NO

RW

EGIA

N U

NIV

ERSITY O

F LIFE SCIEN

CES

DEPA

RTMEN

T OF IN

TERN

ATION

AL ENVIR

ON

MEN

T AND

DEVELO

PMEN

T STUD

IESM

ASTER

THESIS 30/60 C

RED

ITS 2007

A Participatory Approach to Fisheries Management and Ecological-Social Resilience Analysis among Coastal Communities in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka

Kalpana Calatharan

A Participatory Approach to Fisheries Management and Ecological-

Social Resilience Analysis among Coastal Communities in Batticaloa,

Sri Lanka

Kalpana Calatharan

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the

Degree of Master of Science (Management of Natural Resources and

Sustainable Agriculture)

Submitted to:

The Norwegian University of Life sciences

Department of International Environment and Development studies

June, 2007

i

The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). Eight departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments. The Noragric Master theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master programme “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), “Development Studies” and other Master programmes. The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric.

© Kalpana Calatharan, June 2007 Email: akalpana17@yahoo.com Noragric Department of International Environment and Development Studies P.O. Box 5003 N-1432 Ås Norway Tel.: +47 64 96 52 00 Fax: +47 64 96 52 01 Internet: http://www.umb.no/noragric

ii

DECLARATION

I, Kalpana Calatharan, do hereby declare to the Senate of the Norwegian University of Life

sciences that this thesis is my own original research work, unless where it is acknowledged, and it

has never been submitted for any award in any other University or academic institution.

Signature…………………….. Date………………..

iii

DEDICATION

To my beloved husband Calatharan, my parents and my lovely sister’s family

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION…………………………………………………………………... …………..ii

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………….iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………….iv

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………….vi

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………..viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS………………………………………………ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………………………….x

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………...xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………01

1.1 Fisheries sector in Sri Lanka…………………………………………………………01

1.2 The Civil War………………………………………………………………………...04

1.3 The tsunami…………………………………………………………………………..05

1.4 Batticaloa District, Eastern Province, Sri Lanka……………………………………..08

1.5 Study objectives………………………………………………………………………08

1.6 Analytical approaches………………………………………………………………..09

1.6.1 Resilience and vulnerability……………………………………………………09

1.6.2 The livelihood approach………………………………………………………..14

1.6.3 Participatory Fish stock assessment component………………………………..15

2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS…………………………………………………………….17

2.1 Study area…………………………………………………………………………….17

2.2 Sampling sites………………………………………………………………………...19

2.3 Sampling Design and Procedure……………………………………………………...21

2.4 Data collection and data analysis……………………………………………………..22

2.4.1 Social demographic data…………………………………………………....22

2.4.2 Fish species identification………………………………………………….22

2.4.3 Socio-ecological resilience and livelihood analysis ……………………….22

2.4.4 ParFish stock assessment…………………………………………………...23

2.5 Secondary sources of data and information………………………………………….24

2.6 Limitations to the study……………………………………………………………...24

v

3.0 RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………………25

3.1 Fish production and socio-ecological resilience………………………………………….25

3.1.1 Fish species identified……………………………………………………………...25

3.1.2 Fish production in Batticaloa ………………………………………………………27

3.1.3 Socio-ecological resilience…………………………………………………………30

3.2 Livelihood analysis ………………………………………………………………………32

3.2.1 Socio-economic characteristics of fishers and their households…………………...32

3.2.2 Livelihood analysis before and after the tsunami…………………………………..33

3.3 ParFish Analysis………………………………………………………………………….41

4.0 DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………………..55

4.1 Social-ecological resilience and livelihoods in coastal ecosystem in Batticaloa…….55

4.1.1 Fish species identified and fisheries production………………………………..62

4.1.2 Linked social-ecological resilience and vulnerability …………………………64

4.2 ParFish stock assessment……………………………………………………………..66

4.3 Institutions and management regime in coastal ecosystem in Batticaloa…………….67

5.0 CONCLUSIOS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………..70

6.0 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………….73

7.0 APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………..77

Appendix 1 Social demographic data

Appendix 2 ParFish: Catch and effort data sheet

Appendix 3 Livelihood analysis interview

Appendix 4 ParFish: Basic information to compile

Appendix 5 ParFish: Stock assessment interview

Appendix 6 ParFish preference interview

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Coastal area impacted by tsunami of 26th

December 2004………………………..06

Figure 2 The heuristic model of adaptive cycle. Adopted from Resiliance Allaince,

2006 at http://www.resalliance.org/570.php..............................................................................13

Figure 3 The ParFish approach (Jiddawi and Walmsley, 2004)…………………………….16

Figure 4 Monsoon seasons in Sri Lanka………………………………………………………18

Figure 5 Batticaloa coastline and bathymetry………………………………………………..20

Figure 6 Total fish production in Batticaloa District (Source: DFAR)……………………..28

Figure 7 Sri Lanka’s total fish production of marine fish (FAO, FishStat 2007)…………..30

Figure 8 Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) projection graph for cast net……………………..41

Figure 9 Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) projection graph for drift net…………………….42

Figure 10 Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) projection graph for bottom-set long-line……...42

Figure 11 Current state graph for cast net…………………………………………………….43

Figure 12 Current state graph for drift net…………………………………………………...44

Figure 13 Current state graph for bottom-set long-line……………………………………...44

Figure 14 Unexploited Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) graph for cast net…………………45

Figure 15 Unexploited Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) graph for drift net………………...46

Figure 16 Unexploited Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) graph for bottom-set long-line……46

Figure 17 Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield graph for cast net……………47

Figure 18 Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield graph for drift net…………...48

Figure 19 Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield graph for bottom-set long-line

net………………………………………………………………………………………………...48

Figure 20 Relative fishing mortality at MSY graph for cast net……………………………..49

vii

Figure 21 Relative fishing mortality at MSY graph for drift net…………………………….50

Figure 22 Relative fishing mortality at MSY graph for bottom-set long-line……………….50

Figure 23 Fishing mortality at optimum graph for cast net………………………………….51

Figure 24 Fishing mortality at optimum graph for drift net…………………………………52

Figure 25 Fishing mortality at optimum graph for bottom-set long-line……………………52

Figure 26 Relative fishing mortality at optimum graph for cast net………………………...53

Figure 27 Relative fishing mortality at optimum graph for drift net………………………..54

Figure 28 Relative fishing mortality at optimum graph for bottom-set long-line…………..54

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Fishing vessels destroyed or damaged by the tsunami (MFAR, 2004)…………..07

Table 2 A framework for analysis of fisheries livelihood (based upon Ellis, 2000)………15

Table 3: The most common fish species caught offshore from Batticaloa………………...25

Table 4: The most common fish species caught in the Batticaloa lagoon…………………25

Table 5: Seasonal gear used pattern in Batticaloa sea……………………………………...26

Table 6: Catch Per Unit Effort for different marine fish species in Batticaloa based upon

interviews………………………………………………………………………………………27

Table 7: Age and level of education of fishers (n=56………………………………………..32

Table 8: Occupation and status of fishers (n=56)…………………………………………...33

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS

CPUE -Catch Per Unit Effort

DFAR -Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

DS -Divisional Secretariat

EC -Entitlement Card

FAO -Food and Agriculture Organization

FCS -Fisheries Co-operative Societies

GS -Grama Seva

INGO -International Non Governmental Organization

LTTE - Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

MFAR -Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

MSY -Maximum Sustainable Yield

NGO -Non Governmental Organization

SES - Socio-Ecological System

STF -Sri Lankan Task Force

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly it is my great pleasure to express my special thanks to Professor Ian Bryceson, my

supervisor, for his guidance, encouragement and productive criticisms throughout the entire

research work. My sincere thanks to Dr.P. Vinobaba, for his guidance and supervision during the

field work.

I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Paul medly, Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd,

London. He helped me to tackle Parfish software problem and my data analysis, which enable me

to complete my work on time.

I am deeply indebted to The University of Life Sciences (UMB) for funding my studies, which

has made the whole program possible and finally elevated my academic status to master degree

level.

I thank Mr. Navan for assisting me to arrange meeting with the Fisheries Co-operative Society

members and other fisherfolk. I would like to thank Mr. Thomingo George, Director, Department

of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Batticaloa and Mr. Araseratnam, National Institute of

Fisheries and Nautical Engineering, Batticaloa. They were very helpful in providing access to

relevant literatures and information about fisheries in Batticaloa.

I’m grateful to the fishers from Mauhthuvam, Navalady and Kallady for their active participation

and for delivering valuable information that was necessary for my research. I impressed by their

hospitality, the generosity and their effort to create a good working environment in the field.

The entire work would not have been completed without cooperation from my family. A special

thanks to my loving husband for his patience and for encouraging me to complete this study. A

special thanks also goes to my mother who helped me in several ways during my field work.

Lastly I extend my sincere appreciation to all those who in one way or another made this work

possible. Thanks!

xi

ABSTRACT

In Batticaloa, the tsunami of 26th December 2004 violently struck the coastal communities and

ecosystems which had already been negatively affected by 20 years of civil war. This study

analysed the socio-ecological resilience of coastal communities and ecosystem, and it

incorporated a livelihood approach towards understanding the strategies of fisherfolk confronted

by fluctuating fisheries resources before and after the tsunami. This study also used the ParFish

approach (participatory fish stock assessment) to understand more about the fisheries in some

selected villages in Batticaloa District. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews and

questionnaire surveys of households engaged in fishing. ParFish data was collected through

interviews of fisherfolk. The conceptual framework for socio-ecological resilience and the

adaptive cycle combined with livelihood framework were combined as tools for resilience and

livelihood analysis. ParFish software was used to analyse fish stock assessment data. This study

reveals that the civil war impacted the fishery and fishers’ livelihoods by restricting access to

coastal resources: war deprived the livelihoods of fishing communities and ultimately rendered

them more vulnerable to an external shock like the tsunami. The social resilience of coastal

communities was subsequently further eroded by the tsunami due to the loss of lives, livelihoods

assets and subsequent displacement. The conflict or peace situation appears to affect fish catches

more noticeably in Batticaloa than the rest of Sri Lanka. After the tsunami, inappropriate

relocation of fishing communities had negative effects on their livelihoods, oversupply of fishing

vessels and gears, and new entrants increased the pressure on inshore resources. After the

tsunami, provision of poor quality of fishing crafts limited fishing effort in both distance and

time. Social resilience of coastal communities was affected negatively by the buffer zone policy

through changing property rights and inequality in access to resources. ParFish approach

emphasizes the need for further analysis using long-term catch and effort data and conducting

trials. The paper concludes with recommendations for the Government to invest in human capital

through skills development and social capital by strengthening social networks and trust, to

identify new livelihood activities based on the availability of resources in new locations and

market potentials.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Fisheries sector in Sri Lanka

In 2004, the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Sri Lanka recorded 1,350

fishing villages, inhabited by 126,819 households with 148,167 people actively engaged

in fishing (MFAR, 2004). The total number of people depending on fisheries as their

source of income was 547,523 and the total fishery-associated population was estimated

at one million (MFAR, 2004). The fishing fleet comprised 30,024 boats of which about

15,819 were non-mechanized traditional boats. Approximately 1,600 multi-day vessels

were used for deep-sea fishing.

Sri Lanka’s annual fish production was around 286,000 tons, of which 253,190 came

from marine fisheries. Fisheries resources contribute 2.7% of the country’s Gross

Domestic Product (MFAR, 2004). Fishing is thus a major source of employment and

income in Sri Lanka.

In Sri Lanka, the following features identify small-scale fisheries:

a) fishing fleet comprised of outboard motor craft, non-motorized traditional craft

and traditional stationary fishing gear

b) fishing operations carried out within a day and limited to coastal waters (40 km),

lagoons, rivers and freshwater bodies

c) foreign components as well as modern technical inputs are minimal

d) the fishing operations are controlled by seasonal changes

e) operations depend largely on family labor and a high level of owner participation

f) the most important fishing gear used is drift-net

The large-scale fishing operations in Sri Lanka embody the following features:

a) fishing fleet comprised of multi-day boats, which are propelled by inboard

engines

b) fishing operations generally continue from 10 to 45 days, beyond 40 km from the

shore

2

c) fishing generally is not affected by seasonal changes and the quantity of fish

production is fairly high

d) foreign component in production input is high. The use of modern equipment and

technology is also high

e) operations are capital intensive, but the owner’s participation in the fishing

operation is negligible

f) the important fishing gear in use is primarily drift-net, long line and troll line.

The majority of the important fisheries are found in the Northern and Eastern regions of

Sri Lanka where there is a majority of Tamil population.

Women’s participation in active fishing is minimal since the gender distribution of the

fisherfolk is predominately males (99.3%) (Samaranayanke, 2003). The women are

treated as unpaid labourers, while child-caring, housekeeping and family management

activities are totally entrusted to them. Some women take part in fish collection, fish

processing, net-mending and fish marketing.

The fisheries policy in Sri Lanka has four main objectives (Samarayanke, 2003);

a) sustainable development of fisheries

b) increase in employment opportunities

c) socioeconomic improvement of fishing communities

d) earning of foreign exchange.

The policy of almost all fisheries projects in Sri Lanka has been to maximize the fisheries

resource utilization for direct extractive purposes rather than for sustainable resource

management (Wijayaratne, and Maldeniya, 2003). This short-range orientation has

increased the effectiveness of fishing operations through the application of advanced

technologies in fish capture, leading to a shift from the traditional fishing methods to the

adoption of modern fishing gear.

3

In the late 1950s, a rapid development in fisheries began with the introduction of modern

crafts and methods (Joseph 1983). The riches part of the fishing sector has invested in

new fishing gear such as purse seine and ring net in pelagic fisheries and bottom long-

line and trammel nets in demersal fisheries (Wijayaratne, and Maldeniya, 2003). This

type of gear is beyond the capital resources of the majority of small-scale fishers. There is

therefore inequitable distribution of income from fishing, leading to increased conflicts

between fishers in small-scale traditional fisheries and those in large-scale modern

fisheries (Fernando 1984). However, improvement in technology has led to marginal

increases in catch per unit effort (CPUE), but also to the over-exploitation of coastal

resources (Samarayanke, 2003)

In Sri Lanka, destructive fishing methods, over exploitation and habitat destruction are

major problems in natural resource management (Rajasuriya, 1996). According to the

new Fisheries Act (Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act No. 2 of 2001): most of these

regulations are relevant and reasonably specific as means to promote sustainability and

equitability, the main problem is the inability of the authorities to enforce the law.

Environmentally sensitive aquatic habitats such as sea grass beds, coral reefs and

mangroves are being destoyed due to over exploitation and environmentally unfriendly

resource utilization practices (Kulatunga and Fernando, 2001). These activities in turn

severely deplete the resources in lagoons and as well as in the sea and cause a number of

socio – economic and environmental problems (Rajasuriya, 1996). Destruction of critical

habitats could lead to reduced coastal fish stocks. Aquatic pollution is another prominent

problem (Fernando, 1996): pollution by agrochemicals washed by drainage water into

lagoons poses a serious problem to its biotic resources. The ownership of lagoons rests

with the state while their use is open to the public.

In Sri Lanka, the major problems in fisheries are the lack of proper management systems

and polices. Traditional customary systems of rights have been eroded. The government

has been attempting to mange these resources through the "command-and-control" or

"top-down" approach. This approach has been most successful in jurisdictions with well–

recognized property regimes, ample management resources and political commitment to

4

the program (Scura et al., 1992). But these conditions do not exist in many parts of the Sri

Lanka. Lack of agreement about systems use priorities, lack of management resources,

inadequate enforcement procedures and political will are common problems. Top-down

management instruments tend to be insufficiently responsive to trends and shocks. This

conventional approach ignores feed-back signals from social-ecological changes.

