Main » 2012 » June » 27 » Fisheries of bangladesh
1:57 AM Fisheries of bangladesh |
Fisheries policy in Bangladesh is still trying to get to grips with the
major (universal) dilemmas of maximizing benefits from natural
resources while, at the same time, ensuring an acceptable degree of
equity in distribution of benefits and protecting the ecosystems that
support the resources. During the twentieth century Bangladesh adopted
one-sided production-oriented policies in the agricultural sector to
feed the rapidly growing population. This strategy included increasing
fish production, which was in decline mainly as a result of
environmental degradation brought about by the expansion of
agriculture. The solution was aquaculture development and later the
promotion of culture-based fisheries and large scale stocking in the
floodplains and beels (lakes) that previously sustained the capture fisheries. Although fish production perse in many cases may have
increased as a result of this type of intervention, benefits are not
socially and environmentally sustainable.
Traditional leasing of
waterbodies is effective but not equitable because the powerful
leaseholders control the access; and because the leasing arrangements
are of short duration the leaseholders will try to maximize benefits,
often at the expense of environment and biodiversity. These strategies
have consequently caused serious negative environmental impacts and
have further reinforced inequalities between local elites and poorer fishers. Although several attempts have been made to transfer fishing
rights to poor fishers through community-based management
arrangements, influential people tend to dominate these attempts when
there are financial attractions such as subsidies for stocking and the
opportunity for easily controlled profits.
While stocking of fingerlings, gear bans and seasonal bans on all or some fishing gears
were successful technically to conserve and enhance resources it led to
exclusion and suffering of poor fishers. Culture-based fisheries have
relatively high production, but need strictly enforced closed seasons
to allow fish to grow, an activity which excludes poor subsistence fishers. However, in some places people who participated with the
expectations of considerable personal gains ceded when more resilient
lower-cost practices such as sanctuaries were adopted.
Local
equity issues are partly mitigated when poor people are allowed to
catch small (non-stocked species) for food. In the floodplains, public
stocking has not been sustained as access to these larger open systems
is difficult to control and participants are unable to capture enough
benefits or raise funds from the wider community, while landowners
tend to take advantage of the situation and catch more of the stocked
fish. In smaller, more closed waterbodies, groups of fishers are able
to control access and can profit, but the risks and need for capital
are high.
The various management
arrangements and the risks and benefits they entail for the
stakeholder groups are examined as well as the roles of donors, Non
governmental Organizations and the government and its agencies.
Culture-based enhancements have been encouraged as a panacea solution
to increase benefits from fisheries, however, here it is concluded
that the entry point for fisheries management should not be stocking.
Interventions such as sanctuaries and limits on fishing effort are
less risky and cause less social conflict. Habitat rehabilitation has
a higher initial capital cost but does not require recurring annual
investments in stocking. However, this type of intervention is not very
attractive due to the government’s lease policies that discourage
long-term investments in fisheries management. So, it is high time we should provide our thinkings for the betterment of this sector.
|
|
Views: 336 |
Added by: Anas
| Rating: 2.0/1 |
|
|
| Our poll |
|
 |
| Statistics |
Total online: 1 Guests: 1 Users: 0 |
|
| Login form |
|
|
| Calendar |
|
|
| Entries archive |
|
|
|
