65-day Marine-fishing Ban and Marine Protected Area in Bangladesh: Complementing or Overlapping
Mohammed Joynal Abedin1 Dr. Md. Kawser Ahmed2 Abstract
65-day ban and Marine protected areas (MPA) are different methods of marine conservation for sustainable fishery and protection of biodiversity and ecosystem. Bangladesh has so far declared its first-ever MPA in 2014 and two Marine Reserve Areas (MRAs): one in 2000 and another one is in 2019. On the other hand, the government has been implementing a 65-day nationwide marine-fishing ban along with few more banning periods of smaller duration.
Authority has been implementing 65-day ban by force every-year at the cost of fishers’ livelihood and misery. In addition to this long ban, implementation of MPA/MRAs would multiply fishers’ misery causing social failure. Hence, this study aimed at investigating whether or not both the conservation tools should continue simultaneously from the fishers’ perspective. Covering 3 selected fishing communities and applying both quantitative and qualitative methods, this study concludes that, the matter of increasing Hilsa catch as an output of a 65- day ban needs detailed study. The study also concludes that both 65-day ban and MPA/MRAs conservations need common strategies from fishers’ perspective:
alternative livelihood creation, awareness building, educating fishers, fishers’
participation in management etc.
Keywords: Marine protected area, 65-day ban, Conservation, Stakeholder participation
1.0 Introduction
In many parts of the world, people consider ocean as a never-ending source of marine resources, but scientific evidences have demonstrated these notions wrong (Agardy, 1997). Marine biodiversity, including all living and non-living resources on which the ultimate existence of human civilization depends, is being affected by different human activities like overfishing, destructive fishing,
1 PhD Research Fellow, Centre for Higher Studies and Research, Bangladesh University of Professionals
Email: [email protected]
2 Professor, Department of Oceanography, University of Dhaka, Email: [email protected]
mining, shipping, pollution, industrial operations, etc (Hossain et al., 2014).
Under such a situation, parties to CBD (Convention of Biological Diversity) agreed to implement marine protected areas (MPAs) as one of the essential tools for the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources (Diegues, 2008). An MPA is a designated coastal or marine area where certain activities or practices are regulated to preserve natural resources, biodiversity, ecosystem, and cultural and historical features (Laffoley et al., 2019). Later UNEP Aichi declaration called for by 2020, at least 10 percent of coastal and marine areas to be protected for the future of this world. Under the obligation of international protocols and conventions including conservation of own marine ecosystem and biodiversity, Bangladesh declared first-ever MPA at Swatch of No Ground known as SoNG MPA (Ministry of Environment and Forest circular no…/ 155 of 27 October 2014). However, declaration alone cannot guarantee effectiveness or success as envisaged. Almost parallely Bangladesh has been implementing the 65-day ban on marine-fishing for the conservation of marine fishery since 2015. The study of effectiveness and lesson learned from the 65-day ban can assist the authority in formulating the right strategy for effective MPA. Hence, the objective of this study is to critically analyze the outcome of 65 day ban towards sustainable fishery and to draw lessons from the fishers‟ perspective for formulating a common strategy for marine conservation.
1.1 Literature Review
IUCN (2015) has published a report on the national framework for establishing and managing MPA where socioeconomic factors and public perception were discussed. This publication took the opinion of grass root level stakeholders for the formulation of policy and framework yet the research was done before the 65-day ban came into being. Thus the study could not gather lessons of highly related, very practical, and pragmatic conservation issues. Moreover, this study was neither an empirical study nor it was specific to any MPA rather it was a report for an ecological and marine protected area in general (IUCN, 2015). This report has mentioned the negative perception of the coastal people of Bangladesh towards authority and their decisions on marine fishery as a whole. Karim &
Uddin (2019) proposed that besides resource allocation and formulating a management plan, stakeholders‟ participation and implementation of
international marine environmental law are crucial for the future success of this marine protected area. However, the researcher did not survey stakeholders to get insight of their viewpoints. Moreover, their research was on legal issues rather than the effectiveness of MPA as a whole and this one also did not study the 65-day ban. OECD (2017) argued that poor ocean management do not take environmental and social costs into decision-making processes. “It is one thing to draw a line on a map – it is another to effectively design, site, monitor and enforce them” OECD (2017). Dutta et al. (2016) argued that commercial fishery management needs a good scientific understanding of exploited stocks. Muallil et al. (2013) conducted a survey on fishers to find out the association of socioeconomic factors with fishing effort aiming to find measures of reducing fishing pressure on small scale fisheries in the Philippines. This study further looked into how various alternative livelihood influence fishing effort to get insights for future livelihood programs for the fishing community to reduce fishing pressure, but did not focus on MPA. Trenouth et al. (2012) have examined how people rank anthropogenic and natural hazards with regards to marine and coastal protected areas (MCPA) of Tasmania, Australia to assess the associated perceptions of MCPA importance and management effectiveness.