Management that tries to prevent change, through rigid control systems that suppress

disturbances and remove diversity thereby erodes resilience and lead to a shift from

desirable to undesirable ecosystem (Olsson, 2003). “Poverty forces people to

opportunistically search for employment, employ unsustainable methods of farming and

fishing, and resist management from fear of income loss” (Christie and White, 1997). At

present, community–based approaches are given high priority (Samarayanke, 2003) and

focus on communities and defined resource user groups. This approach attempts to

encourage more community direction and the resource users in a given village to

participate in the planning and management, to incorporate livelihood improvement

efforts and to reduce activities that degrade or deplete coastal resources.

1.2 The Civil War

Since 1983, Sri Lanka has been affected by an ‘ethnic’ conflict which escalated into civil

war. At first sight, the case of war is the claim of the Tamil minority for an independent

homeland in the northeast of the Island. In the northeast, competing claims and disputes

over land exist between the Tamil and the Sinhalese, the Muslims and the Tamils as well

as the Sinhalese and the Muslims (Korf, 2004). On one side of this conflict are the

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a rebel Fighting for ‘Tamil Eelam’ (home-

land) on the other, government, politically dominated by the Sinhalese majority, seeking

to the integrity of the ‘Sri Lanka’ nation. Sri Lanka might better be characterized as a

‘conflict cocktail’ rather than suggesting a one-dimensional, clear-cut political divide at

the core of the violent clashes. Social and political cleavages occur at various levels, and

many contestations over territories and resources go well beyond simple dichotomies of

the type ‘Tamil-Sinhalese’.

5

The civil war has created a situation in which the civil population has had to find a way

of surviving in the context of a dramatic increase in risk and uncertainty, political

instability, violence, and economic decline (Korf, 2004). Households thus have to cope

with and adapt to a high risk level which decreases economic opportunities and influence

investment choices. Households adopt a number of livelihood strategies in the cases of

those who are poor and forced to remain in the war zones in order to cope with political

instability and economic degradation. The political geography of war and Fighting

creates ‘no-go zones’. These often include local commons, such as forests, lagoons and

marine resources that become places of increased military contest (Korf and Fünfgeld,

2004).

Civil and guerilla warfare, which are rising significantly in scope and scale world wide,

mostly take place in wider rural spaces, which are a strategic retreat for Fighters. These

areas often are at the same time significant open access or common pool resources on

which a large part of population, especially the poor, depend for their survival.

In the East of Sri Lanka, war has impact on changing access rights and resource use

patterns in larger lagoon system. During the war, the lagoon was part of military

contested terrain; this produced severe access restrictions and security problems for

resource users. After the signing of a ceasefire agreement in 2002, access to lagoon was

re-opened, and a larger number of customary and new users began exploiting lagoon

resources, which led to increasing tension between inter-intra community and over

exploitation of lagoon resources (Korf and Fünfgeld, 2004).

1.3 The tsunami

The tsunami disaster on 26 December 2004 caused great damage to life, property,

economic, environmental and livelihoods in various countries. The earthquake, which

measured 9.0 in magnitude, set off tsunamis that built up speeds of as much as 800 km h1,

then battered the coasts of Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Indonesia, the Maldives, Myanmar

and Malaysia as 15m high walls of water, devouring everything and everyone in their

paths.

6

The tsunami struck a relatively thin but long coastal area stretching over 1000km, or two-

thirds of Sri Lanka’s coastline. The damage stretched from Jaffna in the North down

entire Eastern and Southern coast and covered the west coast as far North of Colombo as

Chilaw.

Figure1: Coastal area impacted by tsunami of 26th

December, 2004

The most severely affected economic sector was fisheries. The number of deaths and

missing persons in fishing families were around 5000 fishers. MFAR (2005) estimated

that about 50 percent of the marine fishing was completely destroyed rendering over

100,000 fishers, 80,000 traders and 20,000 workers in ancillary services jobless. The total

population affected by the loss of livelihoods that includes fishers, fish traders, other

workers and their dependents was over 80,000. 16,101 craft were completely destroyed,

and 7,105 craft were damaged. In addition, 818 beach seines were destroyed while 171

7

seines were damaged. Approximately 16,500 engines were damaged or destroyed. A total

of 16,434 fisher houses were destroyed and damaged. Large number of fisher families

were displaced and lost their means of livelihood. The damage caused to fishery harbours

and other infrastructure facilities, government service facilities, coast conservation

structures, was estimated at USD 275 million and repair and replacement cost of the

damaged fishing fleet at USD 60 million.

The extent of damage caused by the tsunami led to a drastic disruption of local

livelihoods in the informal sector and within the fisheries sector. The informal sector

consists of small-scale fisherfolk, wage labourer/ daily workers who constitute the largest

workforce in commercial fisheries and vulnerable groups such as women and children in

the affected fisheries communities.

Foreign and local donor assistance was sought not only for reconstruction programmes

but also for rebuilding. Immediate assistance to the fishery sector was for replacement of

damaged or destroyed crafts and settlement for displaced fisher families. It was also

reported over supply of damaged fishing equipments. A very high regional disparity was

observed in the provision of assistance, whereby northern and eastern provinces were ma

District Number of vessels destroyed

or damaged by the Tsunami

Ampara(Kalmunai) 1,673 Batticaloa 3,801 Colombo 284 Galle 1,253 Gampaha (Negombo) 293 Hambantota (Tangalle) 1,597 Jaffna 2,279 Kalutara 592 Kilinochchi 186 Mannar 109 Matara 1,367 Mullaitivu 1,815 Puttalam (Chilaw) 42 Trincomalee 5,261 Total 20,552

Table 1: Fishing vessels destroyed or damaged by the tsunami (MFAR, 2004)

8

1.4 Batticaloa District, Eastern Province, Sri Lanka

The fisheries communities of Batticaloa depend on both on marine and lagoon fish

resources. The fishing sector is mainly a small-scale household-based livelihood.

Batticaloa District has 1,303 hectares of mangroves, 2,196 hectares of salt marshes, and

136,822 hectares of lagoon area associated with estuarine basins (Vinobaba, 2006).

Due to the prevailing conflict and political problems in the country, information on

fisheries activities in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka is scarce and incomplete. There is

no proper management regime for the coastal or off-shore fisheries. One of the major

constraints for the management of fisheries in the Batticaloa is the lack of data on the

available resource and the correct level of exploitation. There are also information gaps

on basic aspects of the lagoon and sea as an ecosystem and on the social relations and

administrative systems governing its utilization. The lack of information pertaining to

resources and the levels of exploitation, technology and socio-economic aspects of the

small-scale fisheries has hindered the planning and development of an effective

management scheme. There have been no studies carried out in the past 20 years and the

Eastern province is excluded from the fisheries survey analysis. There have been no

studies focusing on how the ecosystem can be managed to cope with disturbances as a

result of ecological, social and economic changes and hence the long term resilience of

the coastal ecosystem.

On 26th December 2004 the tsunami violently struck the coastal areas of Sri Lanka, and

Batticaloa was hit especially hard. Thousands of people lost lives and their assets, and

fishing communities were particularly impacted.

1.5 Study objectives

1. To analyze the socio-ecological resilience of coastal fishing communities and the

coastal ecosystem. This study hopes to contribute to the understanding of

processes before and after the tsunami of 2004, and conditions necessary for

building resilience of coastal ecosystems and communities.

9

2. To apply the sustainable livelihoods approach towards understanding the

strategies of fisherfolk confronted by fluctuating fisheries resources. A livelihoods

analysis should identify people’s access to resources, their objectives for the

resources to which they have access, the desirable (and undesirable) properties of

resources for particular activities, skills, knowledge levels (support networks,

infrastructure) and services (interests, motivations, circumstances), what people

can achieve, and the effect of polices and other factors which influence all of

these. I therefore assessed:

o The livelihood patterns and strategies of fisherfolk and households, and

how these have changed over time;

o The particular livelihood features and constraints of the poor fisherfolk, as

distinguished from the richer fisherfolk;

o The institutional context of livelihoods at village level, considering factors

that both inhibit and facilitate livelihood choices and options for the poor;

o Community natural resource management and its interactions with the

livelihood strategies and access to resources of the poor fisherfolk.

3. To assess both lagoon and sea fisheries in some selected villages Batticaloa

District using the ParFish approach (Medley et al., 2005).

1.6 Analytical approaches

1.6.1 Resilience and vulnerability

Holling (1973) introduced the concept of resilience as a way to understand nonlinear

dynamics of ecosystem processes such as how ecosystem maintain themselves in the face

of perturbations and change (Gunderson, 2000). According to the Resilience Alliance

(www.resalliance.org), resilience it has three defining characteristics; (1) the amount of

change the system can undergo and still retain the same controls on function and

structure, (2) the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization, (3) the

ability to build and increase the capacity for learning and adaptation

Disturbance can be either natural such as forest fires, floods, and tsunami or caused by

human activities such as resource use and pollution. When a social or ecological system

10

loses its resilience, it becomes vulnerable to change that it previously could have

absorbed. “Loss of resilience means loss of ecosystem structures and functions that are

crucial for buffering disturbances and maintaining the capacity of ecosystems to produce

goods and services on which social and economic development depends” (Folke et al.,

2002).

Social vulnerability is the exposure of communities to stress as a result of environmental

changes and it encompasses disruption to livelihoods and loss of security. For natural

ecosystems, vulnerability occurs when species of individual or communities are stressed

as a result of environmental change and where thresholds of potentially irreversible

changes are experienced. Social and ecological vulnerability, and outcomes of extreme

events of disasters are influenced by build-up or erosion of resilience before and after the

disasters (Adger et al., 2005). Resilience increases the capacity to cope with stress and

reduce future harm.

Ecosystem resilience is “the capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without

collapsing into a qualitatively different state that is controlled by a different set of

processes". When the ecosystem is resilient enough, it can withstand shocks and rebuild

itself when necessary. Social resilience is “as the ability of groups or community to cope

with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political and environmental

change” (Adger, 2000).

Ecosystem response to resource use, and the people's response to change in ecosystem,

makeup coupled dynamic systems that exhibit adaptive behaviour (Berkes et al., 2003),

with regard to self-organization and learning.

Hazards in coastal areas become disasters through erosion of resilience by environmental

change and by human action (Turner et al., 2003 in Adger, 2005). Coastal ecosystems are

impacted and altered because human populations are concentrated along coasts. These

populations are exposed to hazards like coastal flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes and

transmission of disease epidemics. Regime shifts may increase when humans reduce

11

resilience by removing response diversity, removing whole functional groups of species

or removing whole trophic levels through resource exploitation; impacting on ecosystems

by emissions of waste and pollutants, land-use change and climate change; and altering

the magnitude, frequency, and duration of disturbance regimes and erode resilience. The

combination of those pressures can make ecosystems more vulnerable to changes that

previously could be absorbed (Folke et al., 2004). As a result ecosystems may suddenly

shift from desired to less desired states in their capacity to generate ecosystem services.

According to Berkes et al., 2003 social-ecological resilience appear to be related to living

with; (a) disturbance, which is an essential force in social and ecological change, (b)

diversity, both social and ecological, which provides the source for adaptive responses,

the ecological resilience relates to functioning of the system, for example coastal and

estuarine ecosystems are highly resilient because of their high levels of functional

diversity (c) ecological knowledge, which informs institutions and management practices,

and (d) self-organization, which use the memory of the system for renewal process. Some

social-ecological systems build resilience through the experience of disturbance, provided

that there is memory in the system in the form of both ecological and social sources for

reorganization (Berkes and Folke, 2002). Social resilience is institutionally determined.

Social resilience can be examined through proxy indicators such as institutional change

and economic structure, and demographic changes like mobility and migration. Social-

ecological resilience is determined in part by the livelihood security of an individual or

group. Security involves entitlements, access to resource, the distribution of which is a

key element of environmental justice.

Adaptive capacity is a component of resilience which reflects the learning aspect of

system behaviour in response to perturbations (Gunderson, 2000). Adaptive capacity is

the ability of a social-ecological system to cope with novel situations without losing

options for the future. The capacity of ecosystems to regenerate following disturbances

depends on source of resilience that operates at multiple scales (Berkes et al., 2003). In

ecological system genetic diversity, biological diversity and the heterogeneity of

landscape mosaic are related to adaptive capacity (Carpenter et al., 2001). In social

12

systems, the existence of institutions, networks that learn and store knowledge and

experience, create flexibility in problem solving and balance power among interest

groups play an important role in adaptive capacity (Berkes et al., 2002). Institutions are

central component that linking social and ecological resilience. The adaptive capacity of

society is constrained by the resilience of their institutions and the natural systems on

which they depend. Reduced social capital, declines in funding infrastructure, poorly

implemented resource management plans increase social-economic exposure leading to

increasing vulnerability in the system. The resilient the system, vulnerability of

institutions and societies is greater to cope and adapt to change (Adger, 2000). Building

adaptive capacity reduce vulnerability.

Holling (1986 in Olsson, 2003) proposed a heuristic model of cyclic change in ecosystem

called the adaptive renewal cycle. According to adaptive cycle, dynamical systems such

as ecosystems, societies, corporations, economics, nations and socio-ecological system

(SES) do not tend to sthe or equilibrium state instead they pass through the following

four characteristic phases; rapid growth and exploitation (r), conservation (K), collapse or

release (“ creative destruction” Ω), and renewal and reorganization (α). Adaptive cycle

had relatively long periods of slow accumulation and transformation of resource (from r

to K), with shorter periods of Ω and α that create opportunity for innovation.

During the slow sequence from exploitation to conservation, connectedness and stability

increase and capital accumulated. During the K period the system’s connectedness

increases, and becomes over-connected and rigid. Therefore the system resilience

decreases and becomes more susceptible to disturbances. When disturbances occur the

accumulated capital is suddenly released and trajectories move to release phase (Ω). It is

succeeded by the novelty period of the α phase and innovation may occur. During the

reorganization period connectedness or controllability is low and resilience is high

(Holling, 2001). The four phases of adaptive cycle are crucial in managing social –

ecological system. Adaptive cycle focuses attention upon processes of destruction and

reorganization, which are often neglected in favour of growth and conservation. It

13

provides a more complete view of system dynamics that links together system

organization, resilience and dynamics (Resilience Alliance, 2006).

Figure 2: The heuristic model of adaptive cycle. Adopted from Resiliance Allaince,

2006 at http://www.resalliance.org/570.php

Adaptive management deals with the unpredictable interactions in social-ecological

system. It is emphasizing the importance of feed-backs from the environment in shaping

policy, followed by further systematic experimentation to shape subsequent policy

(Berkes and Folke, 1998). Successful management requires monitoring and ecological

understanding, institutional capacity to respond to environmental feed back (Folke et al.,

2002) and the political will and perception to make such management possible. Adaptive

management uses management as a tool not only to change the system, but as a tool to

learn about the system (Resilience Alliance, 2006). Successful knowledge and resource

management systems will allow disturbances to enter on a scale which does not disrupt

the structure and functional performance of the ecosystems and the services it provides.

Conventional management often fails to respond to feedback from ecosystem instead

tend to block them and ignores the release and reorganization phase of adaptive cycles.

Such management erodes ecosystem resilience and become threaten for existence of

many social and economic activities (Berkes and Folke 2002).

14

1.6.2 The livelihood approach

A livelihood is defined "the assets (natural, physical, human, financial and social capital),

the activities, and the access to these (mediated by institutions and social relations) that

together determined the living gained by the individual or household“ (Allison and Ellis,

2001). The livelihood approach contributes towards understanding the capability of

fishers to cope with crises such as floods, tsunami, or disease out-breaks and seeks “to

identify what the poor have rather than what do not have”. The livelihood approach can

help to understanding of fishers’ adaptive capacity in to the policy arena of small-scale

fisheries management.

