rights and aquaculture rights, there has been no change in nature. By contrast, common fishing rights arose from exclusive fishing rights combined with small-scale

68

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Reallocation of Fishing Rights in Japan Meiji Fishery Law Exclusive Fishing Rights Set-Net Fishing Rights (Small-Scale)

Fishery Law Common Fishing Rights Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

(Large-Scale)

Set-Net Fishing Rights

Specific Fishing Rights Type 5 and 6 Type 3 to 9 Aquaculture Rights

Fig. 3.5.

Aquaculture Rights

Comparison of Fishing Rights Category between Meiji Fishery Law and Fishery Law. Source: Modified from Tanaka (2002).

set-net fishing rights and some of specific fishing rights. In this respect, mobile fishing equipment, which used to be categorized into exclusive fishing rights, have come under the management of the prefectural fishing license (Yamamoto, 1998). In addition to the fishing rights system, the Japanese government established fisheries coordinating organizations at various levels in a democratic manner. The multilevel coordinating organizations for fisheries management in Japan are shown in Fig. 3.6 according to the discussion developed by Makino and Matsuda (2005). Local FCAs composed of fishers basically in local communities are smallest bodies, which are in charge of coordinating relevant stakeholders over territorial boundaries and related operations. At larger scale, there exist zone fisheries coordinating committees (ZFCCs) in prefecture. Each ZFCC is consisted of 15 members in principle, of whom 9 are elected by fishers and 6 (4 persons as academic experts and 2 persons representing the public interests) are appointed by prefectural governors. Prefectural governors approve all fishing rights (which are based on the Fishery Ground Plans) and licenses (which are based on the Prefectural Fisheries Coordinating Regulations) on the basis of recommendations or advice from the ZFCCs. These committees are eligible for decisions of allocation of fishing rights and licenses in areas within their jurisdiction and conflict resolutions over fishing

69

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

Level

National

Multijurisdictional

Prefectural

Local

Organization

Fishery Policy Council

United Zone Fishery Coordinating Committees

Zone Fishery Coordinating Committees

Fishery Cooperative Associations

Advisory body to the government for national -level fisheries coordination, design of national fishery policy, etc.

Coordination of resource use and management of highly migratory species. Also addresses resource restoration plans.

Coordination through the fishery ground plan, Prefectural Fisheries Coordinating Regulations, and Committee Directions.

Development of operational regulations that stipulate gear restrictions, seasonal/ area closures of fishing grounds, etc..

Function

Fig. 3.6.

Fisheries Coordinating Organizations at Multilevel Scales.

rights among the resource users (Makino & Matsuda, 2005). At further larger scale, united zone fisheries coordinating committees (UZFCCs) were established in case that there is crucial to handle issues extending wider range of areas where ZFCC cannot cope with alone. Each UZFCC consisted of committee members from each ZFCC. The purpose of UZFCC is to coordinate resource use and management of highly migratory fishery species and formulate Resource Restoration Plans in collaboration with the national government (ibid.). At highest scale, there exists a fishery policy council which serves as advisory body with respect to national-level fisheries coordination, design of national fishery policy, and so on (ibid.).

FISHING ACTIVITIES AND RELATED LIVELIHOODS Positive Aspects of Fishing Activities in Saroma Lake Many fishery literatures have drawn significant attention to coastal fisheries management in Japan, in terms of successful regulatory authority at local and national levels. However, it needs to be mentioned that fishing economy in Japan has been declining especially since 1990s due to overfishing along environmental deterioration, which was opposed to the positive evaluation of fisheries management in Japan. Fig. 3.7 has shown the trend of fish landing quantity and fishing population in Japan. It is evident that marine capture fisheries have been in decay while the fishing population has been to some extent decreasing. In particular, young Japanese people have been reluctant to engage in the fisheries in part because of lower fishery income that combines the decline of fish production with the competition

70

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

1,000 Tons 14000

Persons 800000

12000

700000 600000

10000

500000

8000 6000 4000 2000

Marine Capture Marine Aquaculture Inland Capture Inland Aquaculture Fishers

400000 300000 200000 100000

0 0 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

Fig. 3.7.

Trend of Fish Landing Quantity and Fishing Population in Japan. Source: Fisheries Agency (2009a, 2009b).

for cheaper market price mainly from developing countries. On this account, young generations have tended to migrate and do business in urban areas, rather take over the fishing occupation from their parents or start it in rural areas. The less involvement of young people in the fish industry will worsen Japan’s fisheries management system, which will consequently undermine food security in Japan plaguing human lives, livelihoods, and dignity. Therefore, coping with the vulnerable fishing economy in Japan is among the more important challenges in ensuring human security and developing wise use of fishery resources. Under the circumstances, however, the range of reduction in FCA members involved in Saroma Lake has relatively been lower than the national average as shown in Table 3.1. The local fishers said that many young peoples who are fisher’s family in Saroma Lake used to migrate to urban areas for study and work, but now tend to return to their homes for participation of the fish industry. According to the questionnaire survey (ACLS, 1999a), 76 percent of the young fishers regarded their fishing activities as an attractive job. Their motivations are largely linked to high fishery income and active management conditions of their FCAs), compared with other occupations in Japan. On the point of fishery income, the total annual income per fisher family is approximately Japanese Yen (JPY) 24 million in 1995 (approximate US$ 252,632),4 which is approximately three times higher than of Japan’s national family average (JPY 7.46 million: approximate US$ 78,526) in the same year. One can easily imagine how fishers increase highly fish production in and around Saroma Lake.

71

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

Table 3.1. Comparison of Numbers between Fishery Cooperative Association Members in Saroma Lake and Fishing Population in Japan.

Saroma Lake Japan (Average)

(Number) (Index) (Number) (Index)

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

504 110 57.6 221

494 108 50.4 193

485 106 48.3 185

479 104 43.2 166

472 103 37.0 142

469 102 30.1 115

459 100 26.1 100

428 93 22.2 85

Note: Units of Saroma Lake fishery cooperative association members ¼ 1; Units of Japan’s fishing population ¼ 10,000; index: 2000 ¼ 100. Sources: Fisheries Agency (2009a, 2009b) and ACLS (2010).

Fishery Operation in the Saroma Lake Region There are three major fishing rights in Saroma Lake and its surrounding areas: aquaculture fishing rights for scallop, oyster, and seaweed culture; large-scale set-net fishing rights for salmon and trout; common fishing rights for capturing demersal fishes and shells, small-scale set-net fisheries, gill net fisheries, bottom trap net fisheries, and seine fisheries. All fishing rights, which are granted to the three FCAs, are shown in Table 3.2. Related to fishing rights, membership of FCAs in each village of Saroma Lake is so strict. The eligibility for membership is strictly limited to only one person out of each household in the concerned administrative areas because of local fishery rules. The limited members of each FCA can enjoy specific fishing rights in given fishing spaces. They can inherit their own fishing rights to their successors who are usually their sons, but the eligible peoples require meeting appropriate criteria including working years. Otherwise, they may be quasi-members of FCAs as long as the local criteria are satisfied. In particular, those who migrated to the Saroma Lake region and did not inherit such fishing rights face with difficulty in acquiring the membership of FCAs, in terms of guarantee for a lot of investments for fishing property as well as working experience. In this regard, most of them tend to be categorized as quasi-members of FCAs or wage-workers. It is important to note that Saroma Lake is one of the most prominent scallop production places in Japan where fishers developed breeding and culturing scallop fisheries. More than half of the water area in the lake is utilized for scallop culture as shown in Fig. 3.8. The annual yield of breeding and culturing scallop fisheries is approximately 57,987 tons in 2007, accounting for around 79 percent of the total fish landing quantity in the three villages (marine scallops – 68.5 percent, lake scallops – 8.5 percent, juvenile

72

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Table 3.2.

Breakthrough of Fishing Rights in Saroma Lake and Its Surrounding Areas.

Fishery Cooperative Associations

Fishing Rights

Types of Fishing and Fish Species

Tokoro Fishery Cooperative Association

Large-scale set net fishing rights

Set net fisheries for salmon Set net fisheries for salmon and trout

Tokoro and Saroma Fishery Cooperative Associations

Common fishing rights (Type 1) Common fishing rights (Type 1) Common fishing rights (Type 2)

Demersal seaweeds, fishes, and shells Demersal shells Small-scale set net fisheries for sardine, trout, and herring Seine fisheries Gill net fisheries, Bottom trap net fisheries

Common fishing rights (Type 3) Common fishing rights (Type 2) Saroma Fishery Cooperative Association

Large-scale set net fishing rights

Set net fisheries for salmon Set net fisheries for salmon and trout

Yubetsu Fishery Cooperative Association

Large-scale set net fishing rights

Set net fisheries for salmon Set net fisheries for salmon and trout Demersal shells Demersal shells Small-scale set net fisheries for sardine, trout, and herring Seine fisheries Gill net fisheries, Bottom trap net fisheries

Common fishing rights (Type 1) Common fishing rights (Type 1) Common fishing rights (Type 2) Common fishing rights (Type 3) Common fishing rights (Type 2)

Tokoro, Saroma, and Yubetsu Fishery Cooperative Associations

Common fishing rights (Type 1) Common fishing rights (Type 1) Common fishing rights (Type 2)

Common fishing rights (Type 3) Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma

Tokoro, Saroma, Yubetsu, and other six fishery cooperative associations

Octopus fisheries Demersal seaweeds, fishes, and shells Small-scale set net fisheries, Gill net fisheries, and Bottom trap net fisheries Seine fisheries

Aquaculture fishing rights (Type 1) Inland common fishing rights (Type 1) Inland common fishing rights (Type 5) Inland common fishing rights (Type 5)

Aquaculture for scallops, oysters, and seaweeds Common freshwater clam fisheries

Common fishing rights (Type 2)

Gill net fisheries for herring

Hypomesus olidus, Osmerus eperlanus mordax, Hypomesus pretiosus japonicus, and Salangichthys microdon fisheries

Source: Modified from Abashiri Shicho Sangyou Shinkoubu Suisannka (2008).

73

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake Saroma Lake

Okhotsk Sea

Scallop Culture First Mouth Grounds (After 1929)

Old Mouth (Before 1929) Second Mouth (After 1978) Tokoro Village

Yubetsu Village Saroma Village

Fig. 3.8.

Map of Aquaculture Grounds in Saroma Lake. Source: Modified from ACLS Data.

scallops – 2.0 percent). The rests of fishery resources in the area are salmons, following by trouts, atka mackerels, oysters, and other aquatic animals. Furthermore, each fishing right (large-scale set-net fishing rights; aquaculture fishing rights; and common fishing rights) has a set of local rules determined by each FCA. The institutionalized rules strictly limit the numbers of rights holders even within the members of FCAs as well as the way of fishery operations in given fishing grounds. The eligible rights holders are selected on the basis of several criteria such as working years, occupational status (primary or secondary), and offenseless. Such elaborations are taken into account stable fish production and unfair resolution among the members.

Overview of Breeding and Culturing Scallops Breeding and culturing scallops are fundamental for Saroma Lake fisheries, which contributed to a great extent to successful fishery development. The operation can be classified into two categories: scallop culture and scallop fisheries combined with release of cultured scallop species. The latter is composed of the former being inevitably crucial for the extent of scallop production. The time series of processes of scallop culture in the case of Saroma Lake are shown in Fig. 3.9. Scallop culture begins with collection of natural scallop spat. When it comes to June, a large number of scallop spat were given birth to. Taking into account appropriate timings including cumulative water temperature and size composition of the spat, fishers stock Saroma Lake with long-line

74

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

First Year

Third Year

Second Year

Month 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ice - Cover

Sales of

Period

Cultured

Spat Collectors Pocket Nets Pearl Nets

Fig. 3.9.

Ear -Hanging

Scallops

Removal of Excrescence

Third Replacement

Removal of Excrescence

Pearl Nets

Second Replacement

First Replacement Spat Collection

Ice -Cover Period

Flow Chart of Scallop Culture in Saroma Lake. Source: Modified from ACLS Data.

bags with small-mesh size nets. The bags on branch lines allow the scallop larvae to enter the mesh and adhere to the bags. The attached spat grows day by day, thus attaining the size of 0.2 mm when the fishers collect the bags. On average, 8,981 larvae per spat collector could be collected in the lake during the period from 1987 to 2005 (ACLS data). Second, fishers replace the scallop spat, which were captured by spat collector bags, with bigger rearing baskets. The baskets can be locally called as ‘‘zabuton’’ and have long-lines for intermediate scallop culture, which is similar to the spat collector bags. In this stage, net changing and spat thinning are necessary where growth is rapid. The fishers in Saroma Lake, therefore, developed the way to raise the spat on the basis of the growth rate. Consequently, different pearl nets are applied twice in the stage of intermediate scallop culture. First replacement starts in and around July for one month, and then second one continues in September for around seven months with bigger mesh size nets and less numbers of scallop spat, taking into account the rapid growth and requirements for nutritious environment. After the first replacement was finished, the shell size of scallop spat is around 21.8 millimeters on average. Likewise, the average size and weight are 48.8 millimeters and 14.4 grams after the second one. After a series of the above operations, the scallop grows enough to develop a harder shell. In this stage, the cultured scallops can be divided into two categories (Sato et al., 2007); one category is still farmed in the lake, and the other category is farmed for subsequent placement in the Okhotsk sea.

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

75

In the former, some of the fishers continue to grow scallop up until it reaches marketable size (for about 2.5 years in total). In order to this, third replacement is conducted by using pocket nets. The replacement with bigger mesh size nets starts from May to September after a thaw has set in. Use of pocket nets enables the one-year scallops to develop more growth and increase higher rates of survival for them, compared with the aforementioned materials. The average shell size and weight are 85.1 mm and 82.8 g after the third replacement is over. Furthermore, subsequent replacement continues to raise the scallops until marketable size (around or more than 100 mm and 180 g) by applying an ear-hanging method. A small hole is drilled in the left or right anterior ear of the shell and a touch thread is passed through and attached to a branch line. Pocket nets with cultured scallops are kept in the lake water during the period from September to July including the winter season, which brings ice on the surface of the lake. Consequently, fishers sell the marketable cultured scallop through their FCAs, delivering it to many places including foreign countries including China. In the latter, one-year cultured scallops are released to the Okhotsk sea. As mentioned earlier, production of marine scallops contributes to active fishery development in the Saroma Lake region, accounting for 68.5 percent out of the total landing quantities in 2007. The production arises from cultured scallops as well as natural ones. With regard to this, elaborations are made on cleaning predators for young scallops including starfish and flatfish on bottom fishing grounds. Fishers attempt to level the grounds with trawler boats in an appropriate manner before releasing these scallops in the sea. The sowing activity is from May to June. It is important to note that the fishers determined and applied a zoning system for marine scallop fisheries. Four or five zones in the fishing grounds are divided according to the water depth. Every four or five years, the fishers harvest these breeding and wild sea scallops in each zone where the practice looks like agriculture.

TRANSITION OF FISHERY ECONOMY IN SAROMA LAKE Traditional Capture Fisheries Dating back to the Saroma Lake’s history, the fishing economy was less prosperous than what it is today. Before 1928, the fishery operation was based on capture fisheries while the local fishers often faced with overexploitation of fishery resources in and around Saroma Lake. Once

76

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

the fishers discovered a rich fishing ground for wild sea scallop in 1911, for instance, a large number of fishing boats including from far places were suddenly flocked to the ground without any care of fisheries management. Due to this, during the period from 1868 to 1988, the fishers forced to determine prohibitions of fishing eight times, accounting for around 17 years while there were only three times for bumper fish catch (ACLS, 1999b). What is worse, unfair fishery resource allocation among the fishers were penetrated across the lake. Some dominant fishers exclusively monopolized fishing rights for capturing salmons, herrings, and so on that are available in Saroma Lake and good fishery income source. However, the other fishers were allocated on the ground that enabled them to catch cheaper cost fish such as flatfish. It was not sufficient for them to make a living for survival so that indiscriminate fish catch have been prevailed in the lake and its surrounding areas. Apart from small-scale fisheries, some of fishers were engaged in relevant fishing activities as work labors of their bosses who were often tied to the persons (fishers-cum-fish merchants). This kind of relationship between the two might be entrenched in exploitative fishery business called ‘‘boss system.’’ To a great extent, the bosses actually took control of the labors especially through money lending. Due to this, some of the fishery workers were exploited by their bosses. However, there was reported to be a fact that some of big bosses took much care of their labors by ways of supply of basic materials for survival as well as good money lending (ACLS, 1999b). In particular, one of the bosses, who expressed interest with regard to future development of Saroma Lake fisheries, encouraged the fishers to unite together for operation of cooperative fish marketing (ibid.). The promotion was meant to cause major economic losses to his business in the short run. Despite this, his strong desire for development of highly productive and stable fisheries management led to initiations of cooperative fish marketing activities since 1931. His efforts also enabled the fishers in three villages to unite together, in terms of joint production of scallop seedlings and formation of federationalized body in Saroma Lake as illustrated later.

First Major Change in Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake Under the circumstances, a first major change in fisheries management system in Saroma Lake was occurred in 1929. Prior to the year, there had been a temporal sea mouth in Tohutsu place (see Fig. 3.8). During the period from November to June, the sea mouth became closed due to

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

77

sediment accumulation by stormy weather. Closure of sea mouth was unable to exchange migratory fish species and obstructed the passages of boat navigation for the sea. At the same time, it hindered the exchange of water between sea and lake, resulting in the lower salinity level that affects many living creatures for survival. Not only fishers but also other villagers were suffered from floods because the closure of sea month made the lake overflowing when it rained heavily. Floods brought physical damages in terms of human being and infrastructures. For these reasons, the villagers who lived in and around the lake traditionally united together and strived to open the closed mouth every spring. The collective actions for opening the sea mouth have been locally known to be ‘‘Shio-kiri’’ among them. Opposed to the traditional custom, however, the peoples in Yubetsu village where is furthest from Tohutsu place opened a new mouth (first mouth) in 1929 mainly because of easy access in the sea for fishing and risk reduction of flood hazards. The first mouth altered to a great extent the lake environment, which did not seasonally close the first mouth and increased the salinity level, resulting in the dramatic change in fish production. Although oysters were almost disappeared due to tidal change and increase of the salinity level, a large number of migratory fish species were entered into the lake, thereby leading to the improvement of fishers’ livelihood conditions as a whole (Fig. 3.10). For the sake of revitalization of oyster fisheries in Saroma Lake, an engineer from Hokkaido Fisheries Experimental Stations came the lake in 1931. He happened to discover a lot of juvenile scallops on the surface of oyster shells when he was collecting the oyster seedlings. Later, the discovery brought about the change from capture fisheries to breeding and culturing scallop fisheries in Saroma Lake. Having recognized the significance of the

First Mouth

Old Mouth

Fig. 3.10.

First Mouth and Old Mouth.

78

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

possibility of scallop culture in the lake, he strived to conduct experimentation and commercialization of scallop culture in collaboration with the local FSs (later FCAs) and Hokkaido prefecture government. At the same time, he provided a series of trainings for the fishers because, he thought, education must be the most important factors for scallop culture operations. For this reason, he held a one month training camp for required knowledge and skills to 20 young fishers. Most of the participants played a leading role in managing breeding and culturing scallop fisheries in Saroma Lake, some of whom became leaders of FCAs. A representative of Tokoro FCA who once used to be one of the bosses (fishers-cum-fish merchants) acted as a coordinator for uniting together in three villages in line with the idea of scallop culture in Saroma Lake. In 1939, joint production of scallop seedlings beyond borders of three FCAs was initiated. As a result of these efforts, the numbers of cultured scallop seedlings that were joint production in the three villages, successfully amounting to 500 million pieces in 1945 (ACLS, 1999b).

Second Major Change in Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake After the end of World War II (in 1945), a second major change in fisheries management system in Saroma Lake was occurred. At that time, Japan was under the occupation of the GHQ that implemented a wide variety of fundamental reforms in Japan. Out of these, system reform of fisheries management was carried out so that a set of new legal systems related to the fisheries were developed; Fishery Cooperative Law in 1948, Fisheries Law in 1949. In the former, all FSs and FCAs established by the Old Fisheries Law were replaced by new FCAs. Related to the Act, three (Tokoro, Saroma, and Yubetsu) FCAs were established in 1948. In the latter, instead of determination of ex-fishing rights, new fishing rights were granted to the FCAs while the compensation payments for ex-fishing rights were distributed to the FSs and ex-FCAs, in order to remove the dominant control of fishing rights by specific peoples. In those days, the fishers in Saroma Lake posed a serious challenge on rapid fishing population growth. Numbers of three FCAs in Saroma Lake became approximately twice (616) in 1949 as many as those (340) in 1944 (ACLS, 1999c). The population growth was tied to that the repatriates who were mainly from Sakhalin and Kurile islands where the territory was changed from Japan to former Soviet republic, and the demobilized peoples returned and joined the fisheries in the lake. Along the past experiences of overfishing in the region, the sudden increase of fishing population might

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

79

induce the indiscriminate fish catch and push things to the brink more. For this reason, developing institutions for governing and managing fishery resources were urgent in order to overcome these risks in an appropriate manner. Under the circumstances, a representative of Tokoro FCA who had a great prestige among the local fishers took a great leadership role in the fisheries management. Based on a long-term perspective, he suggested that Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma (ACLS) should be established with the aim of building the adaptive fisheries management system in terms of utilization, culture, and protection. Instead of the establishment, he argued that all compensation payments for ex-fishing rights from the Japan’s government be distributed to ACLS. Consequently, his strong leadership led to the establishment of ACLS by investing all their payments in 1952. The main roles of ACLS were to develop cooperative fisheries management in Saroma Lake. In principle, the lake water is divided and the three administrative authorities take possessions of different water zones. The introduction of ACLS, however, enabled to share these variant zones and manage fishery resources in the continuum ecosystem. Three FCAs applied cooperative approaches and the concept of common-pool resources (CPRs) was put into practice among them, in terms of division fishing rights in Saroma Lake and some common fishing rights in Okhotsk sea as well as Saroma Lake. The presence of ALCS led the fishers to build cooperative fishery governance system effectively.

Development of Saroma System Under the framework of fishery governance in Saroma Lake, each FCA played a great important role in developing the operation of breeding and culturing scallop fisheries called Saroma System. It is well known among fishery experts in Japan and is built at the community level, rather at the national and research institution levels. It is no exaggeration to say that the system was developed by putting together each fisher’s wisdom and power. It created such methods as collection of natural scallop seedlings and nursery culture of large-scale scallops (overwintering scallops). In particular, cultivation of large-scale scallops made a great contribution to the highly and stable breeding and culturing scallop fisheries in Saroma Lake. To be sure, the numbers of cultured scallop seedlings had already been succeeded since the prewar period undertaken by the engineer from Hokkaido Fisheries Experimental Station in collaboration with the local fishers. However, most of the seedlings, which were sown in Okhotsk sea

80

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

for breeding were died by marine predators, especially by flatfishes and asteroids. According to diving observations, findings revealed that these predators ate small-size scallops while large-size scallops seemed not to be eaten by those (ACLS, 1999b). Thus, success for breeding scallop fisheries depended on whether the fishers could culture large-size scallops for breeding or not. However, there were paramount challenges to raise large-scale scallops due to climate condition. The water temperature in Saroma Lake drops more than 21C with ice 50–60 cm when it comes to winter season (ibid.). In terms of biological perspective, it was believed that scallops naturally burrow beneath the underground in order to mitigate the impacts of cold water temperature. On this account, cultivation of overwintering scallops in Saroma Lake was considered to be impossible among the researchers in those days. Thus, there was no research cooperation of overwintering scallop culture from the national government as well as the researchers (ibid.). By contrast, the local fishers in Saroma village had the opposite view. They observed some wild sea scallops being tolerant of severe conditions in winter season over the years. For this reason, they strived to conduct experimental tests under the instruction by a fishery officer who was in charge of fishery development in Saroma village. As a result of their endeavors, it was successful to culture scallops over the winter, thereby leading to the larger ones. The growth made a contribution to the improvement of breeding scallop fisheries consisted of major Saroma fish production. Putting them all together, the modern history of Saroma Lake fisheries can be drawn in Table 3.3. The Saroma System is developed at the community level while cooperative fishery governance has been prevailed across Saroma Lake through the establishment of ACLS. Based on the past fisheries, fishers united together and shared their wisdom, enabling to comprehensive and collective fisheries management in the lake. The fishers developed breeding and culturing scallop fisheries that are based on ecosystem approach; fishing grounds in Okhotsk sea are cleaned in advance to remove predators for scallops while cultivation of overwintering scallops is practiced. In the aftermath of these processes, fishers sow the larger cultured scallops in one of their fishing grounds, which are divided into four or five zones. Every four or five years, they harvest these breeding and wild sea scallops in each ground where the practice looks like agriculture. On the basis of establishment of Saroma system, the fisheries in Saroma Lake have rapidly developed since 1970s. The system led to higher production of scallop landing quantities in the region. Fig. 3.11 shows a paramount evidence of how the fishers have achieved great performance for

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

Table 3.3. Period Before 1928 1929 1931

1952

1961–Present

81

Major Changes of Modern Saroma Lake Fisheries. Fisheries Management System in Saroma Lake

Fishery operation was based on capture fisheries which often made fishery resources depleted or deteriorated due to overfishing. A new mouth was opened, leading to drastic change of natural environment in Saroma Lake. An engineer from Hokkaido Fisheries Experimental Station came in Saroma Lake and discovered the potentiality of scallop culture, which enabled fishers to start breeding and culturing scallop fisheries. Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma was established to manage fishery resources beyond the boarder line of administrative territory and build a nested cooperative partnership among the stakeholders. Elaborations were made on improvement of fishing methods and cultivation of large-scale scallops especially by the initiatives of youths and a trainer of fish industry instruction in Saroma village, leading to establishment of ‘‘Saroma System.’’

Tonnes 100,000 Cultured Scallops 90,000 80,000 Marine Scallops 70,000 60,000 50,000 Lake Scallop Fisheries Scallop Culture 40,000 30,000 Marine Scallop Fisheries Marine Scallop 20,000 10,000 0 1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

Fig. 3.11.

Trend of Scallop Landing Production in the Saroma Lake Region. Source: ACLS data.

the production especially since 1980s. Increase of the landing quantities contributed to higher fishery income and in turn further investments on the fisheries were made into ACLS as well as their own FCAs. On the whole, the fishers recognize the significance of scientific and technical knowledge such as lake water environment (e.g., water temperature, water quality and salinity level), scallop habitat, climate and market fluctuation. So far, ACLS acted as a leading coordinator to not only facilitate consensus building efforts among the three FCAs in Saroma Lake, but also make an association

82

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

of ideas and opinions between the fishers and research institutes. Taking into account the role of scientific and technical knowledge, ACLS has decided to employ researchers since 1987. Such employments determined by FCAs have hardly seen except Saroma Lake. In this sense, ACLS serves as a basis for better fisheries management in the Saroma Lake region, in terms of coordination among the stakeholders, and research and development for appropriate timely information dissemination to the fishers.

LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND COPING STRATEGIES On the whole, the fisheries in Saroma Lake achieved great performance for scallop production in the base of the lake. However, the fishers also cast a dark shadow in the developing process. There occurred several environmental problems that affected adverse impacts on aquatic animals and their habitats in the lake. Massive Death of Cultured Scallops Saroma Lake, which has a semiclosed water area, is easily polluted. Accelerated water pollution combined with population growth, rapid industrialization, and scallop culture placed severe pressures in the lake. Recently, COD, total nitrogen and total phosphorus, which are indicators for water eutrophication, have exceeded the allowable environmental criteria designed by Japan’s government (HIES, 2010). Different variables of water contamination were identified within the lake. Even if certain environmental monitoring spots showed the value below the allowable limit, the water quality might be exceeded beyond the criteria in other areas. On the whole, the lake environment tends to become contaminated where there occurred red tide problems (Kato, Maekawa, & Sakaguchi, 2004). In particular, the eastern lake had been worse water circulation since the first mouth was opened and in turn the old mouth (Tohutsu place) was closed in 1929. In response to this, there occurred a massive death of cultured scallops in Wakasato area of Saroma village for the first time in 1976. The accident has been instantly expanded to one after another, leading to almost the entire area in the lake (ACLS, 1999a). Related to this, the production of three-year cultured scallops has been decreased up to 3,673 tons in 1984, compared with 6,728 tons in 1980. Recognizing such negative impacts, ACLS quickly

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

83

set up a committee called ‘‘Aquaculture Committee in Lake Saroma’’ in 1976, which aimed to maintain efficient and stable operation of scallop culture in the lake. The committee applied community-based approach that was sensitive to opinions of local fishers in order to stop further extension of the massive death. Moreover, ACLS requested experts to carry out surveys on setting environmental carrying capacity in Saroma Lake and its evaluation of current fisheries management. In response to the request, a new committee called ‘‘Expert Committee on Aquaculture Allowance Limit in Lake Saroma’’ was established. The committee consisted of four research institutions conducted a first survey in Japan on setting aquaculture allowance limit in Saroma Lake during three years from 1975 to 1977. The survey encompassed a wide variety of study in terms of physical, chemical and biological perspectives. Consequently, the findings revealed that production of cultured scallops be 50 million species at maximum so that the fishers must reduce their production up to 27 percent. ACLS, according to the instruction by the committee, made decisions on the production ceiling among three FCAs, and then among members through each FCA. Finally, the Cultured Scallop Allowance Limit (CSAL) was for the first time introduced in Saroma Lake in 1979. Of special note is a thoroughgoing effort on the rule compliance. The timing of CSAL regulation was the time when the production of cultured and breeding scallops had been an upward trend since 1965. For this, it was not easy for the fishers to accept the limitation, which was expected to increase those who break the rules. Therefore, following deliberations were made by ACLS (ACLS, 1999a); a clear punishment rule was set, and members of ACLS management committee who consisted of representatives from three FCAs implemented voluntary inspection. Before they do the inspection, those who were granted to fishing rights for scallop culture must submit to ACLS a report that has to be listed on their fishing equipment in detail. Based on the report, the committee members strictly checked the numbers of fishing equipment each by each, astoundingly leading to detection of 200 violated members (approximately 60 percent) out of three FCAs. The fines were amounted to approximately JPY 120 million (approximate US$5,263),5 which was automatically deducted from their salary in the business year ending, in order not to escape their violation payments. The strict monitoring system with strong leaderships enabled the fishers to successfully keep their rules after a few years of CSAL. Other attempts were provided such as practice of aquaculture modeling test conducted by the fishers and capacity building through trainings and

84

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

publication of scallop culture manual by ACLS. In addition to these trials, the local fishers united together and lobbied the governments to open a new mouth for the sake of helping the lake water current smoothly. In response to their requests, a new mouth (second mouth) was opened in 1978 with supports from Japan government, though it took long years to put into practice. Opening of second mouth improved lake water flow to some extent and enabled scallops and oysters to grow faster in the eastern lake as same as in other lake places. Consequently, these considerations made a contribution to announcing that the massive death of cultured scallops was terminated in 1985.

Damages of Drift Ice When it comes to winter season, drift ice surges into Saroma Lake. The lake normally becomes iced-over before the inflow so that it keeps the drift ice from surging into the lake. However, the period of iced-over lake is likely to have decreased since 1968 (Fig. 3.12). Importantly, some years (in 1974, 1989, 1991, 1997, 2004, and 2007) experienced no iced-over lake. Warming atmosphere of the climate system is unequivocal as changes in climate have been commonly observed in many parts of the world (Solomon et al., 2007). Once the drift ice surged into the lake, it brought physical damages to a large number of facilities for scallop culture. Specially, the fishers experienced a calamitous disaster related to this in 1974. Six- to eight-meter block of drift ice beneath the water crashed their facilities, resulting in economic loss of around 2.3 billion Yen (Kato et al., 2004). In response to the overflowing ice, the fishers strived to cope with it by labor-intensive Days 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

Fig. 3.12.

Annual Trend of Iced-Over Water Days in Saroma Lake. Source: ACLS (2010).

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

85

method with utilization of heavy machine. The overflowing ice, however, was not much for only their manpower, leading to severe physical damages to their facilities. Consequently, the fishers called for urgent talks among the stakeholders in order to discuss about countermeasure against the inflow of drift ice. During the meeting, the stakeholders built a consensus that national government be in charge of the issue to be addressed. Thus, a council called ‘‘Council on Countermeasures for Drift Ice in Saroma Lake’’ was established with the aim of rehabilitation on facilities for aquaculture which were damaged by the ice in the short term while of building infrastructure development not to enter it into the lake in the long term. In the latter, the council requested various national government authorities to address the infrastructure building. In response to this, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Hokkaido Regional Development Bureau established a commission on investigation consisted of academic experts. The commission discussed and conducted a survey on suitable countermeasure against drift ice overflowing during two years from 1991 to 1992. Consequently, the consensus building was made on constructing a sink-and-float style ice boom in Saroma Lake which is first installation in marine area (Kudou et al., 2000). The installation made a contribution to keeping drift ice from surging into the lake. It enabled fishers to manage scallop culture in a safety environmental condition, leading to highly productive and stable fishery development.

