Sustainability at a cost: An inceptive analysis of “extended” fishing ban on the livelihoods of fishers of Tamil Nadu

Abstract

An emphasis on sustainable marine fish production has paved the way for the enactment of Marine Fisheries Regulation Acts and subsequent regulations in India. A closed season ban on fishing has been one of the very few successful regulatory measures since its introduction in 2001 in Tamil Nadu. Since 2017, the fishing ban period has been extended from 45 to 60 days for the east coast of India, for ecosystem‐based marine fisheries management. This study analyses the socioeconomic impacts of change in the fishing ban (closed season) across the four coastal zones of Tamil Nadu. For the past 10 years, CPUE has been stable or increased marginally. Among the four coasts, the relative change in employment and labour income loss was highest for Palk Bay (36.84%). Transaction costs of implementation of the ban caused an additional expense of Rs 496.5 million to the Government in 2017 and the overall total labour income loss has leaped from Rs 1,638.2 to 2,100.2 million due to the extension of the ban. The fishing ban has aided in the recovery of habitat and regeneration of stock through recruitment. Training and capacity building on alternative livelihood options are highly recommended to enable the workers to cope with the ban period.

A case study of illegal fishing causes during seasonal fishery closure in Kaptai Lake, Bangladesh

“…Fishing bans, permanent or temporary, are commonly used for fisheries management and biodiversity conservation in aquatic ecosystems (Amali Infantina et al, 2020; Shiffman & Hammerschlag, 2016; van Brakel et al, 2018). Implementation of fishing bans requires consideration of socioeconomic, cultural, political and behavioural issues of dependent communities to be effective (Bell et al, 2007; Muth & Bowe, 1998; van Brakel et al, 2018).…”

Seasonal Fishery Closure in the Northern Bay of Bengal Causes Immediate but Contrasting Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts

“…Measures should be properly addressed for the restoration of these resources, because the social impacts influence their success (Islam et al, 2017). The scarcity of livelihoods should be understood by prior consultation with fishers, and proper actions should be taken by providing input for appropriate additional livelihood opportunities (Amali Infantina et al, 2020). Food security issues are a major concern during the ban period.…”

“…Policymakers and managers consider seasonal fishery closure a useful intervention in addressing overexploitation and protecting species during their spawning season (Cinner et al, 2006;Arendse et al, 2007;Bavinck et al, 2008;Cohen et al, 2013;Colwell et al, 2019). Many different seasonal fishing closures have been implemented worldwide, such as restrictions on trawling by motorized and mechanized vessels (Morton, 2011;Barley Kincaid and Rose, 2014;Loring, 2017), shrimp trawling (Vivekanandan et al, 2010), and gill netting (Loring, 2017) for a short and defined period of time or permanently (Bavinck et al, 2008;Morton, 2011;Pranovi et al, 2015;Colwell et al, 2019;Amali Infantina et al, 2020) or for a single species (Vivekanandan et al, 2010;Oliver et al, 2015). These are widely recognized conservation and management measures that promote the safeguarding of species by restraining fishing and shielding the species during their spawning season (Hargraves, 2011;Cohen et al, 2013;Chimba and Musuka, 2014;Musiello-Fernandes et al, 2017;Narayanakumar et al, 2017).…”

“…Restriction on fishing has strong short-term negative impacts, particularly on the income and livelihood of vulnerable coastal fishers and their communities (Brillo et al, 2019;Napata et al, 2020), as there are no alternative employment opportunities during the fishing ban. This suggests that fishers are left with no other choice but to take on the full impact of the income loss caused by the ban (Aswathy et al, 2011;Brillo et al, 2019;Amali Infantina et al, 2020). This conservation regime generates unemployment and poverty (Shyam et al, 2010), leaving artisanal small-scale fishers and the crews of industrial fishers as the primary victims of the ban .…”

Social sustainability in Bangladesh marine fisheries management: A case from Hatiya fishing community

“…Like other communities, building and maintaining social sustainability in the fisheries communities is indispensable as vulnerable groups are prevalent in the fisheries sector. However, when executing any fisheries management-related activities, the social aspect of sustainability is occasionally neglected [ [12] , [13] , [14] ] or attained the least concern in natural resource management particularly in coastal and marine systems [ [15] , [16] , [17] ]. The environmental economic facets of sustainability have often dominated the discussion, while social dimensions have been marginalized because of two main reasons: 1) there is not enough information available to provide comprehensive images of the social components of sustainability for population across time, and 2) there is a failure to appreciate the relevance of social issues in sustainability [ 18 ].…”