Internal coping capability is determined by assets (land, food stores, savings, and support

from kin or community, or government safety net policies) and different asset holding

pattern make big differences in the ability of fishers to withstand shocks (Swift, 1989 in

Allison and Ellis, 2001).

The approach identifies the significant important of assets and activities to which they are

put. This approach help to remove access constraints to assets and activities that

complement existing patterns and identifying ways of making livelihood as whole more

able to cope with adverse trends in fisheries and sudden shock like tsunami.

Vulnerability is a key concept in the livelihood approach. Access to both assets and

activities influence by either internal factors such as policy and institutional context of

livelihoods (social relations, institutions and organizations) or by external factors

comprising trends and shocks. Assets permit people to build livelihood strategies and

these are composed of portfolio activities based on natural resource or others. The key to

sustainable fisheries management and development is to facilitate fisherfolk to find their

own means out of poverty by building their capabilities and existing capital (Allison and

Ellis, 2001).

15

In order to investigate the process of livelihoods in the fishing community, I have

developed a framework adapted from Ellis (2000).

Livelihood flat form

Access modifies by

In context of

Resulting in

Composed of

With effects on

Assets

Natural capital

Lagoon, sea, fish stock

Physical capital

fishing gears (boats and nets), land, combine fishing with farming

Human Capital

Health, education, people

Social capital

Kinship networks, associations

Financial

Capital

Savings, credits

Social relations

Gender Class Age Ethnicity Institutions

Rules and customs Land and sea tenure Markets in practice Organization

NGOs Local administration State agencies

Trends

-Population Relocation -Buffer-zone policy -Migration Shocks Tsunami Ethnic war Floods cyclone

Livelihood

strategies

NR based

activities

Fishing: sea-lagoon Cultivation (food and non- food) Livestock Non-farm NR Non-NR

based

activities

Rural trade Remittance Other services Other transfers

Livelihood

security

Income level Income stability Seasonality Degrees of risk Environmental

Sustainability Lagoon Sea Fish stocks Biodiversity

Table 2: A framework for analysis of fisheries livelihood (based upon Ellis, 2000)

1.6.3 Participatory Fish stock assessment component

The key objectives of "ParFish" (Participatory Fish stock assessment) are to involve

resource users in order to understand more about fishery resources and to develop

management actions based on this knowledge; to encourage engagement of stakeholders

to identify and implement management options. The approach thereby incorporates local

knowledge into the stock assessment and analyzes the resource users’ preferences for

different management outcomes. “ParFish” is a rapid and participatory approach to stock

assessment that assists fishers and other stakeholders to enter a cycle of learning,

evaluation, management planning and implementation. The ParFish approach covers six

stages that take the user from set objectives through carrying out the data collection and

16

stock assessment and the interpretation and communication of the results to participatory

management planning. For my study I was undertaken the first three stages of stock

assessment component of ParFish due to limited duration of study. The “ParFish”

participatory fish stock assessment approach (Medley et al.,2005) was adopted as ParFish

is unique in its ability to incorporate the local knowledge of fishers and other key

stakeholders in estimating fish stock size, catch and effort, fish stock behaviour, and

status of fish stock now in the past and in the future.

Figure 3: The ParFish approach (Jiddawi and Walmsley, 2004)

17

2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Study area

The study was carried out in Batticaloa District, which is situated in central part of

Eastern Province of Sri Lanka. The district is bounded to the east by the Bay of Bengal,

to the north by Verugal Aru and Trincomalee district, to the south by Ampara district and

to the west by Polonnaruwa district.

The population of Batticaloa District was estimated to be 545,477 in 2005 (Government

statistical abstract, 2005). It covers a land area of 2633 km2 and contains internal

waterways of 299 km2. The district accounts for 3.0% of the country’s total land area.

The district’s population density is 207 persons km-2 and a particularly high density of

population exists at Kattankudy Divisional Secretariat (DS) division and lower density of

population at Koralaipathu North DS division. The main language spoken is Tamil.

Religious beliefs are Hinduism (66.3%), Muslim (23.9%), Christianity (6.0%) and

Buddhism (2.7%).

The daytime air temperature in Batticaloa ranges from 25ºC to 33ºC, varying with the

season. The summer season in Batticaloa runs from March to November. The annual

rainfall varies from 864mm to 3051mm (Meteorology Department, Batticaloa)

distribution of which has slight variation throughout the district. Rain occurs during the

two monsoon periods, namely, South-west and North-east. During the North-east

monsoon (December to February) the eastern part of Sri Lanka receives about 200mm to

1200mm of rain. The inter-monsoon period following the Northeast monsoon (March to

April) receives less rainfall.

18

January

February

March

April

May

JuneJuly

August

September

October

November

December

South-w est

monsoon

Inter

monsoon

North-east

monsoon

Inter

monsoon

Figure 4: Monsoon seasons in Sri Lanka

Batticaloa District is characterized by flat land not exceeding 8 m in height above sea

level. It consists of undulating plains and alluvial flats watered by rivers from the

mountain zone of Uva and the central province. The eastern coast of the district is sandy

soil and the western part is clay soil. The land bordering the lagoon is alluvial soil.

Batticaloa District is singularly unfortunate in being the only Dry Zone district which

does not have any perennial river flowing through it. All the streams that end in the

lagoon and sea have their source in the Dry Zone itself and consequently while they run

in spate through the Northeast monsoon, they dwindle into a mere trickle of water by

about July and August. This is the fate of Mahilavatuvan, Mundanai Aru and the

Madhuru oya rivers which feed large reservoirs via Unnichai in Batticaloa.

Batticaloa lagoon, Panichankerni lagoon and Valaichenai lagoon are the three subsystems

that contribute to the lagoon super-system of the locality. The lagoon transverse through

the entire district and extend 73.5 km from Verugal (in the North) to Batticaloa town and

also extend further from Batticaloa town 35.2 km to Thuraineelavanai (in the South).

19

The major part of the population is distributed in the narrow strip between the sea and the

lagoon. The land to the west of the lagoon is sparsely populated and 90% of the paddy

lands are found in this area. Fishing is important to livelihoods, both in the lagoon and

along the coast. The lagoon is famous for its crabs, prawns and in the past for its

“singing” fish.

The people of Batticaloa District are engaged in agriculture while fishing occupies the

second place as a livelihood income source. Other occupations include industrial jobs,

trade, services, handicrafts and employment in government, corporations and private

establishments. The district has about 30,000 agriculture families and 19,281 fishing

families (Statistical Hand Book, Department of Fishery and Aquatic Resources, 2006).

Saltwater extends about 56 km into the lagoon, thus forming a good fishing environment.

The long seacoast with suitable bays at long intervals coupled with their rivers and the

estuaries, the long lagoon and the innumerable tanks and water holes provide suitable

habitats for fishery resources.

2.2 Sampling sites

Six study sites were chosen in three villages;

1) Palameenmadu in Muhathuvaram village

2) Thiraimadu in Muhathuvaram village

3) Matikali in Muhathuvaram village

4) Swiss Tamil village in Muhathuvaram village

5) Navalady village

6) Thirusendur in Kallady village

20

Figure 5. Batticaloa coastline and bathymetry

The first, the second and the third sites were in Muhathuvaram village which is located

about 3 km from Batticaloa town. They are divided under two Grama Sevakar (GS)

divisions located in close proximity to both the sea and to Batticaloa lagoon. The

majority of people have lived there since birth and they have traditionally depended upon

fishing and harvesting natural resources both for subsistence and varying degrees of

commodity production. Other people are engaged in trade or are employed in government

and the private sector. There are numerous part-time fishers, and even government

servants engage in fishing.

21

The fourth site is called Swiss Tamil Village. This village is populated by people who

were displaced after the tsunami of 26th December 2004. They were living in temporary

shelters. This site was previously occupied with Palmera forest. The Swiss Tamil village

consisted of about 500 families. These coastal communities were highly dependent on

coastal fisheries for livelihoods and food security. They had been allocated new land area

called Kokuvil for construction of houses in replacing lost or damaged houses by

tsunami. The Majority of interviewed fishers were carried out fishing in both sea and

lagoon. Fewer fishers fished in the lagoon alone.

The fifth site is Navalady which is located about 5 km from Batticaloa town. This fishing

village was heavily affected by tsunami. Aside from losing fishers, family members and

housing, the fishing community also lost their livelihood assets. This village is largely

surrounded by the Batticaloa lagoon and the sea. Most of the people are completely

dependent upon fishing as their main source of livelihood. Currently there are about 100

families are resettled in Navalady who were displaced after tsunami. International and

national non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) assist these affected communities to

rebuild their assets and restart their livelihood activities. Moreover, there have also been

efforts to improve the living standard in Navalady by assisting in the construction of

schools, clinics, roads, drinking water wells and other infrastructure facilities.

The sixth site is Thirusendur, located in Kallady village, which is located 4 km away

from Batticaloa town. The people of this village have fished in Kallady Sea and

Batticaloa lagoon.

Primary and secondary data and information were obtained to accomplish the objectives.

Methodology consisted of both quantitative and qualitative research methods.

2.3 Sampling Design and Procedure

The sample was selected using non-probability sampling technique. Essentially, this

implies that some units in the population were more likely to be selected than others

rather than selected using random selection method (Bryman, 2004). Snowball sampling

22

strategy was used to select the respondents from three fishing villages. With this

approach to sampling, I made initial contact with the ones who were readily available at

fish landing sites or at the auction centre and then use these persons to establish contacts

with other relevant persons.

2.4 Data collection methods and data analysis

2.4.1 Social demographic data

A questionnaire survey was conducted to obtain quantitative and qualitative household

information. A questionnaire consisted of closed- ended questions that present the

respondent with a set of possible answers to choose from. The variables collected

included age, occupation, family size, and status of fishers (see Appendix1).

Demographic data was analyzed using descriptive statistical procedures.

2.4.2 Fish species identification

Fish catch composition, individual fish species characteristics and respective sizes and

weight of individual fish (in the case of larger fish) and total catch per boat per day were

recorded (see Appendix 2). The landing sites Muhathuvam sea, Kallady sea and the

Batticaloa lagoon were selected for this biological study.

2.4.3 Socio-ecological resilience and livelihood analysis

Two analytical approaches are chosen for this aspects of study. The conceptual

framework of resilience (Berkes and Folke 1998, Resilience Alliance 2006) and a

livelihood approach developed by Allison and Ellis (2001). Elements of livelihood

approach are combined with the concept of socio–ecological resilience. These two

approaches are interlinked each other to understand the ecological and social system and

processes. Therefore these help to identify the effects of change on both resilience and

vulnerability of fisherfolk under external stress and disturbances.

Focus group discussions were conducted to obtain information about socio-ecological

resilience and livelihood of fishing communities. In each village one focus group

23

discussion was carried out, each group had 6 to 8 people (Bryman, 2004). Interviews

were also carried out with some key informants.

The issues focused upon in these aspects were (See Appendix 3)

o Livelihood resilience and vulnerability

- Individual or household assets. The activities in which households can engage

with a given asset profile

- Mediating processes (Institution, regulation)

- Impact of tsunami on fishing (migration, fishing practices before and after

tsunami, equipment replacement after tsunami)

o Credit and projects to support fisheries

o Community management system in the fishery

o Ownership, control in access to fishery resource

2.4.4 ParFish stock assessment

In order to carry out the fish stock assessment, background information about the fishery

was collected through key informant interviews with Director of Fishery, District Fishery

Office, Batticaloa, and older fishers. The interviews were focused on the fishery, the

fishery management system, general background to the area, and the management context

(see Appendix 4).

ParFish participatory fish-stock assessments were carried out in 3 villages

(Muhathuvaram (four sites; Palameenmadu, Thiraimadu, Matikali, and Swiss Tamil

Village), Navalady and Kalady (Thirusendur). The stock assessment interviews (see

Appendix 5) were carried out with 56 households (fishers). Twenty driftnet fishers,

twenty bottom-set long-line fishers, 13 cast-net fishers and three Kirri vallai fishers were

interviewed.

Fisher preferences were collected through a specially designed interview (Preference

Interview) that determines whether fishers are risk-taking or risk-averse and what level of

catch per unit effort is most preferred by them. The scenario cards were used to represent

catch and effort per unit time. Preference interviews also captured information about

24

individual fisher discount rates (i.e. the extent to which having something today is more

valuable than having it at a later date). Fisher preferences were weighted according to the

importance of each fisher. The importance weighting factor was based on the number of

dependents the fisher has, or the dependency on the fishery as a proportion of his income

(see Appendix 6). ParFish software was used to analyze the data.

2.5 Secondary sources of data and information

Secondary information included those furnished by the Department of Fisheries and

Aquatic Resources (DFAR). The statistical division of the Ministry of Fisheries and

Aquatic Resources (MFAR) provided a host of data on various field of fisheries (District

Fisheries Office and FAO FishStat).

2.6 Limitations to the study

There exists relatively little published literature on the history of fishing and coastal

processes in Batticaloa. Therefore my results relied heavily upon interviews. Information

could therefore not be corroborated with other studies.

The civil conflict in Sri Lanka put limitations to the study. Selected villages were unsafe

to travel throughout the fieldwork. Due to time constraints, data collection was only

carried only for three months period.

The principal problem which affected the completion of this study was an unexpected

blockage of the ParFish software caused by new security updates in the Microsoft

Windows XP operating system during February 2007. I was then obliged to contact Dr.

Paul Medley, the main author and software-developer of ParFish, so that he produced a

series of “fixes” for the software, but without being able to solve the main issues. Dr.

Paul Medley kindly assisted in reviewing my data, but it was difficult for me to know

how the data was actually handled.

25

3. RESULTS

3.1 Fish production and socio-ecological resilience

3.1.1 Fish species identified

Fishers stated that no difference was observed in the species caught, or the size of fish,

before and after the tsunami. But in the lagoon, some fish species such as Chanos chanos,

Mugil sp., Arius sp. and Nematalosa sp. have declined in catches. Tables 3 and 4 show

the most common fish species caught in the coastal waters of Batticaloa.

Local Name English/ Common Name Scientific Name

Killwalla Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares

Balaya Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis

Arakula Narrow-barred Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus commersoni

Cheela Indo-pacific king mackerel Scomberomorus guttatus

Koppara Black marlin Makaira indica

Adallu Mangrove red snapper Lutjanus argentimaculatus

Villameen Spangled emperor Lethrinus nebulosus

Villameen Orange-striped emperor Lethrinus obsoletus

Ada-thirukai Cowtail stingray Pastinachus seplen

Jeela Pickhandle barracuda Sphyraena jello

Pareh Blacktip trevally Caranx hebri

Chooparai Yellowstripe scad Selaroides leptolepis

Chalai Gold stripe sardinella Sardinella gibosa

Choodai White sardinella Sardinella albella

Kalava Malabar grouper Ephinephelus malabaricus

Kadal-virral Cobia Rachycentron canadum

Kumla Striped bonito Sarda orientalis

Kumla Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta

Nethali Anchovy Stolephorus commersonnii

Thalapath Sail fish Istiophorus platypterus

Shuriamin Kawakawa Euthynus affinis

Suraa Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis

Table 3: The most common fish species caught offshore from Batticaloa

26

Local Name English/ Common Name Scientific Name

Karel Splendid ponyfish Leiognathus splendens

Pullithirukai Honeycomb stingray Himantura uranak

Eriyal Crocodile flathead Cociella crocodila

Jeela Pickhandle barracuda Sphyraena jello

Thirali Orb fish Ephippus orbis

Mannali Flathead mullet Mugil cephalus

Koimeen Bloch’s gizzard shad Nematalosa nasus

Chethal Greenchromide/ Pearl spot Ertroplus surantenis

Chethal Orange chromide Etroplus maculatus

Adallu Red snapper Lutjanus argentimaculatus

Ottymeen Epaulette surgeonfish Acanthurus nigricauda

Mampala ottymeen Mata surgeon fish Acanthurus mata

Chelvan Tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus

Keduwa Barramundi Lates calcarifer

Kelluthi Catfish Arius sp

Palai meen Milk fish Chanos chanos

Mannali Mullet Liza sp

Table 4: The most common fish species caught in the Batticaloa lagoon

Fishers adopted specific fishing practices according to fish behaviour and migratory

patterns. Fishers said that they were using different types of gears in different seasons of

the year (Table 5). In the lagoon, fishers used primarily cast net and the drift gill nets in

permitted areas.