SUMMARY This chapter illustrated fisheries management dynamics in Saroma Lake and its surrounding territorial areas. Tracing back to the historical sketch in the Saroma Lake region, the fishers were succedded to develop highly productive and stable fisheries after opening of first mouth in 1929. Prior to the year 1929, they faced a crisis over environmental degradation due to overexploitation of fishery resources. For instance, repeated prohibitions of scallop fishieries were occurred in the region. Each fisher used to catch fish on a first-come-first-served basis. The less availability of fishery resources further induced them to operate fish catch indiscriminately, resulting in the negative cycle of fisheries management. In particular, smallscale fishers mainly as wage labors were exploited by their bosses, instead of supplying basic materials for survival as wel as money lending. The internal relationship between the two created exploitative economy situation under the ‘‘boss system,’’ which undermined fishers’ adaptive capacity

86

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

to the ecological-social-economic system. However, one of the bosses, who expressed interest with regard to future development of Saroma Lake fisheries, encouraged the fishers to unite together for operation of cooperative fish marketing. His long-range outlook as a result provided a foundation for promoting wise use of fishery resources and securing the health of the lagoon environment. The significant feature of fisheries management in Saroma Lake is a community-based approach in opposition to the case of Chilika Lagoon fisheries (state-based one). The CBFM is based on the establishment of ACLS which served as coordination of affiliated three FCAs. The introduction of ACLS took a lead in building cooperative fishery governance system among the fishers. It enabled to share their fishing grounds as CPRs in the lake beyond the boarder line of administrative territory, leading to strong sense of solidarity among three FCAs and among the fishers. Of course, the fishers faced with many challenges in the development process of breeding and culturing scallop fisheries. In particular, the massive death of cultured scallops and damages of drift ice endangered the management crisis of ACLS and FCAs. However, it is important to note that these problems were overcome and improved by community-based initiatives, rather state-based ones which were taken in many countries of the world (Ostrom, Burger, Field, Norgaard, & Policansky, 1999) as found in Chilika lagoon fisheries. The key operations have been in charge of ACLS that applied scientific-oriented ways through setting of several committees and built good partnership among various stakeholders. In the places where are vulnerable to environmental problems from internal (e.g., fishing operation) and external sources (e.g., water pollution from upstream and climate change), integrated fishery resources management needs to be taken into more consideration not just at the local level but at the regional and global levels. On the point of this, lessons learnt from Saroma Lake fisheries will provide potential implications on how important the presence of coordinator for fisheries management is.

NOTES 1. If a larger investment in fishery operations, such as fixed nets, blanket nets, and aquaculture for seaweeds and oysters, was required, local lords allocated the surf zones to eligible person(s) who operated these fishing activities. 2. Apart from right absentee for fishing, several studies illustrated the underlying cause of vulnerable fishery livelihoods in Japan, in terms of unbalanced equilibrium between fishers and fish merchants: fish merchants put more pressure

Community-Based Fisheries Management in Saroma Lake

87

on fishes (especially small-scale fishers) to sell their entire catch at a lower price in every possible way (Hirasawa, 1992; Iwakiri & Neaz, 1982). According to Hirasawa (1992), there were several historical records that fishers sold their catch fish to fish merchants at 20 percent to 30 percent (sometimes 40 percent) bargained price less than actual price. In order to collect them at lower price, the fish merchants also strived to manipulate class and size of fish, while the fishermen were not even aware of the economic exploitation by them (ibid.). Confronting with this, the Japanese government began to support a variety of fishing activities and fish marketing facilities such as marketing halls, ice making factories, and cold storage facilities. Such supports encouraged many fishery societies to be involved in fish marketing activities as well as guardian of fishing rights, thereby leading to change of their status as fishery cooperative associations (Yamamoto, 1998). 3. The definitions of types 1–5 of common fishing rights are as follows (Kaneda, 2005). The type 1 common fishing right is to harvest seaweeds, shellfishes, or other bottom clinging aquatic animals as designated by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The type 2 common fishing right is to use submerging stationary net equipment other than those of fixed-net fisheries. Major equipment in this category are smallscale set-net fisheries and fixed gillnet fisheries. The type 3 common fishing right is to operate beach seine fishery ( jibiki-ami fisheries), beach seine fisheries with scare-fishes ( jikogi-ami fisheries), trawl fisheries by nonpowered boat ( funabiki-ami fisheries), angling by aid of baiting (kaitsuke fisheries), and fisheries by means of artificial bank (tsukiiso fisheries). The type 4 common fishing right is to operate wintering mullet fisheries (yoriuo fisheries) and feeding red sea-bream fisheries with a flock of birds (toritsuki-kogizuri fisheries). The type 5 common fishing right is to communal fisheries operated in rivers and lakes, which is other than those specified in the type 1. 4. An exchange rate of US$1 ¼ JPY 95.0 is used in 1995. 5. An exchange rate of US$1 ¼ JPY 228.0 is used in 1980.

CHAPTER 4 PARTNERSHIP-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN SONGKHLA LAKE

PROFILE OF SONGKHLA LAKE Overview of Songkhla Lake Songkhla Lake is the largest lake in Thailand along the Bay of Thailand, situated at latitude 7108u and 7150u north and longitude 100107u and 100137u east (Fig. 4.1). The lake covers an area of approximately 1,042 km2, and consists of four interconnected lake ecosystems (Ratanachai & Sutiwipakorn, 2005): Thale Noi (approximately 27 km2), Thale Luang (approximately 473 km2), Thale Sap (approximately 360 km2), and Thale Sap Songkhla (approximately 182 km2). Thale Noi is situated at the northern part of Songkhla Lake and connects with Thale Luang through three waterways (Klong Yuan, Klong Ban Kland and Klong Nang Riam). Thale Noi, which is a part of ‘‘Khuan Kee Sian’’ marsh area, was declared as nonhunting national park in 1965 because of its valuable ecosystem. In addition, the marsh and lake environment became the first Ramsar site of Thailand in 1997. Thale Luang extends from the southern part of Thale Noi to Tambon1 Ko Yai in the Krasae Sin district of Songkhla province and Ban2 Laem Jong Thanon in the Pak Payoon district of Phattalung province. The main streams of Klong Tha Nae, Klong Nathom, and Klong Tha Madue bring a large quantity of water and nutrients into the lake and maintain the lake’s freshwater environment.

89

90

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

1 Klong Pa Payom Sub-basin 1.

Nakhon Si Thammarat

2. Klong Thanae Sub-basin 3. Klong Nathom Sub-basin 4. Klong Tachiad Sub-basin 1

9

Thale Noi

5. Klong Pa Bon Sub-basin 6. Klong Phru Poh Sub-basin

2

Thale Luang

Pak Ra Wa

7. Klong Rattaphum Sub-basin 8. Klong U-Tapao Sub-basin

3

9. Eastern Coast Sub-basin 1 Thale Sap

10 0

Phatthalung Trang

4

10 Eastern Coast Sub-basin 2 11. Eastern Coast Sub-basin 3

5

11 6

Thale Sap Songkhla

12. Eastern Coast Sub-basin 4 Sea Mouth

7

10

0

10

20

kilometers 8

Satun

Songkhla

N

Malaysia

Fig. 4.1.

Hydrological Map of Songkhla Lake. Source: Modified from Ratanachai and Sutiwipakorn (2005).

Head down the water current and a path will lead to Thale Sap in the middle of Songkhla Lake. It extends from Tambon Ko Yai in the Krasae Sin district of Songkhla province to Tambon Pak Ro in the Singha Nakhon district of Songkhla province. There are several islands, including Ko Si-Ko Ha, Ko Mhak, and Ko Nang Kam. In addition to the water path from Thale Luang, three main streams (Klong Phru Poh, Klong Pansai, and Klong Pa Bon) connect to the lake and maintain a freshwater environment in the dry season, as opposed to the sea water intrusion from Thale Sap Songkhla. In the lowest part of the lake, Thale Sap Songkhla is located along the Bay of Thailand. It extends from Tambon Pak Ro in the Singha Nakhon district of Songkhla province to the mouth of Songkhla Lake. The water

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

91

environment of Thale Sap Songkhla is a complex mixture. Saline water is brought into the lake through the sea mouth while it receives freshwater from two mainstreams (Klong Rattaphum and Klong U-Tapao) as well as Thale Sap through two major channels (Klong Luang and Ao Tong Baen). The lake watershed lies in three provinces, including all 11 districts of Phattalung province, 12 (of the 16) districts of Songkhla province and 2 (of the 23) districts of Nakhon Si Thammarat province. The watershed extends around 150 km from north to south and around 65 km from east to west. It covers approximately 8,729 km2, consisting of approximately 7,687 km2 of land area and approximately 104 km2 of the lake’s area (ibid.). The watershed area is surrounded by two mountain ranges: the Banthad mountain range in the north-south direction and the Sangala Kiri mountain range in the south. The higher grounds of the two mountain ranges are covered with evergreen rainforests, which are the original portions of the upstream watershed areas in Songkhla Lake. The watershed of Songkhla Lake can be divided into 12 subbasins with 8 areas on the western side and the other 4 areas on the eastern side (see Fig. 4.1): Klong Pa Payom subbasin (808 km2), Klong Thanae subbasin (353 km2), Klong Nathom subbasin (757 km2), Klong Tachiad subbasin (769 km2), Klong Pa Bon subbasin (329 km2), Klong Phru Poh subbasin (507 km2), Klong Rattaphum subbasin (625 km2), Klong U-Tapao subbasin (2,357 km2), East coast subbasin 1 (536 km2), East coast subbasin 2 (202 km2), East coast subbasin 3 (137 km2), and East coast subbasin 4 (205 km2). The water environment in Songkhla Lake is a unique combination of marine, brackish, and freshwater ecosystems, and it has semiclosed estuaries with the sea mouth in Thale Sap Songkhla. The ecosystem ranges from tropical rainforest in upstream watershed areas to the sea through complex water channels (sea mouth and several water gates) with tidal influences and anthropogenic manipulations. In this context, Thale Noi, which is the farthest inland-enclosed lake, is a freshwater ecosystem. By contrast, Thale Sap Songkhla, which is directly connected to the Gulf of Thailand, is a transitional ecosystem between fresh and marine water. The complex water regime in the lake offers an insight for linkage between the watershed area and the lagoon ecosystem in which all factors need to be considered (Chesoh & Lim, 2008). The average depth in the lake is around 2 m (Sompongchaiyakul & Sirinawin, 2005) but varies from place to place depending on seasonal and geographical impacts. Water depths in Thale Noi, Thale Lunag, Thale Sap, and Thale Sap Songkhla are approximately 1.2, 2, 2, and 1.5 m, respectively.3 It is worth noting that the water in some areas is 10 cm shallower each year (Fezzardi, 2001) as a result of sedimentation. Water

92

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

shallowness results in a higher incidence of fish deaths, especially in Thale Noi (Nue & Chanachai, 2002). Salinity plays a vital role in biological species distribution (Chesoh & Choonpradub, 2009; Tookwinas & Sirimontaporn, 1988). Thale Noi is almost all freshwater. Thale Luang and Thale Sap are, respectively, less saline, although saline water intrusion rises to as high as 10 ppt and 20 ppt in dry season (Ratanachai & Sutiwipakorn, 2005); it drops to almost zero in the rainy season. Thale Sap Songkhla, by contrast, can be usually classified as brackishwater and the salinity level varies seasonally in the 23–30 ppt range (ibid.). Seasonal patterns and geographical difference affect fish species distribution and food web structure where fishing activities must be flexible in adjusting to the variation. Such complex and diverse ecosystem aspects of Songkhla Lake provide valuable biodiversity including endangered species living in Songkhla Lake. The lake encompasses a multitude of flora and fauna species. In the Songkhla Lake watershed, there are two national parks, two wildlife sanctuaries, two nonhunting areas, and two forest parks in 2005. These preserved areas serve as habitats, food sources and nesting grounds for a large number of wild creatures. For instance, the lake is only one of two lagoons in the world that is home to the Irrawady dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris). Songkhla Lake holds pride of place as a magnificent beauty of nature with numerous outstanding hillocks and several islands. In particular, Thale Noi, which is covered with lotus blossoms, attracts a large number of tourists who go around the lake by tourism boats. The rich ecosystem in Songkhla Lake has resulted in highly productive fishery resources. A consultant on aquatic life argued that the lake was considered to be a body of water where shrimps were the most abundant (Corporate Communications Department, 1998). The substantial environment in the lake enables a large number of fishers and local people who are engaged in allied fishery business activities to support their livelihoods. It forms various livelihood supporting systems in which fishery resources present attractive benefits. There are reported to be around 160 fishing villages in and around Songkhla Lake. In 1997, the total number of the fishing population is approximately 36,200, accounting for around 12.6 percent of the total population in Songkhla Lake, while the number of households is approximately 7,100 (PCRMBST & FFST, 1998). The fishing population is predominantly composed of Buddhists and Muslims. Integration of practical knowledge and experience with their faiths and beliefs have brought harmony to fisheries management (Corporate Communications Department, 1998).

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

93

TRENDS OF CLIMATIC VARIABILITY IN THE SONGKHLA LAKE REGION The Songkhla Lake region is typically characterized by a tropical monsoon climate. The mean relative humidity is 79 percent with a minimum of 76 percent in March and a maximum of 84 percent in November (ARCBC, 2010). During the period from 1982 to 2008, the mean daily temperature in Phatthalung province was 27.81C, varying between 33.61C in April and 23.31C in February (Meteorological Department data). Likewise, the mean daily temperature in Songkhla province is 27.81C varying between maximum 33.01C in May and minimum 23.91C in October during the period from 1951 to 2008 (ibid.). On the whole, the varying extent of temperature is stable throughout all the year (Fig. 4.2). Prevailing winds are easterly during November to April and southwesterly during June to October. The lake region is characterized as a climate-sensitive area in Thailand, especially in terms of varying extent of rainfall. According to the statistical fixed-point observations in two meteorological stations (Phatthalung and Songkhla province), annual mean rainfall in Phatthalung province is around 2,012 mm varying between 64 mm in February and 472 mm in November during the period from 1982 to 2008 (Fig. 4.3). Likewise, the annual mean rainfall in Songkhla province is around 2,067 mm varying between 41 mm in February and 544 mm in November during the period from 1951 to 2008. Compared to the average rainfall (1,751 mm) in Thailand, the total quantity of rainfall in the lake region is higher. Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned that a great deal of variation in the annual rainfall can be observed. In 1983, for instance, only 983 mm rainfall was recorded in the region (ARCBC, 2010) as opposed to the annual average rainfall. Tropical monsoon climate shows distinct seasonal patterns of rainfall and its seasonality can be classified into two categories; rainy and dry season. The majority of the annual rainfall occurs during the northeast monsoon with a major peak in October to January. November is typical in the heaviest rainy month while February and March is usually in the driest months. As such, rainfall is highly seasonal character so that flood disasters sometimes occur in the rainy season while there is growing shortage of water in the dry season. In terms of spatial variation, distributional patterns of rainfall in Songkhla Lake watershed differ according to the geographical locations. The total amount of rainfall in mountainous areas is higher than in lake and coastal areas. However, the intensity of precipitation per rainy day is highly more concentrated in the latter than in the former. Given the analytical

Jan

Jan

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

2000s (

1990s

1980s

1970s

Jul

2008)

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Feb

Dec

Apr

May

Jun

2008)

Jul

)

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

22

22.5

23

23.5

24

24.5

25

20

21

22

Jan

Jan

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Feb

Mar

Apr

2000s(

1990s

)

May

2008)

1980s (1982

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Trend of Mean Minimum Temperature in Phatthalung Province

Feb

1950s (1951 ) 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s ( 2008)

Trend of Mean Minimum Temperature in Songkhla Province

Dec

Dec

Monthly Mean Temperature in the Songkhla Lake Region. Source: Thai Meteorological Department Data.

Mar

2000s(

1990s

1980s (1982

Trend of Mean Maximum Temperature in Phatthalung Province

Feb

Fig. 4.2.

34 33.5 33 32.5 32 31.5 31 30.5 30 29.5 29

28

29

30

23

24

31

25

32

)

33

1950s (1951 1960s

26

Trend of Mean Maximum Temperature in Songkhla Province

34

94 INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Apr

0

100

200

Fig. 4.3.

Mar

2000s(

)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Nov

Dec

Dec

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

mm

mm 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Jan

Jan

Feb

Feb

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Mar

2000s(

1990s

)

Apr

2008)

1980s (1982

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Trend of Heaviest 24 Hrs Rainfall in Phatthalung Province

Mar

1950s (1951 ) 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s ( 2008)

Trend of Heaviest 24 Hrs Rainfall in Songkhla Province

Trend of Rainfall in the Songkhla Lake Region. Source: Thai Meteorological Department Data.

Apr

2008)

1990s

300

May

Trend of Monthly Rainfall in Phatthalung Province

Mar

1980s (1982

Feb

Feb

400

Jan

Jan

Trend of Monthly Rainfall in Songkhla Province

1950s (1951 ) 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s ( 2008)

500

600

mm

mm 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Dec

Dec

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake 95

96

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

results, it is probably that flood disasters are more prone to be affected in the lagoon areas. In response to the patterns of rainfall, water quality and sediment accumulation in each part of the interconnected lake ecosystem vary according to seasonal and anthropogenic changes. As earlier mentioned, salinity level depends on the proportion of freshwater from upstream watersheds and saline water from the sea. The rainfall variations affect the extent of salinity level; water in most parts of Thale Luang and Thale Sap is freshwater in the rainy season while the water becomes brackish in the dry season. Heavy rainfall in combination with anthropogenic pressures such as deforestation, overgrazing and industrialization brings a large quantity of sediments into the lake. Sediment accumulation is one of major threats in the lagoon environment, resulting in closure of sea mouth and shallowness in water depth, and subsequent adverse impacts such as destruction of fish ecology, weed proliferation, and narrow navigation routes. Thus, ameliorating measures are required to respond to changes in climatic and ecological atmosphere.

FISHING ACTIVITIES AND RELATED LIVELIHOODS Complex and dynamic natures of Songkhla Lake make fishers respond to changes in the lake environment flexibly. Recognizing these features, the local people in and around the lake developed multispecies and multigear fisheries on the basis of distinct four interconnected lake ecosystem.

Dynamic Distribution of Fishing Gears Multispecies and multigear fisheries which are based on small-scale operations can be commonly observed in Songkhla Lake. Such diverse fisheries differ spatially according to the availability of fishery resources and conditions of each part of the lake (Chesoh & Lim, 2008). Related to this, three studies including author’s questionnaire survey reported a distribution of various fishing gears used in the lake. Sirimontaporn (1984) summarized the distribution of fishing gears used in Songkhla Lake as shown in Table 4.1. Fifteen fishing gears used in the lake was identified, out of which only four were commonly found in the entire lake. These gears are applied on the basis of targeted fishery resources along the geographical characters of fishing grounds including water depth and space.

97

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

Table 4.1.

Distribution of Fishing Gears Used in Songkhla Lake.

Area

Fishing Gears

Fishery Resources

Thale Noi

Lan (bamboo trap)

Freshwater eel, Fluta alba

Thale Noi and Thale Luang

Sai (fish trap)

Fish, Macrobrachium rosenbergii

Thale Luang

Wan Lom Yai (large Fish, Macrobrachium impounding net, 1,500–3,000 m) rosenbergii Wan Roon (Shrimp scoop net) Shrimp

Thale Sap

Wan Sam Chan (gill net) Pong Pang (set bag) Mora (trap) Lob (fish trap) Wan Sam Kon (small impounding nets)

Shrimp Small fish, Shrimp Fish, Shrimp Fish, Shrimp Fish, Shrimp

Thale Sap Songkhla (Sea Mouth)

Wan Ka Pong (gill net with 13–15 cm mesh size) Bam

Lates calcarifer

Entire Lake

Wan Lei (gill net) Yor (4-arm scoop net) Hook Case net

Mullets Mullets Mullets Fish Fish, Macrobrachium rosenbergii

Source: Modified from Sirimontaporn (1984).

Likewise, PCRMBST and FFST (1998) reported fishery statistical information including fishing gears. Thirty nine fishing gears used are identified in the lake and surrounding areas. The survey reveals that fishers name their nets, taking into account fishing methods, targets of fishery resources and mesh size of nets. For instance, surrounding nets are called ‘‘uan lom,’’ stationary surrounding nets are called ‘‘kad lom,’’ and nets which fishers can catch such ‘‘meak’’ (squid) alled ‘‘uan meak.’’ The way of naming such nets and traps is quite diverse and differs from place to place in local context of fishing communities. Furthermore, ten fishing gears used in the lake were identified according to author’s questionnaire survey (N ¼ 98) in July 2008 (Fig. 4.4). In particular, various types of fishng gears used are found in Thale Sap Songkhla including uan loy (gill net), sai nang (sitting cage), sai non (horizonal fish trap), bed rao (long line hooks), shrimp culture, and uan chorn (net for shrimp fly). Sitting cage fisheries are more concentrated

98

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Numbers

Fishing Gears Used in Songkhla Lake

70 60

TN Village (Thale Noi)

50

KK Village (Thale Luang)

40

CF Village (Thale Sap)

30

TS Village (Thale Sap Songkhla)

20 10 0 Uan Loy Sai Nang Sai Non

Fig. 4.4.

Hae

Bed Rao Shrimp Culture

Uan Uan Lorn Chorn

Yoe

Fishing Gears Used in Songkhla Lake through Questionnaire Survey.

in Thale Sap Songkhla (86.1 percent) than in other areas (18.2 percent). Some fishers in Thale Sap Songkhla, which is brackish lake environment, engage in shrimp culture while nobody in the area use cast nets for fishing. On the other hand, utilization rate of gill nets (100 percent) and horizontal fish traps (45 percent) are highest in Thale Noi where freshwater ecosystem has been maintained. Other types of fishing gears such as hae (cast nets), yoe (lift nets) and uan lom (surrounding net) are also found in Songkhla Lake. Complex and diverse physical characteristics of Songkhla Lake pose limitations for some fishing activities. Soft clayey bed of Thale Sap Songkhla, ranging from Pak Ro to Ko Yor, is not suitable for surrounding net fisheries (Ratanachai & Sutiwipakorn, 2005). Instead, strong tidal effect in the lake makes set bag net and sitting cage fisheries effective (ibid.). On the other hand, weak water current in Thale Luang makes it unfit for set bag net and sitting cage fisheries, but suitable for various types of trap fisheries (ibid.). Yoes (lift nets) are usually found in stream estuaries and its vicinities while sea bass and shrimp culture are used in the vicinity of the lake estuary containing certain extent of salinity level. Based on these discussions, it is obvious that the fishers strived to adapt to environmental variables in diverse four interconnected lake ecosystem, resulted in practice of multispecies and multigear fisheries. In response to introduction of improved fishing gears, many fishers tend to use efficient but destructive fishing gears. According to Chesoh et al. (2008), findings revealed that three major fishing gears used were identified through their surveys in 10 major fish landing sites around the entire lake

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

99

during the 4 year study period from January 2003 to December 2006. 127 of aquatic animal species belonging to 68 families were caught, out of which 15 abundant fish families represented 75.3 percent of the annual fish landing weights: penaeidae (20.1 percent), leiognathidae (11.2 percent), gobiidae (6.3 percent), clupeidae (5.7 percent), ariidae (5.5 percent), cyprinidae (4 percent), mugilidae (3.3 percent), bagridae (3 percent), palaemonidae (2.9 percent), chandidae (2.8 percent), portunidae (2.6 percent), scatophagidae (2.1 percent), engraulididae (2 percent), stromateidae (1.9 percent), and cichlidae (1.9 percent), respectively. These were caught by using three major fishing gears: ‘‘phong phang’’ (set bag nets – 65.9 percent), ‘‘sai nang’’ (sitting cages – 20.7 percent), and ‘‘uan loy’’ (gill nets – 13.4 percent). Apart from push nets, set bag nets are considered to be the most destructive fishing gear used to trap small fish and shrimp in a relatively deep water channel and relatively strong water current of Songkhla Lake. The use of set bag nets cause juveniles of fishery and aquatic resources to be overexploited. Likewise, sitting cages are the second most destructive fishing gear used for trapping fish and shrimp by combining with wing-like barriers. There are huge amounts of sitting cages installed in Thale Sap Songkhla, accounting for 29,604 in Songkhla and Phatthalung provinces of Songkhla Lake in 2008.4 Excessive installations of sitting cages overexploit fishery resources and cause the catch per unit effort steadily decreased. Gill nets are the third most destructive fishing gear with small-mesh size net, which enable to harvest juvenile aquatic animals, resulting in overexploitation of fishery resources. Chesoh, Choonpradub, and Chaisuksan (2008) pointed out that possible annual quantities of fish stock damage caused by such destructive fisheries were estimated to be approximately 32.71 tonnes, thus leading to loss of economic cost (US$ 40,605); the negative effects account for set bag nets (76.8 percent), followed by sitting cages (13.8 percent) and gill nets (9.4 percent).

Trend of Fish Landings Songkhla Lake is known to be a home of highly diversified aquatic fauna species including marketable important ones. There are 10 major fish landing centers in and around Songkhla Lake: Khu Tao, Kuan Nieng, Pak Pa Yoon, Jong Ke, Lampam, Thale Noi, Ranod, Ko Yai, Khu Kud, and Hua Khao Daeng (Chesoh & Choonpradub, 2009). More than 500 species of freshwater and brackishwater fish, around 30 species of shrimp, mantis shrimp and serrated mud crab, and around 20 species of squids were

100

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

recorded in the lake (Ratanachai & Sutiwipakorn, 2005). According to Ratanachai and Sutiwipakorn (2005), such dominant species found include: knife fish, stripped tiger nandid, mystus, sheath fish, and freshwater shrimp in Thale Noi; giant catfish and Indian anchovy in Thale Luang; giant catfish, orange mouth anchovy, gunther’s walking catfish, and marine shrimp, especially yellow shrimp in Thale Sap Songkhla; a variety of marine shrimp, mullet, seabass, marine catfish and sandwhiting in Thale Sap Songkhla. Variable water conditions in salinity affect fish ecology so that a diverse of fishery resources can be caught in each distinct ecosystem. Total fish landing quantities in Songkhla Lake differ according to distinct four lake ecosystem. In general, the most productive fishing grounds are in Thale Sap Songkhla where intensive fishing activities including aquaculture are practiced. Then, the second is in Thale Sap, followed by Thale Luang and lastly Thale Noi (Fig. 4.5). It seems that the recent seasonal pattern reach with peaks occurring in November (approximately 132 metric tons) and declining to a minimum in February (approximately 63 metric tons) as shown in Fig. 4.6. From a viewpoint of four interconnected lakes, each pattern differs: the highest peaks reach in March (Thale Noi), in December (Thale Luang), in October (Thale Sap), and in December (Thale Sap Songkhla) while the landings fall up to in August, in March, in February, and in October, respectively. However, it needs to be mentioned that irregular seasonal periodic fluctuation can be identified in Songkhla Lake through a more comprehensive study conducted by Chesoh and Lim (2008) during the period from 1977 to 2006. Therefore, unstable periodic fish landings should be taken into account in the case of Songkhla Lake.

Kg 350,000

Thale Sap Songkhla Thale Sap Thale Luang Thale Noi

300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2003 Jan Apr

Jul

Oct Jan Apr Jul

Oct Jan Apr Jul

Oct Jan Apr Jul

Oct Jan Apr Jul

Oct 2008

Fig. 4.5. Monthly Trend of Fish Landing Quantities in Four Interconnected Lakes of Songkhla from January 2003 to December 2008. Source: NICA Data.

101

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake Kg 140000

Thale Sap Songkhla Thale Sap Thale Luang Thale Noi

120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Fig. 4.6. Seasonality of Fish Landings in Songkhla Lake from 2003 to 2008. Source: NICA data. Note: Data on October 2004, December 2005, December 2006, November 2007 in Thale Sap Songkhla was not included in the figure because of data unavailability.

Table 4.2. Villages

Working Population and Ratio of Primary Fishing Population in Male and Female.

Sampling Family Numbers

Working Population Male Female

TN village KK village CF village TS village

174 85 61 71

58 27 22 27

49 23 15 21

Total

391

134

108

a

Totala 107 50 37 48

(61%) (59%) (61%) (68%)

Primary Fishing Populationb Male 45 17 17 22

Female

(78%) 27 (55%) (63%) 9 (39%) (77%) 7 (47%) (82%) 7 (33%)

Total 72 26 24 29

(67%) (52%) (65%) (60%)

242 (62%) 101 (75%) 50 (46%) 151 (62%)

The percentage shown is a ratio of working population per head in sample families. The percentage shown is a ratio of primary fishing population per working person.

b

Working Environment Livelihoods of fishing villages largely depend on the fisheries from Songkhla Lake (62.9 percent on average), according to the questionnaire survey (N ¼ 98) in July 2008. Interestingly, those who are engaged in the lake fisheries include female as well as men. The findings reveal that out of working people ranging from 22 to 60 years old, 75.4 percent of the men and 46.3 percent of the female did fishing activities (Table 4.2). They normally go fishing by using small-scale boats which are capable of navigating to their fishing grounds, instead of normal boats not being feasible to

102

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Numbers TN Village (Thale Noi)

60

KK Village (Thale Luang)

50

CF Village (Thale Sap)

40

TS Village (Thale Sap Songkhla)

30 20 10 0 1

Below 1 meter

Fig. 4.7.

2 meter

2

5 meter

5

10 meter

Range of Water Depth in Fishing Grounds.

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Thale Noi

Thale Luang

Thale Sap

Thale Sap Songkhla

TS Village (Thale Sap Songkhla)

CF Village (Thale Sap)

KK Village (Thale Luang)

TN Village (Thale Noi)

Fig. 4.8.

Fishing Grounds in Songkhla Lake.

sail due to shallowness in water depth. Two data (Figs. 4.7 and 4.8) on the questionnaire survey showed that most of fishing grounds were determined in each area of interconnected lake ecosystem that is mostly 1–2 m deep (61.5 percent) or below 1 m deep (21.9 percent). Members of fishing boats are limited to single or family. Most of them use small-scale outboard engine (94.4 percent) with various fishing gears. Utilization of gill nets and horizontal fish traps are common features in all sample fishing communities as shown in Fig. 4.4. On the other hand, the fishers in each area use different types of fishing gears and methods.

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

103

Related to these occupational characters, the range of their annual household incomes in sample fishing communities is Thai Baht (THB) 50,001–100,000 (approximate US$ 1,501–3,000), followed by THB 25,001–50,000 (approximate US$ 751–1,500), THB 100,001–200,000 (approximate US$ 3,001–6,000), etc.5 The income is not sufficient to cover their living expenses given that the range of their monthly household expenditure is largely concentrated on THB 5,001–10,000 (approximate US$ 151–300), followed by THB 2,501–5,000 (approximate US$ 76–150), etc. The expenditure for food was regarded as the highest priority while housing, electric products, clothes, and savings were identified as lowest ones.

TRANSITION OF FISHERY REGIME IN SONGKHLA LAGOON From this, the chapter illstrates the historical trend of Songkhla Lake fisheries and related environment. Limited quantitative and qualitative socioeconomic data on Songkhla Lake fisheries are available so that PRA exercises including village history profile and seasonal mapping were carried out to validate and complement the information. The overall history of Songkhla Lake fisheries is shown in Table 4.3. In response to the trend, furthermore, elaborations were made on analyzing risk perception for fishers’ households, resulting in identification of vulnerability to the changes in environment and fishery resources. The consideration put high emphasis on addressing the adaptation to these exposures at the community level. It serves great possibility in enhancing resilient fishery development and further sustaining human security. Changes of Environment and Fishery Operations in Songkhla Lake Those living in fishing communities of Songkhla Lake sampled used to work with rice farming (and other occupations) as well as fisheries for their subsistence (Phase I). Their livelihods were typically charactarized by semiagricultural and semifishing activities. The communities had relatively separeted their living areas from other communities before late 1960s due to lacks of road construction. Inevitably, the villagers need to cultivate their own foods and materials for survival. At that time, productivity of fish landings in Songkhla Lake was considered to be abundant. Although fishing activities applied were extensive such as cast nets, small traps and lift nets,

104

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Table 4.3. Phase Phase I

Date 1862

1947 1953

Phase II

1956

Phase III

1982

Historical Overview of Songkhla Lake Fisheries. Contents The government issued the first fishery legislation on the Water-Duty Act which managed and conserved fishery resources on the basis of establishment of fish zoning areas, prohibition of fishing during spawning season and ban of destructive fisheries The governmen issued the legislation on the Fisheries Act Department of Fisheries in Songkhla Province was established and took a responsibility for tax collection of fishing gears and release of sea animals for conservation based on the Fisheries Act. In addition, the DOF in Songkhla Province controled the numbers of fishing gears in Songkhla Lake and held a varierty types of trainings for fishers

Closing Pak Ra Wa: Royal Irrigation Department closed Pak Ra Wa canals in order to preserve freshwater for paddy fields 1957–1978 Ranod puming station: Royal Irrigation Department constructed the station in 1957 and finished in 1978 to pump the freshwater in Thale Sap Songkhla (TSS) 1971 Dam project in Songkhla Lake system: Netherlands government supported the pre-feasibility study for this project 1972 Push net (uan run) prohibition: Ministry of Agricutulre announced the prohibioton of push net in TSS 1973 Songkhla-Ranod road: the road conecting Songkhla and Ranod opened in 1973 and results in reducing express boats in the easter side of TSS 1975 Nonhunting area: declaration of the Thale Noi nonhunting area 1976 Nonhunting area: declaration of Kukut national park

1983

1985

1989 1990

People organization formation: a village leader who was charismatic among many villagers organized a people organization called ‘‘Lower Songkhla Lake Group’’ Watershed committee: the committee of Songkhla Lake watershed development proposed the budget from UNDP for US$ 500,000 and borrowed from ADB for US$ 3 million to study the development of Songkhla Lake watershed NGO in Songkhla Lake: ‘‘Project for Development Songkhla SmallScale Fishers Community’’ funded by DANCED started to work with fishing villages around lower TSS Deep water port construction People organization formation: ‘‘Rak Thale Noi Fisherfolk Society’’ was established in Thale Noi Federation formation: ‘‘Lower Songkhla Fisherfolk Society,’’ a people organization was established from the previous ‘‘Lower Songkhla Lake Group’’

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

105

Table 4.3. (Continued ) Phase

Date

Contents

1993

Consortium of small-scale fishers in Songkhla Lake: ‘‘Federation of Fisherfolk in Songkhla Lake’’ was established, consisiting of five fisherfolk societies in the entire lake, in collaboration with another newly organization called ‘‘Federation of Fisherfolk in Southern Thailand’’ 1994 Use of uan lorn (surrounding nets) was prohibited in Songkhla Lake for resource conservation 1996–1999 OEPP and DANCED: EmSong project – environmental management in Songkhla Lake watershed was implemented 1997 Thailand’s new constitution: decentralization and de-officialization of authorities from central government to local mangaement body or entity are implemented 2003 Nonhunting area: declaration of the first Ramsar site in Thale Noi nonhunting area Sea port construction: a new sea port was constructed along sea mouth of TSS, which affected the water current between the sea and the lake and subsequent effects Phase IV

2004–

Sea farming project: fisheries co-management between the state and fishers has been initiated in Songkhla Lake watershed in 20 project sites every year

Source: Modified from Fezzardi (2001).

participants of PRA exercise in each village mentioned that they used to catch sufficient fish even by their hands directly. On the basis of the PRA exercise, water quality and depth in the lake maintained clean and higher. As the years passed, however, the entire area of Songkhla Lake has been undergoing various types of changes in the lake ecosystem combined with varying socioeconomic activities. These variables affected to a great extent availability of fishery resources (Phase II). Particularly, a series of environmental issues related to fishing activities occurred in the lake watershed. A first major environmental change sparked in 1956 because of construction of sluice gates at Pak Ra Wa which is located on the northern part of Thale Luang (Fig. 4.9). Royal Irrigation Department constructed and closed the gates to prevent salt-water intrusion from the sea for faming purposes. The closure, however, hindered the exchange of water between sea and lake, resulting in the lower salinity level and hydrological change especially in Thale Noi that affected many living creatures for survival. Due to this, many fishers have continuously protested against the implementation and

106

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Fig. 4.9.