Numerous studies are there encompassing both qualitative and quantitative methods regarding fishers‟ livelihood, socioeconomic situations, and marine conservation issues but did not study any fishing-ban, particularly a 65-day nationwide ban to draw lessons towards MPA management. Therefore, this study is different from others both in scope and approach encompassing a survey amongst artisanal fishers towards strategy formulation for effective marine conservation in Bangladesh.
1.2 MPA and 65-day Ban - a Conceptual Overview
Overexploitation of fishery resources, destructive and illegal fishing in the coastal area of Bangladesh caused the reduction of catch per unit effort (CPUE) in the marine fishery (Hossain & Hoq, 2010). The limitation and constraints of related laws and policy coupled with other issues lead to the IUU (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated) fishing (Islam et al., 2017 and Islam&
Smasuddoha, 2018). Under such a context, MPA is important for the fulfillment of the obligation under international conventions like UNCLOS (UN Convention on Law of the Sea), Aichi declaration, and CBD agreement and achievement of
SDG (Sustainable Development Goal) 14 (Karim, 2011, Rahman et al., 2020 and Islam, 2021). Besides, it is very important for the recovery of the depleting marine fisheries resources of Bangladesh. Marine ecosystem and biodiversity enjoys a higher level of protection in an MPA than its surroundings and MPAs are also important tools to reverse depleting marine fishery (Diegues, 2008).
Similarly, the nationwide 65-day ban during the breeding season of fishes also aimed to boost fishery resources in the marine area of Bangladesh.
Implementation of fishery ban, as seen in the case of establishment of Hilsa sanctuaries, brings some negative socio-economic impacts such as loss of income, temporary unemployment, deterioration of food security, and increased poverty (Islam et al., 2017). Though government gave out 40 kg rice per fisher family, but the ban could be implemented at cost of their misery. In the case of MPA, Gelcich et al. (2009), Hamilton (2012) and Weigel et al. (2014) stressed that required compliance will not be achieved unless the stakeholders properly understand why and how MPAs will bring benefit to them. To that effect, fishers need to know and understand the establishment of MPAs through appropriate awareness building and education programs.
1.3 Methodology
A multi-group of people were amongst the target population of this study where artisanal fishers were the key stakeholders, who used to fish in the sea area of Bangladesh including in the newly declared MPA. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches have been applied in this study to increase the validity, triangulation and extracting the maximum outcomes of the research. Structured, semi-structured, and unstructured questionnaires were developed through a pilot study. The study was carried out in 3 fishing communities: Chattogram, Borguna and Khulna-Bagerhut area. Besides, MB (Mechanised Boat) and NMB (Non-mechanised Boat) owners and officers of industrial trawlers were also surveyed. Using non-probability purposive sampling, a total of 325 fishers and 101 fishing trawler owners from 3 selected areas and 35 officers from Industrial trawlers were surveyed and interviewed. Apart from the survey; experts, officials, environmentalists including their association members were also interviewed for qualitative study. The instruments included questionnaires (all types), FGD (Focused Group Discussion), In-depth Interview, uncontrolled personal observation, and secondary data study. Survey on fishers, owners and
industrial trawlers was done through a face-to-face interview using a structured and semi-structured questionnaire. The in-depth interview was employed to collect qualitative data from experts, officials, and environmentalists etc.
Yearbook of Fisheries Statistics of Bangladesh from 2001-02 to 2018-19, fishermen registration data from Department of Fishery website and research articles were the main source of secondary data. Collected primary or survey data were coded and entered in SPSS and analyzed using SPSS. The normality test was carried out using SPSS and data was not found to be of normal distribution as such nonparametric tests like chi-square test, frequency distribution were conducted for this data.
2.0 Results
2.1 Fishers’ Perception towards 65-day Ban
The survey and FGD with fishers were done during the 65 days nationwide ban on marine fishing and fishers were shocked with the sudden decision of ban.
Fishers do not receive any salary rather they get the share of the sale proceed from the catch. So the fishers cannot earn from fishing during the ban period.