Gear Type Seasons

Line fishing January- July Mural net/ Needle fish net March-April

Drift net April-September

Kirri / Herring net January-September Beach seine September-November

Thirukai/ skate net November-January

Table 5: Seasonal gear used pattern in Batticaloa sea

27

Fish species Catch Per Unit Effort (kg/day)

Sail fish/ Thalapath 68

King fish/ Arakula 75 Trevally/ Pareh 107

Skipjack tuna/ Balaya 187

Black marlin/ Koppara 71 Skate/ Thirukai 125

Sardinella/ Kirri 100

Table 6: Catch Per Unit Effort for different marine fish species in Batticaloa based

upon interviews

3.1.2 Fish production in Batticaloa

The total annual production of fish in Batticaloa showed changes over the past fourteen

years (1993-2006) as depicted in Figure 6. The household interviews revealed that most

people (91%) perceived that catch rates had declined over past years for several reasons.

Fishers revealed that during civil war access to fishery resources particularly lagoon was

restricted by creation of ‘no-go-zone’ by Sri Lankan Army. Fishers said that in the sea,

the Sri Lankan Army frequently suspected them to be LTTE collaborators, and they had

to undergo regular checks, interrogations and harassment. In 2002, a cease-fire

agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) was signed between the Sri Lankan

Government and the LTTE. The lagoon and its resources were opened again for fishers.

Larger numbers of customary and new users began exploiting the lagoon resources.

28

Total fish catch in Batticaloa

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Ca

tch

(to

ns

)

Figure 6: Total fish production in Batticaloa District (Source: DFAR)

Interviews revealed that the fishing sector rapidly became a major small-scale,

household–based livelihood opportunity in Batticaloa District. For new users, fishing

suddenly provided new economic opportunities. Fishing had been seen as a major

fallback option for those who had lost their assets or the access to it during the war. New

users often used unsustainable fishing methods and introduced destructive fishing

practices as they lacked fishing knowledge.

Interviews revealed that by 2004, serious signs of environmental damage were felt by the

lagoon fishers. Pollution from increased paddy cultivation, wastes from shrimp farming,

slaughterhouses and rice mills, effluents from the municipal sewage have all led to rapid

deterioration of the lagoon’s water quality and fish catches have been declining.

29

Interviews and field observation also revealed that mangroves were destroyed for several

reasons such as extraction of timber and firewood by local people, conversion of

mangrove land into paddy field and cleared by the Sri Lankan Army for security reason.

Fishers considered the mangroves as the “womb” of sea. Some fishers also caught fish in

mangrove areas using cast net and trammel nets during high tide periods.

In 2005, the fish catch declined dramatically following the tsunami. Fishers responded

that their catches had declined to half compared to previous year. Interviews with fishers,

fisheries officials, and other environmentalists revealed that significant damage had been

caused to the marine ecosystem in the fishing grounds. Many coral reefs lost their

structure and biota, and mechanical damage had partly reduced them to rubble, which

was evidenced by large coral rocks washed up on the shores. There had also been

siltation and contamination by runoff from land, with large quantities of wastes and

pollutants, debris, silt, soil and organic matter. Near-shore fisheries (90% of fishers

depend on near-shore coastal resources in Batticaloa) were seriously disturbed and

covered with debris such as wooden logs, rusted iron structures, dead and broken

vegetable matter, sludge, barbed wires, cement pillars preventing the laying the nets.

Lagoon fishers reported that no significant fish mortality had occurred, suggesting limited

damage to the lagoon from salt water intrusion after the tsunami. Batticaloa lagoon was

however affected by the large deposition of organic and inorganic debris. After the

tsunami piles of debris were disposed along the beaches and lagoon. In Batticaloa no

serious attempt had been made to assess the damage to marine ecosystem. In 2006, fish

production increased significantly compared to 2005.

National level fish catches increased steadily from 1993 to 1999. 2000 to 2002

experienced declining catches. 2003 to 2004 there was some increased in catches. After

the tsunami 2004, national fish catches declined drastically (Figure 7).

30

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Ca

tch

(to

ns

)

Yellowfin tuna

Skipjack tuna

Silky shark

Sharks, rays, skates

Mackerels

Demersal misc.

Clupeoids

Carangids

Figure 7: Sri Lanka’s total production of marine fish (FAO, FishStat, 2007)

3.1.3 Socio-ecological resilience

Fishing had been an important source of livelihood activities in Batticaloa for centuries.

In the past coastal communities had traditional institutional management systems

whereby they had fishing methods which were not destructive to the environment. They

had good knowledge of fishing practices: they would not fish three days before and after

the full moon because this was considered as the period for fish breeding. They did not

use small mesh size nets and fishing was carried out according to tidal patterns and

winds. They had traditional restrictions and sensitivities concerning the utilization of

coastal resources and environment. Coastal resources were reached by traditional fishing

gears such as beach seines and stake nets. This system had important economic feature

like distribution of income among the fisherfolk. In this traditional system, conflicts were

resolved by the village leaders. Thereby fishery resources were maintained (K phase of

adaptive cycle).

31

However, traditional methods could not supply sufficient amount of fish to the increasing

population. Fishing populations increased and the per capita supply became low. Large

scale and industrial fishing was encouraged through investment and subsidies by the State

and the introduction of motorized crafts and nylon nets resulted in dramatic increase in

fish catches.

After the tsunami over supply of fishing crafts and gears, and new entries in to fishery

resulted yet more pronounced exploitation of resources and reduced catch per unit effort.

Introduction of destructive fishing methods in the lagoon also became an issue.

Traditional management eroded. The coastal ecosystem entered the “creative destruction”

or “release” phase (Ω) of the adaptive cycle.

The social system has been also impacted. Degradation of coastal resources by excessive

fishing effort and falling catch rates had negative impacts on the income of the coastal

communities. This has affected their capacity to meet household needs and thereby

reduces the resilience of the social system. Interviews revealed that older fishermen still

observed good fishing practices. The newly-arrived fishers had little or no experience of

fishing or managing coastal resources: they explained that the reason why they were

using unsustainable fishing practices such as monofilament nets, trammel nets, dynamite

fishing, and purse seines was that the larger fish were being caught by other fishermen

such that they needed to use small mesh size to gain any catch. These new fishers did not

have enough experience about gears such as cast nets so for them it was easier to use

trammel or monofilament nets across the lagoon. They felt that they were obliged to

engage in such activities since other source of income were not available. These trends

indicate that the social system is also in “creative destruction” phase (Ω) of adaptive

cycle.

32

3.2 Livelihood analysis

3.2.1 Socio-economic characteristics of fishers and their households

A total of 56 households was surveyed. Of these, all the fishers were men in Batticaloa.

No women were actively engaged in fishing. The household size varied from 2 to 7

persons with an average of 3.9. Two-thirds of the fishers were aged between 30-50.

The majority of the fishers had acquired primary school education, and 2 of the 56 fishers

interviewed had completed secondary school education. 10 fishers had been trained at the

National Institute of Fisheries and Nautical Engineering (NIFNE), which offers training

programme both for those actually engaged in fisheries and for those who wish to enter

the sector in order to enhance education and training among the fishers and youth of the

fishing communities.

Characteristics Number

Age (years) 20-30 13 30-50 37 over 50 6 Educational level Primary 1-4 17 Primary 5-10 37 Secondary 2

Table 7: Age and level of education of fishers (n=56)

The majority of the interviewed fishers (85%) relied upon the fisheries alone as a source

of income. About 46% were involved in small-scale fishing, while about 39% were large-

scale fishers. The remaining respondents had other sources of income (masonry,

carpentry, security guards etc.) but their main source of income was fishery. About 46%

of the respondents owned only a boat but not a canoe, and 23% of fishers were owners of

both boat and canoe. About 30% of the respondents were daily workers who did not own

either boat or canoe.

33

Status of fishers Number

Owner of boat 26 Owner of boat + canoe 13 Daily worker 16 Seller 1

Occupation Number

Small scale fishers 26 Large scale fishers 22 Small scale + other 6 Large scale + other 2

Table 8: Occupation and status of fishers (n=56)

The majority of the fishers (77%) were registered as members in Fisheries Co-operative

Society (FCS). Fishers who were registered members of the society contributed an initial

lump-sum subscription fee, plus a monthly membership fee (105 rupees). The

membership fee was not seen as the main hindrance for non-members, but they were not

satisfied with FCS administration and the functions. Part-time fishers were excluded from

membership as they were not considered as “real” fishers by the fisheries community.

3.2.2 Livelihood analysis before and after the tsunami

Field observations and interviews revealed that a large portion of the people of Batticaloa

District relied upon marine and lagoon resources and utilized coastal products for

subsistence and as a source of income, with fish being the most important resource. These

coastal resources were considered important for the well being and survival of the

fisheries communities and fishers considered the sea as their "bank". For local fisherfolk,

fishing crafts and gears were not only for the basis of their livelihoods but also for family

security. In addition to the fishers, the fishery also supported a large number of people

processing and selling the fish, small-scale ice producers, women who make food in

landing sites, as well as others who make and repair boats and gear.

34

The fishery was characterized by the use of simple, passive fishing gears which were

mostly used in depths not exceeding 80 m. Fishing vessels mainly utilized were the sea

and lagoon canoes, FRP boats with out boat engine, beach seine vallam and one day

boats with in boat engine. The beach seine was operated under locally sanctioned systems

of limited entry based on customary right and socio-cultural barriers. Interviews revealed

that most of these vessels lacked cooling and freezing facilities, so fishing was limited by

both time and distance, thus fisherfolk continue to fish in the same grounds as were

fished by earlier generations. Fishers were constraints by financial capital to venture into

deep sea fishing.

Fishing communities lived close to the sea and lagoon. They built their settlements on the

beach near the sea, where they could guard their craft and equipment closely during bad

weather, or at night. This also meant that they had easy access to the sea. In some cases

especially Navalady and Palameenmadu, fishing communities occupied public land

without any formal land entitlement deeds, they had customary ownership of the land and

some had only land permits. Interviews revealed a fishery as being open access in which

anyone could participate. This had led to an increase in the number of local fishers, and

among them a significant number were part- time fishers. A number of migratory fishers

now residing there had been displaced during ethnic conflicts and some had migrated due

to marriage, which resulted in a localized increase of fishing effort. Trawlers came from

distant countries to fish off the coast of Batticaloa, but local fishers claimed that trawling

caused damage of the substrate and wastage of small fish that they dumped.

Fishers said muddalali and traders play an important role in the fishery in providing an

opportunity for those fishers who were short of cash to buy boats, to repair the vessels

and at times of distress. A muddalali usually owns gears and boats and he hired fishers.

The money earned from each catch was divided into three parts: one part to the

muddalali, one was kept for the maintenance of the boat and gear, and the third part was

shared among all the fishers on the boat regardless of their number. Fishers had to pay

back the loans from their catches and they were obliged to sell their catches to those

35

traders and prices usually determined by traders irrespective of whether the price was

good or bad. Consequently, the fishers themselves received the smallest returns.

Access to coastal resources is officially governed by National Fisheries Department. It

has branch offices on the district level, the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic

Resources (DFAR). The Fisheries Department mainly works through fisheries inspectors

and village-level Fisheries Co-operative Societies (FCS). FCS acts as important lobbyist

for the requirements of the fishers as an economically and socially marginalized group.

Their main activities are to provide various types of loans from internal and external

funds, to provide savings facilities for fishers and the conservation and management of

fisheries resources. FCS were the most important link for the fishers to access

government services. The government provided fishing canoes and gears to the members,

who could be either buy on a leasing scheme or sometimes receive subsidies especially

for poor fishers. After the tsunami, most of the funds from government and non-

governmental organizations, and also provision of fishing gears and crafts were

channelled through the FCS.

Interviews revealed that during the Northeast monsoon period, fishers could not go

fishing in the open sea. Fishing was reduced during this period due to unsafe seas,

because of strong wind and heavy rain. Fishers had strategies to fish during monsoon

season such as fishing harder such as fish further offshore which had been lightly fished,

increased market prices for fish and bout 90% of the sea-going fishers went to fish in

lagoon. The bar-mouth was opened during this period and it allows migration of sea fish

into the lagoon and vice versa. Thereby fishing pressure on lagoon has increased. The

point where seawater and lagoon water mixed (close to the bar-mouth) provided suitable

breeding environment for many fish species. Therefore fish aggregated towards to that

point for breeding and most of the fishers caught those fish using cast net and purse seine.

Fishers stated that this might have negative impact on future fish stock. They also said

that after the tsunami, fishing pressure in lagoon increased heavily and catch per unit

effort declined: fishers had to spend more time in fishing to catch an adequate amount of

36

fish, at least for their own consumption. Many fishers thereby stayed at home without

any alternative income during periods.

There was significant number of new entries into the fishery after the tsunami. They have

been provided with fishing equipment from NGOs and the Government. The tsunami had

led to a change in attitude towards respecting the laws governing the entry and use of

destructive gear, particularly in the lagoon. These laws were no longer respected and

pursuing short-term personal interests seem to have become the dominant trend. Due to

the ongoing conflict among the Tamil ethnic groups and between the Tamil and

Sinhalese, both the FCS and the government found it difficult to enforce the laws.

Destructive fishing gears were operated not only by new users but also by a significant

number of traditional fishers. Dynamite fishing by fishers was particularly destructive.

Dynamite blasting destroyed reef habitat and killed fish and other organisms. Other

destructive fishing methods include purse seine and trawlers in sea. Fishers also

mentioned that while fishing in reef areas they were using heavy metal as their anchors.

This was broken coral and destroyed important habitat for many fish. In the lagoon,

fishers used trammel and monofilament nets with smaller mesh sizes. The use of smaller

mesh nets were also results in capture of juveniles. This was perceived by fishers to have

resulted in serious impact on fish stocks, thereby threatening their livelihoods. There

were always conflicts between fishers due to the use of destructive fishing gears. Fishes

stated that they did not have power to punish against them. There was a poor patrolling

activity by DFAR officers about use of destructive fishing gears. Fishers also mentioned

that the resources were decreasing due to increase exploitation and that they complained

they did not have space to operate their gears as the numbers of fishers were increased

after the tsunami. Interviewees also said that their income after the tsunami had

decreased. These situations have had serious negative impacts on coastal fishing and the

livelihoods of coastal communities.

Interviews revealed that fishers had two major sources of credit; formal credit institutions

(banks) and informal credit sources (consisting of fellow fishers, relatives, moneylenders

and merchants). Informal credit represents the large share of the total borrowings of

37

fishers. The fishers faced problems in obtaining loans from banks because the ownership

of the boat was vested with the bank, which was collateral for the loan or other assets as

collateral. Fishers should bring two government officials as guarantors, but in most cases

Government officials were reluctant to sign as guarantors because of social status and

they did not trust fishers, in case fishers failed to repay the loans they would be

responsible to pay back. The bank credit schemes often have higher interest rates and are

also based on rigid repayment schedules that do not account for income variability due to

the irregular nature of fishing.