Pak Ra Wa Water Gate.

made a strong demand that Pak Ra Wa be opened and maintain the status in quo ante. Despite of this, what is worse, there has been another emerging environmental threat; Thai governments have strived to plan dam constructions in Songkhla Lake for faming and industrial purposes since 1971. The people in the entire area especially in coastal areas including Ranot and Sating Pra peninsular suffered from water shortage during the greater part of year. In response to this, Netherlands governments supported a feasibility study for dam construction in 1971. A series of dam construction projects on the basis of such feasibility studies were suspended through strong oppositions of various stakeholders including fishers, consultants, and NGOs. However, the debates have been perpetually discussed yet. These hydrological changes as consequences of water barrier are expected to impact to a great extent on the ecology of flora and fauna in the lake including fishery resources. In addition to the above, a second major environmental change has occurred especially since 1980s. Land use change along globalization has been practiced in Songkhla Lake watershed (Komamura, Phouangphet, Tanavud, & Yongchalermchai, 2000; Ratanachai & Sutiwipakorn, 2005). In 1970s, extensive and semi-intensive shrimp aquaculture has started in the

107

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

lake, mainly in Thale Sap Songkhla. Many paddy fields in the fringe of the lake was converted for shrimp farms since around 1987 (Ratanachai & Sutiwipakorn, 2005), causing severe damages to the lake ecosystem. Likewise, deforestation and illegal logging have been prevailed even in reserved forests. The felling areas tend to be legally or illegally converted for rubber and oil palm plantations as shown in Table 4.4. Such monoculture practice combined with extending commercialization provokes flooding of major streams and induces soil erosion from the upstream into the lake. These land use changes make Songkhla Lake more vulnerable to environmental hazards by way of changes in climate and sedimentation with water shallowness. Furthermore, it needs to address that modernized industrialization and rapid population growth poses tremendous threats on the water quality, which affect adverse impacts on aquatic animals in the lake. An evidence of eutrophication in the upper side of Songkhla Lake was firstly recorded in 1984 in terms of scientific demonstration, causing a massive fish died in some years (Suviboon, Sompongchaiyakul, & Chatuote, 2007). Phytoplankton blooms took place in some parts of Songkhla Lake so that enormous submerged vegetations were covered especially in the shallower area of Thale Sap (ibid.). These areas present physical difficulties for boat navigation while leading to changes in the availability of fishery resources. Table 4.4.

Land Use Change in Songkhla Lake Watershed between 1993 and 2002.

Land Use Category

Area [Unit: Rai] (%) 1993

Residential area Agricultural land Paddy rice field Abandoned rice field Rubber plantation Mixed orchard, oil palm, etc. Shrimp farm Forest land Water body Natural Man-made Others Total

120,224 (2.26) 2,982,508 (56.17) 1,412,916 (26.61) – 1,428,753 (26.91) 120,373 (2.27) 20,466 (0.39) 974,376 (18.35) – – – –

Change (%)

2002 139,837 3,537,827 1,126,211 83,340 2,125,775 161,273 31,341 727,426 668,668 661,848 6,820 245,485

(2.63) (66.63) (21,26) (1.57) (40.04) (3.04) (0.59) (13.70) (12.59) (12.47) (0.13) (4.63)

5,309,356 (100)

Source: Modified from Ratanachai and Sutiwipakorn (2005).

16.3 18.6 20.3 – 48.8 34.0 53.1 25.3 – – – –

108

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Fishing communities faced with another issue of destructive and illegal fisheries (e.g., push net fisheries, set bag net fisheries, electrification, and fish poisoning). Introduction of new fishing gears enables fishers to exploit more fishery resources. Some of them, however, tend to negatively impact the natural recruitment of aquatic animals unless due considerations are taken. For instance, the First Development and Economic Plan of Thailand (1961–1965) depicts fishery development in Thailand as a future direction. Through this, the use of modern and large-scale fishing gears, namely push nets and trawling nets were introduced in Thailand’s territorial waters, which later were seen to be a successful technique in achieving high catches (Na-sae, 2002). In reality, however, the introduction of these improved fishing gears brought severe damages to fish ecology and its species. It is obvious that push net fisheries are different from other fishing methods in terms of their catch per unit effort (CPUE) as shown in Table 4.5. For this reason, push net fisheries were legally prohibited in 1972, though the operations have still practiced in some areas of Thale Sap and Thale Sap Songkhla, being responsible for the most critical damages in the lake. Such destructive fishing methods make fish stocks decreased and destroy fish traps in the lake. Besides, numerous numbers of set bag nets which are the second worst destructive fishing methods have been installed inside Thale Sap Songkhla and some parts of Thale Sap. All these traps with informal limited membership are set in rows more or less in a regular manner and the disposition come from years of trials when all different kind of disposition were tried and this one way found being the most productive one, just perpendicular to the current (Fezzardi, 2001). Fezzardi (2001) estimated that every eligible fisher sampled in Thale Sap Songkhla owns an average of 15 traps. As a result of these anthropogenic pressures, a decline of fishery resources has been widely prevailed. Chesoh and his colleagues showed a total Table 4.5.

CPUE of Fishing Gears in Songkhla Lake in 1994–1995.

Fishing Gear

Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE – kg/h) Thale Sap Songkhla Thale Luang

Sitting cage Gill net Horizontal fish traps Set bag Push net

0.02–0.80 0.20–1.30 0.10–0.25 2.50–15.00 8.00–45.50

Source: Modified from Fezzardi (2001).

0.02 – 0.50 0.12 – 0.25 – 1.50 – 10.00 –

Average CPU (kg/h)

Thale Noi – 0.15 – 0.32 – – –

0.34 0.39 0.18 8.25 26.75

109

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake Year Trend of Fish Landing Quantities in Songkhla Lake and Its Watershed

MT 6000 5000

Lake

4000

Watershed

3000 2000 1000 0

1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Fig. 4.10.

Trend of Fish Landings in Songkhla Lake Watershed from 1977 to 2006. Source: Chesoh et al. (2008).

monthly fish landing quantities in Songkhla Lake watershed from January 1977 to December 2006 (Fig. 4.10). The figure marks a decreasing trend of fishery resources. Similarly, two major and systematic studies on fish catches in Songkhla Lake reported a 22 percent reduction in quantity between 1984–1986 (12,290 tons/year) and 1994–1995 (9,634 tons/year) (Ratanachai & Sutiwipakorn, 2005). The total catches of fishery resources increased in Thale Sap Songkhla where the increase of fish stocks might be related to improvement of fishing equipments and more equipment per head. However, it needs to be mentioned that these statistical data marked a decline in other areas especially in Thale Noi. It has been reported by many fishers that their catch now is lower than in the past and the fish being caught are smaller in size according to fieldwork as well as in-depth fishery study carried out by Chesoh et al. (2008). One of possible causes behind the decrease of their catch is destructive and illegal fisheries, and water pollution from the lake watershed as mentioned earlier.

Risk Perception While various exposures to environmental hazards in Songkhla Lake have been reviewed through secondary data and research papers, people’s perception is also of importance to consider their behavior and responsive actions (Grothmann & Patt, 2005; Iwasaki, Razafindrabe, & Shaw, 2009). Those negative impacts triggered fishers’ households and related people to feel them urgent necessity to adapt to these environmental hazards in an appropriate manner. According to the results of the questionnaire survey, many people, irrespective of variant four interconnected lake,

110

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

saw water condition in their surrounding areas as bad water quality (81.6 percent). Water pollution is regarded as the highest risk, followed by floods, increase of mosquito, salinity change, etc. It is obvious that aggravation of water quality in the lake is widely prevailed among their perceptions as well as scientific findings. In this regard, however, the case study reveals that their thoughts on the cause of water pollution differ according to the geographical characteristics and land use development in Songkhla Lake watershed. Related to the reason for decline of fishery resources, many of the respondents in Thale Sap and Thale Sap Songkhla answered waste water from factories as most risky or risky while many of them in Thale Luang felt pesticides and fertilizers from paddy fields as these categories for fisheries management (Table 4.6). The respondents in Thale Noi mainly regarded sewage contamination as them. By the same token, the results of risk perception factors for decline of fishery resources provide significant implications on addressing the local considerations. Decrease of salinity level, for instance, causes more serious anxiety in the areas in Thale Sap and Thale Sap Songkhla than in Thale Noi and Thale Luang which have already had farther access to a sea mouth since the closure of Pak Ra Wa. The fishers in Thale Noi suffered from destructive and illegal fisheries such as electrification, fish poisoning while from increase of weeds that is largely tied to eutrophication and desalination. Under the circumstances, expected adaptive measures for fisheries management in Songkhla Lake are shown in Table 4.7. Watershed conservation is the highest expected adaptive measures to sustain fishing activities, followed by enhancing environmental awareness, joint fisheries management among fishers, collaboration with the governments, creation of protected areas, promotion of political will and empowerment for small-scale fishers and information exchange of best practices among the villagers. These results are considered to be largely related to their severe environmental perceptions on water pollution, extreme floods, salinity change, and illegal fisheries. .

ADAPTIVE RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES IN SONGKHLA LAKE On account of variant environmental conditions in each part of interconnected lake, the case study revealed that their livelihood strategies

(1.70) (1.67) (2.55) (3.46)

2 (2.63)

8 7 2 1

(2.90) (2.27) (2.40) (2.25)

3 (2.43)

2 4 3 6

(1.45) (1.80) (2.15) (3.07)

4 (2.34)

9 6 4 2

(2.67) (2.00) (1.90) (2.30)

5 (2.25)

4 5 5 4

Lack of Awareness

(3.00) (2.40) (1.89) (1.93)

6 (2.22)

1 3 6 7

Illegal Fisheries

(2.24) (1.67) (1.80) (2.29) 7 (2.08)

6 7 7 5

Culture Fisheries

(2.24) (3.00) (1.53) (1.68) 8 (1.98)

6 1 8 9

Pesticides and Fertilizers from Paddy Fields

(2.75) (1.53) (1.50) (1.73) 9 (1.86)

3 9 9 8

Increase of Weeds

Note: The ranking is based on the total numbers of risk perception (Most risk – 4, Risk – 3, Less risk – 2, and Least risk – 1). Information on blank means the average number of risk perception.

1 (2.98)

Total

(2.67) (2.47) (3.80) (2.93)

4 2 1 3

Decrease of Salinity Level

Risk Factors for Decline of Fishery Resources.

Construction Waste Water Sewage of Sluice from Contamination Gates Factories

Thale Noi Thale Luang Thale Sap Thale Sap Songkhla

Area

Table 4.6.

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake 111

(2.95) (2.93) (2.71) (2.75)

2 (2.81)

2 3 2 2

Environmental Awareness

(2.83) (2.93) (2.90) (2.23)

3 (2.62)

3 3 1 4

Joint Fisheries Management among Fishers (2.63) (2.85) (2.70) (2.19)

4 (2.49)

6 5 3 5

Collaboration with the Governments (2.71) (3.00) (2.11) (2.29)

5 (2.45)

4 2 6 3

Creation of Protected Areas (2.16) (2.42) (2.53) (2.08) 6 (2.24)

7 6 5 6

(2.71) (2.31) (2.11) (1.86) 7 (2.15)

4 7 6 7

Promotion of Information political will Exchange of and Power Best Practices

Note: The ranking is based on the total numbers of people’s perception (Most important – 4, Important – 3, Less important – 2, and Least important – 1). Information on blank means the average number of people’s perception.

1 (2.99)

Total

(3.42) (3.29) (2.63) (2.84)

1 1 4 1

Watershed Conservation

Expected Adaptation Measures for Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake.

Thale Noi Thale Luang Thale Sap Thale Sap Songkhla

Area

Table 4.7.

112 INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

113

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

against environmental changes in Songkhla Lake spatially differ. The strategies can be compiled into two components: economic diversification and movement of fishery co-management regime in Songkhla Lake.

Economic Diversification Tracing back to the historical sketch in Songkhla Lake, the local in fishing communities have been exposed to rapid environmental deterioration. Hydrological changes and land use development combined with extending commercialization affected to a great extent the lake ecosystem by way of water pollution, salinity reduction, water shallowness, etc. These factors change the whole situation of fish ecology and might reduce the fish stocks drastically. On this account, many fishers except in Thale Sap Songkhla tend to supplement their household income with a side job or change their jobs from fishing to alternative occupations according to the questionnaire (N ¼ 98) (Fig. 4.11). Around one third of working peoples in fishing communities (33.4 percent) has secondary job especially in Thale Sap (70.0 percent), as opposed to the results in Thale Sap Songkhla (16.8 percent) owing to abundant conditions of fishery resources. The local in Thale Sap has engaged in multiple occupations in the base of fisheries and rubber plantation due to less availability of fishery resources. Likewise, 35.1 percent of fishers in Thale Luang engage in another job of agriculture or animal husbandry as well as fisheries. Aside from diversifying income sources, most of their wives in Thale Noi (71.4 percent) worked as mat making to maintain their livelihoods. Some of them also engage in the fisheries with their husbands, which is applicable to all sample fishing communities. % 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Male Female

Thale Sap Songkhla

Fig. 4.11.

Thale Sap

Thale Luang

Thale Noi

Ratio of Alternative Jobs in Songkhla Lake.

114

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Moreover, coping strategies for economic diversification can be found in receiving multiple sources of financial loan. Around 75.5 percent households borrowed money from various sources (approximately 1.4 lenders per household) at an average of THB 45,644 (approximate US$ 1,374).6 The main purpose of indebtedness (83.7 percent) was linked to costs for purchasing or repairing fishing gears. Interestingly, the difference between Thale Sap Songkhla and other interconnected lakes can be shown in the way of how to obtain the loan sources. In the former, their loans were mainly provided from specific persons; relatives (22.6 percent) and fish merchants (19.4 percent). In the latter, these were obtained from organized groups, rather specific persons; village revolving fund (41.1 percent), government banks (28.8 percent), and private banks (16.4 percent). Particularly, establishment of village revolving fund plays a great role on having flexible and easy access to financial loan in rural areas at lower interest rate. Elaborations were made on obtaining immediate money for adjusting to any contingency such as health care and natural disasters, enabling the local to mitigate the impacts of environmental changes in Songkhla Lake.

Movement of Fishery Co-Management Regime in Songkhla Lake Economic diversification is a key option of livelihood adaptation in fishing communities of Songkhla Lake. As well, fisheries management is more or less the core point to be addressed. The resource is the principal form of livelihood for survival and affects lives in various ways. In an effort to maintain (and preferably improve) fishery resources in Songkhla Lake, there is an increasing trend of fishery co-management regime in the base of fishers (Phase III). Facing dangers of being losing fishery resources, people organizations have been established with an aim to protesting operations of push net fisheries in Thale Sap Songkhla in 1983 and stopping destructive and illegal fisheries for natural restoration of Thale Noi in 1989. Their people organizations were named as ‘‘Ruk Thale Noi Fisherfolk Society’’ and ‘‘Lower Songkhla Fisherfolk Society,’’ respectively. However, the availability of fishery resources had been still remained or gotten worse in some parts of the lake as practice of destructive and illegal fisheries, water shallowness and water pollution in the lake became obvious. Many fishers came to recognize a necessity of lake conservation and empowerment of small-scale fishers against commercial fishery operations. Consequently, a fishery co-management regime was formally established by the initiatives

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

115

of village leaders, fishers and NGOs in 1993 called ‘‘Federation of Fisherfolk in Songkhla Lake (FFSL).’’ The federation is consisting of five people organizations which cover the entire area of Songkhla Lake: Lower Songkhla Fisherfolk Society, Pak Payun Fisherfolk Society, Kao ChaisonBan Kawn Fisherfolk Society, Satingpra Fisherfolk Society, and Ruk Thale Noi Fisherfolk Society. Their principal goals are to influence the government policy and implement conservation projects with an emphasis on community rights and participation (Nue & Chanachai, 2002). The federation enables fishers to create common arena for information exchange to raise environmental awareness toward wise use of fishery resources. The arena provides them for discussions to understand their underlying problems of Songkhla Lake fisheries and integrate such information into policy planning with appropriate advocacy. In line with FFSL, in the same year (in 1993), another federation called ‘‘Federation of Southern Fisherfolk Thailand (FSFT)’’ was established. FSFT played a leading role in advocating interests of small-scale fishers on the government policy such as fishing rights. The momentum arose from indiscriminate encroachments in a way that destructive practices including trawling fisheries and massive growth of marine leisure were extended. The federation sought to expand its network to cover 13 coastal provinces in the southern part of Thailand within the 3 years period. Besides FFSL, FSFT serves as a basis for empowerment of capability for small-scale fishers through information exchange and conflict resolutions especially at the policy and legislation. In particular, the latter is generally regarded as a great challenging task due to the fact that fishery policies and legislation are formulated and conceptualized in a manner that is different from the norms and the culture of the traditional management system (Na-sae, 2002). On this account, great elaborations are made on their participation in drawing up the Eighth and Ninth National Economic Development Plan with there strong interests of traditional fishing rights for small-scale fishers. Despite not being fully involved in the practical sense, problems and suggestions of the voice from small-scale fishers were acknowledged and recorded in the government document (ibid.). In this sense, federation of fisherfolk can be evaluated as an effective tool for institutional improvement to maintain the ecological-social-economic system in a traditional manner. Fig. 4.12 shows the institutional structure of fishery co-management regime in Songkhla Lake and associated FSFT networks. For resource conservation in Songkhla Lake, FFSL in line with FSFT encourages each associated village to set up conservation zones while to establish village revolving funds for flexible adaptation to environmental

116

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Commercial Fishers/Tourism Companies The Governments Coordination & Collaboration for Lagoon Fisheries Management

Lower Songkhla FS

FCs

Fig. 4.12.

FCs

Pak Payoon FS

FCs

FCs

Federation of South Thailand Small Fisherfolk in Scale Fishermen Songkhla Lake Federation Empowerment

Kao Chaison – Ban Kawn FS

FCs

FCs

Satingpra FS

FCs

FCs

Rak Thale Noi FS

FCs

FCs

Institutional Structure of Fishery Co-Management Regime in Songkhla Lake.

changes in Songkhla Lake. In 2008, the conservation zones in the lake amount to 34 numbers which cover more than 20,854.25 rai out of the lake according to a record prepared by FFSL (FFSL data). Fig. 4.13 shows location and establishment year of the conservation zones in the lake. The conservation zone management is likely to be actively involved in Thale Sap, though the fishers in Thale Noi made a collective endeavor to unite together for the management. Each conservation zone was established by community conservation groups that were initiated mainly by the communities. Indeed, 54.5 percent of conservation groups (12 of the 22) determined the establishment by themselves. Establishment of other groups was triggered by NGOs and/or governments as well as the local people. In the conservation zones, regulatory measures differ according to each conservation group. The zone is generally regarded as no fishing area, but some zones were divided into two category: allowable fishing zone and no fishing one. In addition to it, 12.9 percent of the conservation groups (4 of the 31) allowed those who use traditional fishing methods to exploit fishery resources within the zone. In order to augment the number of fish stocks, further elaborations are made on releasing juvenile aquatic animals in these zones with a help from government agencies, researchers and NGOs under the initiatives of FFSL. Furthermore, Department of Fisheries (DOF) in combination with National Institute of Coastal Aquaculture (NICA) have launched a project of ‘‘sea farming’’ since 2004 (Phase IV). The project aims to

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

117

Location of Conservation Zones in Songkhla Lake (N=34)

3% 15% 20%

Thale Noi Thale Luang Thale Sap

62%

Thale Sap Songkhla

Establishment of Conservation Zones in Songkhla Lake (N=27) 6

Numbers

5 4 3 2 1 0 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Fig. 4.13.

Location and Establishment Year of Conservation Zones in Songkhla Lake.

promote better fisheries management system with due responsibility between fishing communities and the government. Four government bodies (DOF in Nakhon Si Thammarat, Phattalung, Songkhla provinces and NICA) act as project implementing agencies for planning, coordinating, supervising, and monitoring the project activities. A guideline on the sea farming project laid down the fishery co-management scheme in the following nine steps. 1. Fishing communities propose the application of sea farming projects to DOF. 2. The DOF makes endeavor to do feasibility survey on the project in the proposed area.

118

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

3. After the adoption, the communities require formulating their own rules for conservation zone management including patrolling and punishment for illegal encroachments. 4. A series of trainings for capacity building for the management are provided. 5. Conservation zone is established under the project. 6. Juvenile aquatic animals in the conservation zone are released. 7. The fishers exploit fishery resources in the conservation zones during the limited season determined by the stakeholders. 8. Environmental Impact Assessment is conducted by NICA in collaboration with the communities. 9. The community rules are revised to sustain the management activities. Under the project, involved fishing communities require formulating their own rules for management of conservation zones including patrolling and punishment for illegal encroachments. In the meanwhile, DOF is in charge of building their capacity to adapt to the conservation zone management as well as releasing juvenile aquatic animals in the zone. Moreover, environmental impact assessment (EIA) implemented by NICA with the local people will be conducted, leading to problem identifications for the management. On the basis of EIA, the fishers are capable of improving the management activities and developing better lagoon fisheries management. In line with the sea farming project activities, DOF made great endeavor to control illegal fishery materials by taking advantage of the communitybased volunteer network. Instead of compensation payment, the agency strived to negotiate with the local fishers to remove illegal fishing gears. Considerable efforts have been made on the fishery co-management scheme coupled with conservation zone management. Table 4.8 shows an example of achievement on changing fishing gears in an appropriate manner in Songkhla province in 2006. The demolition affects adverse impacts on their livelihoods in the short run, but the fishery co-management regime between Table 4.8.

Demolition Activities of Illegal Fishing Gears in Songkhla Province in 2007. Users

Numbers of Fishing Gears

Compensation Payment (THB)

Phong Phang Sai Nang

20 7

37 44

487,074 175,000

Total

27

81

662,074

Source: DOF in Songkhla Province Data.

Partnership-Based Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake

119

fishing communities and governments is expected to exert a positive effect on fisheries enhancement that will spread every corner of all fishers in the lake. In this sense, a noble concept of common-pool resources that requires appropriate fishery operations or management with due responsibility has been gradually shared among relevant stakeholders under the fishery comanagement regime.

SUMMARY Lessons learned from Songkhla lake fisheries showed how the fishing communities required adjusting to the changing ecological-social-economic system. Hydrological changes and land use development affected to a great extent the lake ecosystem by way of water pollution, salinity reduction, water shallowness, etc. Exposure to these negative factors combined with anthropogenic pressures eroded soundness of fish ecology and subsequent fishery livelihoods. External impacts including climate variability and the surrounding areas are extremely subject to the lake ecosystem. Due to this, decline of fishery resources has been widely prevailed across the lake, especially in Thale Noi. In addition to the statistical evidence, the facts that current total fish catch is lower than that in the past and the fish being caught are smaller in size are strongly perceived by the fishers. Although the government issued a series of fishing and associated environmental regulations and laws, a lack of law enforcement and control by the state ascendency has surfaced in Songkhla Lake, in terms of insufficient budget and manpower. Accordingly, the decline of fishery resources endangered human insecurity plaguing their lives, livelihood opportunities, and dignity. Under the circumstances, the fishing communities in Songkhla Lake applied their livelihood strategies to adapt to brackish environmental hazards at the bottom-up approach. The livelihood strategies are mainly based on economic diversification and fishery co-management in the base of fishers. In order to cover the loss of decreased fish landing quantities, many fishers except in Thale Sap Songkhla took actions for obtaining multiple income sources or changing to alternative occupations. Further, elaborations were made on receiving multiple sources of financial loan especially from organized groups. These enable fishers’ family to flexibly mitigate the impacts of lagoon environmental hazards. Apart from economic diversification, collective actions toward fishery co-management among the fishers and between the fishers and the state have

120

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

been observed in Songkhla Lake. These stakeholders came to share the significance of fishery co-management with due responsibility and empowerment among them, resulting from the confluence of environmental threats that is excessively linked to human activities in Songkhla Lake watershed. The movement of fishery co-management has been accelerating, given the limited capacity and budgets for fisheries and environmental management among the stakeholders. It as a result mobilized collaborative relationship among them so-called ‘‘partnership-based initiatives’’ to secure the health of the lagoon environment and promote wise use of fishery resources. Those elaborations played an important role in adapting to the ecological-socialeconomic system in fishing communities of Songkhla Lake in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. In this regard, however, attention should be taken into account watershed conservation at the larger level. Given accelerated industrialization and rapid population growth in urban areas where major rivers are connected to Songkhla Lake, water-related issues from upstream is considered among more challenges in ensuring sustainability of lagoon fisheries management. As a matter of fact, the fishers sampled addressed that water pollution was regarded as the highest risk. The degree of water pollution varies from place to place on the basis of geographical characteristics and land use development in Songkhla Lake watershed. Hence, considerable efforts are required to mainstream watershed management into fisheries management in Songkhla Lake.

NOTES 1. Tambon is the smallest unit of administrative management in Thailand. 2. Ban refers to a village within certain Tambon. 3. The area near the sea mouth is approximately 12–16 m deep. 4. The data on sitting cages installed in Songkhla Lake was collected from Department of Fisheries in Songkhla province. 5. An exchange rate of US$1 ¼ THB 33.2101 in 2008 is used. 6. An exchange rate of US$1 ¼ THB 33.2101 in 2008 is used.

CHAPTER 5 RESOURCE DYNAMICS AND ADAPTIVE CAPACITY IN THE LAGOON ENVIRONMENT

In Chapter 5, this book synthesizes a wide variety of lessons learned from three case studies with the categorization: state-based, community-based and partnership-based lagoon fisheries management. Considerable efforts are required to seek common grounds on lagoon fisheries management while distinguishing various differences in accordance with this categorization. These analyses offer clues to develop fishery adaptive capacity to respond to changes in the lagoon environment. In this chapter, three significant factors in lagoon fisheries management were compiled: (i) decline of fishery resources in the lagoon environment, (ii) adaptive fishery operations, and (iii) multiplicity of sea mouth management. Another key aspect of lagoon fisheries management, perspectives of watershed management, will be discussed in Chapter 6.

DECLINE OF FISHERY RESOURCES IN THE LAGOON ENVIRONMENT From a historical viewpoint, decline of fishery resources were commonly identified in all three case studies. The reasons behind the decrease of fishery resources differ, depending on varying extent of socioeconomic and political features as well as of the natural environment. The book reviews the underlying causes learned from each case study experience, and put together a set of environmental issues for lagoon fisheries management that be addressed. 121

122

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Case of Chilika Lagoon Fisheries (State-Based) Chilika Lagoon has experienced severe environmental degradation since the 1980s. Siltation has broadly been recognized by stakeholders as a key environmental issue in Chilika Lagoon. In combination with anthropogenic pressures such as deforestation, overgrazing, and industrialization from upstream, seasonal climate forces such as cyclones and floods brought a lot of silt into the lagoon. Silt accumulation has taken place particularly near the sea mouth, which has reduced the water spread area and has hindered the exchange of water between the sea and river. Consequently, these effects have resulted in decreased salinity and lower availability of fishery resources in the lagoon. Siltation into the lagoon also encouraged prolific growth of freshwater invasive species. These changes reduced the area of fishing grounds in Chilika Lagoon. That, in turn, led to loss of income, which can render fishers more vulnerable to a diverse of environmental hazards. Such tidal and seasonal environmental changes make it difficult for policy makers to demarcate each fishing source properly. The ambiguous demarcation may have encouraged fishers to encroach on other fishing grounds. In fact, 20,000 acres (8,093 ha) have been unlawfully encroached upon mostly by nonfishermen (Samal, 2002; Samal & Meher, 1999). Apart from the hydrological change through siltation, there is another crucial issue to be addressed. That is, destructive and illegal fisheries along technological development have been taken place. Rapid fishing population growth caused severe pressures on the availability of fishery resources. An amazing trend of population growth can be observed in and around Chilika Lagoon; there were approximately 48,000 fishermen in the 1970s, out of whom 8,000 were described as full-time fishermen (Senapati & Kuanr, 1977). Meanwhile, population has been increasing and totaled to 122,339 in 2005, of which 30,936 were estimated to be full-time fishermen (ARCSCCB, 2005b).1 The augmentation, combined with resource allocation, which was arbitrarily determined by the Orissa government without due consideration of strained relationship between fishermen and nonfishermen, increased the likelihood, duration, and intensity of resource-based conflicts, leading to insecure conditions for fishermen. The conflicts had taken on a violent character and the sense of insecurity spread in fisherman villages (Pattnaik, 2007; Samal & Meher, 1999). In terms of the fish marketing economy, the exploitative situation between fishermen and fish merchants further drives the fishermen to conduct their fish catch indiscriminately. Negative dependence between the two can bring about failures in resource-based development (Misra, 2002). Hence, creating

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

123

an environment for improvement of dominant marketing structure will be required to sustain the fisheries of Chilika Lagoon at least. In this regard, it is worth noting that the problem of liberating the fishermen from exploitative marketing control by fish merchants defies any attempt at a quick and simple solution. This is how fish merchants (commission agents) make adjustments to meet multiple needs of fishermen where most of fishermen are forced to stay on the boat near their fishing grounds on end, in order to continuously safeguard against illegal encroachments by others especially in the harvest season. With this kind of attractive service, there is little choice for the fishermen but to sell their catch to the merchants with a commitment to unreasonable fish trading (Iwasaki, 2007a; Iwasaki & Shaw, 2008). Therefore, we should focus on resource access, which is determined by a complex interaction among the stakeholders.

Case of Saroma Lake Fisheries (Community-Based) Compared with the other two case studies, it is apparent that Saroma Lake fisheries at present are productive and can be regarded as the best practice of fisheries management. During the Meiji (1876–1912) and Taisho (1912–1926) eras, however, fish production in the Saroma Lake region was on the decline and less prosperous than what it is today. A lack of appropriate fisheries management scheme among the fishers caused continuously overexploitation of fishery resources in the region. Once productive fishing grounds were found, the place was suddenly besieged by a large number of fishing boats without any consideration of fisheries management. Furthermore, a national augmentation policy for more food production during hostilities intensified indiscriminate fishing. During the period from 1868 to 1988, the fishers forced to determine prohibitions of fishing eight times, accounting for around 17 years while there were only three times for bumper fish catch (Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma (ACLS), 1999b). Furthermore, unfair fishery resource allocation among the fishers was prevailed across the lake. Some dominant persons exclusively monopolized fishing rights such as set-net fishing rights to capture salmons and herrings, which were good fishery income source. In contrast, the other fishers used to be dependent on limited access to catch cheaper cost fish such as flatfish. Their fish productions were not satisfied to make a living for survival so that indiscriminate fish catch have been further expanded in the lake region while the fishers forced to sell their entire catch to fish merchants at lower price, instead of loan provision.

124

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Under the circumstances, their fishing activities took a new turning point after the first mouth happened to be opened. It changed fishing activities highlighting breeding and culturing scallop fisheries in the base of Saroma Lake. The fishery operation places a community-based approach that is based on the establishment of Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma (ACLS). Saroma System is developed at the community level where fishers united together and shared their wisdom, enabling to comprehensive and collective fisheries management in the lake. However, development process of breeding and culturing scallop fisheries includes various challenges inherent in environmental issues from internal (e.g., fishery operation) and external sources (e.g., water pollution and climate variability). In particular, there occurred a massive death of cultured scallops in the late 1970s. A mechanism behind the catastrophic phenomenon has been still unjustified so that several hypothesizes on the underlying cause (e.g., water pollution and inappropriate management of scallop culture) are presented. Indeed, the production of 3-year cultured scallops has been decreased up to 3,673 tons in 1984, compared with 6,728 tons in 1980. Furthermore, accelerated water contamination coupled with anthropogenic pressures occurred in the entire lake. In particular, the condition of water quality was severe in the eastern side where red tide problems have been arose as a result of emergence of north-eastern airflow due to Okhotsk anticyclogenesis. In this regard, the opening of a new mouth (second mouth) in 1978 made to some extent contributions to improvement of water circulation between the lake and sea, but it was still insufficient to maintain the required criteria for solving such water pollution. Massive nutrient salts constantly flow from upstream into the lake where actual or potential water eutrophication has severe environmental implications on fishery resources. In the place, which is physically exposed to varying influential sources of climatic and hydrological changes at multiple scales, the range of lake water conservation be extended to the adjacent watershed areas. Apart from water pollution, the consideration is applicable to the case of ice drift management, which requires coping with a wave of surging pressures behind the Amur River to the north in Sakhalin.