Having the scarcity of alternative livelihood, poor fishers‟ basic demands become crucial during the 65 days ban. As such, naturally general fishers remain angry about the ban. Even fishers were skeptical about the decision of ban taking it negatively. Like fishers, MB (mechanised boat) owners were not happy with the 65 days ban as shown in table 1. Their reply regarding the requirement to review the ban is associated with their feeling about the ban. Only normal fishers‟
response of “Like 65 days ban” vis-à-vis “Need to Review the ban” is not associated; meaning their answers are not very credible in this regard or they might have felt no duration of ban would be suitable for them. Later is more probable as qualitative findings validate such quantitative results.
Table 1: Respondents' perception regarding 65 days nationwide fishing ban in 2019
View Chi-Square Test Associati Yes No Valu on
e
DF Significan ce Fishers
(Total 323)
Like 65 days ban 14 309 1.68 5
1 .194 No
Need to review the ban
271 52
MB Like 65 days ban 7 160 21.4 1 .000 Yes
Owners (Total 167)
Need to review the ban
163 4 14 (highly)
Industrial Trawlers‟
Officers (Total 35)
Favour of fishing restriction duration*
Upto 45 days: 10, 45 days > 8, 60 days >17
12.7
27 4 .013 Yes
Need to review the 65 days ban
14 21
* Industrial trawlers‟ officers were asked different but similar questions as they highly favored the 65 days ban during the pilot survey
Source: Field Survey 2019 (SPSS analysis)
On the contrary, while discussing with the industrial trawlers‟ officers they were found highly optimistic in supporting the nationwide ban. Industrial trawlers‟
officers and skippers were found highly positive about 65 days ban, therefore, they were asked about the suitable duration for a ban in the future rather than whether they favor the ban or not. In reply to suitable duration, 50% favored more than 65 days, and the rest 25% favored more than 45 days. Their reply is also explained by their response against “Ned to review 65 days ban” which is statistically associated with the necessary duration of ban in the future.
According to them, due to this ban fish resources has been growing and this will increase the yield of both artisanal and industrial fishers. During the ban most industrial trawlers found carrying out annual refit and maintenance, at the same time, many of the employees and officers were enjoying leave. Most importantly the industrial trawlers‟ officers and employees (fishers) receive monthly salary during the ban period. As their job (salary) security remains intact, they are happy to have a ban period during rough sea season when they can enjoy leave avoiding tough times at sea.
2.2 Fishers’ Reaction to Government Grant during 65 Days Ban
The government started 65 days fishing ban in 2015 starting with a restriction for only industrial trawlers. Since 2019, the ban has been imposed for all types of fishers in the entire marine fishery. During the 65 days of nationwide restriction on the marine fishery, most of the fishers lost their earning. However, few fishers said that the government gave away 40 kg rice per fisher (registered fishers only) per month for the ban period only. Most of the fishers said they did not receive
the government grant rather only a few vested cornered fishers and other beneficiaries could receive that grant. Even a few complained about the harassment and counted additional money to avail the grant. Moreover, fishers commented with exclamation that such a small amount of rice was not sufficient for their family. Further, they have complained that most of the receivers of the grant were connection biased, as reported by most of the fishers during their interview and also during FGD. Even, many of the receivers of 40 kg rice were not originally fishers, rather people close to the authority grabbed the grant in the name of fishers. The government grant also targeted 4,14,784 fishers which is about 50% of fishers along the coast. (Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, GoB letter no 51,00,0000,421,14,012,15-141 dated 27 May 2019). The DoF-MIS (Department of Fishery-Management Information System) data also suggest that a handful number of fishers are targeted for the government grant.
According to fishery statistics of 2018-19, there was a total of 34810 non- mechanized fishing boats (NMB) and 32859 mechanized boats (MB) which can accommodate approximately 1005280 fishers whereas, till 12 February 2021 there were only 152136 fishers registered in the DoF-MIS database as shown in table 2. This indicates that if the government aimed to cover all registered marine fishers then approximately 14.2% marine fishers were supposed to receive the grant which is very meager compared to the fishers‟ pool in the coastal area.
Table 2: Percentage of fishers registered with DoF
River Coastal Sea Total
Coastal + Sea
No of Boat Not shown 34810 32859 67669
Estimated Fishers (Multiplied by 10 fishers per NMB and 20 Fishers per
MB)
348100 657180 1005280
Registered Fishers 1000767 25088 127048 152136
Percentage Registered 7.2% 22.7% 14.2%
Source: Estimated from Year Book of Fisheries Statistics of Bangladesh 2018-19 and DoF website http://www.fisheries.gov.bd/ accessed on 12 Feb 2021 Furthermore, fishers complained that during this ban period, many fishers from neighboring countries intrude into Bangladesh water and caught a large amount of fish using modern trawling equipment. Their complaints could not be ruled out, as newspaper and electronic media reported such intrusion several times. We
have also observed that Bangladesh Navy has driven away dozens of foreign fishing trawlers from the fishing ground of Bangladesh including the designated SoNG-MPA. On the contrary, few elderly key informants opined that generally, people do not trust government‟s projects/undertakings positively. As such fishers doubted government‟s rice grant as show off actions. However, learned respondents agreed that the allotment of grants for all fishers would be huge and unmanageable which is not possible all of a sudden, therefore fishers should welcome government‟s grant as a humble beginning.