Interviews also revealed there were various social welfare and social security measures

adopted by the state to improve the welfare of fishing communities in Sri Lanka. Social

welfare included provision of houses, sanitary facilities, drinking water, community

centre, access roads etc. Social security measures included medical care, sickness

benefits, old-age benefits, unemployment benefits, employment injury benefits etc.

Batticaloa fishing communities were ill-treated in the provision of such social measures

due to the ethnic conflict.

There was a high demand for labourers in “cash for work” programmes implemented by

international NGOs and local NGOs. “Cash for work” programmes provided livelihood

insurance for tsunami affected people for the initial 6 month following the tsunami.

Considerable numbers of fishermen were involved in this programme as they stayed in

temporary shelters and camps and their damaged fishing equipments were not replaced

during that period. However people who were engaged in fishing were reluctant to work

as labourers in other sectors before and after tsunami for several reasons including the

lack of required skills and perceived lowering of social status.

Interviews with Fisheries Inspector revealed that, after the tsunami the DFAR issued

‘Entitlement Cards’ (EC) to fishers who had been affected by the tsunami. In Batticaloa

affected fishermen were identified by DFAR officers, and also by the FSC and local

administrative service like Grama Seva (GS). Only those identified fishermen were

provided with State assistance. Fishers revealed that one of the serious setbacks of this

38

procedure was that assistances were distributed only to those who had registered their

crafts prior to the tsunami and who has been member of FSC. But a large proportion of

them who had not registered their crafts and were non-members of FCS were affected

and deprived of assistance from the State and other donor organization. Moreover, even

the NGOs were obliged to provide assistance to fishermen who were in tsunami list

prepared by DFAR. Therefore these fishers had the opportunity of further access to the

same type of assistance because distributed assistances were not recorded. This resulted

in the oversupply of fishing equipment to some and none to others. They only received

immediate relief like food, cloth, and for funeral expenses. Some fishers who had lost

boats and gears due to the tsunami have not been provided with replacements under the

relief programme. Fishermen also mentioned that discrimination in tsunami relief created

conflict among communities when they were provided with different types of relief. For

example, there were conflicts among communities who were provided assistance by

distributing free money from one organization and members who received assistance and

encouraged pay back of the money from other organization.

One of the most heavily affected craft was fibreglass reinforced plastic (FRP) boats. Most

of the NGOs were interested in providing such crafts, as these boats were perceived as

examples of good intermediate type of technology, with moderate costs and decent

returns. Many of the NGOs and other donors did not consult the DFAR in selecting

beneficiaries and deciding on the number of crafts to be offered. This again resulted in

oversupply of fishing crafts. Some fishers also brought boats for repair which were not

actually damaged by the tsunami: this also contributed to an increase in the number of

crafts. Moreover, there was a tendency for fishers to provide exaggerated information on

gear losses and damaged crafts in expectation of free gifts of large volumes of more

efficient crafts and gears. Some interviewees complained about the quality of the

distributed FRP boats with thin hulls, and they experienced breaking up at sea. Because

of the uncertainty with these new vessels, fishers tended to stay in the sea for shorter

periods. Some lagoon canoes provided by the NGOs were not suitable for the Batticaloa

lagoon because of their length: these types of canoes had never been used in lagoon

39

before and consequently they have either sold at very low prices to fishers from other

places or left unused.

Interviews also revealed several problems associated with the provision of nets as

tsunami-relief. Since suitable nets were not available at Cey-Nor Foundation Ltd, fishers

were provided with other nets which subsequently were not used, and some were sold

them to others at low prices. Some fishers were provided with nets which they could use

only during a short season (e.g. herring net) and which can only be used in June to

August. Others had been given suitable nets, but of inadequate length, so that they had to

buy materials for additional length in themselves. More than 50% of the fishers had

received efficient gears. Before the tsunami, fishers used a variety of fishing gear and

frequently more than one type of gear used by each fisher. After the tsunami most fishers

received only one type of gears regardless of which types and how many they had before.

Before the tsunami, destructive fishing gears were widespread these types of gears were

again distributed by some organization which did not have knowledge of fisheries. Ice

plants were damaged by the tsunami: but construction of ice plants in Batticaloa was still

not implemented.

The tsunami damaged or destroyed houses of fisherfolk, which resulted in widespread

homelessness. NGOs undertook the construction of permanent houses for displaced

fishing families. New locations were away from the sea. About 800 permanent houses

were required to relocate the people: but finding suitable land proved tobe difficult. The

Government introduced a “buffer zone” of 200 m in eastern Sri Lanka. Fishers were

willing to move 200 m back, but not more than 700 m inland. Only about 250 houses had

been completed by 2006 and the rest were under various stages of construction. There

were more than 500 families still in temporary shelters. Some fishers were not happy

with their new permanent houses as construction activities were being carried out by

local sub-constructor who used poor quality materials. In some cases, fishers had to

contribute buying housing materials. Interviews revealed fishers’ preference to relocate to

other areas where they would be able to acquire title deeds and living permits.

40

Newly built permanent houses as well as temporary shelters were situated far from sea

and the lagoon, in some cases over 2 km. However, fishers preferred to fish in their

previous fishing places. Because of unsafe and unguarded situation at the beach, they

were afraid to leave their fishing crafts and gears there. Then fishers had to travel further

to reach their fishing grounds after the tsunami. Consequently, this had impact on fishing

hours. Due to the security situation fishers reached fishing places early evening even

though they were fishing at night. They stayed at the beach after they fished and returned

back home in the morning.

Relief activities were mainly targeted to replace lost assets and to restart livelihoods.

Assistance for alternative livelihoods were quite minimal to fishers as well as women in

fishing families, except female-headed households who received sewing machines and

livestock.

There was increased alcohol consumption among fishers, especially those who lost their

family members in the tsunami, and some fishers spent considerable income on alcohol

consumption. Thereby they could not contribute adequately to meeting their family

needs, and this led increased poverty.

41

3.3 ParFish Analysis

The ParFish software (version 2 with some special “fixes” provided by Dr. Paul Medley,

pers. comm.) was used to analyse data for three gear types: cast net, drift net and bottom-

set long-line. Seven graphs and sets of statistics were generated for each of these three

gear types: a total of twenty-one analyses.

CPUE Projection

The CPUE projections are probability projections of CPUE as a proportion of the current

CPUE for the next 5 time units as a result of applying the estimated target control. These

graphs show that the balance of probabilities lies in favour of the CPUE increasing

relative to the current CPUE in the first time period after the control is implemented.

Over the subsequent four time periods, uncertainty increases so the curves become flatter.

The expected catch rate is increasing if current catch effort is maintained. This graph

could be useful to indicate sustainability of the fish stock whether it is increasing or

decreasing.

CPUE Projection

CPUE9876543210

Pro

bability

Density

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

12345

Figure 8: Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) projection graph for cast net

42

CPUE Projection

CPUE26242220181614121086420

Pro

bability D

ensity

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

12345

Figure 9: Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) projection graph for drift net

CPUE Projection

CPUE 4035302520151050

Pro

bability D

ensity

0.54

0.52

0.5

0.48

0.46

0.44

0.42

0.4

0.38

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.3

0.28

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

123

45

Figure 10: Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) projection graph for bottom-set long-line

43

Current resource state

The current state is the current biomass divided by the unexploited biomass (state of the

stock biomass as a proportion of the unexploited biomass). 50% of Binf (unexploited

biomass) is taken as the limit for the stock being overfished based on the logistic biomass

growth model. For cast net, the resource state could be between 0.03 and 0.33 of

unexploited biomass (90% CI). The median value is 0.18, this indicate there is 18%

chance that stock is overfished. For drift net the resource state could be between 0.01 and

0.34 of unexploited biomass (90% CI). The median value is 0.14, this indicate there is

14% chance that stock is overfished. For bottom-set long-line the resource state could be

between 0.01 and 0.31 of unexploited biomass (90% CI). The median value is 0.13, this

indicate there is 13% chance that stock is overfished.

Current Resource State

Resource State

0.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10

Pro

bability

4.2

4

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

1

Mean: 0.1808 Mode: 0.1716 Median: 0.1746 90%CI: 0.029 to 0.333

Figure 11: Current state graph for cast net

44

Current Resource State

Resource State

0.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10

Pro

bability

4.2

4

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.998

Mean: 0.1554 Mode: 0.111 Median: 0.1389 90%CI: 0.0154 to 0.337

Figure 12: Current state graph for drift net

Current Resource State

Resource State

0.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10

Pro

bability

4.6

4.4

4.2

4

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.999

Mean: 0.1455 Mode: 0.1009 Median: 0.1301 90%CI: 0.014 to 0.314

Figure 13: Current state graph for bottom-set long-line

45

Unexploited CPUE

This graph gives feedback on what the best estimates for the value is as a proportion of

the fisher’s current CPUE. For cast net the range of the unexploited CPUE is between 1

to 3 times than current CPUE (90% CI). The median indicates the unexploited CPUE is

roughly two times the current CPUE. For drift net and bottom-set long-line the range of

the unexploited CPUE is between 1 to 4 times than current CPUE (90% CI). The median

indicates the unexploited CPUE is roughly two times the current CPUE.

Unexploited CPUE (Proportion of Current)

Log CPUE for Unexploited Stock (Unexploited/Current)

9876543210

Pro

bability

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.931

1.78

3.13

Mean: 1.91525 Mode: 1.686457 Median: 1.783748 90%CI: 0.93 to 3.13

Figure 14: Unexploited Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) graph for cast net

46

Unexploited CPUE (Proportion of Current)

Log CPUE for Unexploited Stock (Unexploited/Current)

9876543210

Pro

bability

0.46

0.44

0.42

0.4

0.38

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.3

0.28

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.75

2.13

4.27

Mean: 2.299482 Mode: 1.972244 Median: 2.1323376 90%CI: 0.750 to 4.269

Figure 15: Unexploited Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) graph for drift net

Unexploited CPUE (Proportion of Current)

Log CPUE for Unexploited Stock (Unexploited/Current)

1211109876543210

Pro

bability

0.44

0.42

0.4

0.38

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.3

0.28

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.768

2.19

4.43

Mean: 2.387813 Mode: 2.015249 Median: 2.193742 90%CI: 0.768 to 4.433

Figure 16: Unexploited Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) graph for bottom-set long-line

47

Fishing Mortality at MSY

Fishing mortality (F) is approximately the proportion of the stock captured by the fishery.

The cast net graph shows fishing mortality at MSY lies between 0.01 and 0.69 of the

stock per month (90% CI) with the median at 0.18 of the stock per month. For drift net

fishing mortality at MSY lies between 0.06 and 3.41 of the stock per month (90% CI)

with the median at 0.97 of the stock per month. For bottom-set long-line fishing mortality

at MSY lies between 0.05 to 3.22 of the stock per month (90% CI) with the median at

0.82 of the stock per month.

Fishing Mortality at MSY

Fishing Mortality (/Month)

21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20

Pro

bability

3

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.0152

0.18

0.696

Mean: 0.2462 Mode: 0.1037 Median: 1.797 90%CI: 0.0152 to 0.696

Figure 17: Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield graph for cast net

48

Fishing Mortality at MSY

Fishing Mortality (/Years)

11109876543210

Pro

bability

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.06330.97

3.41

Mean: 1.30166 Mode: 0.4390519 Median: 0.9695263 90%CI: 0.063 to 3.413

Figure 18: Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield graph for drift net

Fishing Mortality at MSY

Fishing Mortality (/Calender month)

9876543210

Pro

bability

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.0534

0.825

3.22

Mean: 1.180478 Mode: 0.3498041 Median: 0.8246628 90%CI: 0.0534 to 3.223

Figure 19: Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield graph for bottom-set long-line

49

Relative fishing mortality

This graph shows whether overfishing is occurring. It shows the current F divided by the

F at MSY. F is proportional to fishing effort in this model. This illustrates the likelihood

that effort is more or less than that required for the maximum sustainable yield. Cast net

graph shows there is a 27% of chance that the current fishing mortality (therefore effort)

is below that required for MSY. Therefore, there is also 73% chance that it is above

MSY. It indicated the overfishing might be occurring. Drift net graph suggest that that

there is a 33.4% of chance the current fishing mortality (and therefore effort) is below

that required for MSY. Therefore, there is also a 66.6% chance that it is above MSY. For

bottom-set long-line there is a 30.8% of chance the current fishing mortality (and

therefore effort) is below that required for MSY. Therefore, there is also a 68.2% chance

that it is above MSY.

Fishing Mortality Current : MSY

Log Fishing Mortality Current : MSY

9876543210-1-2-3

Pro

bability

0.42

0.4

0.38

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.3

0.28

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.268

Mean: 0.7058 Mode: 0.4577 Median: 0.5714 90%CI-1.103 to 2.7

Figure 20: Relative fishing mortality at MSY graph for cast net

50

Fishing Mortality Current : MSY

Log Fishing Mortality Current : MSY

109876543210-1-2

Pro

bability

0.4

0.38

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.3

0.28

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.334

Mean: 0.5784 Mode: 0.37079 Median: 0.4316 90%CI: -1.212 to 2.583

Figure 21: Relative fishing mortality at MSY graph for drift net

Fishing Mortality Current : MSY

Log Fishing Mortality Current : MSY

109876543210-1-2

Pro

bability

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.3

0.28

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.308

Mean: 0.6621 Mode: 0.4161 Median: 0.5284 90%CI: -1.259 to 2.774

Figure 22: Relative fishing mortality at MSY graph for bottom-set long-line

51

Fishing mortality at optimum

Fishing mortality at optimum (Fopt) is the F which maximizes the preference score for

the fishery. The optimum is the target, where we want to be, whereas MSY is a limit,

where we do not want to be beyond. The target is usually, but not always, below the

MSY point. Cast net graph shows the value for fishing mortality at optimum (highest

preference score) is 0.63 (median), and between 0.11 and 2.0 (90% CI). The Fopt

obtained much greater than the F at MSY (0.18), which shows a high discount rate. Drift

net graph shows the value for fishing mortality at optimum (highest preference score) is

2.93 (median), and between 0.7 and 5.4 (90% CI). The Fopt obtained much greater than

the F at MSY (0.97), which shows a high discount rate. Bottom-set long-line graph shows

the value for fishing mortality at optimum (highest preference score) is 3.1 (median), and

between 0.5 and 6.5 (90% CI). In Batticaloa the Fopt obtained much greater than the F at

MSY (0.83), which shows a high discount rate. However these higher preferences may

also depend on the risk that the fisher consider acceptable.

Fishing Mortality at Optimum

Optimum F (/Month)

4.543.532.521.510.50

Pro

bability

1.15

1.1

1.05

1

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.112

0.629

2

Mean: 0.8081 Mode: 0.3842 Median: 0.6286 90%CI: 0.1124 to 2.003

Figure 23: Fishing mortality at optimum graph for cast net

52

Fishing Mortality at Optimum

Optimum F (/Years)

7.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.50

Pro

bability

0.28

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.705

2.91

5.38

Mean: 2.984638 Mode: 2.857237 Median: 2.92655 90%CI: 0.705 to 5.378

Figure 24: Fishing mortality at optimum graph for drift net

Fishing Mortality at Optimum

Optimum F (/Calender month)

131211109876543210

Pro

bability

0.21

0.2

0.19

0.18

0.17

0.16

0.15

0.14

0.13

0.12

0.11

0.1

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

0.566

3.18

6.51

Mean: 3.399892 Mode: 2.532467 Median: 3.179232 90%CI: 0.566 to 6.509

Figure 25: Fishing mortality at optimum graph for bottom-set long-line

53

Relative fishing mortality at optimum

Relative mortality at Optimum graph allows us to calculate the probability of whether the

fishing effort needs to be decreased or can be increased to reach the target. The results for

the three gears show that current F divided by Fopt is greater than 1. For cast net mean

value of 1.94 and lies between 1.1 and 6.0 (90% CI). The drift net result shows that mean

value of 2.22 and lies between 1.1 and 3.9 (90% CI). The bottom-set long-line result

shows that mean value of 2.5 and lies between 1.3 and 5.0 (90% CI). These graphs are

indicating that current effort is probably greater than Fopt, and the fishers should be

decreased effort. However, the graph does not indicate by how much effort should be

decreased.