Case of Songkhla Lake Fisheries (Partnership-Based) A series of environmental issues coupled with human pressures affected adverse impacts on the availability of fishery resources in Songkhla Lake. Hydrological changes through construction of sluice water gate between the

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

125

lake and sea resulted in the drastic change of the lake ecosystem including fish ecology. Unlike in the past when there existed indigenous crocodiles in Thale Noi according to testimonies of local old persons, for instance, it became almost freshwater. The salinity change induced natural selection of which many creatures including crocodiles and marketable fishery resources went through the process. In response to this, fishers forced to adapt to changes in the transforming lake ecosystem, by means of multispecies and multiequipment fisheries on the basis of varying extent of salinity level, nature of fish ecology, and tidal fluctuation. However, introduction of improved fishing techniques per se accordingly offset their benefits that arose from placing proper fishing methods in the right grounds. In addition to push net fisheries, three major fishing equipment categories (set bag nets, sitting cages, and gill nets) used are commonly observed in Songkhla Lake, causing them to overexploit fishery resources by trapping juvenile aquatic animals. Furthermore, excessive utilizations of sitting cages and set bag nets, which are semipermanently installed inside the lake will threaten overexploitation of fishery resources. These practices give less access to the limited fishing grounds among the fishers; such attempts obstruct other fishing methods, given that Songkhla Lake fisheries are characterized by multispecies and multiequipment ones. Population growth combined with excessive installations of fishing equipment may bring further decline of fishery resources (and decrease of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) at least) while giving rise to the likelihood of creating various types of conflicts over fishery resources among the stakeholders. Furthermore, growing water pollution is burning issue in the entire lake. It has severe social, economic and environmental implications on fishery livelihoods. Aggravation of water quality in the lake is widely prevailed, but the underlying causes of the water contamination differ from place to place. Waste water from factories caused damage to their livelihoods in Thale Sap and Thale Sap Songkhla. In the meantime, pesticides and fertilizers from paddy fields brought severe impacts in Thale Luang. The local people in Thale Noi suffered mainly from sewage water contamination from households. It is apparent that geographical differences and land use development had a distinct influence on varying extent of water quality. Recognitions of geographical and hydrological patterns and developmental process determined by relevant stakeholders are highly required to be taken into account. In this sense, there was a strong need of cooperation and collaboration among relevant stakeholders that shall be taken into account the geographical and socioeconomic contexts of the interconnected lake environment.

126

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Identified Problems and These Trends of Lagoon Fisheries All three case study sites reveal a temporary or ongoing decline of fishery resources in the lagoon environment. On the basis of historical reviews in each case study, identified problems are purposefully presented in Table 5.1. To be sure, scientific identifications of the causes behind the decrease of fish landing quantities entail high complexity and uncertainty, depending on varying degrees of interactions determined by ecological functions. However, it may become rational to us that lessons learned from in-depth case studies can illustrate major nine elements that had actually adverse impacts on the availability of fishery resources. These nine elements can be divided into three categories; lagoon origin, watershed origin and external origin (climate variability). In the category of lagoon origin, identified problems in lagoon fisheries include ‘‘overexploitation by fishers,’’ ‘‘practice of aquaculture,’’ ‘‘salinity change,’’ and ‘‘weed invasion.’’ Meanwhile, ‘‘sedimentation from upstream,’’ ‘‘inflow of pesticides and fertilizers,’’ ‘‘industrial pollution,’’ and ‘‘sewage contamination’’ are considered detrimental to the natural habitats of fishery resources from the viewpoint of watershed origin. With regard to the above category, overexploitation by fishers is commonly observed in the developmental process of each case study. Despite of multispecies and multiequipment fisheries, excessive semipermanent installations of fishing equipment in the water undermined access to limited fishing grounds while causing damage to juvenile fishery resources (Chilika Lagoon and Songkhla Lake). In Saroma Lake, inappropriate fisheries management system induced a large number of fishers to overexploit fishery resources, thereby leading to prohibitions of fishing at many times in the past. Against such overfishing behaviors, it is worth noting that innovative approaches were put into practice in Saroma Lake and Songkhla Lake, which contributed to some extent to wise use of fishery resources as illustrated later. In addition to overexploitation, practice of aquaculture had a great influence on other fishing activities; it limits less access to fishing activities and runs off detrimental waste water and nutrients to the lagoon environment. To pursue the maintenance of environmental capacity in Saroma Lake, scallop culture forced to be devised several times with up-to-date techniques undertaken by local fishers and researchers. Apart from fishery operations practiced in each case study, changes in hydrological cycle and associated salinity level caused severe damages to ecological habitats, rather fishery resources in itself. These encompass intensive installations of fishing equipment including aquaculture, but

Watershed Origin

External Origin

k m m

k m -

m m k

k k

m -

k k

k

k k

m m -

Overexploitation Aquaculture Salinity Weed Sedimentation Pesticides Industrial Sewage Climate change invasion and fertilizers pollution contamination variability inflow

Lagoon Origin

Identified Problems and Trends of Lagoon Fisheries in Three Case Studies.

Note: Legend: - (Stagnant), k (Degradation), and m (Improvement).

Chilika Lagoon Saroma Lake Songkhla Lake

Name of Lagoon

Table 5.1.

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment 127

128

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

closure or shrinkage of sea mouth as a result of sedimentation or land reclamation are among the more significant threats in maintaining the hydrological balance properly. In short, a perspective of sea mouth management is an important challenge posed to lagoon fisheries as illustrated in all three case studies. Otherwise, the closure of sea mouth alters salinity level in the water and upsets the valuable lagoon ecosystem. Thus, due elaboration is required to explore key factors of mainstreaming sea mouth management into lagoon fisheries management. In terms of watershed origin, sedimentation was identified as the worst environmental issue in Chilika Lagoon. It arose mainly from deforestation and overgrazing brought a lot of silt into the lagoon. Influent water from upstream encompasses not only sediments but also a wide variety of nutrients. To a large extent, the fishers in all three case studies have faced with water contamination, resulting from numerous factors at multiple scales. Coastal areas including lagoons, for instance, are reported to be negatively affected by heavy oil leaking from tankers at sea. Although such critical cases have not been reviewed in each case study, water pollution from upstream undertaken by private and household sectors has been commonly undermining lagoon ecosystem that may bring about mass mortality of aquatic resources. Consequently, it will stimulate critical environmental condition that cannot survive for many creatures, causing the fishers to vulnerable livelihood conditions. For this reason, next chapter (Chapter 6) sets out to explore a perspective of lagoon watershed in each case study area in addition to a new one (Kuraburi Estuary). Together with the multiscale perspective, regional changes in climate pose paramount risks related to decline of fishery resources. Abrupt climate variables including cyclones and floods force fishers to stop fishing and, what is worse, undermine adaptive capacity to the ecological-socialeconomic system, in terms of life-threatening and damages of fishing equipment and other physical assets. The impacts of climate change are accelerated in combination with anthropogenic pressures. For instance, deforestation and overgrazing from upstream often cause landslides and soil erosions, which bring a lot of sediments into lagoon areas, resulting in ecological degradation of the lagoon environment and its fish habitats. Water shallowness, eutrophication, closure of sea mouth, and so on are among more important challenges in adapting to lagoon fisheries management. Therefore, a perspective of climate variability as an external origin should be integrated into lagoon fisheries management, in order to respond to the decline of fishery resources.

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

129

ADAPTIVE FISHERY OPERATIONS Trajectories of Resource Dynamics in Lagoon Fisheries It is obvious that all three case study sites experienced decline of fishery resources. The underlying causes encompass a wide variety of factors and vary according to each lagoon. Under the circumstances, the fishers historically sought to deal with a broad of risks related to fishery resources and associated components at individual, community, and federation levels. An option of livelihood adaptation at individual level can be economic diversification or creation of alternative jobs except fisheries. For the sake of insufficient fishery income, for instance, many fishers in Songkhla Lake (except in Thale Sap Songkha) strived to supplement their household income with a side job or find alternative jobs such as rubber plantation, animal husbandry and mat making. Furthermore, it will be also effective to overcome the obstacles in involving women as the workforce, though it shall be taken into account gender perspectives in the local context. However, it seems that such diversified or alternative options become passive reactions to adapt to changes in fishery economy along globalization. Apart from such alternative adaptive responses, a perspective of lagoon fisheries management still plays important roles on maintaining and preferably prospering their life of fishing communities. Incidentally, fishery resources are natural and renewable resources, which can be replenished or reproduced. Unlike nonrenewable resources such as coal, oil and natural gas, they can be theoretically harvested at the rate, which equals to the MSY point where natural mortality or human pressures are balanced by stable reproduction and growth. Maintenance of the harvest rate cannot always assure developmental needs for fishers and related stakeholders, but it is of utmost importance that those who are engaged in the fisheries including future generations, can harvest stable fish production in the long run. Fulfilling the goal may be tied to restoration of the valuable lagoon environment where different users can enjoy diverse ecosystem function and service. However, fishery resources that arose from lagoon ecosystem were historically overexploited by the fishers combined with environmental degradation at multiple scales. Fig. 5.1 depicts the historical trends of fishery resource stocks on the basis of lessons learned from three case studies. In the first phase (i), traditional fishing communities used to harvest a great deal of fishery resources. The fishers in Chilika Lagoon and Songkhla Lake were reported to be catching sufficient fish even by their hands directly. Development of technology and science, and population growth further

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Resource Flows (Groowth, Harvest)

130

MSY

(ii)

(i)

(iii)

Zero net productivity

CD Resource Stocks

K

Legend: CD: Critical Depensation MSY: Maximum Sustainable Yield

Fig. 5.1.

Historical Trends of Fishery Resource Stocks through Comparative Analysis.

stimulated fishers to harvest plenty of fishery resources till the MSY point. Accordingly, they were forced to face with overexploitation of fishery resources beyond the MSY point (ii), once short-sighted and profit-oriented thoughts combined with higher concentrated population densities and technological advances prevailed across the entire lagoon areas in each case study site. It caused the catch per unit effort (CPUE) to steadily decrease. Outside market-driven forces also intensified indiscriminate fish catch that is strongly applicable to the case of Chilika Lagoon and Saroma Lake fisheries. Dominant fish marketing structure catalyzed a greater incentive for commission agents to pay a smaller amount of money to fishermen or manipulate the grade and weight of their catch. For instance, Mitra (1946) argued that in the pre-war period the gross income on the fish export from the lagoon was nearly INR 1,100,000, a year of which only one-tenth was earned by the fishermen. For this reason, the exploitative situation drove the fishermen to overexploit fishery resources in various ways. In addition, almost all the fishers in Saroma Lake fell into heavy debts so that they often forced to repay their loans to their local bosses (fishery-cum-middlemen) with their entire fish catch. Such an exploitative system pushed the fishers to operate indiscriminately with regard to fish catch (Nakamura, 2005) as well.

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

131

Under these circumstances of such overfishing activities, two adaptive measures for revitalization of fishery resource stocks (iii) were undertaken by the fishers throughout case study experience: creation of cooperative fish marketing system and federationalized fisheries management.

Creation of Cooperative Fish Marketing System As earlier mentioned, depending relationships between fishers and fish merchants sometimes make the fishers suffer from an unreasonable loss of profit gain. Overfishing as a result of this tends to be taken place as shown in the cases of Chilika Lagoon and Saroma Lake fisheries. Hence, creating an environment for improvement of dominant marketing structure will be required to sustain lagoon fisheries. Related to this, the fishermen in Chilika Lagoon strived to have a united effort to improve their poor situation from fish merchants. In 1923, first attempt to counter the exploitation from them brought about formulation of fishery cooperative society called ‘‘Balugaon Fishermen Cooperative Stores Ltd’’. In the aftermath, the government fisheries have also encouraged the fishermen to formulate the similar type of cooperatives across the lagoon called as ‘‘Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society (PFCS)’’ and then lease out to those cooperatives on a priority basis. In addition to enjoyment of fishing rights, PFCSs sought to introduce cooperative fish marketing activities that aimed to liberate the fishermen from exploitative marketing control by fish merchants. Such attempts can be considered to have reduced to some extent the monopoly of fish merchants (Mitra & Mohapatra, 1957; Roy & Sahoo, 1962; Samal & Meher, 2003a). Despite these efforts, these cooperative activities have not been gradually functioning except a few PFCSs (Samal & Meher, 2003b), mainly due to indebtedness from fish merchants and time lag of profit gain for fishermen.2 In this sense, introduction of cooperative fish marketing system is not always a successful way to develop adaptive capacity to fishing activities. Rather, the mechanism behind their cooperative activities poses a critical key to sustain the function properly. By contrast, the fishers in Saroma Lake could overcome the obstacle of negative dependency between the two in the face of the amendment of the Meiji Fishery Law in 1933. The revision enabled fishery societies to change their bodies as fishery cooperative associations (FCAs) that were capable of operating a wide variety of activities including cooperative fish marketing ones. In response to this, the fishers strived to formulate FCAs and started

132

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

to do cooperative fish marketing activities as well as joint fish production through FCAs. Before such activities initiated, amazingly, a local boss (fishery-cum-middleman) even encouraged the fishers to apply cooperative fish marketing approach (ACLS, 1999b). These activities might make the boss suffer considerable economic losses in the short run. But his proactive efforts to establish a system for cooperative management were made, in order to transform fish production from unstable into stable and productive fisheries. Such cooperative fish marketing activities in the center of scallop production spread throughout Kitami to Souya areas, thereby leading to establishment of a major cooperative scallop market in the Okhotsk region. Consequently, these elaborations enabled the fishers to cut off the inseparable dependency with fish merchants and induced them to unite together toward cooperative fisheries management through ACLS. In Songkhla Lake fisheries, it seems that no severe disputes have been reported with regard to interactions between fishers and fish merchants. Loan dependency between the two, of course, tends to promote the fishers to sell their entire catch to the lenders, perhaps leading to less profitable fish trade. In this regard, however, establishment of village revolving fund served as a pathway for having a more flexible and easy access to financial loan in rural areas than fish merchants or money lenders did. According to the questionnaire survey conducted, no fishers borrowed money from fish merchants except Thale Sap Songkhla (14.6 percent). Beneficiaries who deposit fixed money in their funds can be easily accessible to immediate money in times of trouble. Such a system led to diversified economic sources to adapt to the ecological-social-economic system. Furthermore, there are new signs that cooperative fish marketing system has been introduced in some parts of Sonkhla lake. Satingpra Fisherfolk Society, for instance, has initiated the program since 2005, in collaboration with NGOs. Around 80 percent of fishers sell their entire catch to their cooperative society, which enabled them to understand a status and fluctuation of current fish market. Indeed, the cooperative activities made a contribution to more development by expanding market distributary channels including foreign countries especially in Malaysia.

Federationalized Fisheries Management To improve fish stocks and these ecological habitats [from (ii) to (iii), shown in Fig. 5.1], all users are required to follow sustainable use of fishery resources. Ecosystem processes are still characterized by an essential quality

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

133

of uncertainty (Berkes, 2004; Carlsson & Berkes, 2005), but fishers sought to devise a diverse range of rules; to limit the numbers of users; limit the technology, timing, quantity, or location of harvest; and protect the habitat of fishery resources (Dietz, Dolsˇ ak, Ostrom, & Stern, 2002). On the point of this, unity among them is the principal form of adaptation to respond to such rule decisions. On the whole, changes to the ecological-social-economic system along globalization made fishers share a recognition that the range of lagoon fisheries management requires involvement of all those who are engaged in the fisheries. If no formal or informal rules exist related to access or amount of harvest, ‘‘rational’’ fishers may make demands on the resources until the expected benefits of their actions equal the expected costs, thus resulting in the occurrence illustrated in his article of ‘‘the tragedy of the commons’’ (Hardin, 1968). For this, it is obvious that institutional arrangements by way of communication, trust, and the capacity to make binding agreements are needed. Based on the dynamic and complex characters of lagoon ecosystem, further considerations are required to expand the range of lagoon fisheries management at multiple scales (e.g., individual, village, and intervillage levels). Indeed, case study experiences revealed that the fishers in each lagoon united together beyond village territory and built a fishery federation in the lagoon environment; Chilika Matsyasibi Mahasangha (CMM) in Chilika Lagoon; Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma (ACLS) in Saroma Lake; Federation of Fisherfolk in Songkhla Lake (FFSL) in Songkhla Lake, respectively. These federationalized bodies have one thing in common; each federation is representative of fishers who are traditionally engaged in the lagoon fisheries. The building process was bottom-up approach, not top-down one. It arose in response to factors that might be regarded as ‘dangerous’ and contributing to environmental degradation or poor access to fishing grounds. In this regard, however, it needs to be mentioned that the way to unite together among them differs in each federation. Table 5.2 summarized contents and involved stakeholders of federationalized activities. In Chilika Lagoon, the federation called CMM was established for the purpose of legal advocacy to the government. In those days, a wave of outsiders such as nonfishermen and refugee fishers entered Chilika Lagoon in order to do fishing in the water. Ambiguous demarcation of fishing grounds accelerated illegal and destructive fisheries operated by them. These practices impeded fishermen’s activities and caused major clashes between fishermen and nonfishermen. On this account, a sense of growing hostility led to formation of CMM. In collaboration with citizens and interest groups, CMM played an important role in leading a wide variety of protest

134

Table 5.2.

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Activities and Involved Stakeholders of Fishery Federation in Three Case Studies.

Name of Lagoon

Activities Legal Rule advocacy making

Chilika Lagoon (CMM)

Collabo- Environ- Govern- NGOs Research Citizens mental ments institutes rative manage- campaign ment



Saroma Lake (ACLS) Songkhla Lake (FFSL)

Involved Stakeholders



W

















W

 





against illegal and destructive fisheries by nonfishermen especially gherry culture, and later agitation for regaining fishing rights to only fishermen. The driving force was triggered by recognition of fear for not environmental crisis, but resource allocation determined by the state ascendancy. Inspired by these excessive motivations, CMM did not concern themselves primarily with internal control among the fishermen toward wise use of fishery resources in the lagoon environment. Due to this, indiscriminate fishery operations mainly by using khanda further have prevailed across the lagoon. In Saroma Lake, the federation called ACLS was aimed to build adaptive fisheries management system, in terms of utilization, culture and protection of fishery resources. Unlike the case of CMM, the fishers in Saroma Lake were united in their resolve to reduce a broad of risks through the use of a set of norms, institutions and networks in practice. They got momentum of stable fish production in response to discovery of potential fishery development by fostering scallop culture in the lake. In those days, however, there are reported to be a fact that three fishery cooperative associations (FCAs) involved in the lake warned against each other so that they continued to have conflicts on their activities including sea mouth management (ACLS, 1999b). Under the circumstances, a strong leadership by the union president of Tokoro FCA (who had a personal magnetism from many fishers, irrespective of any FCAs) led to a shared vision of fishery development in the lake through ACLS. Such a proactive effort to change

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

135

exploitative fisheries made a great contribution to enhancing their capacity to adapt to the new fisheries and integrating inter-FCAs activities in the lake as common-pool resources (CPRs). Indeed, ACLS served as a basis for consensus building among three FCAs on a set of rule decisions and implementations, and information dissemination of the lagoon environment and related fisheries to their members. In order to accumulate and fully use scientific knowledge in the lake ecosystem and its fisheries, it is important to note that ACLS themselves has employed researchers since 1987 as well as deepened relationships with the governments and research institutes. The consideration is considered effective to improve to a large extent the way of fisheries management in an appropriate manner. In Songkhla Lake, the momentum of federation building called FFSL is closely similar to the case of Saroma Lake. The establishment of FFSL was borne out of anxiety of being losing fishery resources in the lake. The anxiety from the fishers arose from numerous causes of internal relationships among the fishers and external effects of globalization, development of science and technology, which invited outsiders (commercial fishers) to enter the lagoon fisheries. On this account, there is growing evidence that people organizations in some parts of the entire lake have been established since 1980s. Such active mobilization led to formation of two federationalized bodies in 1993: FFSL and a further broad federation, the Federation of Southern Fisherfolk Thailand (FSFT).3 These were aimed to advocate the interests of small-scale fishers on government policy such as fishing rights similar to CMM in Chilika Lagoon. Not only such advocacy but also environmental conservation activities have been undertaken under the banner of FFSL. These include a series of environmental campaigns to raise people’s awareness toward wise use of natural resources. Furthermore, the federation has been encouraging associated villages to establish conservation zones where further considerations have been done in releasing juvenile aquatic animals in collaboration with various stakeholders including the government, NGOs, research institutes and citizens (especially children). Such multiple collaborations in Songkhla Lake are quite rational because these stakeholders are cable of mitigating their own weakness or compensating adequately for them. The governments, for instance, have limited budget and capacity to execute their jurisdictions properly over lagoon fisheries management. However, the participation of local fishers in the government programs such as ‘sea farming project’ led to effective and efficient compliance with relevant laws and regulations. At the same time, the approach enabled local fishers to participate in fisheries management while to benefit from many advantages of so-called ‘‘co-management’’

136

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

between the government and the local users through trainings, release of juvenile aquatic animals, environmental campaigns, and so on.

MULTIPLICITY OF SEA MOUTH MANAGEMENT Significance of Sea Mouth Management Availability of fishery resources in the lagoon environment is to a great extent dependent on hydrological circulation between the sea and lagoon. Lagoon areas are maintained through sediment transport process (Anthony et al., 2009). The sediment variation determines exchange of migratory species and further plays a role commensurate with the salinity adjustment. In particular, a perspective of sea mouth bridging the two spatial zones is inevitable to keep the lagoon environment and its natural resources stable. As a matter of fact, it is obvious that opening a new mouth along dredging of water channels had considerable impacts on the ecosystem service and function in Chilika Lagoon. Proper hydrological interventions exhibited positive impacts on fisheries enhancement with a spectacular increase in fish landing quantities as shown in the case of Chilika Lagoon. In response to this, the Orissa government estimated that fishing family income amazingly increased to around ten times in 2003–2004 as before the interventions in 2000 (Department of Fisheries, Government of Orissa and Chilika Development Authority (DFGO and CDA), 2005). As such, maintenance of sea mouth in an appropriate manner serves as a basis for changes of fishery resource stocks in the lagoon environment. The range of lagoon fisheries management includes not only governance of fishery operations practiced by fishers and relevant stakeholders, but also control of varying degrees of sea mouth condition as well as watershed conservation. It shall be taken into account propelling sea mouth management into the mainstream in lagoon fisheries. There are a lot of cases where lagoon areas face dangers of closing the interconnected mouth bridging the sea and lagoon. On the whole, such situations arise from three reasons (see Fig. 5.2). First is soil erosion from upstream. A large number of sediments rush to downstream and then accumulate in the lagoon. Especially, sea mouth where a concentration of saline water is higher promotes agglutination and precipitation reactions of sedimentation. Land use changes such as deforestation, overgrazing and monoculture for cash crop tend to further accelerate the sedimentation

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

137

Climate Change - Floods - Cyclones Sea

Man-Made - Land Reclamation - Desalinization, etc. Sea Mouth Closure

Lagoon Watershed

Land Use Change - Deforestation - Overgrazing, etc.

Fig. 5.2.

Climate Change - Floods - Cyclones

Legend Soil Erosion Drift Sand from Sea Man-Made Closure

Three Factors behind Closure of Sea Mouth.

process. Climatic and disastrous variability such as flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones and landslides are becoming more frequent and intensive, resulting in an increasing possibility for the closure of sea mouth. Such situations are particularly applicable to the case of Chilika Lagoon (see Chapter 2). Second is drift sand from sea. A strong storm brings a lot of sandy soil into the shoal as sand dunes. Apart from soil erosion from upstream, the surging sediments from sea may rather attribute the closure of sea mouth to physical process. This phenomenon does fit the case of Saroma Lake where the old mouth (Tohutsu) became closed during the period from November to June due to stormy weather. Third is man-made closure of sea mouth. Human settlements and activities are highly concentrated in many lagoon areas due to low-lying and shallowness (Hobo, 1989). Hence, human-beings can have an easy access to such lands for the purpose of land reclamation, desalinization, and so on (Boynton, Hagy, Murray, & Stokes, 1996; Katsuki, Seto, Nomura, Maekawa, & Khim, 2009). In Songkhla Lake, for instance, the construction of sluice gates at Pak Ra Wa was undertaken to prevent salt-water intrusion from the Bay of Thailand for farming purposes. As the years passed, extending demands and overconsumption

138

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

of water resources in household, agricultural and industry sectors of Songkhla Lake watershed have been placing considerable pressures for dam constructions in the lake as well as establishment of the water gate. These cases are largely linked to the representation of different values by other stakeholders except fishers. In this sense, the nature of heterogeneity with different interests and needs of human-beings, in terms of livelihood and location, shall be taken into consideration at the watershed level.

The Multiplicity Issue of Sea Mouth Management It becomes clear to recognize the significance of how sea mouth management serves as a basis for changes of fishery resource stocks in the lagoon environment. Hence, mainstreaming sea mouth management into lagoon fisheries management is crucial. To pursue the maintenance of lagoon ecosystem (particularly fish ecology), it is important for the stakeholders to share common ideas on when, where, how sea mouth management be initiated. In Chilika Lagoon, the successful hydrological interventions was taken place with due acquisitions of scientific and practical evidence. Numerous studies related to the hydrological change that was tested in simulations of a diversity of scenarios were conducted particularly by Central Water and Power Research Station, National Instituite of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Centre. Together with the sceintific knowledge, another deliberation was made on information exchange of practical knowledge on sea mouth management between Chilika Lagoon and Saroma Lake. The exchange program was coordinated by Ramsar Center Japan, NGO rooted in a mission of wetland conservation in Japan and Asian countries. The scientific and practical knowledge packages led to valuable implications on ensuring a kind of legitimacy for the decision that a new mouth be opened along the sand spit at a distance of 11 km from Chilikia lagoon. Furhtermore, CDA strived to inform the local people of the decisionmaking through constant dialogue with the local leaders and distribution of various brochures related to the opening with application of local language. The interactions with full respect for their cultural and social contexts contributed to an agreement of the decision without any particular resistance. In Songkhla Lake, the sea mouth near Pak Ra Wa was intentionally closed with an aim to prevent salt-water intrusion from the Bay of Thailand for farming purposes. The construction of sluice gates was encouraged for

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

139

not fisheries management but other water-related management (water supply against extending demands or overconsumption of water resources in household, agricultural and industry sectors). In other words, the sea mouth closure was undertaken with reflection of voices or say from others who expressed different interests and needs of its decision. With the above recognition, the chapter then sets out to explore human interactions of sea mouth management by focusing on lessons learned from Saroma Lake. It endeavors to address a nature of ‘‘heterogeneity’’ in its management activities: the research highlights complex backgrounds of sea mouth management undertaken by relevant stakeholders. The followings review the factors behind the way how to open first and second mouths in Saroma Lake. Factors behind the Open of First Mouth There had been a temporal sea mouth in Tohutsu (old mouth) prior to 1929. During the period from November to June, the old mouth became closed every year due to stormy weather. Closure of old mouth had considerable adverse impacts on people livelihoods, in terms of the availability of lagoon fishery resources, boat navigation to the sea, increasing flood risk, and so on. On this account, neighboring residents including the Ainu (traditional tribe) in the lake united together and opened the closed mouth every spring. Such traditional collective actions made great contributions to sustaining lagoon and marine fisheries to maintain the existing ecological-socialeconomic system and mitigating the impacts caused by floods. However, there occurred a new incident of sea mouth management undertaken by villagers in Yubetsu town with different interests and values in 1929. In those days, fishers in the lake could be divided into two categories. One category belongs to those who were engaged in lagoon fisheries while the other was composed of those who went fishing in coastal marine. In the latter, there were two ways to go fishing in the sea. Fishers could sail on the sea via a sea mouth at Tohutsu, or they trailed their boats on the sand to go to the sea. As shown in Fig. 5.3, the residents in Tokoro village were easily accessible to the old mouth and then started coastal fisheries without tremendous efforts. In the meanwhile, the residents in Yubetsu village, which was furthest from Tohustsu used to require more time and energy to go fishing in the sea via the mouth. Otherwise, there was no choice but to trail their boats on the sand bar. The option caused damages to their boats, resulting in shorter validity date in use. Under the circumstances, the fishers in Sanri area, which was a part of Yubetsu village (see Fig. 5.3) were reported to have changed or expanded

140

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Okhotsk Sea First Mouth Sanri Area (After 1929)

Yubetsu Village More wet conditions

Fig. 5.3.

Old Mouth (Tohutsu) (Before 1929)

Second Mouth (After 1978) Coastal Fisheries

Boat Navigation for Coastal Fisheries Saroma Village

Tokoro Village Less wet conditions

Maps of Saroma Lake with Social Backgrounds behind Opening of First Mouth.

their fishing grounds from the lake to the coast since around the year of 1920. They always faced the difficulties over boat navigations for coastal fisheries. It was so intolerable dilemma so that they gradually decided to open a new mouth near their living area in 1925, though their attempts were failed (Yubetsucho-shi Hensan Iinkai Hen, 1965). Furthermore, the momentum of efforts to open a new mouth, as opposed to commonly shared governance of sea mouth management at Tohutsu, expanded to all residents in Yubetsu village in addition to the fishers in Sanri area. It was largely tied to the topographical characters associated with hydrological circulation in and around Yubetsu village. Compared with Saroma and Tokoro villages, many residents in Yubetsu village had more suffered from overflow caused by snow flooding. Even though elaborations were traditionally made on opening the old mouth every spring, the land in Yubetsu village, which was furthest from the mouth still remained moist soil conditions. The moist lands did not fit practice of agriculture so that new immigrant settlers forced to live apart from neighborhood for farming (Yubetsucho-shi Hensan Iinkai Hen, 1965). In addition, these conditions augmented higher risk of flooding, causing damages to human and physical assets. Hence, opening of a new mouth were of special significance for Yubetsu villagers, in terms of mitigation of flood hazards and farming as well as easy access in the sea. Consequently, their growing aspirations became a stepping stone to set off an illegal excavation on state-owned land without any permission from the government as well as other villages (Saromacho-shi Hensan Iinkai Hen, 1966). Importantly, Yubetsu village created a budget for the excavation so that around 80 workers from the neighboring residents were mobilized, resulting in opening of the first mouth in 1929 with the help of heavy storms.

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

Table 5.3. Place of Sea Mouth

141

Characters of Sea Mouth Management in the Cases of Old Mouth and First Mouth. Old Mouth (Tohutsu)

First Mouth

Involved stakeholders

Residents in three villages of Saroma Lake including the Ainu

Residents in Yubetsu village

Primary objectives

– Maintenance of the lagoon environment – Mitigation of flood hazards

– Easy access in the sea – Mitigation of flood hazards

In this regard, however, the other villages, especially Tokoro village, fiercely opposed to and sought suspension of the excavation. That is why the motivations for excavation were not embedded in maintenance of the lagoon environment, as traditional customs called ‘‘shiokiri’’ used to entail the component. On this account, turbulent relationships especially between Yubetsu and Tokoro villages had been aggravated. Putting them all together, it is apparent that different motivations behind opening of the old mouth and the first mouth were historically identified in Saroma Lake. Opening of a new mouth may not always be an incentive to maintain hydrological variability that is a basis for lagoon ecosystem service and function. Table 5.3 shows the characters of sea mouth management in both cases. As opposed to the traditional customs called ‘‘shiokiri,’’ different interests and needs (easy access in the sea and mitigation of flood hazards) were driven to the opening of the first mouth. Fortunately, the practice led to improvement of fishery livelihood conditions with a spectacular increase in fish landing quantities except oysters in hindsight. The case can be only a casual consequence as a successful story. If the worst happens, it might create a massive crisis for threatening the survival of Saroma Lake fisheries. This is because development of lagoon fisheries to a large extent depend on when, where and how sea mouth management be initiated. Such ideas should be shared among relevant stakeholders so that multilevel collaborative partnerships (local residents, group users, NGOs, researchers, government agencies, and so on) are strongly required.

Factors behind the Open of Second Mouth Compared to the case of opening of the first mouth, it is worth noting that opening of the second mouth was undertaken with due considerations

142

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

of environmental impacts and consensus building among relevant stakeholders. Since 1965, the management of scallop culture in Saroma Lake has started along the right lines. Accordingly, the fishers added more facilities for the operation, resulting in degradation of hydrological circulation in the lake. Along water contamination from upstream, the hydrological change accelerated the lake eutrophication. In particular, the eastern lake had been worse water circulation since the first mouth was opened and in turn the old mouth (Tohutsu place) was closed in 1929. The condition of water quality was severe in the eastern side where red tide problems have been arose as a result of emergence of north-eastern airflow due to Okhotsk anticyclogenesis. Due to this, growth rate of scallop in the eastern side was slower than the rate in the western side where the first mouth provided well-circulated cycle between the sea and lake. To pursue the improvement of the hydrological cycle, the fishers in Tokoro village started to raise appeals for opening a new mouth in the eastern side of Saroma Lake to relevant government agencies. Numerous attempts at the excavation were made through an interest group, namely ‘‘Lake Saroma Development Achievement Group,’’ which was established in 1964. It took long time to fulfill their requirement, but the Hokkaido (prefecture) government secured 2.7 billion Yen for the budget. In this regard, however, some people in Yubetsu village used to believe that opening a new mouth in the eastern side of Saroma Lake may cause the first mouth to be disappeared because two mouths out of the lake cannot happen as the old mouth was closed. This was a causing ripple in Yubetsu village. Taking into account their turbulence, the Hokkaido government commissioned a survey on environmental impact assessment in the case of the excavation. Based on the findings from the scientific evidence, importantly, the official clearly stated that the Hokkaido government will take on the responsibility, thereby convincing Yubetsu villagers to accept the construction. Consequently, the second mouth was opened in 1978. The effort improved the lake water environment so that it enabled scallops and oysters to grow faster in the eastern side as same as in the western side. Unlike the case of first mouth, opening of the second mouth was initiated with consensus building among relevant stakeholders. Although both cases in common successfully improved the lagoon environment that is essential needs of fish ecology, the process of sea mouth management was different in the two, in terms of shared ideas or visions. The case of second mouth faced the challenge of different opinions especially between Tokoro and Yubetsu villagers. In this respect, a role of facilitator (Hokkaido government) played

Resource Dynamics and Adaptive Capacity in the Lagoon Environment

143

a leading role for the consensus building effort. Of special note is use of scientific knowledge for use of sea mouth management. Scientific consensus and packaging of scientific knowledge can be translated into decisionmakings. In this sense, the scientific community has the ability to play a leadership role in being an agent for change and influencing policy makers, practitioners, and local communities. Role of scientific evidence will make great contributions to consensus building as a catalyst action.