During the 65 days ban, there was a huge protest in the cities including Chattogram creating a long traffic jam on the intercity highway. As such 65 days ban on the entire marine fishery was treated negatively and so the requirement MPA as conservation of MPA would encompass some sort of ban on the marine fishery. Expert views were also mixed. They opined that the ban from May to mid-July falls in rough sea season but this roughness starts from June and elongates up to August. Therefore, the ban from the month of May is unscientific and was not communicated to fishers. However, according to few key informants, this ban has just put on test for about 3-4 years, which would bring positive results in the long run and will be accepted soon like Hilsa sanctuary did in the riverine areas.
2.3 Questionable Success of 65-day Ban
After the ban, the perception of normal fishers remained similar whereas, few of owners cum Mazhi (master of a boat) found commenting positively about the ban. Mintu Mazhi, an owner of two boats, was asked about the 65 days ban in 2020, on the marine fishery, she replied that 65-day ban has benefited them in many ways specially with a higher yield of Hilsa. As he said that it has created an opportunity for breeding safely and reduced the mortality rate of fingerlings, which increased fish resources namely Hilsa. Secondly, the ban has offered the fishers to avail leave period during a rough and stormy season when they used to fish risking their lives. The following figure demonstrating yearly Hilsa production growth proved his perception regarding the necessity of ban. This growing yield may be linked with the result of 65-day ban coupled with other ban imposed by DoF around the year. The following chart constructed using year- wise Hilsa catch from fishery statistics of Bangladesh clearly shows that the
Hilsa production has sharply increased from the year of 2014-15 to 2015-16.
Superficial analysis of the statistics may support a hypothesis of a link between the 65-day ban and growing Hilsa production.
Figure 1: Year-wise Hilsa Catch of Bangladesh in Metric Ton Source: Yearbook of fisheries statistics from 2006-7 to 2018-19
A closer look into associated factors and data may hint further evaluation of the causes of growing Hilsa yield. Hilsa catch of marine and inland sector show that marine sector has got lower growth than inland sector. Thus it may be said that the inland Hilsa production has got jump increase due to the result of combined conservation measures both in marine and inland areas. In the following figure, we can see that there was huge addition of fishing boats in the marine sector at a rate of 26% and 16% growth in 2013-14 and 2014-15 fiscal year. So higher catch of Hilsa may also be linked to the addition of the fishing crafts in the marine sector meaning an increase of fishing effort. There might have also the addition of fishing pressure in the inland sector which needs to be analyzed. But still it may be said that there was some achievement of 65 days ban on the total Hilsa fishery. But if we look at other figures below we see that total fishery resource as a total catch almost remains the same with a 3% percent increase which was usual before ban introduction. Yearbooks of fishery statistics of Bangladesh shows that, in the year 2001-02, a total of 43960 artisanal fishing boats (MB and NMB) could catch 390255 metric tons of fish. This means the catch per boat was
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Catch in Ton
Year-wise Total Hilsa Catch
8.8 tons of fish per year, whereas, in the year 2017-18, a total of 67669 boats were engaged in artisanal fishing which could catch 534600 M tons of fish rendering 7.9 tons per boat per year. So it is seen from yearly catch per boat from the year 2001-02 to 2017-18 as shown in figure 5 that though total catch has been increasing but catch per boat has been decreasing (Fisheries statistical Yearbooks of Bangladesh from 2001 to 2018).
Figure 2: Catch per Artisanal Boat per Year in M Ton from 2001 to 2018 Source: Prepared from data provided in 17 yearly published Fisheries Statistical
Yearbooks of Bangladesh from 2001-02 to 2017-18
So the 65 days ban has nothing to do with fishery resources as a whole except Hilsa. On the other hand, fishers expressed that more and more fishers are converting their fishing boat into Hilsa catcher rather than a general one, the conversion percentage is a matter of study. Though, the Yearbook of Fishery Statistics of Bangladesh 2018-19 has assumed this to be the output of various conservation activities undertaken by DoF including a 65-day ban, whereas the catch per boat is rather decreasing. Therefore, it may not be concluded right now that the increase in Hilsa catch does not necessarily associate with the observance of 65 days ban in the entire marine fishery. There are other conservation programs for the sustainable fishery including the Jatka (Fingerlings) conservation program, management of Hilsa sanctuary, and Hilsa spawning
protection activities, etc are also contributing to this increase as such the ultimate utility of 65 days ban would need to be carefully studied over some time.