Fishing Mortality Current : Optimum

Optimum F Current : Optimum

6.565.554.543.532.521.510.50

Pro

bability

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.0256

Mean: 2.310656 Mode: 1.850741 Median: 1.9404989 90%CI: 1.109 to 6.018

Figure 26: Relative fishing mortality at optimum graph for cast net

54

Fishing Mortality Current : Optimum

Optimum F Current : Optimum

43.532.521.510.50

Pro

bability

1.15

1.1

1.05

1

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.00257

Mean: 2.222616 Mode: 2.058834 Median: 2.096741 90%CI: 1.113 to 3.907

Figure 27: Relative fishing mortality at optimum graph for drift net

Fishing Mortality Current : Optimum

Optimum F Current : Optimum

76.565.554.543.532.521.510.50

Pro

bability

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.00863

Mean: 2.509099 Mode: 2.107856 Median: 2.211866 90%CI: 1.282 to 5.018

Figure 28: Relative Fishing mortality at optimum graph for bottom-set long-line

55

4.0 DISCUSSION

4.1 Social-ecological resilience and livelihoods in coastal ecosystem in Batticaloa

In this section have incorporated both social-ecological resilience and livelihood analyses

because they are inextricably linked.

In Batticaloa, long-term bans and restrictions on fishing, internal displacement, lost of

fishing assets and death due to war had deprived the livelihoods of fishing communities

and ultimately rendered them more vulnerable to an external shock like the tsunami.

During violent civil war, the creation of ‘no go zone’ restricted access to coastal

resources, particularly in lagoon. The livelihoods of coastal communities that directly

depended on these resources were consequently under increasing pressure. Therefore

their fishing effort was reduced considerably. This restriction in fishing effort had serious

implication on fishers' livelihoods. The small-scale fishers faced social challenges of low

wages, few alternative incomes, and increased pressure to attain food security, ensuring

the welfare of the family members, and meeting daily expenses. In times of war, the

coastal communities were unable to move out of the conflict area due to economic

constraints, lack of acquired skills necessary for the labour market and the lack of social-

capital (Korf and Fünfgeld 2004). Fishers migrated temporarily when violence escalated

and moved back when it halted because they were so heavily depended on coastal

resources. According to Silva (2006), the poor tend to be the most dependent on coastal

resources and are therefore the most severely affected when the coastal environment is

degraded or their access to these resources is limited.

The coastal fisheries were open access common property in Batticaloa. Fishing was an

attractive activity for the poor as it did not necessarily require the ownership of any assets

and had very low start up costs. Fishing also provided some insurance for poor as a

fallback source of food and income during times of economic crisis and instability such

as war. The number of fishers in the coastal area of Batticaloa had increased over time

including migrants due to conflict, part-time fishers and new users after the tsunami. In

56

Batticaloa, many fishers attributed that the increasing number of fishers as one of major

causes of declined in fish catches. Aryeety, (2002) suggested that easy mobility is typical

in a common property resource, and can impede the serious regulation of the fishery and

the diversification of skills and livelihoods, resulting in over exploitation and reduced

catches.

The coral reef fish were the most abundantly harvested resource because they were easily

accessible to the traditional fishers, who fished in the near shore waters using a FRP boats

with outboard engines, sea canoes and vallam. The lack of vessels and gear to fish

offshore were reasons for increased pressure on near shore reef fisheries. Harvested

species composition varied with the type of fishing gear used, and the location of fishing.

Different gears were used to catch different types of fish. The choice of fishing gear

depended on what the fishers intended to catch. Some types of fishing gear were

specifically used to catch certain type of species such as herring nets, needlefish net and

skate net. Some gear such as bottom long line, beach seine and drift net could be used for

a variety of different fish species. Fish availability and type of fish species varied through

out the year. Many fishers had knowledge about fish behaviour and availability, therefore

they adopted strategies in gear use patterns. Fishers usually owned more than one gear

type, and chose fishing grounds according to what was most productive for the season. In

the lagoon, fishers used cast net and targeted different species. Almost all the small-scale

fishers owned cast net because lagoon fishing was labour intensive and low investment.

After the tsunami, many fishers were provided with gears whatever the gear available in

Cey-Nor Ltd regardless of number and types of gear owned by fishers. This was mainly

due to poor information flow and limited communication between the donor agencies and

affected communities. Fishers were not satisfied with the provided gears which were

incomplete and unfamiliar. Hence damaged gears were not completely replaced. Fishers

then targeted fish which they could catch using the provided gear from tsunami relief.

They couldn’t afford to buy new gear or vessels themselves, and this combination

resulted in low catches, low income and increased vulnerability.

57

According to my field observation, fishers household food security and income situation

was an important determinant of fishing gear use: households experiencing low food

security and low income tended to use destructive fishing gear, both before and after the

tsunami. The acute lack of fishing gear after the tsunami also led them to resort to cheap

but destructive fishing practices. Fishers suggested there was lack of compliance with

some fishing gear regulations, and some illegal methods and gear were continued to be

used due to lack of enforcement and public awareness and increased competition for

marine resources. Due to the on going conflict among Tamil ethnic groups and between

LTTE and Sri Lankan Army, the enforcement of laws against destructive fishing gear

users was constrained. Therefore many fishers took advantage of this situation and

continued to use destructive fishing methods. Destructive fishing gears were more

productive in the short term, which naturally motivated fishers to use such gears in

realizing high income, but this could have negative impact on long term sustainability of

fishing communities. Fishers seek to maximize their profits from fishing.

One fisher stated, “I lost my family, assets and everything during the tsunami, then why

do I need to conserve this resource? I don’t believe in the future. Maybe tomorrow also

another tsunami will come and destroy everything. So I have to utilize available

resources today as much as possible”.

The tsunami resulted in significant lost, both in the short-term and long-term. Fishing

communities were marginalized even more than before due to the lost of livelihoods

assets, and displacement which further affected their poverty situation. Fishers revealed

that without assistance from donor agencies it would be difficult for them to resume their

livelihood activities. The strong dependence on fisheries, poverty in terms of low income,

and limited livelihood alternatives prior to the tsunami led increased vulnerability of

fishing communities to the tsunami. After the tsunami, initial relief measures were

targeted to get back fishers to fishing by replacing their damaged fishing equipment. A

large number of inexperienced organizations were involved in rehabilitation processes.

There were several problems associated with aid deliveries: poor coordination in

recovery process in various ways, many of the organization targeted the same types of

58

relief, which had resulted in the duplication of support. This had resulted in oversupply of

crafts. Lack of participation of affected communities in identifying appropriate measures

led to distribution of inappropriate, poor quality and insufficient fishing equipment.

Relief assistance of fishing equipment reached even non-affected persons. The relief

measures not only led to discrimination between registered and non-registered fisherfolk,

but also failed to protect and restore tsunami-affected people who were the main labour

force in fisheries and thus eroded resilience within the fishing communities. Some people

brought boats for repair that were not damaged by the tsunami which had led further

increased in the number of crafts compared to before the tsunami. This had occurred

because of lack of clarity on the actual number of crafts and other data regarding the

affected people. Insufficient and inappropriate relief created new conflicts, such as

conflict between communities who received equipment for free and those required to pay

back: this inconsistency was mainly because different organization adopted different

strategies in relief activities. Some relief was directed to closed networks and relatives,

discrimination in relief between members and non-members by providing different relief

measures. This had led to mistrust and increasing reports of injustice, which have

hindered the realization of a fruitful rehabilitation programme.

After the tsunami, provision of poor quality vessels had impact on fishery. Due to

uncertainty of vessels' quality (dangerously thin fibre-glass hulls), fishing effort was

limited by both distance and time in sea. Therefore near-shore fishing pressure increased

after the tsunami. Over-supply of gear led to increase in numbers of new entrants: fishers

stated that these factors meant that they did not have enough space to operate their gears

and crafts as they were fishing in the same fishing ground and consequently decreased

individual catch rate. The new entrants on one hand may eventually drive income down,

and on the other hand may contribute the potential over exploitation of resources.

Allowing the level of fishing to exceed those prior to the tsunami could have grave

consequences for fish stocks and therefore the fishing community in Batticaloa. In Sri

Lanka, arbitrary introduction of boats through subsidy schemes in the past had led to over

exploitation of coastal resources in some areas (Wijayaratnae , 2001).

59

The level of coastal fisheries production, particularly the pelagic species caught with gill

nets have either reached or are fast approaching their maximum potential yields (Anon,

1999). According to Wijayaratnae (2001) a maximum sustainable yield of 165,235 tons

suggests that the coastal fisheries in Sri Lanka are fully exploited, and further exploitation

would cause a decrease in catch, which in turn would reduce the profits for the coastal

fisheries. However in Eastern Province, limited scientific evidence is available regarding

biological exploitation of fishery resources, also made difficult due to the conflict.

Natural fluctuation in fish stocks is critical for fishers in Batticaloa. Income from fishery

depends on day to day catch and monsoon seasons. Fishing activity in the open sea was

unsafe in time of monsoon. As a result of this, catches were and income were low during

December to February. There was very little fishing activity during off-season. Fishers

may be unable to find other employment because of lack of opportunities in their own

areas, or because of social barriers that did not permit change of occupation. Fishers had

strategies to continued or increasing reliance on fishery by intensifying resource use. For

instance fishing in the lagoon when weather prevented fishing in the sea. Fishing pressure

in lagoon increased during monsoon period. Fishers raised their income by increasing

efficiency of fishing effort but the income was much lower than what was generated

through sea fishing.

After the tsunami, uncertainty of vessels and new users increased competition in marine

resources, therefore many fishers started to exploit lagoon fishing more than before the

tsunami. This had impact on artisanal fishers who were mainly depending on lagoon

fishery resources. The artisanal fisheries generally have few alternative means of

livelihood, and have little choice but adjust to reduce incomes (Silvestre et al., 2003).

Furthermore this situation reduced household security and increased conflicts, leading to

less cooperation and further exploitation of remaining resources along with increased

income inequality. Increased dependency on fishing makes it hard to find non-fishing

alternatives during periods of resource scarcity. This in turn could compromise resource

sustainability. Economic decline and household insecurity resulted in a retreat into

subsistence rather than in diversification of income sources. Negative adaptation of

60

fishers in time of crisis resulted in the adoption of successively more vulnerable

livelihood systems over time (Davis, 1996 in Ellis 2000). According to Allison and Ellis

(2001) diversification reduces the risk of livelihood failures by securing more than one

income source. This helps the fishers to overcome the uneven use of assets caused by

seasonality, reduce vulnerability, and generate financial resource in the absence of credit

markets.

The tsunami damaged and destroyed infrastructure and processing facilities, placing

greater burden on poor fishers. Poor post-harvest handling reduced the availability of

food and lowers fishers’ income. In rebuilding infrastructure and processing facilities and

creating new ones, there is an opportunity to focus on ways to minimize the post-harvest

losses and add value to catches. This could also have provided alternative livelihood for

fishers particularly women. Implementation of alternative livelihood opportunities would

also improve the quality of life of coastal fishers.

Fishers could not obtain credit from banks due to lack of collateral. With banks

continuing to lend only to those with collateral, the poor were forced to use local

moneylenders, which further indebted them through charging very high interest rates.

Limited access to financial capital reduced the chances to exploit alternative source of

income. Fish workers or labourers who employed by boat owners paid low wage as they

shared income among all the fishers on the same boat. This small return did not allow

them to invest in own equipment or in saving. Therefore they were forced to continue as

wage labour and resulted in vulnerable to increase poverty. According to Risvoll (2006),

opportunities for the fish workers are low for much socio-economic upward mobility.

Information flows to fishers about credit sources and markets was also poor.

Economically and physically vulnerable communities had few defences against the

tsunami. The access status of an individual or household with respect to savings, loans or

other finance or credit clearly made a big difference to the livelihood choices that were

open to them and therefore financial capital is recognizably an important component of

individual or family assets.

61

The tsunami completely destroyed houses belonging to small-scale fisherfolk who settled

along coastline. During the tsunami, resource documentation was destroyed and land

demarcations vanished. This significantly complicated reconstruction and rehabilitation

process. The land occupied by small-scale fisherfolk is often State land; therefore they

had been settled for a long time without any land entitlement deeds. Instead they had

customary rights over land and coastal resources for many centuries. This made it

difficult for affected people to claim back their land or to receive compensation for

destroyed or damaged houses. These issues were likely to delay the reconstruction effort

and create tension among affected communities. Delays in reconstruction forced fishers

to live in temporary shelters for extended periods of time. Secure tenure accelerate

livelihood recovery, resource rights provide collateral and hence increased the borrowing

capabilities (Brown et al., 2006).

Creation of buffer zone was ostensibly intended to move coastal communities

permanently away from disaster-risk areas to reduce future disaster causalities. After the

tsunami, fishers were relocated in temporary shelters which were far away from the sea

and the lagoon. The new permanent housing location away from sea seems to be safe

scheme, but for the fisherfolk being relocated far away from the sea was like a second

blow following the tsunami. The imposed buffer zone could thus obstruct the economic

revival of affected areas. Fishers faced many problems associated with living far away

from their resource: transportation and marketing options were poor and they were

obliged to travel further to reach their fishing grounds, they were often attacked by Sri

Lankan Army along the roads, they were prevented from fishing at night, and it was

unsafe to leave their fishing equipment at the beach. It is essential to fishers to be near the

sea to monitor sea conditions in order to make decision regarding when and where to fish.

The removal of coastal communities from the resources on which they rely can be costly

for them. Social resilience of fishing communities was affected negatively by the buffer

zone policy through changing property rights and inequality in access to resources.

62

4.1.1 Fish species identified and fisheries production

There are about 610 species of coastal fish have been reported from Sri Lankan waters

(FAO, 2006). In Batticaloa the more common species caught are Sardenella spp,

Rastrelliger spp, and Anchova commersoni. These small pelagic account for about 40%

of the coastal fish catch in Sri Lanka (FAO, 2006). Among the mackerels, Indian

mackerel dominated the catch. Most of these species live near the surface or high in the

water column. There are about 90 species (FAO, 2006) of oceanic pelagic species of fish

have been reported from Sri Lankan offshore and deep sea waters. Katsuwonus spp and

Thunnus spp dominate the large pelagic catches. These are migratory species and

therefore fall under stocks shared with other countries. Demersal species caught include

such as emperors, snappers, groupers, and carangids. About 215 demersal species (FAO,

2006) have been reported from marine waters around Sri Lanka.

Both the fish catches for the whole of Sri Lanka and for Batticaloa District showed a

maximum in 1999. Then from 2000 to 2002 they experienced declining catches,

coinciding with increased political tension and conflicts. The violent civil war in

Batticaloa District evidently had an even more significant impact on fisheries production

than for the country as a whole (compare Figure 6 and 7).

Fishing activities in Batticaloa were curtailed in 2000 until 2002 when it was declared a

‘no-go zone’, where any movement was controlled by orders of the Sri Lanka Army

(STF): during this time fishers had to obtain permission from the army each time they

wanted to go fishing. Nobody was allowed to fish in the lagoon at night when usually the

largest amount of fish could be caught. There was also disruption of social networks in

the village mostly due to temporary migration of fishers when violence escalated.