NOTES 1. The population of nonfishermen also has increased. This population growth may have contributed to the destructive and illegal fisheries, especially in unclear boundary of fishing grounds called gramatalis. 2. There is an innovative approach to loan finance and cooperative fish marketing developed by the South Indian Federation of Fishermen Society (SIFFS). SIFFS supported a large number of fishing communities in the south of India, by providing loan finance from banks to each fisherman with due capacity assessment and introducing automatic deduction of the loan repayment from pay through cooperative fish marketing. Instead of cutting off the loan dependency with fish merchants, SIFFS encouraged the fishermen to join cooperative fish marketing activities for economic improvement as well as solution for ‘loan waiver’. This effort gives a great clue to solve the loan issue and then bridge the gap between controlled and actual price in Chilika Lagoon (see Iwasaki, 2007a). 3. FSFT expanded its network to cover 13 coastal provinces in the southern part of Thailand within the three years. Roles and main objectives of the federation are to strengthen the ability for people to organize and solve relevant problems (Nue & Chanachai, 2002).

CHAPTER 6 PERSPECTIVES OF LAGOON WATERSHED

Having recognized the significance of a watershed perspective for lagoon fisheries management, this chapter sets out to explore key issues and challenges of lagoon watershed management in four case study sites. In addition to the three case study sites (Chapters 2–4), a new case study was conducted in Kuraburi Estuary watershed. The additional research will provide some implications to find an effective connection to build multilevel partnerships among the stakeholders toward integratd lagoon fisheries management.

CHILIKA LAGOON WATERSHED Background and Identified Problems In line with climate variability such as extreme floods and cyclones, siltation is identified as among the most serious environmental problems posed to Chilika Lagoon fisheries. Exposure to silt accumulation reduced the water spread area and hindered the exchange of water between the sea and river, resulted in decreased salinity level and subsequent prolific growth of freshwater invasive species. As a result, fish landing quantities in Chilika Lagoon rapidly decreased until the year 2000, thereby leading to the poorer people not being effectively able to adapt to the ecological-social-economic system. The weed invasion also obstructed passages from boat jetties to fishing grounds, sometimes leading to boat clashes and the subsequent disputes among fishers. In an effort to maintain (and preferably improve) fish stocks, there has been a need to integrate fishery resources into a watershed perspective. 145

146

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

In the covered watershed areas, there has been a close relationship between natural environment and human activity. Due to a higher dependency on erratic rainfed agriculture in Chilika Lagoon watershed, farmer found it difficult to gain sufficient profit. They therefore decided to raise more cattle herds for sustaining food security, thereby resulting in overgrazing and consequently to the occurrence of soil erosion from upstream into the lagoon. Hence, involvements of the local people have become the pivotal unit for soil conservation as well as rural development. Under the circumstances, Chilika Development Authority (CDA), which implemented successful hydrological interventions in the year 2000, has adopted a concept of participatory microwatershed management since 2001. A primary objective was to involve the local people in the project to mitigate the impacts of siltation caused by anthropogenic pressures combined with climate extreme hazards. To a large extent, the idea behind participatory microwatershed management relied on the existing institutional arrangements for watershed management in Orissa state, India. On this account, the book outlines an evolutionary perspective of watershed management in Orissa state and evaluates its management projects in Chilika Lagoon watershed. The evolutionary perspective was largely referred to Orissa Watershed Development Mission (OWDM) (2008) and Reddy (2009).

Evolutionary Watershed Management in Orissa State According to studies conducted by Orissa Remote Sensing Applications Centre, 20,040 micro watersheds in Orissa state have been identified. Related to this, a large number of watershed development projects have been introduced. As of 2007, centrally sponsored watershed development projects accounted for 4,032 watersheds. On the whole, watershed development projects are implemented under various schemes funded by Ministry of Rural Development (MORD) and Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), Government of India. Paradigm Shifts of Watershed Development Management Watershed development projects take into account a wide diverse of factors and indicators before finalizing a project in a particular area. The considerations have been developed with some major changes over the past decades (Table 6.1). In Orissa state, a concept of watershed was first introduced during the Second Five Year Plan (1955–1961) for treatment of watersheds under the River Valley project. It was further refined during the

147

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

Table 6.1.

Features of Paradigm Shift of Watershed Development Management. Approach

1st Phase (1955–1980) 2nd Phase (1990) 3rd Phase (2000–present)

Resource-based approach

Role of Governments Primary Beneficiaries Input implementations The land-holders

Participatory approach Facilitation Land-based activities Participatory approach Facilitation Livelihood-based activities

The land-holders The landless or the poor

Fifth Plan through the Directorate of Soil Conservation. Various centrally sponsored projects were introduced during 1980s. The primary objectives of watershed development projects were to improve soil and moisture interventions, geophysical structures, plantations, and so on. These were funded either by MORD or MOA and implemented in a purely departmental mode. Indeed, a project appraisal that was conducted in 1987 noted greater reliance on contour cultivation, on-site conservation of moisture and vegetative techniques to intercept runoff water and prevent soil erosion from upstream. Such implementations tend to be focus on water harvesting structures that were resource-based measures. In those days, these projects did not pay special attention to people’s livelihoods in the watershed areas. When it comes to 1990s, there has been a paradigm shift in the watershed project implemented in the state. A participatory approach was actively introduced in the implementing process of the above projects. In response to the paradigm shift, the role of Orissa state has largely changed from input implementations to facilitation. Instead, local communities became involved in the planning and implementing process of the projects. Considerable emphasis was made by initiating a community-based approach through formation of people organizations, in order to improve and manage natural resources in an appropriate manner. Regarding this, it needs to be mentioned that the watershed projects were limited to land-based activities so that all beneficiaries in the project areas were not always involved. In particular, it may deter eligible the landless and/or the poor from receiving those benefits. It might allow them to do further overexploitation of natural resources including deforestation, overgrazing and waste discharge. Taking into account the significance of participation of the landless and/or the poor in the project areas, a new initiative was implemented by an externally-aided Western Orissa Rural Livelihoods Project (WORLP) funded by UK Department for International Development in 2000.

148

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

The initiative shifted the paramount scope of watershed projects from area development to livelihood development. To a large extent, it led to livelihood improvements in watershed areas, especially of the poor families. Furthermore, the involvement and capacity enhancement of the local people who are dependent on natural resources are expected to be effective for mitigation of soil erosion from upstream to downstream. Design and Management of Watershed Projects In 2000, institutional arrangements for watershed management projects in Orissa state have been drastically restructured. Apart from the past that various government agencies funded and implemented watershed projects in a departmental mode, a single window system at the state level for watershed management was introduced. Irrespective of different schemes and sponsoring agencies, the single window, namely Orissa Watershed Development Mission (OWDM), was constituted as a society under the Societies Registration Act. OWDM is in charge of planning, coordinating, supervising and monitoring all watershed projects with a special focus on creating an enabling environment for the state to initiate people-centered watershed projects. Under the institutional structure of watershed management in Orissa state, greater emphasis was placed on establishment of watershed association at the community-based approach, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act. All adult members of each household in the watersheds are considered members in the association. The responsibility of project implementations has been entrusted to the association, whose members are the local people. The watershed committee is the executive body of the association and may be consisted of 10–12 members representing from various stakeholders including women, the landless and the poor. The committee implements the day-to-day activities of the watershed development projects at the community level, leading to stronger and better participation of local residents in the watershed areas. It is responsible for coordination and liaison with the Gram Panchayat and government agencies concerned to ensure smooth implementation of the watershed development projects. In addition, a wide variety of communitybased organizations (CBOs) were encouraged under the association, in the form of self-help groups (SHGs), common interest groups, user groups, and so on. These formations enable the members to enhance capacity to adapt to changes in the ecological-social-economic system. Of particular note is introduction of holistic development plans for watershed management. The watershed committee is established after the

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

149

plans involved by several CBOs are prepared. In the planning process, elaborations are made on applying a participatory well-being ranking approach that purposefully targets the poorest and the vulnerable sections for livelihood improvement. The vulnerable households can have an access to an additional component called ‘‘watershed plus’’ of watershed development projects that were introduced in June 2004: watershed plus is to allocate exclusive fund for the poorest or the vulnerable sections in project sites for their livelihoods and well being. In addition to particular budget per ha allocated to watershed projects under National Watershed Guideline 2001, additional one per ha was secured as a grant component, enabling the vulnerable households to strengthen their capabilities for problem-solving in the watersheds.

Integrated Watershed Management in Chilika Lagoon Watershed Under the institutional framework of watershed management in Orissa state, several watershed projects have been or are currently being implemented in Chilika Lagoon watershed. CDA was the forerunner of participatory microwatershed management in the watershed areas as project implementing agency (PIA). A first project called Dengai Pahad Participatory Integrated Management Project1 (DPPIMP) was implemented by CDA during the period from 2001 to 2005 (Fig. 6.1). Based on the lessons learned from the project, several watershed projects have been further taking up in western catchment areas of the lagoon. Hence, the study sets out to explore watershed management in Chilika Lagoon watershed by demonstrating the overall

Fig. 6.1.

Scenery of Dengai Pahad Watershed.

150

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

structure of the first pilot project (DPPIMP). Then, it presents an evaluation of the effectiveness of participatory microwatershed management in three project sites (Dengai Pahad, Mankadia Khola Nara and Kumbhi Nadi).2 Site Selection of Watershed Management Project There are 14 subwatersheds, 42 miniwatersheds and 218 microwatersheds covering an area of 3,542 km2 in the catchment of Chilika Lagoon (Chilika Development Authority (CDA), 2008). The average size per watershed is 1,625 ha. To initiate a participatory microwatershed management project, elaborations by CDA were made on evaluating several criterions for site selection. These include topography, land use, basic possession, race, working environment, village affairs, and feasibility of watershed management project. Throughout the considerations, a microwatershed comprising of three revenue villages was selected. The proposed area is 640.745 ha where there are seven hillocks of medium height situated around the villages. The biggest hill is called Dengai by the local people so that the project was named as ‘‘Dengai’’ Pahad watershed. Rapport Building and Establishment of Watershed Association At the start of DPPIMP, CDA sought to develop rapport and build confidence among relevant stakeholders to encourage people’s participation. Frequent visits were made by the project staffs, in order to ascertain the socioeconomic background of the participants. Based on the discussions, the involvement of local leaders, social workers, and volunteers was identified as an essential key to work out the effective modus operandi for community participation in the project. Then, a watershed association was registered under the Societies Registration Act. The association was consisted of 13 selected members from each village in due process. Watershed association was in charge of coordination and negotiation of various activities implemented by the project. Greater emphasis was placed on consideration of vulnerable households in the concerned villages: the landless, impoverished farmers, and women. DPPIMP encouraged the local people to establish user groups, self-help groups (SHGs), common interest groups and watershed volunteers. To facilitate their day-to-day activities within the project site, five monitoring committees were established under the watershed association to act as a bridge between user groups and CDA or associated coordinators, and monitor activities such as agriculture, horticulture, vegetable, pisciculture, SHG activities in order to check whether each activity has been going well or not. It is important to note that beneficiaries of the project activities through

151

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed Funding Agency

Chilika Development Authority

President Vice-President

Watershed Association Beneficiaries

Watershed Committee (Executive Body) Chairman, Vice-Chairman

Monitoring Committee

Monitoring Committee

…

National Bank

… SHG

User Groups

User Groups

Experts Consultants

Watershed Development Fund

…

…

SHG

SHG

SHG

…

Local NGOs

Facilitators

Fig. 6.2.

Institutional Structure of DPPIMP.

user groups or common interest groups are expected to deposit due money in watershed development fund for the purpose of securing the budget of management implementation. Ten percent of the total sale from pisciculture, for instance, was sure to be deposited in the fund. The consideration enabled the local people to manage their own activities without financial supports from any donor agencies even after the project was terminated. Fig. 6.2 shows the overall institutional structure of the project management. Evaluation of Watershed Management Project in Chilika Lagoon Watershed Table 6.2 shows the results of a self-evaluation of participatory microwatershed management project activities in three project sites. The findings revealed that the representatives in the three project sites had a positive outlook of the project activities. In the case of Mankadia Khola Nala, some of the local people agreed with the project decision, but others who did not take a serious look at the proposed management disagreed with the plan. However, rapport building through informal meetings with project staffs and the local people led to shared vision of watershed management among the stakeholders. It made the project smooth and as a result of this their self-evaluation of the project implementation process shifted from ‘‘effective’’ to ‘‘most effective.’’ However, it is important to note that the watershed management in Dengai Pahad has not been functioning since 2006 even though the project was reported to be successful till the project implementation process. There occurred a political crisis and associated overexploitation of natural resources in the covered areas, resulting in

152

Table 6.2.

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Self-Evaluation of Watershed Management Project Activities in Three Project Sites. Dengai Pahad (Left, Before 2006 and Right, After 2007)

Project Decision Process Project Implementation Process Post Project Implementation Process Environmental Awareness Campaign Livelihood Improvements Watershed Level Institutions Genders (SHG activities) Soil Conservation

4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4

1 1 1 4 1

Mankadia Kumbhi Khola Nala Nadi 3 4

4 4

4 4 3 4 4

3 3 4 4

Notes: The figures are based on self-evaluation of watershed management project activities in three project sites (Most effective ¼ 4, Effective ¼ 3, Weak ¼ 2, and Very weak ¼ 1).

the suspension of the watershed association. Even though the budget for participatory microwatershed management was secured through the watershed development fund, there was no choice but to get stuck because of the political trouble. Since 2007, almost watershed all activities have been suspended except SHG activities. Putting them all together, watershed management in the catchment area of Chilika Lagoon can be characterized by bottom-up development at the community level. Under the institutional framework of watershed management in Orissa state, CDA acted in a leading role in the coordination of resilient environmental development between upstream and downstream communities. Participatory approach was encouraged to build their capacity for resilient community development with due consideration of the vulnerable households in the covered areas. Greater emphasis was placed on introduction of the new component called ‘‘watershed plus,’’ which aimed to allocate exclusive fund for the poorest or the vulnerable sections for livelihood improvements as well as soil conservation. The responsibility of project implementations has been entrusted to the local people in the form of watershed associations that promoted them to join the day-to-day activities in collaboration with PIAs. Mechanism of watershed development fund commensurate with benefits from various watershed activities is expected to be used in undertaking future watershed management at the community level, in terms of financial sustainability. Because of these positive effects, the local representatives from three projects appreciated the proposed watershed management. However, it needs to be mentioned that all stakeholders shall develop their shared visions and collective institutional

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

153

arrangements with regard to environmental watershed management without any perturbation including political conflicts as illustrated in DPPIMP. A strong focus is required to enhance people’s awareness and develop their capabilities to adapt to the ecological-social-economic system. These considerations will be key to promote adaptive lagoon fisheries linked to environmental watershed management in the case study of Chilika Lagoon.

SAROMA LAKE WATERSHED Background and Identified Problems Present fisheries in Saroma Lake have undergone a paradigm shift from capture fisheries to aquaculture. The fishers developed breeding and culturing scallop fisheries in the base of Saroma Lake. The operation requires ecosystem approach as the way forward to sustainable fish production in the lake environment. Apart from direct exploitation of wild animal populations, fundamental scallop culture management should take more account of the profound interactions between fisheries and their supporting ecosystem. On this account, the fishers sought to coevolve with the habitat of scallop through establishment of Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma (ACLS). ACLS played a leading role in coordinating three FCAs and applying ecosystem approach in a way that cultured scallop allowance limit (CSAL) commensurate with environmental carrying capacity in the lake was introduced. Although innovative approaches including CSAL and opening of the second mouth were done, there has been growing water degradation in the lake. As a matter of fact, red tide in some parts of Saroma Lake was taken place in 1980, 1983, and 1993, respectively. The underlying causes of water degradation may arise from not only the fishery operation and balance of water exchange between the sea and lake, but also water pollution from upstream. Indeed, Saroma Lake receives fresh water from 13 rivers, especially 2 principal streams (i.e., Saromabetsu and Baro rivers). Fig. 6.3 shows an example of water contamination flow from upstream to the lake. Most of organic matters resulted from Saromabetsu River where considerable water contamination was found in August and April during the period from July 2002 to June 2004. The seasonal impacts on the nutrient flow into the lake are largely linked to the flow volume. August is the most abundant rainfall in Saroma village so that a large

154

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Tonnes

Organic Inflow from Rivers to Saroma Lake

mm

2500

250 Saromabetu River Others (Combination of 7 Rivers) Monthly Rainfall

2000

200

1500

150

1000

100

500

50

0

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

2002

mg/l 8

0 2004

Trend of Bilogical Oxygen Demand at Saromabetsu River Downstream

7

Environmental Criteria

6

BOD (Average)

5

BOD (75%)

4 3

Saromabetsu River

2 1 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Fig. 6.3. Nutrient Loads from Upstream to Downstream of Saroma Lake. Source: ACLS Data, Japan Meteorological Agency (2009) and HIES (2010).

quantity of water pollutants is easy to be discharged into the lake. In the latter, less rainfall was observed in April, but the high value is expected to be a result of snowmelt runoff associated with warm weather. On the point of Saromabetsu River, biological oxygen demand (BOD) in excess of standardized limits were found several years in the river. Occurrences of red tide that took place in 1980, 1983, and 1993 may be triggered in part by the degraded water from upstream. There is an urgent need to deal with such water pollution in Saroma Lake watershed, in order to sustain breeding and culturing scallop fisheries. For the sake of the necessity, the fishers in Saroma Lake themselves made great endeavor to minimize the adverse impacts of water degradation on the lake environment by means of fishers-based forest management and multilevel collaborative partnership building.

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

155

Fishers-Based Forest Management A historical perspective tells us that the fishers in Saroma Lake made a great contribution to sound forest management in the lake watershed. The momentum of fishers-based forest management was strongly tied to forest land titles. Importantly, Saroma and Tokoro FCAs bought forest land property in the lake watershed in 1959 and 1961, respectively. The main purpose of forest land acquisition was to build wealth. The two FCAs sought to afforest their lands, in order to make money by cutting the trees and enhance the land value of real estates. In those days, the fisheries in Lake Saroma region were less prosperous and faced with unstable fish production. Less fish landing quantities caused damage to their vulnerable livelihoods including the staffs of FCAs. A staff of Tokoro FCA said that, ‘‘we staffs sometimes did not even receive any salary from our association due to insufficient fish landings.’’ Hence, the forest land acquisition was stimulated by risk reduction of fisheries management by means of alternative livelihood job. Indeed, profits from cutting of trees enabled the staffs of FCAs to receive their pay. In addition, forest thinning could be used in various purposes such as washing pole for fishing materials and fishing equipment. All members of each FCA were subject to follow community rules for forest management determined among them. Members, for instance, shall cut the grass on the land at a set time. Those who did not follow their community rules were ostracized in their villages. Such collective actions had been continued until the establishment of Saroma system. As the years passed, however, the purpose of forest land acquisition and its management has been shifted from economic to environmental incentive. Since 1965, the fishers in Saroma Lake have overcome major challenges posed to cultivation of large-scale scallops over the cold winter, thereby leading to development of highly productive and stable fisheries management. It enabled them to earn higher fishery income so that the FCAs in Tokoro and Saroma villages might not be required to activate forest management in the watershed, in terms of economic consideration. In this regard, however, there occurred severe environmental degradation in many parts of Saroma lake watershed in response to expanding economic growth in Japan. Water pollution from upstream and massive deforestation has been accelerated in the lake watershed. Accordingly, ability of water retentivity and purification functions of mountain forests has not been operating. Apart from the economic incentive, therefore, the fishers gradually felt a strong necessity for forest conservation in the lake

156

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

watershed. For the sake of necessity, fishers’ plantation activities combined with forest land acquisition have been taken place since then. In particular, Tokoro FCA played a leading role in taking into account forest plantation in their administrative watersheds. Massive forest deforestation has caused to a large extent reduction of spring water near a salmon and trout hatchery since 1979. The fishers took special notice of the signal against forest destructions and put high emphasis on conservation of forest resources by means of forest plantation. The considerable efforts on forest plantations brought more spring water in the watershed, thereby leading to proper maintenance of the hatchery business. It is important to note that composition of tree species planted is determined with due consideration of environmental enhancement, rather than creation of economic value. Mixing forest plantations with multitree species at favorable habitat and fertilizable trees on soil and nutrient enrichment such as Quercus cuspidata have been put into practice. The total range of afforestation by Tokoro FCA, for instance, has covered 222.71 ha and 595,923 tree seedlings have already been planted until 2007. Interestingly, Tokoro FCA is planning to plant 1 million tree seedlings in total by 2012 in celebration of the 100th anniversary of its establishment. Meantime, Yubetsu FCA has also joined plantation activities since 1988 under a stimulus of plantation activity movement by the initiatives of fisher wives in all parts of Hokkaido. Apart from Tokoro and Saroma FCAs, the fisher wives in Yubetsu FCA have been actively involved in forest plantation activities without any commissions from other agencies. Accordingly, forest plantation activities made contributions to the improvement of lake water quality and spring flow as well as forest conservation. Fig. 6.4 shows a recent trend of plantation achievements in the three FCAs. Facing dangers of losing valuable ecosystem service and function on forest resources, the local people from downstream have moved forward toward solving degraded forest lands in the lake watershed. A notion of interlinkage between forest and lake through rivers has been strongly shared among them, in order to sustain their fisheries.

Multilevel Collaborative Partnership Building Deforestations and accelerated water pollution from upstream induced the fishers to become gradually aware of the necessity of environmental integrity to secure robust lagoon fisheries management. In particular, the operation of scallop culture is quite sensitive to environmental variability, which might

157

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed Numbers 40,000

ha 14

35,000

12

Yubetsu FCA (Seedling Numbers) Saroma FCA (Seedling Numbers) Tokoro FCA (Seedling Numbers) Tokoro FCA (Forest Land Size) Saroma FCA (Forest Land Size) Yubetsu FCA (Forest Land Size)

10 8 6

30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000

4

10,000

2

5,000 0

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fig. 6.4.

Trends of Performances on Fishers-Based Forest Management. Source: ACLS Data.

cause to a massive death of cultured scallops. Thus, a holistic approach seeking environmental conservation at the watershed level was required to sustain Saroma Lake fisheries. On this account, innovative efforts were made on fishers-based forest management commensurate with fisheries enhancement. Such practices will play a great leading role in motivating environmental awareness ranging from upstream to downstream as well as achieving forest resource recovery. In the meanwhile, it is true that the effects of plantation activities by the fishers have been still limited to the lake restoration, given that various stakeholders impinge on lagoon ecosystem at multiple scales in contemporary world. Therefore, multilevel collaborative partnership among relevant stakeholders needs to be built toward sustainable lagoon fisheries. Confronting with this situation, ACLS played an important role in coordinating the lake watershed management among key stakeholders in which a principle of integrated lagoon fisheries management (ILFM) was applied. Without any helps from the government, ACLS funded and organized a committee called ‘‘Supporting Committee for Environmental Conservation in Lake Saroma (SCECLS)’’ in 2001. The committee consisted of experts in relevant fields aimed to build a scientific model of material cycle in Saroma Lake. The model is required to develop a clear understanding of environmental factors on where and how negative impacts are influenced at the watershed level. The scientific construction is expected to serve as a basis for ILFM. The perspective of lagoon watershed management was conceptually shared in common, but there posed a major challenge of the management implementations due to obscure responses of

158

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

the holistic approach. To pursue the watershed management, relevant stakeholders need to share a common idea on who is doing what and what is actually going on in biological and physical cycle in Saroma Lake. In particular, basic understandings of the material cycle in the lake are fundamental contribution with regard to problem identifications and these countermeasures. By contrast, ACLS made endeavor to establish another organization called ‘‘Council for Environmental Conservation in Lake Saroma (CECLS)’’ in the same year 2001. The council is consisted of various stakeholders including three FCAs, local and national governments, research institutions. The main purpose is to build strong collaborative partnership among relevant stakeholders. The council is in charge of survey and project implementations for conservation at the watershed level including Saroma Lake. Such partnership building network is expected to bring legitimacy for project formations related to environmental conservation in Saroma Lake watershed. Although significant achievements have been not put into practice except several meetings so far, it can be valued that new stakeholders (university and agricultural cooperative association) were involved in the council in 2006, leading to effective watershed management regime in Saroma Lake, in terms of participation of influential stakeholders (agriculture sector). As a matter of fact, polluted water and sediments from agricultural lands situated along rivers has been directly inflowed into the lake. Seasonal rainfalls and snowmelt runoff swept the excessive nutrients away into Saroma Lake, which put higher pressures on the water quality in the lake. According to ACLS data statistics, the numbers of cows, pigs, and horses have maintained an upward trend (from 7,048 in 1965 to 33,707 in 2003) so that numerous nutrient loads are likely to be released into the lake. According to a scenario analysis on expected environmental conservation measures in Saroma Lake conducted by SCECLS, the committee estimated that nutrient loads from the rivers affect greater adverse impacts on the water quality and bottom sediment environment in the lake so that considerable efforts shall be undertaken its load reduction. In contrast, the way of scallop culture operations seems to be in proper running order coupled in full compliance with cultured scallop allowance limit (CSAL). The scenario findings are shown in Table 6.3. In combination with improvement of bottom sediment environment, the perspective of lagoon watershed management will be a more paramount challenge posed to lagoon fisheries management in Saroma Lake in the future. In this sense, involvement of agricultural cooperative association makes potential effectiveness for development with

159

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

Table 6.3.

Scenario Analysis on Effects of Expected Environmental Conservation Measures.

Environmental Conservation Measures

Baro Offshore (Western Side)

Horoiwa Offshore (Central Site)

Akagawa Offshore (Eastern Side)

DO COD T-N T-P DO COD T-N T-P DO COD T-N T-P a

1. River loads reduction (1) 2. River loads reduction (2)b 3. Reduction of cultured scallop numbersc 4. Bottom sediment improvementd 5. Mix conservation measures (1 and 3) 6. Change of scallop culture operatione

No Yes No Yes

Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

No No No Yes No Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

No

No

No

No No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes No

No

No Yes No

Yes Yes Yes

No

No

No

No Yes

Yes Yes No Yes

Yes No

No

Yes

Yes Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No No

No

No

No

No

No

Source: Modified from Supporting Committee for Environmental Conservation in Lake Saroma (SCECLS) (2005). a 70 percent reduction of present river inflow concentration on each water quality indicator. b 10 percent reduction of present river inflow concentration on each water quality indicator. c 70 percent reduction of present cultured scallop numbers. d Removal of all organic matters in bottom sediment environment. e Only scallop juvenile culture in Saroma Lake.

regard to lagoon watershed management. Multilevel collaborative partnership through the common arena of CECLS enables the stakeholders to share their different experience and visions at multiple scales. Such network building will provide a pathway of robust lagoon fisheries management.

CASE OF SONGKHLA LAKE WATERSHED Background and Identified Problems Aggravation of water quality in Songkhla Lake has been widely prevailed. The water-related hazards were perceived among the villagers sampled. On the point of this, the case study revealed that their perceptions on the environmental risks differ according to the geographical characteristics and land use development in the lake. With regard to the decline of fishery resources, the villagers in Thale Sap and Thale Sap Songkhla pointed out waste water from factories as most risky or risky. By contrast, many of them in Thale Noi regarded sewage contamination from households as them.

160

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Hence, considerable efforts are required to cope with various exposures to water-related hazards at multiple levels by adapting to the situation in each geographical location. To be sure, elaborations by the fishers are made on fisheries enhancement by means of institutional arrangements through establishment of federationalized body and fishery co-management regime between fishing communities and state. The focus is, more or less, to pursue the highest harvest over time that does not deplete the resource stocks under ‘a given set of environmental conditions’. However, if the given environmental conditions or fish ecological habitats are degraded, such innovative attempts might not be working well. Indeed, watershed conservation is the highest expected adaptive measures to sustain fishing activities among the villagers sampled. Extending demands and overconsumption of water resources in household, agricultural and industry sectors have been placing considerable pressures for dam constructions in the lake as well as establishment of the water gate. These cases are largely linked to the representation of different values by other stakeholders except fishers. In this sense, multiple interests of human-beings, in terms of livelihood and location, shall be taken into account at the watershed level. There is an urgent need to deal with water-related hazards in Songkhla Lake where comprehensive watershed management beyond the administrative boarders is called for. With regard to this, various stakeholders sought to build institutional arrangements for watershed management with high emphasis of multilevel collaborative partnership building. The research explores the status of watershed development and management in Songkhla Lake watershed. Songkhla Lake Watershed Management Plan3 Different developmental goals and visions involved by various stakeholders tend to cause disbursements for watershed management. Problems within Songkhla Lake watershed are so broad that a notion of integrated management with regard to its development is essential to prevent resource-based conflicts and facilitate wise use of natural resources. Thus, comprehensive economic-cum-environmental regional planning efforts were completed in 1985 (Ludwig, 1987). It was a pioneering effort in Thailand to give emphasis to the environmental factor equal to and integrated with the economic factor (ibid.). In the Songkhla Lake watershed planning study, all of the parties associated with primary responsibilities learned a lot of things from the experience including National Environment Board (NEB) and National Economic Social

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

161

Development Board, leading to the momentum of mainstreaming economic development planning with environmental consideration (ibid.). Accordingly, a series of comprehensive regional planning efforts were carried out in the middle of 1980s (Chufamanee & Lønholdt, 2001; Ludwig, 1987). However, such economic-cum-environmental plan was never implemented as it was quickly rendered obsolete (Chufamanee & Lønholdt, 2001): the major reasons for nonimplementations were limited flexibility of the plan to accommodate changes in the assumptions and ‘‘stand-along consultancy plan’’ in the planning process. On this account, a new project called ‘‘Environmental Management in Songkhla Lake Watershed (EmSong)’’ was developed on the basis of a participatory planning approach. EmSong project was bilateral donor cooperation between Royal Danish government and Royal Thai government during the period from October 1996 to April 1999. The project was executed in cooperation between Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development (DANCED) and Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MOSTE). EmSong Project For project implementations, Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP) under the branch of MOSTE in collaboration with the donor agencies played a leading role in managing these activities. The overall structure and its activities of EmSong project can comprise eight steps to be done. The procedure for the project implementations is described below (Chufamanee & Lønholdt, 2001).  1st: the project paid considerable efforts on introduction of the integrated and participatory strategic approach in the management planning process. Various stakeholders including OEPP, Environmental Office Region 12, EmSong project working group, EmSong project team, NGOs, CBOs, and local peoples were involved in the management process.  2nd: 35 technical background reports were issued to conduct environmental diagnosis in Songkhla Lake watershed that was structured in relevant sectors and problems. Furthermore, eight guiding principles through these report completions were formulated.  3rd: based on the environmental diagnosis, common goals for the lake watershed management were discussed and articulated while potentials and constraints for its development were identified.  4th: taking into account the three components (environmental diagnosis, goal articulation and potential, and constraints), a vision for Songkhla

162









INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Lake watershed management was formulated and shared among relevant stakeholders with consensus building. 5th: the above vision was embodied into a time-bound mission statement for the project implementations. The mission statement comprises five resource objectives (water system, land use and settlement system, socioeconomic system, ecological system, and integrated environmental management application) that is envisaged as the main carrier of the environmental planning and management process in the lake watershed. 6th: 22 key issues were identified for environmental development in the lake watershed under the framework of the mission statement with due consideration of 8 guiding principles that arose from 35 technical background reports. 7th: with these recognitions, 9 strategic thrusts with 32 strategic actions were formulated within 3 domains; natural resource management, ecosystem management, and integrated environmental management capacity. 8th: lastly, 25 immediately needed projects were identified and prioritized on the basis of the above management process in the lake watershed.