Figure 3: Year-wise Hilsa production from Inland and Marine Fishery Separately and Combined
Source: Yearbook of fisheries statistics from 2006-7 to 2018-19
Figure 4: Year-wise Growth Rate of Hilsa Production of Marine and Inland Production
Source: Yearbook of fisheries statistics from 2006-7 to 2018-19
-5.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Year-wise Growth Rate of Hilsa Production of Marine and Inland Production
Inland Marine
Figure 5: Year-wise Growth Rate of Total Marine Catch, Number of Craft and Total Hilsa Catch, Marine Hilsa Catch
Source: Yearbook of fisheries statistics from 2006-7 to 2018-19
Indian states with similar coast of Bangladesh have been practicing fishing ban since long in their marine area as shown below. They have different periods and showed due consideration for their artisanal fishery except for west Bengal-having smaller coastal area and GOA -having relatively well-off fisher folk.
Table 3: Existing Fishing Ban in Few Indian States
Year of Introduction
Period Total Days
Crafts Banned Crafts Permitted
Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry
2001 15 April - 31 May
47 Mechanized boats/Trawlers
All crafts less than 25 Hp
engine Andhra
Pradesh
2000 15 April - 31 May
47
Orissa 2000 15 April -
15 June 60
West Bengal 1995 15 April - 31 May
47 Trawlers, gillnetters, behundi
nets, bir net
-
Goa 1989 10 June-
15 August
67 All craft -
Source: Vivekanandan et al. (2010)
26.65%
16.95%
25.69%
-10.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
Year-wise Growth Rate of Total marine Catch, Number of Craft and Total Hilsha Catch, Marine Hilsa Catch
Total Catch Growth
Craft Growth
Total Hilsa Growth
Marine Hilsa Catch
Being heavily dependent on the marine fishery, Bangladeshi coastal fishers may increase the fishing frequency or pressure including employment of high-tech fishing equipment during the allowed season to subside their loss during ban.
This in turn would lead to severe overexploitation of marine fishery resources, which may jeopardize the very aim of the ban and would also render MPA/MRA ineffective or useless. Critical analysis of existing data suggests that rethinking on adjustment of ban by duration and time or combination with MPA/MRAs may be viable options. Otherwise marine resources of Bangladesh may be endangered to become out of stock.
2.4 Fishers’ Perception towards a Marine Protected Area
When fishers were asked about the importance of MPA for sustainable marine resources, 167 fishermen or 51.9% expressed their views positively and 155 or 48.1% fishers expressed negatively. This shows that fishers‟ response is not conclusive and more specifically it may be said that they are not sure actually what is MPA for and what to tell about it.
Figure 6: Fishers‟ Attitude towards MPA Source: Field Survey 2019 (SPSS analysis)
As fishers are not aware of MPA and its purpose, they get skeptical about its purposes when someone tries to make them understand. Fishers think that MPA is like some type of ban which is unnecessary and would serve the purpose of
167 155
322
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Positive Negative Total
Fishers' Attitude towards MPA
government, not theirs. While discussing with the fishers regarding the requirement of MPA during FGD, they vehemently opposed any requirement of MPA without trying to understand the essence of it. When they were cleared about the particulars of MPA they were still doubtful about any such MPA in the sea area. Fishers‟ perception of the 65-day ban reflects the fishers‟ reflection of their perception in regards to MPA which will be surfaced once MPA will be implemented according to regulations and management plan. Key informants suggest that fishers‟ negative attitude would be minimized through appropriate awareness-building specially educating them with its benefits.