The prolonged civil war situation in the Northeast part of the country had adversely

affected the coastal sector contribution to the total production and it had declined to 68%

by 2000 (Wijayaratne, 2001). 2003 to 2004 exhibited some increase in catches, in a

period following a cease-fire agreement.

63

The tsunami struck on 26th December 2004 and subsequently there was major fall in fish

catches. After the tsunami, large-scale deposition of organic and inorganic wastes

impacted the health of coastal waters. Marine organisms that survived the immediate

impact of the tsunami may have later been affected or killed due to deposition of debris

and silt on the reefs. Damaged and destroyed fishing vessels were not completely

replaced in 2005. In 2006, damaged or destroyed crafts during the tsunami were largely

replaced: the entrance of new users and over supply of crafts contributed to increase

fisheries production while according to fishers individual catch rates declined. In

Batticaloa, where catch figure was available for 2006, a significant recovery was evident.

The effects of the tsunami were most noticeable in the national catch statistics, where as

the conflict/peace situation appears to affect fish catches more noticeably in Batticaloa.

Fishers stated that in Batticaloa, overexploitation, use of destructive fishing gears,

degradation of water quality as a result of pollution and siltation were changing the

ecosystem. Aside from their visible impacts on reef habitats, trawler may impact soft-

bottom costal communities. In the Gulf of Thailand, trawling changes species

composition and diversity of benthos (Pauly and Chua, 1998).

Mangroves are threatened by collection of fuel wood, pollution and clearing by Sri

Lanka Army. Coastal and marine habitats are critical to maintaining productive fisheries

resources and the resilience of coastal ecosystem. They are often (but not always) crucial

to the productivity of nearby fisheries because of their roles as nutrient exporters and

providers of nursery areas. According to Stobutski and Hall (2005), decline in mangroves

has greatly diminished the overall health of coastal ecosystems.

Fishers revealed that coral reef ecosystems are under severe threat as a consequence of

destructive fishing and coral mining. After the tsunami many coral reefs lost their

structure and biota, and mechanical damage had partly reduced them to rubble, and they

were also subsequently further damaged by runoff and siltation. In India the after-effects

of the recent tsunami on the coral reefs were manifested by high sedimentation, siltation

64

ad smothered corals indicate the potential threat posed not only to the fragile coral reef

ecosystem, but also to coastal region of the mainland (Kumaraguru et al., 2005). In coral–

reef ecosystems, sedimentation acts as a major limiting factor controlling the distribution

of reef organisms and overall reef development. The reduced level of light due to

suspended sediment in the water column can reduce coral growth. Damaged caused by

man may be irreversible but damage suffered by corals after a natural events such as

tsunami will be rectified over time. Coral impacted by natural disasters have shown good

resilience in the long-term (Kumaraguru et al., 2003).

4.1.2 Linked social-ecological resilience and vulnerability

In Batticaloa coastal fishers settled closed to the seashore which allowed them easy

access for carrying out their livelihood activities. This created a crucial link between their

social and ecological resilience. Therefore ecological and social resilience may be linked

through the dependence on ecosystems of communities and their economic activities.

Adger (2000) argued that there is a clear link between social and ecological resilience,

particularly for social groups or communities that are dependent on ecological and

environmental resources for their livelihoods. The links between social-ecological

systems are bi-directional: changes in the marine ecosystem can affect human

communities, and changes in human communities can affect the marine ecosystem.

In Batticaloa, open access fishery, lack of alternative income generating activities, and

poverty or low income had led to more and more pressure on coastal fisheries. If coastal

ecosystems themselves are either resilient or stable, then coastal communities will be

resilient (Adger, 2000), but these conditions do not always hold. Fishers had developed a

variety of fishing strategies to respond to seasonal fluctuation of coastal ecosystem.

Fishing further off shore, targeting different species by switching to different gears,

increase efficiency by spending more fishing hours. All these livelihood strategies could

have negative impacts to the coastal ecosystem. Fishing harder exploits fish in what

might previously have been refuge areas, targeting other species or using destructive

fishing techniques spreads the negative impacts of fishing to other component of the

ecosystem. As fishery resources decline, fishers turn to more efficient ways to fish, thus

65

putting more pressure on the resource and locking the situation into a downward spiral.

The downward spiral occurs because environmental degradation further intensifies the

degree of poverty experiences by marginal groups, drivers them to more intensive

exploitation of the resource that are accessible to them (Scherr, 2000).

Therefore the promotion of specialization in economic activities as a development

strategy to increase efficiency of resource use had negative consequences in terms of risk

for individual and communities.

Institutional structures such as property rights, govern the use of natural resources

creating incentives for sustainable or unsustainable use. Hence they are a central

components linking social and ecological resilience. Open access fishery in Batticaloa,

both new entrants and existing fishers before and after the tsunami were further attracted

to be engaged in fishing with higher effort by increased profits.. Where each fisher

received all the benefits of harvesting more fish and reduced overall individual catch rate,

having no concern about the sustainability of both fishery and fishing, which provide

their livelihood. Increased competition for marine and lagoon resource led to use of

destructive fishing gear. There was a sequence of events which starts with efficient

exploitation that eventually leads to loss of ecosystem resilience, and at worst could have

led to the elimination of biological species. Over exploitation of coastal ecosystem not

only affect the ecological resilience but also the social resilience of the fishers who

entirely depend on coastal resources. Reduce individual catch rate resulted in reduced

income, affecting fishers' capacity to meet their household needs and thereby reducing

the social resilience of the social system.

Direct dependence of communities on coastal ecosystem influences their social resilience

and ability to cope with shocks such as the tsunami, particularly in the context of food

security and coping with hazards. The tsunami destroyed their livelihood assets, damaged

houses, caused death and displacement. The ‘Buffer Zone’ policy which constraints the

access to coastal resources in turn affects social resilience of communities.

Environmental variability can increase the risk of being dependent on particular resources

66

through the incidence of extreme events in nature such as floods, hurricanes

(Adger2000).

4.2 ParFish stock assessment

ParFish analysis indicated that there maybe slight trend towards overexploitation of fish

resources in Batticaloa. Analysis indicated chances that the current fishing mortality was

below the fishing mortality required to achieve MSY for castnet, drift net, and bottom-set

long-line were as following as 27%, 33.4% and 30.8% respectively. Therefore

overfishing was likely to be occurring.

The fishers had a very high discount rate which produced higher effort levels as future

benefits are discounted faster to zero. Reduction of fisheries effort is needed for stock

recovery in the future.

Despite the problems I faced in ParFish software being blocked by Windows XP security

updates, I did attain some analytical results from my data with the help of Dr. Paul

Medley. However because of the wide confidential intervals, I was cautious with the

interpretation of these results (See section 3.3).

My ParFish results were based on fishers’ views and perceptions on the state of the

fishery: these results were preliminary and this ParFish study was incomplete. The

ParFish approach emphasizes the need for further analysis using long-term catch and

effort data. Combining long-term catch-and-effort data, and also data from fishing

experiments to be conducted together with the fishers would strengthen the results. In

addition, closing an area for a period and monitoring the recovery would give further data

on the growth rate of the stock.

T

67

4.3 Institutions and management regime in coastal ecosystem in Batticaloa

In Sri Lanka, the new Fisheries Act was passed in 1996 and subsequently a number of

regulations were introduced with a view to managing the fisheries by issuing licence for

boats and fishing operations, designating fisheries management areas and fishing

communities. There are several Acts and Regulations with respect to coastal resources

management, but there is hardly any evidence for offences that have been brought to

book. The punishment or fine for offences stipulated in the Acts is negligible.

Weaknesses in the provisions of various Acts have contributed to regulations not being

stringent and punishment less severe. Major weak areas are the registration of fishing

crafts, inability to regulate fishing effort, inability to prohibit destructive fishing gears

and methods, and demarcation of fishing grounds for various categories of fisheries.

Licensing continues without any limit, which in turn could have impact on the fish stocks

in the future.

According to Fishery Batticaloa Lagoon Management Regulations of 2001, no license

holder shall use any drift net with a mesh size less than 7 cm, any net other than a cast at

the bar-mouth of the lagoon or within a radius of 183 m from the mouth, any

incandescent lamp or other artificial light other than a hurricane lantern, or any

mechanized fishing boat in the lagoon for purpose of taking fish. Fishers were frequently

violating these rules due to poor enforcement of law in the lagoon. DFAR, Batticaloa,

does have neither the capacity nor the funds to control access to the lagoon or keep track

of the development of the local fisheries sector.

The open access nature of fishery poses particular problems for the management of

fisheries. The demographic changes through migration (either refugees or intermarriage)

in to fishery increased the heterogeneity of the population, which affected the sustainable

utilization and management of resources. Migrants might appeared to have little incentive

to respect the sustainable utilization of coastal resources. The transitional state of conflict

from warfare to ceasefire (Korf and Fünfgeld, 2004) and even the tsunami had led to

altered common property regime among the users of the Batticaloa lagoon. While basic

access to the resource has been re-established for traditional fishers, new users have

68

increased ecological pressure thus cause negative social and environmental outcomes.

Increased pollution, increased number of fishers and use of unsustainable fishing methods

are threatening the sustainability of the entire ecosystem. DFAR has so far failed to

address the newly arising ecological and management problems as they are trapped in the

political arena of ongoing conflict.

According to my observations, small-scale fisherfolk and marginalized labour force were

in the poverty trap. Poverty or low income and few alternative livelihood option

compelled fishers to violate management rules, as poverty is the main factor that forces

them to harvest coastal resources in order to meet their basic needs. It has also become

necessary for them to take advantage of short-term benefits while sacrificing long-term

sustainability. Poverty is a key constraint on coastal management option for sustaining

resource and attaining conservation goals (Silva, 2006). Lack of livelihood diversity may

have arisen as a result of inappropriate fisheries management and development

interventions. Managing fish stocks through a combination of limiting access and

creating alternative livelihood arrangement would help to encouraging alternative

livelihood sources among fishermen. Which in turn would raise their income and reduce

their high level of dependence on fishery. Enabling fishers to fish further offshore could

have reduced increased pressure on near shore fishery.

Prior to the tsunami, the inadequacies in fisheries management and policies, the lack of

institutional capacity and low level of stakeholder involvement had resulted in

unsustainable fisheries. After tsunami, even existing but inadequate institutional

structures were lost. The rehabilitation programme after the tsunami could have provided

an opportunity to develop improved institutions for implementing effective management.

This would have required involvement of local communities to participate in the

management of coastal fisheries and include the lessons from the past situation to reduce

the vulnerability of the coastal communities. The long-term goals required strategic

investments in capacity building to ensure sustainable and diversified livelihoods to

establish resilient communities.

69

There was a significant lack of information on the incentives and conditions that foster

the development of community management systems. Fishers' participation had been

excluded from the management regime. There was always conflict among fishers in the

use of destructive fishing methods because neither fishers nor the FCS had power to take

necessary action against to prevent them. Top-level centralized-decision making is

susceptible to making large mistakes in regards to resource management. As the central

government failed to effectively manage the coastal resources in Batticaloa, it should be

advised to promote involvement of local communities in the management of coastal

resources, in which local people play an important role in both decision-making and

enforcement. Social networks and trust are fundamental for ecosystem management:

learning from local fishing communities with long-term experience of environmental

variability and uncertainty would yield insights for managing complex ecosystems for

resilience (Olsson, 2003). Monitoring and responding to feed backs from local resource

users help to understanding ecosystem function and thereby ability to avoid challenges

caused by ecosystems. Increasing the levels of stakeholder participation in resource

management may increase the effectiveness of the management (Berkes et al, 2001).

70

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In Batticaloa, on 26th December 2004 the tsunami violently struck the coastal areas which

were already negatively affected by 20 years of civil war. The coastal ecosystem

resilience had been eroded by human activities such as pollution, destruction of coastal

habitats and use of unsustainable fishing practices. After the tsunami, oversupply of crafts

and gears and new entries of fishers further increased fishing pressure on coastal

resources. Therefore, the ecosystem is probably being transformed into a less productive

state and will be unable to sustain services to coastal communities

Poverty, open access nature of coastal resources, lack of required skills to acquire other

jobs, and lack of social capital due to ongoing conflict were all factors which forced local

people to depend heavily on coastal resources for their immediate survival and

livelihood. High interest rates and requirements for collateral limited fishers from

borrowing money from banks, and increased dependence on fishing was linked to lack of

diversified economic opportunities. The strong dependence on fisheries and limited

livelihood alternatives increase the vulnerability of coastal communities to natural

disasters such as the tsunami which struck.

The inequitable reallocation of rights hindered and delayed reconstruction, generated new

conflicts and increased the vulnerability of poor and marginalized fishing communities in

Batticaloa.

The tsunami initially provided an opportunity for introduction of new, more sustainable

ways to mange natural resources. Creation of the buffer zone could have had a positive

effect on environment. On the other hand inappropriate relocation of communities had

negative effects on their livelihoods, and over-supply of fishing vessels and gears

increased the pressure on already heavily exploited resources. An initial period of good-

will and cooperation between the Government and the LTTE immediately following the

71

tsunami could have led to a lasting process towards peace, but unfortunately increasing

conflict ensued which caused even greater hardships to the coastal fishing communities.

Clear, equitable and enforced resources rights should play a critical role in strengthening

resilience to natural disasters.

Towards more sustainable livelihoods: the Government should invest in human capital

through skills development and social capital by strengthening social networks and trust,

identify new livelihood activities based on the availability of resources in the new

location and the market potential.

Towards long-term coastal resource rehabilitation, the DFAR must reduce fishing

pressure when there is overfishing and ban destructive fishing gear such as trawlers,

trammel nets, monofilament nets. Through education and awareness campaigns they

should provide fisherfolk with information on the impacts of different gears. Less

destructive and more sustainable fishing gears and practices should be actively

encouraged.

Rehabilitation should be focused on the interests of marginalized groups in order to

rebuild their local economies. Through the promotion of communities’ self-reliance, the

relief and long-term rehabilitation approach should encourage community participation in

decision making.

The Government should recognize the importance of genuine community participation in

coastal resources rehabilitation, conservation, management and planning to ensure

recovery or sustainability of natural resources. They should stimulate genuine community

involvement and empowerment of women and other socially marginalized groups at all

stages of disaster management programmes in order to facilitate capacity building.

Peace, political stability, and democratic processes are fundamental for positive coastal

development. Short–term profits for a small number of opportunistic investors should not

72

be allowed to infringe upon the resource access rights or to harm the long-term interests

of coastal communities.