The main outcome of EmSong project, which was completed in April 1999, was environmental action program (EAP) for Songkhla Lake watershed. EAP has been extensively discussed by relevant stakeholders in the lake watershed. Several workshops and frequent (scheduled and unscheduled) meetings were held in a participatory way. Throughout these efforts, the EAP was approved by the Songkhla Lake Watershed Development Committee (SLWDC) at its 9th Meeting on October 8, 1999. SLWDC, which is a crossprovincial, cross-agency, and cross-national regional- and watershed-wide committee with regard to water resources, approved EAP as the strategic framework for environmental planning and management in the lake watershed. Afterward, the committee approved that the EAP should be forwarded to the Cabinet for final and formal approval through NEB. Songkhla Lake Watershed Committee The EmSong project made great endeavor to build a new institutional framework for economic-cum-environmental regional development in Songkhla Lake watershed. On the whole, each government agency has their own missions, commitments, and jurisdictions, which are scarcely coordinated even among the concerned agencies. Therefore, it is proposed that policy formulation and comprehensive coordination with regard to the implementation of the EAP should be the responsibility of a new committee. In line with the recommendation, a Songkhla Lake watershed committee

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

163

(SLWC) was established in December 17, 2002. The primary objective of SLWC is to act as coordination of sustainable development in Songkhla Lake watershed among relevant stakeholders including different government agencies, researchers, NGOs and resource users. Deputy of Prime Minister in Thailand was appointed as chairman until November 27, 2008 when Director of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment was put into the chair. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEPP) serves as headquarter for the committee, to discuss and articulate policy and management of Songkhla Lake watershed. The numbers of committee members vary (from 19 to 41) according to the decisions throughout the meetings, but these include national government agencies, local government agencies, knowledgeable persons, and local peoples. So far, 11 SLWC meetings have been held since 2003 where management and administration of Songkhla Lake watershed have been overseen. Under the SLWC, there are further two subcommittees: the subcommittee for monitoring and assessment and the subcommittee for promoting public participation and public relations. With regard to these organizational bodies, all decisions are determined during the discussions at meetings. However, the management and administration mechanisms of the committee have been structurally flawed, leading to inefficiency in tackling the watershed management. Ratanachai and Sutiwipakorn (2005) pointed out that a variety of size and nature of the committee render it extremely difficult to convene meetings on demands while the trip expenditure for the meetings is unnecessarily high because most committee members (especially high ranking officials) came from Bangkok. In addition, the SLWC was shelved due to abrupt political turmoil in the domestic affairs as well as limited time to attend the committee for high ranking officials. Indeed, the position of chairman has been changed five times since 2003. In the SLWC regime, of course, the presence of chairman from Deputy of Prime Minister could have a strong influence on stakeholder involvement. The elaboration led to creation of fundamental arena for discussions to share information and experience, coordinate different interests and approaches associated with various stakeholders, and formulate the lake watershed management plan. Out of the committee members, some SLWDC committee members are co-committee members, enabling to collaborative management planning in the lake watershed. By contrast, it also needs to be mentioned that the management and administration of SLWC was so weak that the institutional arrangements did not significantly different from the previous mechanism. The integrated and participatory

164

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

approach may not be at least effective without political neutrality for coordination of sustainable development in the lake watershed.

Bottom-Up Approach Toward Active Multilevel Stakeholder Assembly In addition to the state-based initiatives for Songkhla Lake watershed management, people organizations and NGOs have been actively involved and working with environmental conservation in the lake watershed. In particular, the bottom-up approach has been boosted since 1995 when DANCED started to support coastal resource development in the southern Thailand region including Songkhla Lake. A first project was developed jointly by southern NGO network and DANCED as an independent funding agency during eight months in 1995 (Fezzardi, 2001); key points underpinning project development were acknowledgement that community organization was primary element in successful and sustainable coastal resource conservation and rehabilitation. It also placed high emphasis on a participatory mechanism at each stage including decision-making process about budget utilization (ibid.). Based on these lessons learned, DANCED then paved the way for the second project that was named as ‘‘Coastal Zone Management through Community Organization and Networks in Southern Thailand.’’ The project served as a basis for mobilization, advocacy, and capacity development of coastal peoples especially small-scale fishers. Related to this, such an idea on community-based network formation was expanded to the whole Songkhla Lake watershed in 2003. A new community-based network at the watershed level was formulated in 2003 during a project period of ‘‘Master Plan for Songkhla Lake Watershed Development.’’ The network was called ‘‘Community Network for Songkhla Lake Watershed Restoration and Development (CNSLWRD).’’ Local representatives of the project shared a sense of urgent responses to tackle with area-wise problems in the lake watershed. For pursuing this, communication and cooperation between user groups or conservation groups and state was identified and inevitably prioritized among them. It also addressed the necessity that concerned stakeholders exchange their own knowledge and experience each other to understand accurate information with regard to situation problems and best practices for natural resource management. With the above recognition, the network consisting of nine representative members made great endeavor to co-work with seven zonal areas (Fig. 6.5). In zonal areas, each representative of CNSLWRD is in charge of coordination with concerned government agencies and NGOs as

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

Fig. 6.5.

165

Community Network for Songkhla Lake Watershed Restoration and Development.

well as CBOs and local peoples to promote sound community development. The representatives are invited to attend meetings of Songkhla Lake watershed committee (SLWC) as committee members, in order to reflect local voices of community peoples into the management and administrative processes of the lake watershed. On the point of CNSLWRD, there is no regular meeting on the network activities, but the representatives can often communicate together by mobile and have meetings when appropriate.

166

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

According to the interview with the representatives, decrease of aquatic animals and forest trees were identified as main problems in the lake watershed where overexploitation coupled with population growth triggered the degraded environment. Obviously, the SLWC is subject to the mechanism of political turmoil, given that higher ranking officials are involved in the committee. It will enable to ensure legitimacy for policy makings and project implementations in the Songkhla Lake watershed, but proper decision-making through the committee might be delayed or shelved due to difficulties in convening meetings on demands. On this account, another new institutional mechanism for integrated Songkhla Lake watershed management has been introduced: a preparatory meeting on the new institutional body was launched in April 8, 2009 under headquarter of Coastal Resources Institute (CORIN) at Prince of Songkhla University.4 The institution building was voluntary-based and initiated by several key facilitators who act as bridge among different stakeholders. With considerable efforts by them, a broad of participation including government agencies, media, private companies, researchers, NGOs, common interest groups, user groups, communities, is scheduled to join the meetings to propose situation problems and these expected adaptive countermeasures for sustainable development in Songkhla Lake watershed. The new institutional arena is expected to be actively involved with wider participation to formulate shared visions and goals for the lake watershed management, and make strategic responses to adapt to the ecological-social-economic system. The overview of the new institutional arena for Songkhla Lake watershed management was shown in Fig. 6.6. It is important to note that the new institutional body may be not replace but complements the SLWC. The voluntary-based council provides mobilization of relevant stakeholders including local peoples for discussions. A wider participation is capable of sharing various problem identifications and these expected countermeasures at local and watershed levels. In other words, the free common arena to organize watershed management is considered effective for collective opinion of the stakeholders and timely responses to any threats. In addition, the entry of media in the common arena ensures transparency of the consensus-building process for Songkhla Lake watershed management. The Songkhla Lake watershed management is evolving toward integrated lagoon watershed management with due consideration of fishery sector. In this regard, however, it needs to be mentioned that the council is voluntarybased initiative so that creation of due legitimacy for lake watershed development cannot be assured without any involvements of formal

167

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

Expectation: Complementary Response Participation Company Media Researchers Communities etc.

Voluntary-Based Integrated Songkhla Lake Watershed Management Arena Companies

Coordination

NGOs

Coastal Resources Institute (Headquarter) Water Resource Development

Participation

Fig. 6.6.

Governments

Communities

Area-Wise Community Development

Unstable Institutional Body

Researchers

Songkhla Lake Watershed Council Media

Community Network for Songkhla Lake Basin Restoration and Development

Songkhla Lake Watershed Committee

Songkhla Lake Watershed Development Committee

Emerging Arena for Integrated Songkhla Lake Watershed Management.

structure bodies for its management. Therefore, the role of new established council might complement weak points of SLWC (especially inflexible watershed management due to political turmoil) by means of open and transparent discussions. It is strongly recommended to integrate the collective consensus-building into reflection of SLWC structure body.

KURABURI ESTUARY WATERSHED The above three case studies revealed the significance of interlinkages between upstream and downstream toward a robust lagoon fisheries management. However, these studies did not highlight the effectiveness of both communications from a quantitative standpoint. In addition to the three case studies, therefore, this book sets out to add another new case study in the area of Kuraburi Estuary watershed (Thailand). The research aims to seek for effectiveness and challenges of natural resource management (NRM) network building. In Kuraburi Estuary, there has been a growing movement toward NRM network building at coastal and watershed levels. In this respect, this book places emphasis on actual and potential effects of NRM network building while understanding each network activity. Firstly, the research describes the profile of field study site, and reviews a historical background of NRM network building at Kuraburi

168

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Estuary watershed. Then, emphasis is made on highlighting and evaluating NRM network activities that are of importance to assess lagoon watershed management at a holistic approach. Based on these analyses, the book draws some implications about identifications of pressing constraints and positive strengths toward better lagoon watershed management.

Profile of Kuraburi Estuary Watershed Kuraburi Estuary is situated between 8150u and 9121u North latitude and 98114 and 98131u East longitudes according to Google Earth (Fig. 6.7). The estuary is located in Phang Nga province, southeast Thailand along the Andaman Sea. It covers two districts (Kuraburi and Ta Kua Pa), 6 subdistricts and 47 villages. The place was one of the most Tsunami affected areas in Thailand when the Indian Ocean Tsunami occurred in December 26, 2004. Thirteen villages in the estuary were under vulnerable conditions (DTRAC Data, unknown). In 2007, the total number of population is approximately 33,000 while of household is approximately

Fig. 6.7.

Map of Kuraburi Estuary Watershed. Source: Modified from IUCNThailand Data.

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

169

12,000. Their livelihoods vary place to place but major occupations are fisheries and rubber and oil palm plantations. The coastal vegetation is greatly dominated by mangrove forests except two islands (Koh Ra and Koh Pra Thong); evergreen forests are almost distributed over the entire land in the former while grass lands are distributed over the seashore side in the latter. The mangrove forests together with sea grass beds and coral reefs provide a unique and dynamic ecosystem so that it contributes to highly productive natural resources for local peoples and rich biodiversity including a wide variety of rare flora and fauna species like water onion (Crinum thaianum) and dugong (Duong dugon). In addition, important features of Kuraburi Estuary include steep range of hills adjacent to the estuary, extending to the mountainous areas, which are protected area as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. A series of steep hill and mountainous zones bring a large amount of sediments into the downhill areas. Due to this, the estuary environment is prone to be affected by soil erosion as well as water pollution from upstream. In fact, terrestrial forest areas have been at very high risk. This is because many of them in the hills are located outside protected areas where low enforcement from Royal Forest Department and control of land clearing are commonly observed (IUCN-Thailand, 2008). The lack of forest management by the government and extending commercialization pose severe threats from habitat loss and subsequent poor livelihood conditions. In particular, conservation of Mae Nang Kaw Mountain, which is the largest locally managed forest among seven villages and outside a protected area, is of crucial in adapting to the impacts on the estuary ecosystem. Facing dangers of being losing natural resources, two NRM networks, namely Kuraburi Environment Network (KEN) and Khao Mae Nang Kaw Network (KMNKN), were established aiming to response to actual or expected environmental problems.

Backgrounds of NRM Network at Kuraburi Estuary Watershed Two NRM networks have been already formulated in Kuraburi Estuary and the surrounding areas: Kuraburi Environmental Network (KEN) was established in August 2007 while Khao Mae Nang Kaw Network (KMNKN) was established in July 2008. These networks were induced by the initiatives of local peoples and NGOs. The former (KEN) was triggered through a project meeting held by Raks Thai Foundation (RTF), which is nongovernment organization (NGO). On January 15, 2006 RTF invited representatives from five coastal villages,

170

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

which were supported by RTF, in order to discuss about the progress of Tsunami project activities and share the information among the participants including other NGOs and Thai government agencies. During the meeting, these participants came to recognize a necessity of NRM network building due to less cooperation among community-based conservation groups as opposed to deteriorated environmental condition in the estuary. On this account, the five villages strived to work together by way of plantation and release of juvenile aquatic animals in collaboration with RTF. The representatives in each village made an effort to have a good relationship among them while RTF invited them to attend meetings every three month, enabling to proper information sharing and practices. These efforts made them feel strong sense of partnership for environmental conservation as common-pool resources (CPRs) in Kuraburi Estuary. Consequently, these village representatives and RTF decided to set up KEN and make environmental agreements and planning in a collaborative way among villagers and NGOs and governments. So far, the network group has been increased up to nine villages by the end of 2008, though one village out of the initial five villages has decided to walk out of KEN. The latter (KMNKN) was initiated with strong leadership by two villages, which depend on both of the ecosystems of Kuraburi Estuary and Mae Nang Kaw Mountain. Both villages have been members of KEN since the RTF meeting in 2006. In addition to participation of KEN’s activities, the two village representatives got concerned about natural condition in Mae Nang Kaw Mountain where illegal logging have been prevailed. The felling areas tend to be illegally converted for rubber and oil palm plantations, which are high profit. In response to these illegal practices, lack of law enforcement and control of forest clearing have been still remained in part due to the location outside a protected area (IUCN-Thailand, 2008). Under the circumstances, these village leaders planned to organize a new NRM network in the center of Mae Nang Kaw Mountain in 2007. They demanded IUCN-Thailand to set up meetings in the pursuit of setting up KMNKN while IUCN-Thailand regarded the mountain as a significant biodiversity and ecological place including coastal areas. Therefore, the two villages and IUCN-Thailand invited the surrounding villages in the mountain and held a meeting for setting up KMNKN. Although all surrounding villages have not been involved in the network so far, five villages built a collaborative membership for environmental conservation in the mountain, out of which three villages are both members of KEN and KMNKN.

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

171

NRM Network Activities Network Committee Board Both NRM networks have their own committee board to manage conservation activities effectively. The committee board is usually held every month and committee members, who are selected in each network village and staffs of NGOs as a coordinator, discuss about their environmental rules, annual management planning and activities. Other participants including Thai government agencies and consultants also attend the committee board in case there are important agenda to be discussed. The broad and flexible system enables the stakeholders to build a collaborative partnership among villagers and NGOs and governments. Although no special punishments have been imposed, every member is expected to follow environmental rules on prohibited matters and join collaborative works which were decided by the committee board. These decisions are conveyed to each villager through the village representatives. However, the degree of willingness of network activities’ participation is greatly different from each village. In particular, the village representatives who lack of strong leadership tend to play a less important catalyzing role on putting their villagers together toward collaborative environmental conservation activities. Establishment of Conservation Areas and Monitoring Activities Elaborations in the two networks are made on promoting the villagers to raise more environmental awareness through setting up conservation areas and conducting monitoring activities. No one shall legally cut any trees in Mae Nang Kaw Mountain, but illegal logging has prevailed, especially in the fluid boundary between private and public lands and deep mountainous places, which are difficult to monitor. On this account, KMNKN in collaboration with IUCN-Thailand have been trying to define the boundary clearly as well as to conduct an ecological survey in the mountain. At the same time, KMNKN have been encouraging each member to call their village leaders or police once they find persons cutting the trees in the mountain. Furthermore, the village representatives and subdistrict headman carried out monitoring activity once, in order to observe the forest condition in the mountain. However, these attempts are irregular and rather individual-based so that further systematic efforts are required to eradicate illegal loggings in the center of KMNKN with involvement of relevant stakeholders. By contrast, KEN has promoted each network village to set up conservation areas and monitoring groups. BT village, for instance, applied a

172

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

zoning system in mangrove forests (6,000 rai in total). The conservation areas are divided into four zones; plantation area (3,000 rai), restoration area (1,300 rai), noncommercial forest area (1,700 rai), and research area (1,000 rai). Villagers can cut the mangrove trees in the noncommercial forest area in case the village leader permits them to do it for the noncommercial purpose. In this case, those who cut the trees with the permission from the village leaders are required to join plantation activities with a rule that 10 tree seedlings per a cut tree shall be planted. In addition, the village established another conservation area for mud crabs to increase the stocks. Meantime, specific conservation area close to a Buddhist temple in TR village has been integrated into religious custom called Aphayathan. The area is traditionally regarded as sanctuary where no one shall cut trees and do hunting and fishing.5 Apart from the religious belief, the village applied local conservation rules including procedure of mangrove forest cutting and restriction on fishing activities in addition to collective environmental rules decided by their NRM network. Likewise, monitoring groups have been organized for eradication of illegal practices at the village level. Department of Marine and Coastal Resources provided trainings for environmental management and monitoring to those who got interested in the monitoring activity. These participants are expected to take an important lead in regularly monitoring coastal environment and illegal practices. However, some villages tend to be reluctant to follow KEN’s activities. Three villages have been still remained not to set up conservation areas while two villages have not organized monitoring groups. These network activities on conservation areas and illegal monitoring depend on decisions by not KEN but each village. In this sense, the responses of the NRM network activities are not necessarily homogeneous and the management ascendancy is based at the village level.

Evaluations and Potentialities of NRM Network Activities Evaluations of NRM Network Activities On the whole, NRM network activities are considered effective environmental management according to a self-evaluation assessment by village network representatives. In particular, plantation is the highest score, following by establishment of conservation areas (Table 6.4). However, both NRM networks have faced two major challenges in the future. First, NRM network activities are not necessarily homogeneous among the villages. Some villages have taken a significant lead in managing

173

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

Table 6.4.

Self-Evaluation of NRM Network Activities.

Activities Network activitiesa Compliance of network activitiesb Meetinga Rule-makinga Conservation areaa Monitoringa Environmental awareness campaigna Plantationa Release of juvenile aquatic animalsa

KEN (N ¼ 10)

KMNKN (N ¼ 7)

3.6 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.1 3.9 3.6

3.4 2.9 3.4 3.1 3.6 3.1 3.1 3.9

a

The figures are based on a self-evaluation of network activities by each group village representative (Most effective ¼ 4, Effective ¼ 3, Weak ¼ 2, and Very weak ¼ 1). b The figures are based on a self-evaluation of network activities by each group village representative (Very strong ¼ 4, Strong ¼ 3, Weak ¼ 2, and Very weak ¼ 1).

active conservation activities based on their network’s objective while others have not been involved in these activities well. The difference is, more or less, tied to leadership by each village representative. The representative is ideally eligible for his or her personal magnetism and ability to lead villagers. Each NRM network has encouraged them to attend the NRM committee board. However, many village representatives who attend the NRM committee board were assistants of village leaders or villagers who got interested in conservation activities: six villages out of ten villages in KEN and two villages out of five villages in KMNKN were identified as such persons except village leaders. There is a tendency that those village leaders are less concerned about NRM network activities or environmental conservation activities. This implies that a lack of strong leadership will cause barriers for people’s participation of active NRM network activities. Due to this, there is an urgent challenge in creating incentives of participating NRM network activities especially for village leaders and related persons. According to the semistructured interviews with these affiliated village representatives, possible incentives through NRM network activities can be identified such as meeting allowance, training for environmental conservation, promotion of saving activities and alternative jobs and legal empowerment of network activities. Apart from the enhancement of their motivations, these representatives also addressed that involvement of youth groups is considered effective promotion of community-based environmental conservation under the NRM networks.

174

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Second, the total numbers of both NRM network have remained unsatisfactory. In particular, the affiliated villages in KEN are in only Kuraburi district; not any villages in Ta kua Pa district have been involved in KEN. In order to sustain coastal ecosystems that are dynamic and complex environmental characters, collaborative partnership among resource users is of crucial at the coastal and watershed levels, irrespective of administrative boundaries. Further broader membership through KEN and KMNKN is required to motivate environmental management movement and promote wise use of coastal resources at the community level.

Potentialities of NRM Network Activities It seems that NRM network linkages are considered effective: village representatives in both networks found a positive potentiality of interactions between KEN and KMNKN (Table 6.5). Although frequent interactions between the two networks have not been taken, their interactions are expected to build stronger unity among them and augment NRM network activities from the watershed perspective. Especially, it is important to note that KEN got more interested in linking their bodies with others than KMNKN did. The results may hint two messages; it is critical for coastal villagers to integrate their environment at larger scale level while KEN Table 6.5.

Potentiality of NRM Network Linkages at the Watershed Level.

Activities a

Network activities with KEN or KMNKN Information exchangea Rule-making in Kuraburi watersheda Conservation areasa Monitoringa Environmental awareness campaigna Plantationa Cooperative marketinga Ecotourisma Potential effects of KWNa Participation of KWN activitiesb a

KEN (N ¼ 10)

KMNKN (N ¼ 7)

3.7 3.3 3.1 3.9 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.1 3.5 3.8 3.7

3.0 3.0 2.9 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.9 3.1 3.6 3.9 3.4

The figures are based on an evaluation by each group village representative (Most effective ¼ 4, Effective ¼ 3, Less effective ¼ 2, and Least effective ¼ 1). b The figures are based on an evaluation by each group village representative (Most interesting ¼ 4, Interesting ¼ 3, Less interesting ¼ 2, and Least interesting ¼ 1).

175

Perspectives of Lagoon Watershed

members felt NRM network linkages more significant because of longer experience of their network activities. Furthermore, many village representatives, irrespective of KEN or KMNKN, supported a formation of a new NRM network called ‘‘Kuraburi Watershed Network (KWN),’’ which IUCN-Thailand intends to set up (see Table 6.5). Practicing NRM network enabled them to perceive actual or potential effectiveness toward integrated management. In other words, the case study implied that the wider NRM network building is desirable response that makes a potential solution of environmental conservation in the estuary and its surrounding areas. Therefore, KWN that IUCNThailand aims to formulate a new NRM network at the watershed level will be strongly recommended to conserve Kuraburi Estuary watershed and promote wise use of natural resourcers in a collaborative manner. Putting them all together, the process of NRM network building in the case study of Kuraburi Estuary and its surrounding areas can be shown in Fig. 6.8. Two NRM networks were formulated by the initiatives of local peoples and NGOs. These are rather new networks but the involved members received a positive response from NRM network building. Each NRM network discusses about environmental rules, annual management plan and activities in their committee boards every month. The committee boards are consisted of village representatives, NGO staffs as a coordinator and related experts including governments and NGOs where appropriate. The monthly meetings enable the stakeholders to join together and ensure the legitimacy of budget and priorities for implementations. The legitimacy Integrated Environmental and Resource Management

KWN

Governments KMNKN

Others

NRM Network Committee Board

KEN

NGOs (Coordinators)

Village Representatives

Kuraburi district

Ta kua Pa district

Kuraburi Estuary KWN = Kuraburi Watershed Network KEN = Kuraburi Environment Network KMNKN = Khao Mae Nang Kaw Network

Fig. 6.8.

Village Network Expansion

Diagram on NRM Network Building in Kuraburi Estuary Watershed.

176

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

can serve as environmental collaborative works beyond villages, leading to effective NRM network in KEN and KMNKN. However, there have been significant challenges in developing the two NRM networks. Both network activities are voluntary-based and no legal punishments when the involved villagers conduct illegal activities. Therefore, environmental agreements and collaborative rules decided by each committee board hold firm to the mind in each village. Due to this, some villages that lack strong leadership tend to ignore their NRM network rules. In order to promote community-based environmental activities, it is required to ensure incentives for villagers especially village leaders to join their NRM network activities. Raising strong leadership is imperative in the pursuit of people’s participation beyond villages and districts toward environmental integrity. The perspective will provide a key of robust NRM network building in the long run.

NOTES 1. The information was referred to Chilika Development Authority (CDA) (2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d) as well as was collected by key informant interviews between November 2005, February 2006 and in June 2009. 2. Two watershed project sites in Mankadia Khola Nara and Kumbhi Nadi have just started when we visited there, so several questionnaire items could not be clarified as shown in Table 6.2. 3. To have uniformity, for the word ‘‘watershed’’ in this book, the word Songkhla Lake ‘‘watershed’’ was utilized, not ‘‘basin’’ which was preferred by English papers and publications in the area. 4. CORIN was established in 1989 with an aim to setting up a professionally competent institution for the management of coastal resources of Thailand as well as to carrying out researches, providing academic services, and supporting the learning and teaching in the management of natural environmental and coastal resources. 5. The religious custom combined with forest protection can be observed in other areas of Thailand close to Buddhist temples (see Salam, Noguchi, & Pothitan, 2006).

CHAPTER 7 TOWARD INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

THE SCOPE OF LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT This book reviewed a historical sketch of lagoon fisheries management from the past to the present and future orientation that fishers and concerned stakeholders might commit themselves to take actions. The study made great endeavor to highlight the lagoon fisheries with regard to development and conservation at multiple scales associated with various stakeholders. Evidence from case studies (state-based, community-based, and partnershipbased) revealed that the nature of lagoon fisheries is quite complex and ecosystem processes are dominated by an essential quality of uncertainty. Indeed, lagoon fisheries are considered vulnerable in terms of climate variability, the extent of salinity level and water volumes, patterns of hydrological cycle, and water pollution. The case studies addressed how lagoon areas are physically or climatically subject to various influences not only from their internal environment but also from the adjacent marine and terrestrial areas. In an effort to maintain (and, preferably, improve) fishery resources in the lagoon environment, attention has to be paid to highlight a wider realization of lagoon fisheries management at multiple scales. The scope of its management might be expanded beyond the range of fish ecology (with the exception of migratory fishes such as salmon and eel). Given that the focus of lagoon fisheries management is on the entire watershed, multiple resources and livelihood activities must be taken into account; many resources are transboundary in nature with a high degree of mobility (Armitage, Marschke, & Plummer, 2008).

177

178

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

It is worth noting that the Saroma Lake fisheries provided further support to the notion of environmental integrity at the marine and watershed levels. Innovative efforts by the fishers have been made on lake environmental conservation as well as on the wise use of fishery resources. Apart from cooperative fishery governance in the base of ACLS (e.g., introduction of cultured scallop allowance limit), these included fishers’ plantation activities and multilevel collaborative partnership building. Of special note is the fact that forest plantation activities have been actively put into practice by the local fishers and their families. Faced with the possibility of losing valuable ecosystem services and functions, the people downstream moved forward toward dealing with degraded forest lands in the lake watershed. It has become clear to us that the interlinkage between forest and lagoon through rivers is perceived locally as strong. In addition, the fishers united together and lobbied the governments to open the second mouth for the sake of helping the lake water current smoothly. Compared with the first mouth, the second mouth was opened with due care to heterogeneity, that is, including the different interests and needs of the stakeholders. Scientific knowledge for use in sea mouth management was actively applied to act as a catalyst for promoting certain consensus building. The other three case studies also highlighted the interlinkage between lagoon and adjacent territories. In Chilika Lagoon, the Chilika Development Authority (CDA) played a leading role in bridging both linkages. Under the institutional structure of watershed management in Orissa state, CDA implemented several participatory microwatershed management projects. Greater elaborations mitigated the negative impacts of siltation by means of soil and moisture conservation from upstream, where the involvement of all stakeholders, especially the landless and/or the poor, were encouraged. In Songkhla Lake, the findings revealed that the fishers perceived watershed conservation as the highest expected adaptive measures to sustain lagoon fisheries. Related to this, considerable efforts were made in the establishment of a participatory institutional structure for coordination of sustainable development in the Songkhla Lake watershed. Along with accelerated economic growth in Thailand, a wave of different developmental goals and visions has emerged, and the current situation is embroiled in conflicting interests among the various stakeholders. Hence, involvements of the stakeholders are encouraged to formulate strong consensus building for management and administration of the lake watershed. The case study in Kuraburi Estuary also highlighted the significance of developing interlinkages between upstream and downstream actors in an analytical way. Two natural resource management (NRM) networks have

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management

179

been created in Kuraburi Estuary and in the surrounding areas. Findings revealed that the involved members received a positive response from bonding and bridging NRM network. In addition, the case study revealed further support to the interlinkage between lagoon and adjacent territories because a new NRM network called ‘‘Kuraburi Watershed Network (KWN)’’ was highly valued by many village representatives. It can be argued that the practice of the NRM network enables everyone to perceive the actual or potential effectiveness of environmental integrity at the watershed level. Such NRM network building is a desirable response that makes a potential solution of environmental conservation in Kuraburi Estuary and its surrounding areas. Putting all of this together, the evidence from all case studies can offer strong interlinkages between lagoon and the adjacent marine and watershed areas. Irrespective of who plays the vital role in bridging the both, it is imperative to enlarge the scope of lagoon fisheries management in more cooperative, collaborative, and comprehensive ways. Changes to the ecological-social-economic system along globalization and climate variability makes fishers and relevant stakeholders share recognition that the range of lagoon fisheries management requires ecosystem-wide solutions to maintain or improve the fish production in a sustainable way. But there is often a mismatch in scale between institutions and ecosystems, resulting in resource mismanagement (Berkes, 2005; Dietz, Dolsˇ ak, Ostrom, & Stern, 2002). Hence, cross-scale conservation and management requires linking institutions horizontally (across space) and vertically (across levels of organization) (Berkes, 2004, 2005). To pursue this, it is of use to introduce a notion of integrated lagoon fisheries management (ILFM) in which fisheries management, sea mouth management, and lagoon watershed management have to be balanced (Fig. 7.1). The main objective of ILFM is to optimize the use of fishery resources in a sustainable way. It aims to contribute to stable fish production in the lagoon environment but also to protect and/or improve the water quality, and minimize and mitigate the negative impacts of natural hazards. Considerable efforts require not only building cooperative fishery governance system among fishers and relevant stakeholders but also being away of the different developmental goals and visions of the various sectors. This should take into consideration complex issues caused by conflicts in multiple uses of natural resources (e.g., upstream user vs. downstream user). For this reason, the ILFM requires providing a framework for coordination of a wide array of interests and approaches among heterogeneous stakeholders.

180

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Fisheries Management

Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management Sea Mouth Management

Fig. 7.1.

Watershed Management

Scope of Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management.

ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT This book has set out to explore ways to enable the environment for integrated lagoon fisheries management (ILFM). The followings highlight key essential factors to identify how to ensure the integrity of the three pillars (fisheries, sea mouth management, and watershed management), and then synthesize and delineate the overall strategic framework for ILFM.

Fisheries Management There are two significant perspectives to be addressed for use in lagoon fisheries management. First, management is characterized by an essential quality of uncertainty. These uncertain factors depend on varying degrees of interactions determined by ecological functions in the lagoon environment. Theoretical and empirical works in each case study emphasized how the dynamic and complex lagoon environment and its fisheries management were taken into account. Even if fishery scientists have understood the individual parts of fish ecology, the complex system linking each part make us hard to predict the entire phenomenon. Provided such uncertainties inherent in fishery system being managed, an adoption of command-andcontrol measure makes it difficult to achieve effective lagoon fisheries management from a scientific viewpoint. Hence, experimentation and learning are necessary in an iterative process (Berkes, 2007). The proposed

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management

181

idea does not intend to reject scientific knowledge due to difficulty of predictability but places higher emphasis on the significance of an adaptive approach to complement the limits of scientific knowledge. Simultaneously, of course, scientific knowledge should be encouraged to produce a steady and resilient stream of economic benefits. Adapting a precautionary approach with ample margin for error is strongly recommended in the contemporary world. Adaptive fisheries management requires enabling the environment in a way that the management is iterative and based on feedback learning. Berkes, Mahon, McConney, Pollnac, and Pomeroy (2001) argued that the process of adaptive management involves two-way feedback between management policy and the state of fishery resources in a coevolutionary way. For this reason, he and his colleagues proposed: The use of imperfect information for management necessitates a close cooperation and risk-sharing between the management agency and the fisherfolk. Such a process requires collaboration, transparency, and accountability, so that a learning environment can be created and management can build on experience. Transparency means openness, and full and free availability of information, decisions, and plans. Accountability means the people who make the decisions should be available to answer to the people who are affected by the decision (ibid.: 33).

Hence, cooperative fishery governance among the fishers and concerned stakeholders should be a vital, integral part of adaptive fisheries management to build better cooperation and risk-sharing commensurate with uncertain changes. Second, fisheries management always entails a serious obstacle associated with a free-rider effect. The major consideration to take into account is the divergence between individual and collective rationality (Berkes et al., 2001), as is often quoted in the ‘‘tragedy of the commons’’ (Hardin, 1968) argument. As mentioned earlier, fishery resources are originally terra nullius and are not the subject of private property; individuals can catch fish on a first-come-first-served basis. As a result of this, economics discourse presumes that ‘‘rational’’ fishers make demands on the resource until the expected benefits of their actions equal the expected costs, thereby resulting in natural resource depletion. In addition, most fishery resources entail an element of mobility that requires cooperation of the stakeholders toward sustainable fisheries. Even though a fisher manages his or her fishing ground in an appropriate manner, the fishing activity may fail to achieve good fish production because of its overexploitation by others. For this reason, fisheries management necessitates cooperative fishery governance that also meets the requirements of adaptive fisheries management.

182

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

To build cooperative fishery governance in the lagoon environment, the concept of common-pool resources (CPRs) is required to be put into practice among the fishers. Ostrom and her colleagues defined CPRs as ‘‘natural and human-constructed resources in which (i) exclusion of beneficiaries through physical and institutional means is especially costly and (ii) exploitation by one user reduces resource availability for others’’ (Ostrom, Burger, Field, Norgaard, & Policansky, 1999, p. 278). These two characteristics (exclusion and subtractability problems) create potential CPRs dilemmas in which resource users following their own short-term interests produce outcomes that are not in anyone’s long-term interest (ibid.). The management of CPRs can be analyzed in terms of the costs and benefits of cooperation, institutional development, and monitoring according to variables such as group size, composition, relationship with external powers, and resource characteristics (Adams, Brockington, Dyson, & Vira, 2003). In particular, design principles of CPRs presented by Ostrom (1990) might offer a blueprint to assessing the enabling environment as a benchmark for institutional performances on CPRs.1 Ostrom describes long-enduring CPR institutions and sets out seven principles that characterize all of these robust CPR institutions, then adds an eighth principle used in larger, more complex cases. These principles include (i) clearly defined boundaries, (ii) congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions, (iii) collective choice arrangements, (iv) monitoring, (v) graduated sanctions, (vi) conflict resolution mechanisms, (vii) minimal recognition of rights to organize, and (viii) nested enterprises. Lessons learned from three case studies were applied in Table 7.1. Interestingly, all eight principles are satisfied in the Saroma Lake fisheries but not in the Chilika Lagoon fisheries. In Songkhla Lake, such institutional robustness in CPR settings has not been fully satisfied; it is still being developed to build a set of norms, institutions, and networks of various types in practice. Importantly, case study findings revealed that the fishers in each lagoon area united together beyond village territory and built a fishery federation. But the purposes or ulterior motives behind the establishment of fishery federation differ, as shown in Table 5.2. Apart from the other federations in Saroma Lake and Songkhla Lake, Chilika Matsyasibi Mahasangha (CMM) emphasized their primary role of exclusive legal advocacy for fishing rights against outsiders (nonfishermen). The federation activities acted as a driving force for boosting the movement to protest the entry of outsiders, but less attention has been paid to build institutional arrangements for the wise use of fishery resources among the traditional fishermen. The main purpose was largely linked to ‘‘inaccessibility of natural

Chilika Lagoon Saroma Lake Songkhla Lake

Design Principles and Institutional Performances on CPR Setting in Case Study Sites.