3.0 Discussion
3.1 Why do Fishers not Adhere to MRA and 40 Meter Restrictions?
Generally, officers of industrial trawlers are aware of MRA declared in 2000 and 40-meter depth-line restriction (trawling below 40-meter depth is prohibited for industrial trawlers). However, they do not comply with MRA and regularly violate the 40-meter restriction. A deductive summary of the respondents‟
abstract reply/comments during FGD with industrial fishers to the question “what makes them habituated violating the clear-cut government order” reveals that the absence of policing agencies is one of the main causes. Besides the penalty for such violation, as per Marine Fisheries Ordinance 1983, was meager compared to the short-term benefit. The artisanal fishers are not aware of the existence of MRA let alone compliance. BN (Bangladesh Navy) and BCG (Bangladesh Coast Guard) ships carry out patrols in the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) dividing it into suitable areas considering the distance and assets of naval commands (Chattogram/ Khulna). Normally few ships can't cover vast EEZ for multifarious marine policing duties like anti-smuggling, anti-gun running, anti-drug trafficking, and anti-human trafficking, while DoF is not equipped with suitable crafts/vessel for enforcement fishery management measures. They fully depend on BN and BCG for the implementation of marine fishery measures. So, from security perspective, fishery restrictions and management alone need several dedicated crafts and personnel. Moreover, navy personnel are found to be ill-informed about what to check or how to ascertain violations. Even after apprehending any trawler for violation, it takes a lot of hassle in preparing documents and pieces of evidence to hand over the trawlers to the concerned authority. There is also a restriction on the certain minimum mesh size of the nets
both for industrial and artisanal trawlers, the measurement of which is also cumbersome, and navy personnel are not trained in this regard. Even after taking all the trouble, BN personnel catch the defaulter trawler but which is found cleared for the next trip without any regulatory/non-regulatory barriers.
Occasionally, as viewed by unanimous key informants, security personnel remain scared of the unpleasant pressure from powerful links of the trawlers‟ owner.
In case of a 65-day nationwide fishing ban, authority can locate the violator easily as anything and everything engaged in fishing or about to come out for fishing is illegal. But in the case of a bounded area either MPA or MRA, detection of violators needs surveillance, monitoring, and enforcement through dedicated effort and assets. Therefore, before ensuring strict compliance with MPA or MRA, fishers should be informed and educated through the required program. Having limited assets and funds, the best way to implement conservation of MPA/MRA is through the involvement of fishers.
3.2 65-day Ban Complementary or Overlapping with MPA/MRA
The core aim of both the 65-day ban and MPA/MRAs is to ensure the conservation of marine resources for a long-term sustainable fishery. As mentioned before the ultimate benefit of a 65-day ban is debatable, even if the ban brings any positive outcome that again comes at the cost of misery and suffering of coastal poor fishers. On the other hand, the government has already declared 3 MPA/MRAs covering 4.6% marine area and more of such declarations are on the pipeline to keep the commitment of keeping 10% marine protected area (Calculated from 3 declarations: above mentioned GoB circular for SoNG declaration, Gazette Notification dated 30 Oct 2000 and 23 June 2019;
Claudet et al., 2020). The effect of overexploitation and severe overfishing during the non-ban period (10 months) is a matter of study and concern. During the ban period MRAs and MPA are automatically enforced but rest of the year no one abides by the MPA/MRA regulations. Whether 10% area protection would be sufficient or not is a matter of research but UN Environment Programme and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) considered 10% area conservation would bring sustainability in marine resources (Islam, 2021). If a 10% area is sufficient then a 65-day ban may be considered as overlapping with MPA/MRA.
If not sufficient, then the ban duration and time may have to be adjusted and revised. Moreover, harsh implementation of 65-day ban demonstrates three main lessons- (1) vigorous creation of alternative livelihoods before implementation,
(2) motivation of the fishers through awareness building and education, and (3) involvement of the fishers in the planning and implementation process. These lessons are equally applicable for effective MPA and MRAs implementation for the sustainable fishery. Therefore, effective and successful MPA/MRAs would be more realistic and user-friendly along with enforcement of other fishery restrictions like minimum mesh size, prohibition of Estuary Set Bag Nets (ESBN) or Marine Set Bag Nets (MSBN), 40-meter depth rule etc.
3.3 Alternative Livelihood Creation
Poverty, which is one of the causes of environmental degradation, can be alleviated through sustainable use of linked resources and providing an opportunity for sustainable livelihood (Techera, 2013). The creation of job opportunities or self-employment is necessary to boost the livelihood to divert fishers from intense fishing. Job opportunity or self-employment may include fish-farming, fish/dry fish trade, commercial poultry farms, dairy/cattle farms, commercial agriculture, small trade, rice processing and trading, handicrafts, marine aquaculture, seaweed farming etc. Hasan et al. (2010) also reported similar occupational engagement of fishers in Pirojpur- a coastal district of Bangladesh. But whatever trade or opportunity the marginal fishers want to avail, as suggested, communities can hardly attain sustainable livelihoods by themselves. External support and assistance in terms of funding from government, NGOs etc. and capacity building is required (Techera, 2013).