73

6.0 REFERENCES

Adger, W.N., 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human

geography 24:347-364 Adger, W.N., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Rockstrom, J. 2005. Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309: 1036- 1039 Allison, H., and Ellis, F. 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy 25: 377-388. Berkes, F., Folke, C. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Anon, 1999. Annual Report of Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Aryeetey, B.D. 2002. ‘Socio-economic aspects of artisanal marine fisheries management in West Africa’, in McGlade, J.M., Cury, P., Korentang, K.A., and Mounford, N.J.H. (eds). The Gulf of Guinea Large marine Ecosystem. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam: 323-344. Berkes, F., and Folke, C. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R., and Pomero, R. 2001. Managing small-scale fisheries, alternative directions and methods. International Development Research center, Ontario, Canada. Berkes, F., and Folke, C. 2002. Back to the future: Ecosystem dynamics and local knoeledge. In: Gunderson, L.H and Holling, C.S (eds). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural systems. Island press. Washington DC. Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. editors. 2003. Navigating Social- Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brown. O., Crawford, A., Hammill, A. 2006. Natural disasters and resource rights; building resilience, rebuilding lives. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Bryman, A. (2004): Social Research Methods. 2nd. Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Carpenter. S.R., Walker, B., Anderies J.M and Abel, N. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765-781 Christie, P., and White, A.T. 1997. Trends in development of coastal area management in tropical countries: from central to community orientation. Coastal Management 25: 155- 181

74

Ellis, F. 2000. ‘Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries’, Oxford University Press. UK. FAO Fishery Country profile SriLanka, 2006. http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/LKA/profile.htm FAO, Fish Stat Plus, 2007. http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=topic&fid=16073&lang=en Fernando, H.V.C. 1996. Integration of Fishery Management into Coastal Area Management Plans in Sri Lanka. BOBP REPO 72. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Benngtsson, J., Berkes, F.,Colding, J., Danell, K., Falkenmn, M., Gordon, L., Kasperson, R., Kautsky, N., Levin, S., Olsson, P., Ostrom, E., Walter, R,. Uno, S., and Savenije, H. 2002. Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a world of Transformation. Scientific Background paper on resilience for the process of The World Summit on Sustainable Development. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., and Holling, C.S. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience and biodiversity in ecosystem Management. Annu. Rev. Ecol.Evol. Syst. 2004. 35:557-81 Government Statistical Abstract, Sri Lanka 2005 http://www.statistics.gov.lk/ Gunderson L.H. 2000. Ecological resilience –in theory and application. Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics 31: 425-439 Holling C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems 4: 390-405 Jiddawi, N.S., and Walmsley, S., 2004. Participatory Fisheries Stock Assessment (ParFish). Application of PaFish in Zanzibar, Tanzania. 2 pages. Joseph, L. 1983. Coastal Fisheries and brackish water aquaculture in Sri Lanka. Coastal Resources management Project of the University of Rhode Island, The Government of Sri Lanka, United Stated Agency for International Development. Korf, B., Fünfgeld, H. 2004. War and the commons: assessing the changing politics of violence, access, and entitlement in Sri Lanka. Paper to be presented at the 10th IASCP Conference, Oaxaca, Mexico. Korf, B. 2004. War, Livelihoods and Vulnerability in Sri Lanka. Development and

Change 35 (2): 275-295

75

Kulatunga, A.A. and Fernando, H.V.C. 2001. Co-management as an effective alternative to a command and control approach in lagoon and estuary resources management in Sri Lanka. In Goddard, S., Al-Oufi, H., McIlwain J., and Claereboudt, M. eds. Proc. 1st International Conference on Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment in the NW Indian Ocean, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman: 24-28 Kumaraguru, A.K., Jayakumar, K., and Ramakritinan, C.M. 2003. Coral bleaching 2002 in the Palk Bay, south coast of India. Current Science 85: 1787-1793 Kumaraguru, A.K., Jayakumar, K., Wilson, J.J., and Ramakritinan, C.M. 2005. Impact of the tsunami of 26 December 2004 on the coral reef environment of Gulf of Manner and Palk Bay in the southeast coast of India. Current Science 89: 1729-1741. Medley, P,, Walmsley, S., Howard, C., and Jiddawi, N. 2005. Application and promotion of FMSP Participatory Fisheries Stock Assessment (ParFish). http://p15166578,pureserver.info/fmsp/r8464.htm Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Statistical Unit, Sri Lanka 2004. Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Statistical Unit, Sri Lanka 2005. Olsson, P. 2003. Building capacity for resilience in social-ecological systems. Doctoral Dissertation. Stockholm University, Sweden Pauly, D., and Chua, T.E. 1988. The overfishing of marine resources: socioeconomic background in Southeast Asia. Ambio 17 (3): 200-206. Rajasuriya, A. 1996. Marine Sanctuaries and Conservation of Fishery resources. BOBP REPO 72 Risvoll, C.M. 2006. Tsunami recovery in Batticaloa District, Eastern Sri Lanka: livelihood revival and the performance of aid delivery systems in the fisheries sector. MSc thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB), Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Ås. Samaranayake, R.A.D.B. 2003. Review of national fisheries situation in Sri Lanka: 987 - 1012. In G. Silvestre, L. Garces, I. Stobutzki, M. Ahmed, R.A. Valmonte-Santos, C. Luna, L. Lachica- Aliño, P. Munro, V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Assessment, Management and Future Directions of Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67: 1120 Scherr, S.J. 2000. A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation. Food Policy 25: 479-498.

76

Scura, L., Chua, T.E., Pido, M., Paw, J. 1992. Lessons for integrated coastal management: the ASEAN experience. In: Scura L., Chua, T.E., editors. Integrated framework and methods fro coastal area management, International center for Lining Aquatic resources Management Conf. Proc. 37, Manila, Philippines: 1-70 Silva, P. 2006. Exploring the linkages between poverty, protected area management, and the use of destructive fishing gear in Tanzania. World Bank Policy Research Working paper 3831. Silvester, G.T., Garces, L.R., Stobutzki, I., Ahmed, M., Santos, R.A.V., Luna, C.Z., and Zhou, W. 2003. South and South-East Asian coastal fisheries: Their status and directions for improved management: conference synopsis and recommendation: 1-40. Statistical handbook, Department of Fishery and Aquatic Resources, Sri Lanka 1993-2006. Stobutzki, I.C., and Hall, S.J. 2005. Rebuilding coastal fisheries livelihoods after the tsunami: Key lessons from past experience. NAGA, WordFish Center Newsletter 28 (1 and 2):6-12 Vinobaba, P. 2006. The Status of the environment and the socio-economic aspects of the fishermen from the Batticaloa lagoon. International Conference: 24 Wijayaratne, B. 2001. Coastal fisheries in Sri Lanka: some recommendation for future management. Paper for UNU-Fisheries Training programme. Wijayaratne, B., and Maldeniya, R. 2003. The role of fisheries sector in the coastal communities of Sri Lanka, p. 629 - 656. In G. Silvestre, L. Garces, I. Stobutzki, C. Luna, M. Ahmed, R.A. Valmonte-Santos, L. Lachica-Aliño, P. Munro, V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Assessment, Management and Future Directions of Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67: 1120

77

7. APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Social demographic data

Household number Name of respondents Date Village 1.0 Household data 1.1.1 Sex Female:

Male: 1.1.2 Age 1.1.3 Marital status Single

Married Widow Divorce

1.1.4 Ethnicity Tamil Muslim

1.1.5 Religion Hindu Christian Muslim

1.1.6 Education background Primary Secondary Tertiary Literacy

1.1.7 Occupation Small-scale fishers Large-scale fishers Smallholder farmer Small trading Wage labourer Artisan Others

Number of household Status of the fishermen Owner of boat/ canoe

Daily worker Sole buyer Seller Intermediator Collector/ gatherer

Status in village Political/ community leader Opinion leader Cultural leader Religious leader Social worker Ordinary citizen Other

Member of fishing cooperation Yes/ No

78

Appendix 2. ParFish:Catch & Effort Data Sheet

Date: Location:

Fishery: Recorder:

Effort Data

Time out: Time in: No. fishers:

Start Time: End time: Captain:

Catch data

Species Name Size (cm) Weight (kg)

Catch Weight (kg):

Additional Information:

79

Appendix 3. Livelihood Analysis Interview

• name of community and ward; its location; sketch map showing key features of village

and surrounding area

• number of households; village population

• ethnic affiliations, linguistic groups, main religions

• significant migrations into area over the past two or three decades

• main current sources of livelihood in the village

• change in the village: what are the main things that have been changing in this village

over the past five years or so – is it getting richer or poorer? Are people migrating away

from or into the village?

• institutions and organisations in the village; what institutions exist within the

community?

what outside organisations are represented or active within the community?

what traditional institutions exist (e.g. traditional chieftancy: is there a traditional

chief? how is he selected? what is his role? what other ‘traditional’ institutions

exist?)

what political institutions exist (village chairman, elected councils, etc.)?

what formal organisations exist (e.g. community-level branches of development

agencies, official cooperatives)?

what community-based organisations (CBOs) exist (fishers groups, fisher-led

cooperatives, credit associations, social/religious organisations)?

what production services exist (e.g., credit, input supply, marketing)?

what social services exist (e.g. health clinics, schools)?

how far away are the nearest clinics and schools, or other important facilities? how

long does it take to reach these facilities?

what non-government organisations (NGOs) exist?

what credit groups or savings associations exist? what is their membership and what

are they called?

what significant private businesses operate in the locality

• what development initiatives have taken place within this community in the last ten

80

years? how were they implemented? what happened? (probe for history, attitudes,

comments).

• common property: what key productive resources are held in common by the

community?

what criteria, rules and institutions govern access?

• land tenure: what is the main type of land holding in the village (e.g. private ownership,

customary tenure);

how is ownership, access, control over land

• what has been the impact of tsunami in this village? what proportion of households

have been affected?

• what is the security situation in this village? what are the main security problems? how

long have they been going on? what is being done to try to solve these problems?

• how has the status of women changed in this village over the past five or ten

years? Are there more women that are heads of households than before? are there

activities that women do now that they did not usually do before? what livelihood

activities are women still not permitted to do in this community?

• overall importance of fishing for survival in this community? is this just a

minority occupation? do most households have members that fish, or are there

some families that specialized while others do not fish at all? obtain count of

households that fish and households that do not fish in this village.

• what are the seasonal characteristics of fishing as an occupation? what are the

peak months for catches, and the lowest months during the year? draw up a

calendar showing seasonal changes in fishing; have there been any changes in the

seasonal pattern of fish availability compared to five years ago? ten years ago?

(reasons for these fluctuations? weather, drying constraints (e.g. rain), fish

movements/availability)

• aside from regular annual patterns of fishing, are there cyclical changes that occur

across years e.g. very good years for fishing occurring every three years or every

five years? what is the recollection of the community about years (over the past

10-15 years) that have been very good or very bad years for fishing

81

(reasons/understanding of fluctuations – biological stocks, weather, markets,

costs?)

• what are the chief regulations about fishing and access that the village

understands to apply to their fishing activities? do people comply with these

regulations?

• how are the regulations policed? what is the penalty for non-compliance? is this

an individual penalty or one imposed on the community?

• does the village have its own (community management) system for regulating

seasonal access to fish and permitted fishing gears, and how does this work?

• have either formal or village regulations changed over the past five years? past ten

years? and if so how have they changed?

• are there conflicts between the way the village authorities would like to manage

access to fishing, and the rules that are imposed from outside by the fisheries

department?

• do the rules (whether village-based or imposed from outside) mean that some

individuals have permanent rights to fish while others are always excluded from

fishing?

• have outsiders been coming into fishing over the past five years? if so, what effect

have they had on the fishery? what effect do new fishermen have on the way that

fisheries are managed here?

82

Appendix 4. ParFish: Basic information to compile

1. The fishery

• What is the current fishing effort to each gear, or what was last year’s

effort?

• What are the most important fish species caught?

• What are the main fishing gears and fishing vessels used? How many are

there? (gear type is required for the far fish software, and the range and

number of gears used indicate the diversity and size of the fishery).

• What other fisheries resources are there (fish and invertebrates); what is

known about their distributions and abundances? (Indicate the variety of

resources available).

• What are the boundaries of the fishing area (Knowledge of the fishing area

is required for refuge control and scaling up fishing experiments).

• How many fisheries are there? (helps in sampling fishers for interviews).

• What is the annual catch by species or species group? (indicate total

catches).

• Where do the fishers come from that fish in the area? How can they all be

included in the process? (involvement of all fishers that use the area will

be important for the design, implementation and acceptance of

management measures).

• In which seasons is fishing activity greatest and for which species? What

are the driving forces for this (eg. Weather, fish availability, fish demand,

and seasonal variations in effort and catches).

2. Fisheries management system

• How important is fishing and associated activities to people’s livelihoods

in the area? What are their main livelihood activities: fishing, agriculture,

trade? (indicates people’s dependency on fishing).

83

• What is the socio- economic context and cultural issues involved? (what

are the predominant religious beliefs? How is the community organized

and how does the community organize meetings and take decisions?).

• What are the historical resource use issues and present and past conflicts

in the area? (underlying issues that may influence the process).

3. Management context

• Policy environment

What are the main polices that impact on fishing?

What are the fishing regulations in the area?

Which government body control fisheries?

Are there any other organizations involves in fisheries

management?

• Decision making arrangements

Who is responsible for management of the fisheries resources,

are there any ongoing changes in these arrangements?

• Responsibilities

What are the responsibilities of various levels (national

government, district, community) in fisheries management?

Do the fishers have any authority for implementing fisheries

management measures?

What are their potential roles and responsibilities in the future?

84

Appendix 5. ParFish: Stock Assessment Interview

Background information

Fisher name Date

Fishery Interviewer

Units:

Units of effort

(e.g. days fishing)

Units of catch

(e.g. kg, number, baskets etc.)

Average weigh of 1 ‘unit’

Units of time

(e.g. calendar month, lunar

month, year

Effort and catch rates:

Question Answer Comments/ Notes

Importance:

1. For how many years have you been fishing?

Gear

2. Which is your main gear in this fishery, the one

you are most familiar with and use most?

Usual effort

3. In each unit of time (e.g. month), how many

units of effort (e.g. days) do you usually spend

fishing in this fishery?

Last year’s effort

4. How many units of effort did you actually fish

last year with this gear?

Catch Category Current catch rate:

5. Normally how many units of catch (e.g. kg) do

you catch in one unit of effort? (e.g. how many kg

A B C D E

85

per day?)

Trends in catch rate:

6. Over the last few years, has your catch rate been

about the same, declining or increasing? (and

why?)

Last year’s catch rate:

7. If the catch rate has been changing: In the same

season last year, normally how many units of catch

did you get in one unit of effort?

Min Catch rate for unexploited stock:

8. In you were to fish in a fresh ground (never

fished before or like the old days, or a place which

has been left for some time without fishing to be

harvested later), normally how much fish do you

think you would catch in one day? Max

Recovery time:

9. If you were to leave an area where the fish can

recover, where no- one fishes, how long do you

think it would take for the fish stocks to recover

fully? .. or as close as possible to what it was

before fishing started?

Time unit you’re dealing with

Could be

greater

Just right

Perception of total fishing effort:

10. Do you think the amount of fishing for the size

of the resource is:

(or; Do you think the area can support more

fishers, are there enough, or too many?) Too

much

Constraints:

Question Answer Comments/ Notes

Minimum acceptable catch rates:

11. What is the minimum unit of catch in one unit of

86

effort you would fish that is not worth you going

fishing, and you would go and do something else

instead?

Minimum acceptable catch:

12. What is the minimum units of catch in a unit of

time you would accept that is not worth you going

fishing, and you would go and do something else

instead?

Maximum possible catch rate:

13. What is the maximum unit of catch in one unit

of effort you could cope with your current gear?

Maximum possible effort:

14. What are the maximum units effort you could

apply with your current gear in a unit of time?

87

Appendix 6. Par fish preference Interview

Background information

Fisher name Date

Fishery Interviewer

Back ground questions:

Question Answer Comments/ Notes

15(a). Fisher importance:

Develop own questions for a measure of

fisher importance

Fisher importance- House hold size:

15(b). Including you how many people

are there in your household?

Fisher importance- Dependence on

fishing:

15(c). What proportion of your

household income depends on your catch

from this fishery?

Discounting:

Question Answer Comments/ Notes

Discount rate (personal):

16. How much do you earn in 1 month?

(=’x’)

X= X + 20%=

Time difference where they cannot

decide if they would prefer to receive x

now, or x + 20% later:

(Would you prefer to receive x now, or

x + 20% in 1 year?.. Repeat question

reducing/ increasing the time difference

until the respondents has no preference

for receiving current 1 month earnings

now and 1 month earning + 20 %later)

Time units:

Days

Months

Years