W

W









 

W W



 W



 W





W



W

 

W

Fragile Robust Developing

Clear Boundaries Congruent Collective- Monitoring Graduated Conflict Recognized Nested Institutional and Memberships Rules Choice Sanctions Resolution Rights to Units Performance Arenas Mechanisms Organize

Table 7.1.

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management 183

184

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

resources’’ that nonfishermen started fishing and encroached on fishing grounds owned by PFCSs or occupied unauthorized fishing grounds inside Chilika Lagoon. Furthermore, the 1991 guideline determined by the state ascendancy without due consensus building among concerned stakeholders gave rights to nonfishermen, thereby resulting in chronic conflicts between fishermen and nonfishermen. Accordingly, indiscriminate fish catch with utilization of ‘‘khanda’’ (trap nets) or zero nets (small mesh size nets) was expanded. Such practices obstruct other fishing methods in the areas fixed by khandas and give less access to the limited fishing grounds while exploiting juvenile fishery resources, causing a decrease of CPUE in the entire resource stock. Consequently, the fishermen might be doubly troubled with regard to ‘‘decline of fishery resources’’ and ‘‘inaccessibility of the resources’’ without any care of proper CPR institution building toward cooperative fishery governance. When requiring improvements or maintenance of institutional robustness in CPR settings, due responsibility, and role of stakeholders shall be given. In particular, relationships of lagoon fisheries management between community and state are crucial. Fishers alone can hardly manage fishery resources in the complex contemporary world, as state-based ascendancy (e.g., centralized fisheries management) is problematic, in terms of limited budgets, knowledge, and capacity for law enforcement. Hence, three types of approaches might be of use to enhance long-enduring CPR institution on the basis of the eight design principles presented by Ostrom (1990): subsidiarity principle approach, entitlement approach, and catalyst approach (Fig. 7.2). First, decisions affecting peoples’ lives should be taken by the lowest capable social organization, which largely relies on adaptive institutional advantage. Local-level institutions learn and develop the capability to respond to environmental feedback faster than state-based ascendancy (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Dietz et al., 2002). Furthermore, a bottom-up approach is considered effective to minimize transaction costs for patrolling and empower the capacity for sanctioning illegal encroachments. The proper implementation of subsidiarity principle approach pertains not only to the nature of the task at hand but also to the nature of the prevailing institutions and to what extent they are equipped for delegation or decentralization (McCay & Jentoft, 1996). The management of the sea farming project in Songkhla Lake is a paramount example of such a subsidiarity principle, in which local fishing communities and government agencies met to achieve win–win results. Of course, higher levels of organization are needed when appropriate to tackle more complicated challenges and issues related to demarcation of territories

State

State

Songkhla Lake

Fig. 7.2.

(Improvement)

(Improvement)

Saroma Lake

State

(Improvement)

(Improvement)

No particular coordination among them

Nested Units

Collective Choice Arenas

Stakeholders

Coordination

Fishers

Catalyst Approach

Three Basic Approaches on Long-Enduring CPR Institution Enhancement.

(Stagnant)

(Improvement)

(Degradation)

(Degradation)

CPR Setting

Chilika Lagoon

Clear Boundaries & Memberships Congruent Rules

Entry of Outsiders

NGOs Researchers Citizens Others

Support

Legitimacy

Recognized Rights to Organize

Clear Boundaries & Memberships Monitoring

Community

Supra -Community

Local

National

Fishers

Entitlement Approach

Graduated Sanctions Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

Principles on

Affected Design

Enhancement

CPR Institution

Long -Enduring

Approaches on

Three Basic

Subsidiarity Principle Approach

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management 185

186

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

(e.g., fishing grounds), scientific quantitative data collection for monitoring, and conflicting situations with heterogeneous values, interests, and objectives. Second, entitlement approach that ensures legitimacy among all affected interests is key to the success of every management scheme. Clear boundaries and memberships, congruent rules, and recognized rights to organize are all relevant to the approach. Again, fishery resources are originally terra nullius and are not the subject of private property. But people have strived to develop their own institution building in order not to overexploit fishery resources in many parts of the world (Acheson, 1981). On the whole, a set of rules including the rights to enjoy fishing activities were exclusively or cooperatively determined by the traditional communities, but resource-based conflicts may occur when outsiders encroach on their territories without any permission. When clear boundaries, memberships, congruent rules, or recognized rights to organize do not exist, as in the Chilika Lagoon fisheries, further perturbations will take place, in terms of more accelerated onset, longer duration, and higher intensity of resource-based conflicts. Hence, addressing the formal legitimacy conferred by the people on the government officials, acts and institution is crucial to ensure institutional robustness in CPR settings. Together with adoption of scientific evidence and knowledge, elaborations are required to take into account locality and history for empowerment building. Third, a catalyst approach is a driving force to put CPRs management into practice among relevant stakeholders. This focuses on the proposed principles related to collective choice arenas and nested units. This approach enables fishers to create a common arena or forum for discussions to share knowledge and experience and then integrate the various stakeholders into the decision-making process in CPR settings. The process can boost wise use of fishery resources consistent with shared visions and goals among them for the use in cooperative lagoon fisheries management. In addition, the primary function exerts a force to work as a bridge between CPR institution and other organizations at horizontal and vertical levels. As in the cases of Chilika Lagoon (nonfishermen), Songkhla Lake, and Kuraburi Estuary (commercial fishers), the entry of outsiders might impact negatively on CPRs management in the lagoon environment. The ability to coordination of heterogeneous values, interests, and objectives is expected to reduce a broad of risks in a proactive manner so that it will make an enquiry into building long-enduring robustness in CPR settings.

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management

187

Sea Mouth Management The size and location of the sea mouth plays a very important role in maintaining or, preferably, improving the availability of fishery resources in the lagoon environment. The presence of the sea mouth physically enables migratory species to move in and out the lagoon. In addition, it affects changes in the hydrological cycle and the associated salinity level, which has a large impact on the resource stocks. In this sense, the sea mouth acts as a bridge between the sea and lagoon to keep the lagoon environment and its natural resources stable. In nature, lagoon areas face closure of the interconnected mouth through sediment transport. The process of sea mouth closure will be slow when people living in these areas gradually adapt to ecological change. They might strive to open the sea mouth, in order to maintain the current status in the lagoon environment, or they might change their livelihoods in terms of alternative jobs, improved fishery operations, and immigration. However, it is important to note that the process of sea mouth closure has been faster and diversified when combined with anthropogenic pressures from globalization. Rapid land use changes and overexploitation of natural resources from upstream bring large quantities of sediments into lagoon areas, especially into the sea mouth. In addition, changes in climate, including flooding and cyclones, cause soil environment, and landslides, leading to acceleration of the closure. Furthermore, the sea mouth might be directly closed on purpose, as in the case of Songkhla Lake. The construction of sluice gates at Pak Ra Wa was undertaken to prevent saltwater intrusion from the Bay of Thailand for faming purposes. Based on the lessons learned from respective case studies, there are three components of sea mouth management strategies to be tackled as a common concern to lagoon fisheries: sea mouth closure, opening of the sea mouth, and sea mouth guard (Fig. 7.3). Sea mouth closure can be divided into two categories. Considerable efforts are required to reduce the sediment flow from upstream and stop man-made closure of sea mouth. The former is largely linked to watershed management in terms of soil conservation. In this regard, it can be argued that sea mouth management requires a multistrata approach that aims to build shared visions and goals among concerned stakeholders at multiple scales (see watershed management in detail). In the latter case, the fishers might make greater endeavors to compete against direct closure of the sea mouth. This type of closure tends to be undertaken by various powers, including government agencies, politicians, companies, and so on. The closure of the sea mouth might be

188

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Sea Mouth Management

Sea Mouth Closure

Mitigation of Sediment Transport from Upstream

Resistance Strategy against Direct Sea Mouth Closure

Stakeholder Involvement

Fig. 7.3.

Opening of Sea Mouth

Sea Mouth Guard

Consensus Building

Cooperative and Collaborative Approach

Congruent Rules in Sea Mouth Management

Scientific Knowledge and Technology (e.g. EIA, Ice Boom)

Sea Mouth Management Strategies.

implemented without ample consensus-building among relevant stakeholders, thereby causing conflicts. Accordingly, initiatives might be taken by local people, especially the fishers, to resist this closure, as was found in Songkhla Lake. This strategy defies any attempt at a quick and simple solution against the influential person(s) or groups. It requires a creation of common arena for discussions at least to collect the voices or say from the stakeholders and integrate it into the decision-making process consistent with consensus building. In order to promote consensus building among them, active use of scientific knowledge and skills (e.g., application of environmental impact assessment) will act as a catalyst. The scientific community has the ability to play a leadership role in being an agent for change and influencing policy makers, practitioners, and local communities. Second, opening the sea mouth is a key to lagoon fisheries enhancement, as was illustrated in the cases of Chilika Lagoon and Saroma Lake. But development of lagoon fisheries depend on when, where, and how opening of the sea mouth be initiated. These ideas need to be shared among beneficiaries who pertain to heterogeneity characters for the use in sea mouth management. The opening of the sea mouth may not always be an incentive to maintain hydrological variability that is a basis for lagoon ecosystem service and function. For instance, different interests and needs (e.g., easy access in the sea and mitigation of flood hazards) were driven to the opening of the first mouth in Saroma Lake. Together with direct closure of sea mouth, such practices as opposed to maintenance of lagoon ecosystem might create a massive crisis for threatening the survival of lagoon fisheries.

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management

189

Hence, creating institutional arrangements for the opening is highly appreciated as an integral part of sea mouth management. In order to set congruent rules, stakeholder involvement is crucial to ensure the legitimacy with active use of scientific knowledge and skills (e.g., application of environmental impact assessment) as is the same with the discussion of sea mouth closure. Scientific evidence will make great contributions to consensus building as a catalyst action and shared visions of sea mouth management. Third, a broad assortment of risks related to the sea mouth might occur. These include oil leaking from tankers, drift wastes surge, drift ice surge, and so on. Such issues posed to lagoon fisheries are transboundary with a high degree of mobility. A wider and active participation is constantly or temporally required to remove a diverse of waif to maintain the lagoon environment and its natural resources stable. On this account, cooperative (e.g., members of FCAs) and collaborative (e.g., volunteers, private companies, and government agencies) approaches will play a vital role in reducing and mitigating the negative impacts of external factors. In this regard, however, there is an exception that the beneficiaries through mobilization of cooperative and collaborative struggles cannot try to compete with issues related to sea mouth guard. In Saroma Lake, the fishers experienced huge economic loss due to drift ice surge through sea mouth, which effect was largely linked to changes in climate (not iced-over in the winter season). The overflowing ice was not much for only their manpower, leading to severe physical damages to their facilities for aquaculture. Under the circumstance, construction of sink-and-float style ice boom made great contributions to keeping drift ice from surging into the lake. It enabled the fishers to reduce the catastrophic risk and manage scallop culture in a safety environmental condition. Taking into account its significance, enhancement of scientific technology has the paramount ability to overcome a variety of crises beyond what the current manpower can handle, so further scientific development is highly appreciated.

Watershed Management Based on the discussions in Chapter 6, this book explored several key issues and challenges of lagoon watershed management. The evidence from all case studies practically provided further support to the notion that linking lagoon fisheries to watershed management is crucial to produce stable fish production in a sustainable manner. Irrespective of who play(s) the vital role in bridging the linkage (fishers, NGOs, governments, and the public), the significance of watershed perspective for lagoon fisheries management was

190

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

all identified in each case study site. Except migratory fish species, lagoon watershed management does not directly contribute to the availability of fishery resources per se, but fundamental improvements of fish ecology in the lagoon environment. Problems identified included sedimentation from upstream, inflow of pesticides and fertilizers, industrial pollution, and sewage contamination, all of which were presented in Table 5.1. These problems are all relevant to a free-rider effect that might drive rational persons to invest less environmental cost, ultimately resulting in irreversible environmental change below a critical depensation point where a critical population or stock level is identified. Therefore, coping with the free-rider effect at the watershed level is among the challenges in ensuring sound management of lagoon fisheries. On the whole, a large number of people and sectors are involved in the watershed activities. Compared with the domains of lagoon fisheries and sea mouth management, lagoon watershed management is more characterized by heterogeneity inherent in different interests and needs of various stakeholders. The scope of lagoon watershed management includes not only fisheries management but also other water-related management (e.g., water resources management, forest management, and agricultural management) or area-wise development management (e.g., urban and rural development planning, waste management, and disaster management). Different developmental goals and visions involved by heterogeneous stakeholders tend to cause disbursements for lagoon watershed management. Due to this, proper institution building for the coordination of sustainable development at the watershed level is crucial to secure robust lagoon fisheries management. With this recognition, lessons learned from respective case studies are summarized and synthesized as shown in Fig. 7.4. In the case of the Chilika Lagoon watershed, the approach was a bottomup one adopted at the community level. Local peoples living in upstream areas have been mobilized by the Orissa governments to build their resilient capacity to respond to the ecological-social-economic system commensurate with soil and moisture conservation in the long run. In particular, greater emphasis was placed on involvements of the landless or the poor to enhance the win–win situation of community development and soil conservation. Many residents from upstream were largely dependent on natural resources on a daily basis so that participation and capacity building of the local people were prioritized in the watershed management of Chilika Lagoon. In each project site, the findings revealed that watershed associations have been established and in charge of coordination and negotiation of various activities implemented by the project. In addition, mechanism of watershed

191

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management

Chilika Lagoon Watershed

Saroma Lake Watershed

NGOs Consultants Donors, etc.

State (Main-CDA)

ACLS

Empowerment Watershed Association

Fishers

Soil and Moisture Conservation

Landless / Poor

Fishers Fishers

Upstream

Independent

Lagoon Fish-Oriented

Songkhla Lake Watershed

Council

SLWC

Three FCAs

Fishers

Lagoon

Upstream

Stakeholders State/Local Gov. Agri. Coop. Univ. Research Ins.

Kuraburi Estuary Watershed

Media

KWN

KMNKN

KEN

Stakeholders State/Local Gov. Companies Agri. Coop. Univ. Research Ins. Citizens/ NGOs

Upstream

FFSL

Villagers Villagers

Villagers Villagers

Villagers

Lagoon

Watershed-Oriented

Fig. 7.4.

Villagers

Villagers

Fishers Fishers

Upstream

Lagoon

Area-Wise and Network-Oriented

Characteristics of Lagoon Watershed Management in Four Case Study Sites.

development fund commensurate with benefits from watershed activities has been introduced to secure the association bodies toward financial sustainability. Indeed, the management process sampled was highly appreciated by the local representatives in case all stakeholders share their own visions and developmental goals with political neutrality. With regard to human relationships between upstream communities and Chilika Lagoon, there had been very rare connections to each other by way of environmental campaign, information exchange, field study trip, and so on. However, it needs to be mentioned that the governments especially CDA acted as a catalyst to bridge the linkage indirectly. Unlike the command-and-control measure, the government agencies rather played a primary role in coordination of both ecosystem management toward better environmental

192

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

conservation and related livelihood improvements. In this sense, participation and capacity building of the local people are imperative to secure lagoon watershed management effective. In Saroma Lake, a holistic approach seeking environmental watershed conservation was put into practice in the base of local fishers. The key operations were in charge of ACLS, which applied scientific-oriented ways through setting of several institutional bodies and built better collaborative partnership among relevant stakeholders. ACLS acted as a coordinator bridging between the fishers and other stakeholders, creating a common arena for discussions to make shared visions for environmental watershed conservation among them and join collaborative works. The arena building is expected to provide potential initiatives to bring legitimacy for project formations with regard to environmental conservation in the whole lagoon watershed. The partnership network put high emphasis on scientific consensus and packaging of scientific knowledge. It enables them to share common ideals with regard to problem identifications and these expected countermeasures in a comprehensive way. On the point of human relationships between watershed and lagoon, considerable efforts were made on better partnership between the two zones through ACLS as a catalyst. In this regard, however, the institutional arrangements for the watershed management were just focused on fisheries management in the lake; the primary scope of the watershed management organized by ACLS does not directly include other water-related management and area-wise development management in practice, though concerned government agencies related to the above authorization and agriculture cooperative association are involved in CECLS. A mechanism of linking the fisheries to other lined management (especially large-scale public works including dam, disposal field and irrigation facility constructions) is strongly required, in order not to fight over the heterogeneity inherent in different interests and needs. Unlike the case of Saroma Lake watershed, a series of comprehensive master plans of Songkhla Lake watershed were designed. These highlighted an environmental factor equal to and integrated with an economic factor. All of the parties associated with primary responsibilities have been capable of learning a great deal of things from these master plans, leading to the momentum of mainstreaming economic development planning with environmental consideration (Ludwig, 1987). Various stakeholders including academic researchers, consultants, NGOs, donor agencies and local peoples were involved in the designing process of comprehensive master plans in Songkhla Lake watershed. In response to such guidelines presented, Songkhla Lake watershed committee was established with an aim

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management

193

to coordination of sustainable development in Songkhla Lake watershed among concerned stakeholders. Under the strong leadership of the deputy of the Prime Minister of Thailand, the committee has consisted of various stakeholders including government line agencies, knowledgeable persons and local people. However, the management and administration mechanisms of the committee have been structurally flawed because the committee is subject to the mechanism of political turmoil. On this account, a new institutional mechanism that is voluntary-based approach with strong leadership for coordination of wider stakeholders was established. The new institution building is expected to not replace but complement the management process of the committee, at the bottom-up approach. It will enhance mobilization of various stakeholders and strengthen adaptive capacity to create proper legitimacy for conservation and development in Songkhla Lake watershed in line with fishery sector. In Kuraburi Estuary, the case study highlighted the significance of building the interlinkages between upstream and downstream in an analytical way. From the historical perspective, two NRM networks have been formulated in Kuraburi Estuary and later the surrounding areas. Findings revealed that the involved members received a positive response from bonding and bridging NRM network. Creation of common arena for discussions in the estuary watershed among relevant stakeholders is imperative to boost community-based environmental conservation activities. Importantly, NGO staffs (Raks Thai Foundation and IUCN, Thailand) acted as a coordinator in each NRM network to connect the associated members to relevant experts where appropriate. The institutional mechanism enables the stakeholders to join together and ensure the legitimacy of budget and priorities for implementations. In addition, the results of questionnaire survey also offered another perspective to be addressed in a way that raising environmental awareness especially for village leaders is crucial to mobilize more people’s participation toward effective environmental management in NRM network activities. Based on these discussions, the management and administration of the institution building for coordination of sustainable development at the watershed level differ very much in each case study. In this regard, however, key essential criteria linking lagoon fisheries to watershed management can be identified by extracting these lessons. The seven criteria are presented below:  participation of all concerned stakeholders in watershed activities;  empowerment of upstream communities (especially the poor/the landless);

194

    

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

creation of common arena for discussions; shared visions and developmental goals; role of coordinator(s) for bonding and bridging human interactions; scientific consensus and packaging of scientific knowledge; and political neutrality.

All these presented criteria might be neither suitable nor desirable to produce a blueprint for the concept of linking lagoon fisheries to watershed management. It would be more useful to document the management process as undertaken in the above four case studies, and to put this experience into a form that could be shared with anyone interested in learning more about the concept design and what others have learned.

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management Drawing upon the context of three case study sites (Chilika Lagoon, Saroma Lake, and Songkhla Lake) adding to another site (Kuraburi Estuary), and the major findings of the research, it can be argued that the notion of integrated lagoon fisheries management (ILFM) consisting of the three pillars (fisheries, sea mouth, and watershed management) is imperative to produce a steady and resilient stream of economic benefits. Types and characteristics of the three management pillars for ILFM are summarized in Table 7.2. It becomes clear to us that scope, area, primary stakeholders, and approaches for fisheries enhancement are different from each other. However, the three pillars do not exist in isolation, that is, they are interdependent to each other. The change in one pillar (e.g., water pollution from upstream to the lagoon) becomes a serious source of stress leading to fishery resource depletion or reduction in the lagoon environment. Expected key actors and their responsibility for ILFM are presented in Table 7.3. The framework for ILFM is shown in Fig. 7.5. It aims to incorporate fisheries management into sea mouth and watershed management, given the dynamics and complexity of lagoon fisheries. To pursue the noble management goal, all of these three pillars should be simultaneously taken into consideration as follows. First, fisheries management necessitates the concept of common-pool resources (CPRs) that is strictly required to be shared and put into practice among the fishers. Evidence from the respective case studies showed that three types of approaches (subsidiarity principle

Social control among appropriators

Lagoon (fishing grounds)

Fishers, fishery cooperatives, fishery federation, fish merchants, scientists, and government officials

Small

– Destructive fisheries – Illegal fisheries – Water pollution (e.g., Waste disposal, Inappropriate practice of aquaculture)

– Subsidiary principle approach – Entitlement approach – Catalyst approach

Scope

Area

Primary stakeholders

Heterogeneity

Causes of Decline of Fishery Resources

Key approaches (criteria)

– Mitigation of sediment transport from upstream – Resistance strategy against direct sea mouth closure – Consensus building – Cooperative and collaborative approach

– Hydrological change through open or closure (shrinkage) of sea mouth – Inflow of waif – Salinity change, Weed invasion, Water pollution, and Closure of fish migration

Middle

Fishers, resource users, NGOs, entrepreneurs, local residents, scientists, and government officials

Sea mouth

Maintenance or alteration of sea mouth

Sea Mouth Management

– Stakeholder involvement – Empowerment of upstream communities – Common arena – Shared visions and goals – Role of coordinator(s) – Role of science – Political neutrality

– Sedimentation from upstream – Inflow of pesticides and fertilizers – Industrial pollution – Sewage contamination – Dam construction – Massive water intake and sharing

Large

Fishery groups, resource user groups, NGOs, entrepreneurs, local residents, scientists, and government officials

Watershed

Comprehensive watershed conservation and development

Watershed Management

Types and Characteristics of Three Management Pillars for ILFM.

Fisheries Management

Table 7.2.

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management 195

CD

(B)

B

(B)

R

B

A

CD

D

(B)

R

C

B

A

CD

D

(B)

CD

CD

CD

CD

B

A

CD

D

Massive water intake and sharing

Notes: Legend: R, responsible; A, core implementing agency; B, associated agency with R or A; C, directly involved; and D, indirectly involved.

External peoples or organizations

(B)

R

B

AB

CD

(B)

(B)

D

C

B

AB

CD

NGOs (where appropriate)

D

C

B

C AB

R (B)

C

B

A

AB

C

Sewage Inflow Sedimentation Inflow of Industrial Sea pesticides pollution contamination from mouth of waif and upstream closure fertilizers

Other user groups (B)

B

A

AB

C

Opening of sea mouth

R

(B)

B

AB

A

R

Water pollution (e.g., improper practice of aquaculture)

Watershed Management

Entrepreneurs

Upstream communities

(B)

B

Researchers

Lagoon residents

AB

Government

AB

R

A

R

A

Fishers

Destructive Illegal fisheries fisheries

Sea Mouth Management

Expected Key Actors and Their Responsibility for ILFM.

Fisheries Management

Fishery Groups (e.g., fishery cooperatives and fishery federation)

Expected Components of ILFM

Table 7.3.

196 INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

WM

Creation of Robust Common Pool Resources

Stakeholder involvement Congruent rules Scientific knowledge and technology

Fishers, Fishery groups, Fish merchants, Scientists, Government officials

Subsidiarity principle approach Entitlement approach Catalyst approach

Mitigation of sediment transport from upstream Resistance strategy against direct sea mouth closure Consensus building Cooperative and collaborative approach

Stakeholder involvement Empowerment of upstream communities Common arena Shared visions and goals Role of coordinator(s) Role of science Political neutrality

Fishery groups (cooperatives, fishery federation, etc.), Resource user groups, NGOs, Scientists, Entrepreneurs, Local residents, Government officials Fishers, Fishery groups, Resource users, NGOs, Scientists, Entrepreneurs, Local residents, Government officials

Key Approaches (Criteria)

Key Stakeholders

Framework for Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management.

Clear boundaries & memberships Congruent rules Collective-choice Monitoring Graduated arenas Sanctions Conflict resolution Recognized rights to mechanisms organize Nested units

Fig. 7.5.

Size of Scale, Population, Biosphere, Occupation, etc.

Heterogeneity

FM

SMM

Building of Environmental Lagoon Watershed Governance among Relevant Stakeholders

Sea Mouth Governance

Principal Goal

Integrate FM into SMM and WM

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management 197

198

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

approach, entitlement approach, and catalyst approach) might be effective to enhance long-enduring CPRs (see Fig. 7.2). Second, there are three major issues of sea mouth management to be tackled as a common concern to lagoon fisheries: sea mouth closure, opening of sea mouth, and sea mouth guard (see Fig. 7.3). The findings were synthesized as four expected actions against the three issues: resistance strategy against direct sea mouth closure, mitigation of sediment transport from upstream, consensus building, and cooperative and collaborative approach. Man-made closure of sea mouth is amid conflicting interests among various stakeholders so that considerable efforts should be made on involvement of relevant stakeholders in a common arena for discussions to assess the environmental impacts of sea mouth closure with due consideration of scientific knowledge and technology. By contrast, reduction of sedimentation from upstream is one of more important challenges to maintain sea mouth properly that is largely connected to watershed management. The opening of the sea mouth is a key to lagoon fisheries enhancement, but it entails degree of heterogeneous characters with different needs and interests. On this account, building institutional arrangement for the decision-makings is highly appreciated as an integral part of sea mouth management. Furthermore, a broad of risks through sea mouth should be taken into consideration where there might occur oil leaking, drift wastes surge, drift ice surge, and so on. A wide and active participation is crucial to mitigate negative impacts from external variability. Amid the four major issues of sea mouth management, three principles are commonly identified as expected adaptative measures: stakeholder involvement, congruent rules in sea mouth management and scientific knowledge and technology. Third, lagoon watershed management is strongly characterized by heterogeneity inherent in different interests and needs of various stakeholders. On this account, the scope of watershed management includes not only fisheries management but also various types of management activities. Proper institution building for coordination of sustainable development at the watershed level is crucial to secure robust lagoon fisheries management. Under the circumstances, seven essential criteria linking lagoon fisheries to watershed management were identified by extracting lessons learned from four case studies. These criteria derived from the case studies compose a limited set, but should be shared for practitioners and policy makers in case such institution building is planned, designed, undertaken or evaluated in other watershed areas.

Toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management

199

NOTE 1. The design principle approach has been criticized as not necessarily applicable to a wide range of real-life situations or specific only to certain types of CPRs (Campbell et al., 2001). But the approach has been applied actively to assess the enabling environment for use in CPR management in many parts of the world so that these case studies will make the benchmark more effective and enable it to achieve institutional robustness in CPR settings.

CHAPTER 8 THE WAY FORWARD

FINDINGS OF THE BOOK Need of Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management Lagoon areas are among the most productive ecosystems in the world, where many migrating demersal nektonic species depend on shallow lagoon habitats as nursery areas for early development (Boynton, Hagy, Murray, & Stokes, 1996). With spatial and temporal changes in the lagoon environment, the unique ecotone is endowed with highly productive natural resources and valuable biodiversity, enabling a large number of people to make a living. In contrast, dynamic and complex lagoon areas are expected to be one of the most vulnerable environmental places. Their geographical location is highly exposed to environmental and climatic factors such as sea-level rise, increased level of inundation and storm flooding, seawater intrusion, coastal erosion, and water pollution. That is, the lagoon environment is physically rich in variation, but fishers have to coevolve with fishery resources and ecosystem dynamics to live with change and uncertainty. Comparative analysis among the case studies revealed that decline of fishery resources was commonly identified from a historical viewpoint. The reasons behind the decrease differ according to each case study, depending on the varying socioeconomic and political features as well as the natural environment. But evidence from these case studies identified nine elements that had adverse impacts on the availability of fishery resources (see Table 5.1): ‘‘overexploitation by fishers,’’ ‘‘practice of aquaculture,’’ ‘‘salinity change,’’ ‘‘weed invasion,’’ ‘‘sedimentation from upstream,’’ ‘‘inflow of pesticides and fertilizers,’’ ‘‘industrial pollution,’’ ‘‘sewage contamination,’’ and ‘‘climate variability.’’ These nine major elements can be further divided into three categories: lagoon origin, watershed origin, and external origin (climate variability). 201

202

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Overexploitation by fishers was commonly observed in the developmental process of each case study, but it should be mentioned that the range of lagoon fisheries management is beyond the scope of social control among appropriators of fishery operations. For instance, changes in hydrological cycle and associated salinity level caused severe damages (or positive benefits) to ecological habitats, leading to resource reduction (or enhancement). The negative example is particularly applicable to the case of Songkhla Lake, whereas the positive one can be found in Chilika Lagoon and Saroma Lake. In this sense, sea mouth management is of importance and should be seen as a common concern for lagoon fisheries. Likewise, sedimentation and water pollution from upstream were among the more serious challenges to secure robust lagoon fisheries management. Evidence from each case study shows how important the linkages of lagoon and its watersheds are to produce a steady and resilient stream of economic benefits from lagoon fisheries. Hence, the notion of integrated lagoon fisheries management that particularly takes into account three pillars (fisheries, sea mouth management, and watershed management) helps us to understand resource dynamics in the lagoon environment and to promote cross-scale institutions that are in tune with continuous ecosystems functions.

Fishers’ Strategies for Revitalization of Fishery Resource Stocks Lessons learned from these case studies included the idea that two fishery adaptive measures are commonly undertaken by fishers: creation of cooperative fish marketing system and federalized fisheries management. The former highlights fish marketing economy and its implication on impacts of fishing activities. Dominant fish marketing structure creates a greater incentive for fish merchants to pay a smaller amount of money to fishers or manipulate the grade and weight of their catch, as many scholars have noted (Acheson, 1981; Flaherty & Samal, 2005; Hirasawa, 1992; Iwakiri & Neaz, 1982; Misra, 2002; Reis & D’Incao, 2000; Rubinoff, 1999). Such an exploitative system pushes fishers to operate indiscriminately with regard to fish catch, leading to overexploitation of fishery resources. The book has presented important pieces of evidence demonstrating that it is indeed the cooperative fish marketing approach that seems to make successful contributions to resource conservation as well as their capacity building for effective lagoon fisheries management. By contrast, the latter addressed institutional arrangements for cooperative fishery governance. The fishers in each case study united together

The Way Forward

203

beyond their village territories and established a fishery federation using the bottom-up approach to devise a set of rules with regard to fisheries management, including cooperative fish marketing activities. This arose in response to factors that might be regarded as ‘‘dangerous,’’ contributing to environmental degradation or poor access to fishing grounds. However, the purposes or ulterior motives behind the establishment of fishery federation differ according to the case study sites, in part leading to success or failure of lagoon fisheries management. On the whole, four major federation activities were identified (see Table 6.2), one of which was legal advocacy against outsiders (exclusion issue). This was the only primary concentration of the federation activities in Chilika Lagoon, where less attention was paid to ‘‘decline of fishery resources’’ except ‘‘inaccessibility of fishery resources against outsiders (non-fishermen).’’

Adaptive Trajectory toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management The dynamics and complexity of lagoon fisheries cannot be simplified by looking at fisheries management. In so doing, we may prevent ourselves seeing much of the feedback in the ecosystem combined with human pressures. Simplified conception only makes sense if one could conceive of ‘‘modeling’’ the system. Given the complexity and associated uncertainty of these systems, the introduction of a simplified modeling system is often unable to prove useful in assessing what is really going on the lagoon ecosystem. Rather, it is critical to the social ability to acquire, analyze, and respond efficiently to changes in the environment (Wilson, 2002). In this context, the notion of integrated lagoon fisheries management (ILFM) is imperative to produce a steady and resilient stream of economic benefits from lagoon fisheries in practice. The three pillars presented do not exist separately but are interdependent. The change in one pillar becomes a serious source of stress, leading to fishery resource depletion or reduction in the lagoon environment. To pursue the noble management goal, all the three components shall be simultaneously taken into consideration. It seems that lagoon fisheries management ascendancy in each case study site tends to make the shift to the ‘‘partnership-based’’ trajectory, as shown in Fig. 8.1. The shift is considered to be the substantial adaptive result of ongoing processes of problem solving with regard to ILFM. Without cooperation and collaboration among relevant stakeholders, the decline of fishery resources or human insecurity linked to resource-based conflicts might occur, as is apparent in the case study of Chilika Lagoon fisheries.

204

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Environmental Watershed Governance State-Based

Partnership-Based

Community-Based

Governance by SLWC

Lagoon Fisheries Management

Partnership-Based

Sea Farm Project

State-Based

Watershed Associations

Voluntary-Based Arena for Watershed Management

Coordination of Fishery Co-Management Development by CDA Watershed Partnership Building through CECLS & SCECLS

Community-Based Establishment of FFSL Legend:

Establishment of ACLS

Chilika Lagoon Songkhla Lake (& Kuraburi Estuary) Saroma Lake

Fig. 8.1.

Trajectories toward Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management in Case Study Sites.

Of course, the establishment of Chilika Development Authority (CDA) exerted to some extent influence on strengthening the solidarity among relevant stakeholders including fishers (e.g., decision-making processes on hydrological interventions). CDA was introduced strategically to integrate the ministerial authorities of Orissa state and involve the stakeholders, in order to implement comprehensive policies and measures related to environmental problems in Chilika Lagoon effectively. With strong leadership, the role of CDA will bring further expected results of cooperation and collaboration. More work is needed to enhance or maintain multiple linkages, horizontally (across space) and vertically (across levels of organization), toward a robust ILFM.