Supports may be in the form of microcredit, revolving fund, investment in other sectors like tourism, renewable energy etc.
3.4 Awareness Building and Education Programs
Awareness is important for the preparation and successful implementation of the MPA management plan, stakeholder involvement and local committee formation, and their active participation. The program may commence with various types of brochures that would be useful in communicating to the stakeholders. Authority should distribute the brochures among schools, universities, tourism agencies, ministries, bookstores, etc. Management may have to produce video clips and documentaries on MPAs and distribute the documentaries to clubs, social media, and YouTubes channels. This may also include public awareness text through mobile networks. Publication of calendars and installations of a billboard could
accelerate public awareness and MPA education. T-shirt distribution with MPA Logo amongst the concerned communities may yield good results. Management will document MPA's success stories and obstacles through field visits and interviews, and disseminate them in national and local print and electronic media including social networks. Management will promote MPAs in tourism fairs and exhibitions and obtain the support of populations, civil society, and decision-makers for the MPAs network strategy. The school and colleges can also include syllabi on MPA and marine conservation with a short discussion.
The authority may facilitate organized tours to marine protected areas for schools and assist the creation of environmental clubs in schools.
3.5 Fishers’ Participation
Direct users are the best managers and most informed stakeholders who are in a better position to contribute towards effective management of MPA. Fishers are not only users, but they also live on the fish resources of the MPAs since their forefathers and they are affected by any measure taken that affect these resources. Therefore, their involvement would be very useful because whatever end outcome of marine conservation may be, good or bad, fishers will accept any commonly decided restriction easily because it is them who participated in the decision making. So fishers‟ participation should be incorporated basing on the recommendations of preliminary studies including this one and pilot project for testing stakeholders‟ participation. Participation would be easy and practicable through purpose-oriented education and awareness-building program for the fishermen of the coastal area including encouraging and empowering fishers‟
organizations in their local area. Elderly fishers and experts opined that local participation on paper and ground will not be the same which will ultimately lead to the failure of the project. The general tendency of authority and pampered community always mock the fishers‟ views as useless and unimportant which ultimately keep the fishers and, even security agencies, in dark.
4. Major Findings
The declaration of MPA/MRA and enforcement of the 65-day ban are aimed at marine conservation and sustainable fishery. Authority is yet to come up with an MPA regulation and management plan but will encompass certain fishery restrictions. MRAs are fishery reserve areas where fishing is not allowed at all,
though fishers do not comply with MRA restrictions. On the other hand, a 65-day ban imposes a complete restriction of fishing when all MPA/MRAs are automatically complied with. Thus 65-day ban could introduce marine fishery restriction which is followed and can be easily replicated for the future enforcement of MPA/MRAs. But the 65-day ban comes at the cost of fishers‟
misery and loss of livelihood. Moreover, the outcome of the 65-day ban without other restrictions (mesh size control, depth rule, etc) is questionable. After a detailed study, the authority would be able to decide either a 65-day ban combined with MPA/MRAs or only one form of conservation will continue. In both cases of conservation enforcement; alternative livelihood creation, awareness building and educating fishers, and fishers‟ participation in management are important imperatives. Besides capacity building of concerned security agencies is also important for effective MPA/MRA conservation.
5. Conclusion
Imposition of a long yet harsh 65-day ban on entire marine area was easily possible because poor fishers are powerless and voiceless. Whereas much smaller MPAs/MRAs could not yet be implemented despite having compulsion under international protocols, sustainable development goal 14 and sustainable fishery.
Lack of: willpower, drive, resource, understanding, integration are a few of the causes of failure for long, and actions have been remaining „will be‟ rather than
„has been‟ in ocean management. Therefore, a viable management plan and clear-cut MPA regulation in light of lessons derived from the 65-day ban is urgently required. MPA/MRAs take care of marine conservation as well as fishers‟ life through sustainable fishery without livelihood loss. Fishers‟
participation through some sort of adaptive co-management from the initial planning to full-scale implementation is highly imperative for effective MPA/MRAs. Before effective management of MPAs, fishers‟ alternative livelihood generations strategies have to be developed and nurtured enthusiastically. Besides, all feasible awareness building and education programs should run parallely to increase fishers‟ adherence to regulations and restrictions.
Whether or not the ban or MPAs will be successful depends also on capacity building of security agencies and implementation of associated important fishery restrictions like minimum mesh size, depth regulations, and prohibition of set bag nets etc.
Reference
Agardy, T. S. 1997. Marine protected areas and ocean conservation. Academic Press. pp-23.
