Evaluating the ecological and social targeting of a compensation scheme in Bangladesh

Abstract

Conservation payments are increasingly advocated as a way to meet both social and ecological objectives, particularly in developing countries, but these payments often fail to reach the ‘right’ individuals. The Government of Bangladesh runs a food compensation scheme that aims to contribute to hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) conservation by improving the socioeconomic situation of households affected by hilsa sanctuary fishing bans. Analysing data from a household survey of compensation recipients and non-recipients, we identify the current correlates of compensation distribution and explore perceptions of fairness in this distribution. We find that distribution is largely spatial rather than based on the household characteristics that are supposed to determine eligibility for compensation, indicating political influence in the distribution process. We also find the compensation scheme is widely perceived to be unfair, which could be undermining its potential to compensate vulnerable fishers while improving compliance with fishing bans. The spatial distribution of compensation would shift substantially under alternative targeting scenarios that are likely to improve the cost-effectiveness of the scheme, such as targeting those who are most dependent on fishing for their livelihood. This study highlights a challenge for conservation payment schemes that aim to achieve the dual objectives of poverty reduction and ecological sustainability, particularly large-scale public schemes, and suggests that more effective targeting and transparency about the basis of payment distribution are prerequisites for schemes to be both cost-effective and socially acceptable.

Factors influencing compliance of closed fishing season: lessons from small-scale coastal fisheries in the Central Region of Ghana

“…This situation makes it difficult for fishers to provide for their families. In Bangladesh, fishers who received compensation during the temporal ban on fishing abstained from illegal fishing (Bladon et al, 2018). However, Corrêa et al (2014 found that due to the weak enforcement of the ban on fishing, fishers in the Brazilian Amazon continue to fish during the closed season despite receiving cash payments as compensation for abstaining from fishing.…”

“…The conservation payment schemes could be in the form of cash payments or food items such as rice, sugar, cooking oil, etc., to cushion fishing households during the temporal ban on fishing. The Fishery officers must target the most vulnerable fishing households to achieve the objective of fisheries management (Bladon et al, 2018).…”

Developing a frame of reference for fisheries management and conservation interventions

“…Human population size also influences the extent of development and infrastructure, including agriculture and aquaculture, which place pressure on hilsa habitat ( BOBLME, 2011 ). In hilsa fishing areas, low income is associated with fishing juvenile hilsa (known in Bangladesh as jatka ) and with strong fishing dependence, which is characterised by illegal fishing and lack of other livelihood activities ( Bladon et al, 2018 ).…”

“…We identified the primary economic activities in Bangladesh, and those which are fast-growing or being explored, and assessed trends in these activities. All of these activities are relevant to the hilsa fishery through the impacts of livelihood availability and wealth on fishing pressure ( Bladon et al, 2018 ). Some of them also have direct or indirect environmental impacts on hilsa populations: agriculture and aquaculture can affect hilsa habitat through eutrophication ( BOBLME, 2011 ): factories can contaminate rivers ( Karn and Harada, 2001 ); and mechanised vessels, shipbuilding, ship breaking, and oil and gas extractive industries can pollute coastal waters ( Chowdhury et al, 2017 ; Hossain et al, 2016 ).…”

Introducing Relational Values as a Tool for Shark Conservation, Science, and Management

“…Finding a way to intercompare these diverse services from nature, from well-being and cultural importance to direct financial gain (e.g., from exploitation for industry) (Turner et al, 2003), is important for inclusive decision making and policy. For instance, in planning for development or conservation, such as through impact assessments and choosing among alternative courses of action (Nelson et al, 2009), and in addressing environmental degradation through equitable remediation, loss compensation, and resource allocation (Bladon et al, 2018). Throughout this paper, we refer to either values, ecosystem services, or both, depending on the context at hand.…”