CONCLUSIONS It is very much premature to conclude that the presented prerequisite factors for the creation of enabling environment for ILFM are the measures to effectively ‘‘glue’’ the three management pillars. But it is hoped that the findings in this book can lay a foundation for future studies and projects for further promoting appropriate lagoon fisheries management.

The Way Forward

205

It is our firm belief that, in managing the lagoon environment and its fishery enhancement, the principles presented in this book can indeed be useful in assessing the successes, failures, commonalities, and lessons learned from other lagoon areas. At the very least, the in-depth observations from each case study should provide policy makers, practitioners, and researchers with guidance to cope with a broad assortment of risks related to lagoon fisheries. Take the impressive example in Chilika Lagoon. This is a successful story of lagoon restoration. Indeed, the innovative implementations (opening of the new mouth) undertaken by CDA were triggered partly by the lessons learned from Saroma Lake experience. In those days, the decision-making process had some uncertainties and high risks, leading to irreversible negative impacts on the ecosystem of Chilika Lagoon. A chief executive officer of CDA, with crucial responsibility for the health of the lagoon, could finally make a sensible decision that a new mouth should be opened. His judgment was based not only on scientific evidence from many scientific studies but also on practical information from the Saroma Lake experience. The chief executive officer visited Saroma Lake, coordinating with Ramsar Center Japan (NGO), which provided useful advice and experience. The information exchange enabled him to ensure a kind of legitimacy for the decision so that the new mouth was opened in the year 2000 (see Iwasaki, 2007b in detail). It is to be hoped that this research will contribute in clarifying what issues and challenges are crucial to promote the wise use of fishery resources in the lagoon environment and ensure sustainable fishery livelihoods. The comparative studies and analyses presented in this book are expected to be of great use in the diagnosis of the lagoon environment and its fisheries management effectively. In this book, we have proposed the notion of ILFM and delineated a framework for ILFM that incorporates lagoon fisheries management into sea mouth and watershed management. There is no step-by-step guide or blueprint formula for ILFM. Each lagoon site will need to develop a strategy on the basis of its own needs and local conditions. However, this book can provide ideas, methods, activities, examples, questions, and indicators for designing and implementing ILFM. There are the challenges presented in this book. We applied several case studies to illustrate the whole range of lagoon fisheries management, centering on socioeconomic and political processes. Room has been left for examining and reiterating the proposed structure for ILFM in an appropriate way. Fig. 8.2 indicated the way forward to the development of ILFM. There is a strong need to bridge two significant diciplines: commons research, which focuses on resources and institutions that are jointly shared

206

INTEGRATED LAGOON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Need of Partnership Building with Relevant Stakeholders

Creation of CPRs in Lagoon Fisheries

Long Term Adaptation

Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management

Recent Livelihoods Fishers

Present Study Resistance

Fishery Federation Fishers Fishers

Lagoon Sea Mouth

Stakeholder

Stakeholder

A

C

Watershed Collaboration

Stakeholder

B

From Others′ Standpoint (Upstream/ Sea Mouth)

Long Term Adaptation

Recent Livelihoods

Environmental Lagoon Watershed Governance

From Fishers′ Standpoint

Resistance & Collaboration

Foresters, Farmers, etc.

Required Future Study Different Size of Scale, Population, Value, Occupation

Fig. 8.2.

Way Forward for the Development of Integrated Lagoon Fisheries Management.

or used by multiple stakeholders, and watershed governance, which addresses a mechanism for water use and related decisions among multiple players to balance ecological, social, and economic needs within watersheds. Throughout this book, we have given examples of lagoon fisheries management and related perspectives from the fishers’ standpoint. The research highlighted the necessity and enabling approaches of common-pool resources (CPRs) management among fishers in the lagoon sphere while presenting the implications of sea mouth and watershed management to be tackled. The latter was discussed from the perspective of ‘‘fishery resource conservation’’ without an appreciation of their voices or say on different occupational livelihoods within lagoon watersheds. In other words, the nature of heterogeneity (different interests and needs of water-related decisions at multiple levels) itself has not been addressed. Therefore, further

The Way Forward

207

efforts are needed to pay attention to the local contexts of various livelihood conditions with regard to the governance of environmental watersheds, which will lead to the identification of pressing constraints and positive strength of cooperation and collaboration building toward a robust ILFM. These findings will provide better insight in understanding cross-scale linkages between lagoon and the surrounding areas at the base of lagoon fisheries.

REFERENCES Abashiri Shicho Sangyou Shinkoubu Suisannka, (Ed.) (2008). Heisei 18 nenban: abashiri no suisan. Abashiri city: Hokkaido Abashiri Shicho (in Japanese). Acheson, M. J. (1981). Anthropology of fishing. Annual Review of Anthropology, 10, 275–316. Adams, M. W., Brockington, D., Dyson, J., & Vira, B. (2003). Understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science, 302, 1915–1916. Anthony, A., Atwood, J., August, P., Byron, C., Cobb, S., Foster, C., Fry, C., Gold, A., Hagos, K., Heffner, L., Kellogg, O. D., Lellis-Dibble, K., Opaluch, J. J., Oviatt, C., PfeifferHerbert, A., Rohr, N., Smith, L., Smythe, T., Swift, J., & Vinhateiro, N. (2009). Coastal lagoons and climate change: Ecological and social ramifications in U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coast ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 8. Available at http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art8. Retrieved on April 15, 2010. Aquaculture Authority. (2001). Shrimp aquaculture and the environment – an environment impact assessment report. Chennai: Aquaculture Authority. Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma (ACLS). (1999a). Saroma-ko no kaze: rentai to kyousei (Vol. 2). Tokoro (in Japanese): Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma. Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma (ACLS). (1999b). Saroma-ko no kaze: rentai to kyousei (Vol. 1). Tokoro: Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma. Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma (ACLS). (1999c). Saroma-ko no kaze: rentai to kyousei (Vol. 3). Tokoro: Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma. Aquaculture Cooperation of Lake Saroma (ACLS). (2010). Homepage of aquaculture cooperation of Lake Saroma. Available at http://homepage3.nifty.com/saromako/. Retrieved on April 15, 2010 (in Japanese). ARCBC. (2010). Lake Songkhla. Available at http://www.arcbc.org.ph/wetlands/thailand/ tha_lakson.htm. Retrieved on April 15, 2010. ARCSCCB. (2004). Note on the activities of the office of the assistant register of co-operative societies (Fy) Chilika Circle Balugaon. Bhubaneswar: Assistant Register of Co-operative Societies Chilika Circle. ARCSCCB. (2005a). Information on the working of fishery co-operatives in Chilika Circle, Balugaon, assistant register of co-operative societies (Fy) Chilika Circle Balugaon. Mimeo. Assistant Register of Co-operative Societies Chilika Circle, Balugaon. ARCSCCB. (2005b). Note on the activities of the office of the Assistant Register of Co-opeartive Societies (Fy) Chilika Circle Balugaon. Mimeo. Assistant Register of Co-operative Societies (Fy) Chilika Circle Balugaon, Balugaon. Armitage, D., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (Eds). (2007). Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. Vancouver, Toronto: UBC Press. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., & Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18, 86–98.

209

210

REFERENCES

Atapattu, R. A. (1987). Territorial use rights (TURFs) in Sri Lanka: Case studies on Jakottu fisheries in the Madu Ganga estuary and Kattudel fishery in the Negombo lagoon. In: Indo-Pacific Fisheries Commission (Ed.), Paper presented at the symposium on the exploitation and management of marine fishery resources in South-East Asia, 16–19 February 1987 (pp. 379–401). Bangkok: FAO. Barnett, J. (2003). Security and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 13, 7–17. Barnett, J., & Adger, N. W. (2007). Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Political Geography, 26, 639–655. Berkes, F. (1986). Local-level management and the commons problem: A comparative study of Turkish coastal fisheries. Marine Policy, 10, 215–229. Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 621–630. Berkes, F. (2005). Common theory for marine resource management in a complex world. Senri Ethnological Studies, 67, 13–31. Berkes, F. (2006). From community-based resource management to complex systems: The scale issue and marine commons. Ecology and Society, 11(1). Available at http://www.ecology andsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art45/. Retrieved on April 15, 2010. Berkes, F. (2007). Adaptive co-management and complexity: Exploring the many faces of co-management. In: D. Armitage, F. Berkes & N. Doubleday (Eds), Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. Vancouver, Toronto: UBC Press. Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds). (1998). Linking social and ecological systems. Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2001). Adapting to climate change: Social-ecological resilience in a Canadian Western Arctic Community. Conservation Ecology, 5(2), 18. Available at http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art18. Retrieved on 15 April 2010. Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R., & Pomeroy, R. (2001). Managing smallscale fisheries: Alternative directions and methods. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Berkes, F., & Seixas, S. C. (2005). Building resilience in lagoon social-ecological systems: A local-level perspective. Ecosystem, 8, 967–974. Boynton, R. W., Hagy, D. J., Murray, L., & Stokes, C. (1996). A comparative analysis of eutrophication patterns in a temperature coastal lagoon. Estuaries, 19(28), 408–421. Campbell, M. B., Mandondo, A., Nemarundwe, N., Sithole, B., De Jong, W., Luckert, M., & Matose, F. (2001). Challenges to proponents of common property resource systems: Despairing voices from the social forests of Zimbabwe. World Development, 29(4), 589–600. Cannon, T. (1994). Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of ‘natural’ disasters. In: A. Varley (Ed.), Disasters, development and environment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65–76. CBA and KYS. (1992). Chilika: Voice of the people. Mimeo, Chilika Banchao Andolan and Krantidarsi Yuva Sangam, Orissa. CDA. (2005a). Achievement report 2005. Chilika Development Authority, Bhubaneswar. CDA. (2005b). Dengai Pahad participatory integrated watershed management project – restoration and wise use of natural resources for better livelihood: Achievement report 2001–2004. Mimeo. Chilika Development Authority, Bhubaneswar.

References

211

CDA. (2005c). A brief resume of the participatory watershed management project in the Dengai Pahad watershed – Chilika catchment. Mimeo. Chilika Development Authority, Bhubaneswar. CDA. (2005d). Action plan of participatory integrated watershed management project Dengei Pahad watershed (Harichandanpur, Binjolla, Mansinghpur). Mimeo. Chilika Development Authority, Bhubaneswar. CDA. (2008). Chilika: The atlas of Chilika. Chilika Development Authority, Bhubaneswar. CDA. (2010). Climate. Available at http://www.chilika.com/climate.htm. Retrieved on April 15, 2010. Chesoh, S., & Choonpradub, C. (2009). Method for analyzing fish assemblage distribution with application to fishery landings of tropical shallow lake as Songkhla Lake Thailand. Modern Applied Science, 3(5), 179–192. Chesoh, S., Choonpradub, C., & Chaisuksan, Y. (2008). Trend of catch and cost of fish damage caused by fishing gears in Songkhla Lake, Thailand: 1977–2006. Proceedings of Safety, Health and Environmental World Congress, SHEWC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (pp. 117–120). Chesoh, S., & Lim, A. (2008). Forecasting fish catches in the Songkhla Lake basin. Science Asia, 34, 335–340. Chufamanee, P., & Lønholdt, J. (2001). Application of integrated environmental management through the preparation of an environmental action programme: Case study from the Songkhla Lake basin in southern Thailand. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research and Management, 6, 323–334. CIFRI. (1962). Survey report on Chilika lake (from 1957–1961). Barrackpore, West Bengal: Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute. Corporate Communications Department. (1998). Talay Saab Songkhla. Thailand: Unocal Thailand Ltd. Daly, E. H., & Farley, J. (2004). Ecological economics: Principles and applications. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press. Das, P. (2005). A battle for fishing rights. Frontline, 22(19). Available at http://www.hindu.com/ fline/fl2219/stories/20050923003004000.htm. Retrieved on April 15 2010. Das, S. G. (1993). The report of the fact-finding committee on Chilka fisheries. Mimeo, The FactFinding Committee, Orissa. Deb, D. (1996). Of cast net and caste identity: Memetic differentiation between two fishing communities of Karnataka. Human Ecology, 24(1), 109–123. DFGO. (1970). The Chilka lake. Directorate of fisheries. Cuttack: Government of Orissa. DFGO. (1971). Chilka lake: Fisheries development project. Mimeo, Department of Fisheries, Government of Orissa, Cuttack. DFGO & CDA (Eds). (2005). Collection and estimation of fish, prawn and crab landings statistics in the Chilika Lagoon, Annual Report – 2003-04. A collaborative programme of Department of Fisheries, Government of Orissa and Chilika Development Authority, Bhubaneswar. DFID. (2004). The impact of climate change on the vulnerability of the poor. Available at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/climatechange/3vulnerability.pdf. Retreived on December 21, 2008. Dharitri. (2006). 651 of the Chilika is under the control of Mafia. Mimeo, Dharitri, November 13, 2006. Dietz, T., Dolsˇ ak, N., Ostrom, E., & Stern, C. P. (2002). The drama of the commons. In: E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsˇ ak, C. P. Stern, S. Stonich & U. E. Weber (Eds), The drama of the commons (pp. 3–35). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

212

REFERENCES

DTRAC Data. (Unknown). Tsunami affected areas. Disaster Tracking Recovery Assistance Center. EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED international disaster database, Universite´ catholique de Louvain, Brussels. (2010). Trends and relationships for the period 1900–2005. Available at http://www.emdat.be/database. Retrieved on April 15, 2010. Fezzardi, D. (2001). Community participation in coastal resources management: Lessons learned from a case study of Songkhla lake, Southern Thailand. Master Dissertation. Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. Fisheries Agency. (2009a). Gyogyou yoshoku gyou seisan toukei nenpou. Available at http:// www.tdb.maff.go.jp/toukei/a02smenu?TouID ¼ C001. Retrieved on October 30, 2009 (in Japanese). Fisheries Agency. (2009b). Gyogyou shugyou doukou toukei nenpou. Available at http://www. tdb.maff.go.jp/toukei/a02stoukeiexl?Fname ¼ B004-CN.htm&PAGE ¼ 1&TokID ¼ B004 &TokKbn ¼ C. Retrieved on October 30, 2009 (in Japanese). Flaherty, M., & Samal, C. K. (2005). Development of a knowledge-base for coastal aquaculture policy-making, planning and management (summary of major findings). Bhubaneswar: Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development Studies. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (1995). Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2007a). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2007b). Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities (p. 24.). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2009). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2008. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Ghosh, A. K. (2002). Integrated management strategy for Chilika. In: Chilika Development Authority, Department of Water Resources (Orissa) (Eds), Proceedings of the international workshop in sustainable development of Chilika Lagoon, 12–14 December 1998, Bhubaneswar (pp. 274–280). Ghosh, K. A., & Pattnaik, K. A. (2005). Chilika Lagoon: Experience and lessons learned brief. Available at http://www.iwlearn.net/publications/ll/chilikalagoon_2005.pdf. Retrieved on April 15, 2010. Gordon, S. H. (1954). The economic theory of a common-property resource: The fishery. The Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 124–142. Grothmann, T., & Patt, A. (2005). Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change, 15, 199–213. Gupta, M. C., & Sharma, V. K. (2000). Orissa super cyclone 99. Delhi: National Centre for Disaster Management Publication. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248. HIES. (2010). Hokkaido no mizu kankyo: Database & webgis. Available at http:// envgis.hokkaido-ies.go.jp/index.asp?category ¼ mizu. Retrieved on April 15, 2010 (in Japanese). Hirai, Y. (1995). Mizuumi no kankyougaku (in Japanese). Japan: Kokin Shoin. Hirasawa, Y. (1992). Hatten tojo koku no gyogyou kaihatsu to gyogyou kyoudou kumiai no ikusei. Kaigaigyogyoukyoryoku, 45, 1–18(in Japanese). Hobo, T. (1989). Yomigaere Mizuumi (in Japanese). Japan: Dou Zidai Sha.

References

213

Ikeguchi, A. (2002). Transaction networks of street traders and fish distribution in Hanoi, Vietnam. Geographical Review of Japan, 75(14), 858–886. IUCN-Thailand. (2008). BMZ quarterly report January–March 2008. The International Union for Conservation of Nature, Thailand, Kuraburi. Iwakiri, S. (1974). Approaches to economic progress of rural fisheries in the developing countries. Memoirs of the Faculty of Fisheries, Kagoshima University, 23, 81–103. Iwakiri, S., & Neaz, M. (1982). Methodological study on fisheries planning in the developing countries. Memoirs of the Faculty of Fisheries, Kagoshima University, 31, 35–56. Iwasaki, S. (2007a). Fishery resource allocation system in Chilika lagoon, India and its social impacts to fisherman villages. Master Dissertation, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. Iwasaki, S. (2007b). Sustainable regional development in the catchment of Chilika Lagoon, Orissa state, India. Available at http://geic.hq.unu.edu/ENV/Files/2007/2007_iwasaki_ intern.pdf. Retrieved on October 30, 2009. Iwasaki, S. (2010). Comparative analysis of integrated lagoon fisheries management systems in India, Japan and Thailand. Ph.D. dissertation, Kyoto University. Iwasaki, S., Razafindrabe, H. N. B., & Shaw, R. (2009). Fishery livelihoods and adaptation to climate change: A case study of Chilika lagoon, India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 14, 339–355. Iwasaki, S., & Shaw, R. (2008). Fishery resource management in Chilika lagoon: A study on coastal conservation in the Eastern Coast of India. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 12, 43–52. Japan Meteorological Agency. (2009). Kako no kishou data kensaku (in Japanese). Available at http://www.data.jma.go.jp/obd/stats/etrn/index.php. Retrieved on October 30, 2009. Jayakody, S. D. (1996). Traditional lagoon fisheries in Negombo. In: J. M. Morris, M. Hotta, & R. A. Atapattu (Eds), Report and proceedings of the Sri Lanka/FAO national workshop on development of community-based fishery management, Colombo, 3–5 October 1994 (pp. 98–103). Madras, India: Bay of Bengal Programme. Jayawardane, A. A. T. P., & Perera, A. R. E. H. (2003). Observations on the artisanal stake net fishery for shrimps in the Negombo lagoon, Sri Lanka. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 10, 41–50. Jentoft, S., & McCay, B. (1995). User participation in fisheries management: Lessons drawn from international experiences. Marine Policy, 19(3), 227–246. Kaneda, Y. (2005). Fisheries and fishing methods of Japan (Rev. ed.). Tokyo: Seizando-Shoten. Kato, S., Maekawa, K., & Sakaguchi, K. (2004). Lake Saroma, a rich cradle: Its history and present conditions. In: Ramsar Center Japan (Ed.), Proceedings of the international workshop on wise use of lagoon wetlands, 23–25 July 2003. Kushiro (in Japanese). Available at http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/ss/tuk/900brr/index.htm. Retrieved on April 15, 2010. Katsuki, K., Seto, K., Nomura, R., Maekawa, K., & Khim, B. (2009). Effect of human activity on Lake Saroma (Japan) during the past 150 years: Evidence by variation of diatom assemblages. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 81, 215–224. Kelly, M. P., & Adger, N. W. (2000). Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change, 47, 325–352. Komamura, M., Phouangphet, K., Tanavud, C., & Yongchalermchai, C. (2000). Land use change followed by soil erosion in Songkhla Lake basin. Journal of the Japanese Society of Soil Physics, 83, 17–28.

214

REFERENCES

Kudou, M., Saeki, H., Shimizu, T., Takeda, H., Ukegawa, M., & Kato, S. (2000). Drift-ice force affects the ice boom at the primary lake mouth of Saroma. Proceedings of Hokkaido Tokai University. Science and Engineering, 13, 25–32(in Japanese). Lobe, K., & Berkes, F. (2004). The Padu system of community-based fisheries management: Change and local institutional innovation in south India. Marine Policy, 28, 271–281. Ludwig, F. H. (1987). Planning for environmental project implementation and development: As exemplified by the Songkhla Lake basin planning study, Thailand. The Environmentalist, 7(3), 175–184. Makino, M., & Matsuda, H. (2005). Co-management in Japanese coastal fisheries: Institutional features and transaction costs. Marine Policy, 29, 441–450. Matsuoka, K. (1987). Organic-walled dinoflagellate cysts from surface sediments of Akkeshi Bay and Lake Saroma, North Japan. Bulletin of the Faculty of Liberal Arts, Nagasaki University (Natural Science), 28(1), 35–123. Matthews, E., Veitayaki, J., & Bidesi, R. V. (1998). Fisian villagers adapt to changes in local fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management, 38, 207–224. McCay, B., & Jentoft, S. (1996). From the bottom up: Participatory issues in fisheries management. Society and Natural Resources, 9, 237–250. Misra, M. P. (2002). Eco-development of Chilika Lagoon to perpetuate the wonder in twenty first century. In: Chilika Development Authority, Department of Water Resources (Orissa) (Eds), Proceedings of the international workshop in sustainable development of Chilika Lagoon, 12–14 December 1998 (pp. 288–296). Bhubaneswar, India: Chilika Development Authority. Mitra, N. G. (1946). Development of the Chilka lake. Cuttack: Orissa Government Press. Mitra, N. G., & Mohapatra, P. (1957). Bulletin on the development on the Chilika lake of Orissa survey report on the fishing industry. Cuttack: Orissa Government Press. Mohanty, K. S. (1992). On the brackishwater shrimp farming in Orissa. Bulletin of the Department of Fisheries Orissa, 1(1), 36–50. Mohaptra, A., Mohanty, K. R., Mohanty, K. S., Bhatta, S. K., & Das, R. N. (2007). Fisheries enhancement and biodiversity assessment of fish, prawn and mud crab in Chilika Lagoon through hydrological intervention. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 15, 229–251. Nakamura, R. (2005). Essentials of stakeholder participation in the wise use of wetlands: Good practices of two lagoons in Japan and India. In: L. J. Turner & K. Otsuka (Eds), Promoting sustainable river basin governance: Crafting Japan – U.S. water partnerships in China. IED Spot Survey No.28, IDE-JETRO, China. Na-Sae, B. (2002). Thai fisherfolk in the globalization. In: B. Na-Sae (Ed.), Community based natural resource management: Case studies from southern traditional fisher folk communities (pp. 19–48). Thailand: Piyachot Intaranivas. Nue, P. B., & Chanachai, S. (2002). Marine conservation and restoration zone. In: B. Na-Sae (Ed.), Community based natural resource management: Case studies from southern traditional fisher folk communities (pp. 49–72). Thailand: Piyachot Intaranivas. Ogata, S., & Sen, A. (2003). Human security now, commission of human security. New York: Commission on Human Security. Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 75–90. Orissa High Court. (1994). Kholamuhana primary fishermen co-op. society v. state. AIR Ori.:191-218.

References

215

Orissa Watershed Development Mission (OWDM). (2008). Orissa watershed development mission: Report: 2000–2007 (March). Bhubaneswar: Orissa Watershed Development Mission. Available at http://www.worlp.com/images/publication/OWDM%20Report_ Final_11_6_08.pdf. Retrieved on April 15, 2010. OSDMA. (2007). History of floods in Orissa. Mimeo, Orissa State Disaster Mitigation Authority, Bhubaneswar. OSFCFL. (1996). A report pertaining to Chilika lake. Mimeo, Orissa State Fishermen Co-Operative Federation Ltd, Bhubaneswar. OSFCFL. (2002). Sub lease agreement: For availing capture fisheries resources of Chilika lake 2002–2003. Mimeo, Orissa State Fishermen Co-Operative Federation Ltd, Bhubaneswar. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, B. C., Norgaard, B. R., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278–282. Pallishree, E. (2002). Environment of Chilika Lagoon. Bhubaneswar: Pallishree. Panigrahy, R. C. (2002). Environmental aspects of the Chilika Lagoon: A sensitive coastal ecosystem of Orissa. In: Chilika Development Authority, Department of Water Resources (Orissa) (Eds), Proceedings of the international workshop in sustainable development of Chilika Lagoon, 12–14 December 1998, Bhubaneswar (pp. 60–76). Parry, L. M., Canziani, F. O., Palutikof, P. J., van der Linden, J. P., & Hanson, E. C. (Eds). (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Patra, J. (2005). Dynamics of conflict – a political ecology synbook. In: Chilika Development Authority and Asia Wetland Symposium Secretariat, India (Eds), Proceedings of Asian wetland symposium 2005, 6th to 9th February, Chilika Development Authority, Bhubaneswar (pp. 389–398). Patro, S. N. (2001). New challenges to Chilika. In: Indian Environmental Society (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Asia Pacific NGOs environmental conference APNEC-5, 22–25 September 2000, Agra (pp. 229–234). Pattnaik, K. A. (2005a). Impact of unauthorised shrimp culture on fishery resources of Chilka lagoon. Mimeo, Chilika Development Authority, Bhubaneswar. Pattnaik, K. A. (2005b). Fisheries resources of Chilika Lagoon and associated management problems – an overview. Mimeo, Chilika Development Authority, Bhubaneswar. Pattnaik, S. (2005c). Estimation of sediment flow into the Chilika lake. In: Chilika Development Authority, Department of Water Resources (Orissa) (Eds), Proceedings of the international workshop in sustainable development of Chilika Lagoon, 12–14 December 1998, Bhubaneswar (pp. 83–87). Pattnaik, S. (2007). Conservation of environment and protection of marginalized fishing communities of lake Chilika in Orissa, India. Journal of Human Ecology, 22(4), 291–302. PCRMBST & FFST (1998). Situation and Problem of Fish for Communities in Southern Thailand in 1997 (in Thai). Project of Coastal Resource Management Basin in Southern Thailand and Federation of Fisherfolk in Southern Thailand, Thailand. Pido, D. M., Pomeroy, S. R., Garces, R. L., & Carlos, B. M. (1997). A rapid appraisal approach to evaluation of community-level fisheries management systems: Framework and field application at selected coastal fishing villages in the Philippines and Indonesia. Coastal Management, 25, 183–204.

216

REFERENCES

Pomeroy, S. R., & Berkes, F. (1997). Two to tango: The role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 21(5), 465–480. Pomeroy, S. R., & Rivera-Guieb, R. (2006). Fishery co-management: A practical handbook. Ottawa/Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing/International Development Centre. Punt, D. A. (2006). The FAO precautionary approach after almost 10 years: Have we progressed towards implementing simulation-tested feedback-control management systems for fisheries management? Natural Resource Modeling, 19, 441–464. Punt, E. A., & Donovan, P. G. (2007). Developing management procedures that are robust to uncertainty: Lessons from the International Whaling Commission. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, 603–612. Ram, N. R., Rama Rao, K. V., & Ghosh, A. (1994). Ramsar sites of India: Chilika lake. New Delhi, India: World Wide Fund For Nature. Ratanachai, C., & Sutiwipakorn, W. (Eds). (2005). Master plan for Songkhla Lake basin development: Volume 1 executive summary. Thailand: Neo Point Press. Raut, N. L., & Tripati, S. (1993). Traditional boat-building centres around Chilika lake of Orissa. Marine Archaeology, 4, 51–55. Reddy, B. G. (2009). Institutional delivery for watershed management in Orissa. In: S. K. S. Premchander & P. Reid (Eds), Findings pathways: Social inclusion in rural development (pp. 203–211). Bangalore: Books for Change. Reis, G. E., & D’Incao, F. (2000). The present status of artisanal fisheries of extreme Southern Brazil: An effort towards community-based management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 43, 585–595. Roy, C. J., & Sahoo, N. (1962). Bulletin on the development of Chilka lake (Chilka fisheries, 1949–55 No. 5). Cuttack: Orissa Government Press. Rubinoff, A. J. (1999). Fishing for status: Impact of development on Goa’s fisherwomen. Women’s Studies International Forum, 22(6), 631–644. Salam, A. M. D., Noguchi, T., & Pothitan, R. (2006). Community forest management in Thailand: Current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development. New Forests, 31, 273–291. Samal, C. K. (2002a). Aquaculture (shrimp) industry in and around Chilika lake: Its impact on environment. In: B. Mishra, C. G. Kar & N. S. Misra (Eds), Agro-industries and economic development: A vision for the 21st century (pp. 75–84). New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications. Samal, C. K. (2002b). Shrimp culture in Chilika lake: Case of occupational displacement of fishermen. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(8), 1714–1718. Samal, C. K., & Meher S. (1999). Socio-economic survey of villages in and around Chilika. Nabakrushna Choundhury Centre For Development Studies, Bhubaneswar. Samal, C. K., & Meher, S. (2003a). Fishing communities on Chilika Lake: Comparative socioeconomic study. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(31), 3319–3325. Samal, C. K., & Meher, S. (2003b). Cooperative societies of fishermen of Chilika lake: Problems and prospects. Journal of Rural Development, 22(4), 517–525. Sarker, L. A., & Sasaki, T. (2002). Role of middlemen in marketing system – The case of potato and banana marketing in Bangladesh. Japanese Journal of Farm Management, 37(2), 147–152. Saromacho-shi Hensan Iinkai Hen. (1966). Saromacho-shi. Saroma: Saroma Town. Sato, T., Imazu, Y., Sakawa, T., Kazama, T., Wakabayashi, T., & Uhrenholdt, T. (2007). Modeling of integrated marine ecosystem including the generation-tracing type scallop growth model. Ecological Modelling, 208, 263–285.

References

217

Sekhar, U. N. (2004). Fisheries in Chilika lake: How community access and control impacts their management. Journal of Environmental Management, 73, 257–266. Sekhar, U. N. (2007). Social capital and fisheries management: The case of Chilika lake in India. Environmental Management, 39, 497–505. Senapati, N., & Kuanr, D. C. (1977). Orissa district gazetteers Puri. Cuttack: Gazetteers Unit Department of Revenue Government of Orissa. Shanmugasundaram, J., Arunachalam, S., Gomathinayagam, S., & Lakshnaman, P. (2000). Cyclone damage to buildings and structures: A case study. Journal of Wind Engineering, 84, 369–380. Shiba, R. (1999). Shiba Ryotaro zenshu volume 64 (in Japanese). Tokyo: Bungei Shunju. Shiomoto, A. (2008). Long term trend of chemical oxygen demand in Saroma-ko Lagoon, Japan; Possible effects of climatic warming. Nature Precedings. Available at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1038/npre.2008.1857.1. Retrieved on April 15, 2010. Sirimontaporn, P. (1984). Fishes in Songkhla lake: Volume I (fishes collected in the years 1981–83). Thailand: National Institute of Coastal Aquaculture and Japan International Cooperation Agency. Smit, B., Burton, L., Klein, J. T. R., & Street, R. (1999). The science of adaptation: A framework for assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4, 199–213. Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 282–292. Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, B. K., Tignor, M., & Miller, L. H. (Eds). (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sompongchaiyakul, P., & Sirinawin, W. (2005). Spatial distribution of total mercury in surficial sediment of Songkhla Lake, Thailand. In: American Academy of Sciences (Ed.), Proceedings of 1st International Conference in Environmental Science and Technology, New Orleans, Louisiana (pp. 6). Sperling, F. (Ed.) (2003). Poverty and climate change: Reducing the vulnerability of the poor through adaptation. Washington, DC: World Bank(p. 43). Supporting Committee for Environmental Conservation in Lake Saroma (SCECLS). (2005). Saromako no kankyo hozen wo support suru iinkai report. Hokkaido: Supporting Committee for Environmental Conservation in Lake Saroma. Supreme Court of India. (1997). S. Jagannath v. Union of India. AIR S.C.: 811–851. Suviboon, H., Sompongchaiyakul, P., & Chatuote, W. (2007). Evaluation of non-point sources nitrogen and phosphorus in Songkhla lake catchment. Thai Environmental Engineering Journal, 21(1), 25–34. Tanaka, K. (2002). Saishin Gyogyouken Dokuhon (in Japanese). Tokyo: Mana Book. Thomas, S. G. D., & Twyman, C. (2005). Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Global Environmental Change, 15, 115–124. Tokrisna, R., Boonchuwong, P., & Janekarnkij, P. (1997). A review on fisheries and coastal community-based management regime in Thailand. Manila: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management. Tokuoka, T. (1993). Kaisekiko wo megutte. Urban Kubota, 32, 2–5(in Japanese). Tookwinas, S., & Sirimontaporn, P. (1988). Ecological properties review of Songkhla Lake. In: National Institute of Coastal Aquaculture Department of Fisheries Thailand and Japan

218

REFERENCES

International Cooperation Agency (Eds), Report of Thailand and Japan joint coastal aquaculture research project (February 1986—March 1987) No.3, Thailand (pp. 96–109). Tripati, S., & Vora, H. K. (2005). Maritime heritage in and around Chilika Lake, Orissa: Geological evidences for its decline. Current Science, 88(7), 1175–1181. UNDP. (2007). Human development report 2007/08 – fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. New York: Palgrave. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). (2007). Environment and vulnerability: Emerging perspectives. Geneva: The United Nations Environment Programme. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). (2009). 2009 UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction. Geneva: The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Wagenaar, A., & D’Haese, M. (2007). Development of small-scale fisheries in Yemen: An exploration. Marine Policy, 31(3), 266–275. Wilson, J. (2002). Scientific uncertainty, complex systems, and the design of common-pool institutions. In: E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsˇ ak, C. P. Stern, S. Stonich & U. E. Weber (Eds), The drama of the commons (pp. 327–359). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. WWF. (2005). Are we putting our fishy in hot water? Available at http://assets.panda.org/ downloads/fisherie_web_final.pdf. Retrieved on April15, 2010. Yamamoto, T. (1998). Community-based fisheries management. In: J. D. Nickerson (Ed.), Community-based fisheries management in Phang-Nga Bay, Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Yubetsucho-shi Hensan Iinkai Hen. (1965). Yubetsucho-shi. Yubetsu: Yubetsu Town. Ziervogel, G., Bharwani, S., & Downing, E. T. (2006). Adapting to climate variability: Pumpkins, people and policy. Natural Resources Forum, 30, 294–305.