Claudet, J., Loiseau, C., Sostres, M. and Zupan, M., 2020. Underprotected marine protected areas in a global biodiversity hotspot. One Earth, 2(4), pp.380-384.
Diegues, A.C., 2008. Marine protected areas and artisanal fisheries in Brazil.
pp-vii.
Dutta, S., Chakraborty, K. and Hazra, S., 2016, June. The status of the marine fisheries of West Bengal coast of the northern Bay of Bengal and its management options: a review. In Proceedings of the Zoological Society (Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 1-8). Springer India.
Gelcich, S., Godoy, N. and Castilla, J. C. 2009 Artisanal fishers‟ perceptions regarding coastal co-management policies in Chile and their potentials to scale-up marine biodiversity conservation, Ocean & Coastal Management, 52, 424–432.
Hamilton, M. 2012. Perceptions of fishermen towards marine protected areas in Cambodia and the Philippines. Bioscience Horizons: The International Journal of Student Research, 5
Hossain, M.S., Chowdhury, S.R., Navera, U.K., Hossain, M.A.R., Imam, B. and Sharifuzzaman, S.M., 2014. Opportunities and strategies for ocean and river resources management. Dhaka: Background paper for preparation of the 7th Five Year Plan. Planning Commission, Ministry of Planning, Bangladesh.
Hussain, M.G., Hoq, M.E., 2010. Sustainable Management of Fisheries Resources of the Bay of Bengal: Compilation of National and Regional Workshop Reports: Support to Sustainable Management of the BOBLME Project. IWS Working Paper 10. Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute, Bangladesh.
Islam, M. M., & Shamsuddoha, M. 2018. Coastal and marine conservation strategy for Bangladesh in the context of achieving blue growth and sustainable development goals (SDGs). Environmental Science &
Policy, 87, 45-54.
Islam, M.M., Shamsuzzaman, M.M., Mozumder, M.M.H., Xiangmin, X., Ming, Y. and Jewel, M.A.S., 2017. Exploitation and conservation of coastal and marine fisheries in Bangladesh: Do the fishery laws matter?. Marine Policy, 76, pp.143-151.
Islam, M.M., 2021. Social Dimensions in Designing and Managing Marine Protected Areas in Bangladesh. Human Ecology, 49(2), pp.171-185.
IUCN Bangladesh, 2015. National Framework for the establishment and management of marine protected areas (MPA) in Bangladesh. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Pp xi+106
Karim, M., 2011. Conflicts over Protection of Marine Living Resources: The Volga Case Revisited. Goettingen J. Int'l L., 3, p.101.
Karim, M.S. and Uddin, M.M., 2019. Swatch-of-no-ground marine protected area for sharks, dolphins, porpoises, and whales: Legal and institutional challenges. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 139, pp.275-281.
Laffoley, D., Baxter, J.M., Day, J.C., Wenzel, L., Bueno, P. and Zischka, K., 2019. Marine protected areas. In World seas: An environmental evaluation Academic Press pp. 549-569
Muallil, R.N., Cleland, D. and Aliño, P.M., 2013. Socioeconomic factors associated with fishing pressure in small-scale fisheries along the West Philippine Sea biogeographic region. Ocean & coastal management, 82, pp.27-33.
OECD 2017, Marine Protected Areas: Economics, Management, and Effective
Policy Mixes, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276208-en
Rahman, M. J., Wahab, M. A., Nahiduzzaman, M., Haque, A. B. M. M., &
Cohen, P. 2020. Hilsa fishery management in Bangladesh. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 414, No. 1, p. 012018). IOP Publishing.
Trenouth, A.L., Harte, C., de Heer, C.P., Dewan, K., Grage, A., Primo, C. and Campbell, M.L., 2012. Public perception of marine and coastal protected areas in Tasmania, Australia: Importance, management, and hazards. Ocean & coastal management, 67, pp.19-29.
UNDP, 2020 Sustainable Development Goals, [online] available at https://www.undp.org/ content/undp/ en/home/sustainable-development- goals/goal-14-life-below-water.html (accessed on 06 March 2020) Vivekanandan, E., Narayanakumar, R., Najmudeen, T.M., Jayasankar, J. and
Ramachandran, C., 2010. Marine fisheries policy brief-2; Seasonal fishing ban. CMFRI Special Publication, 103, pp.1-44.
Weigel, J.-Y., Mannle, K. O., Bennett, N. J., Carter, E., Westlund, L., Burgener, V., … Hellman, A. 2014. Marine protected areas and fisheries: bridging the divide. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24(S2), 199–215. doi:10.1002/aqc.2514
