Fish is generally considered as a renewable natural resource, very much like fresh water, oxygen or trees, as they can be continually reproduced. A renewable resource has the capability of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices and can regenerate as long as that capacity for renewal is not irreversibly damaged. Traditional communities who had been depending on any natural renewable resource for their livelihood were mostly aware of this fact that it is replenishable only in the right circumstances and within the balance of the nature, and marine fishing communities too were no exception to this. From time immemorial, most of our coastal communities were obtaining food, work and surplus income from the living resources of the sea. They were also in the process producing and supplying an important source of rich protein food to wider populations in the surrounding areas. The coastal fishing communities had a well-built relationship with their natural resource, the fish, and the marine ecosystem and a lasting stake in its future because their lives are dependent on them. For them, the marine ecosystem include, both open seas and the coastal land. It includes estuaries, coral reefs, continental shelf system, sea grass and mangroves.



Tradition and Technology

Traditional fishing communities had been using a vast diversity of technologies to catch fish. The basic implements are craft and gear. The availability of local wood and oceanographic factors like the slope of the sea bottom and the nature of waves and currents are the two major factors, which determine the nature of craft. The traditional fishing gears are normally imperceptible to others but its composition, appearance and performance are results of practical learning and wisdom of many skilled people passed over by generations. The diversity in our traditional fishing gears is a consequence of the nature of our fish resource base. Traditional fishing gears are embedded with so many characteristics. They are generally passive; do not go after the fish but wait for it to be trapped. They are selective, to catch specific specie and of mature size. They are also seasonal, used only in specific time in accordance with the rhythms of the nature.

The fishing technologies of the traditional fishing communities reveal their rich understanding of the complex marine ecosystem and its sustainability. Over the period, they also acquired high skills and knowledge on navigation, fish behaviour and sea dynamics such as surface and sub-surface currents, smell and colour changes. It also required hard labour and sheer physical powers to sustain their livelihood as they always had to cope with the fury of the sea and other adverse forces of the nature.



Tradition and Management

It is a fact that, establishing property rights, especially with the living and largely traveling fish resources, is very difficult. However, the traditional fishing communities had formulated a set of collective rules and norms to the territorial claims on harvesting this resource. These unwritten norms and rules evolved over long periods with strong roots in the local history and fishing practices. Practices and institutions like karanila and kadakkod’ in Kerala are ample examples of traditional management practices prevailing among them. Their occupation is more a way of life and the whole community, the women and children apart from the men who venture into the sea, have roles in it. The women in the fishing communities had roles in both pre and post-harvesting aspects like net making and processing, and marketing of fish.



Changing Scenario

The features of traditional fishing communities have undergone tremendous changes in our country, especially during the last two to three decades. Traditional fishing technologies and fishing practices, mobility and even attitude to the marine environment (ecosystem) have changed rapidly among these fishing communities, though probably not in a uniform manner along the coast. The use of non-fossil fuel energy sources like wind and physical power, which were once the hallmark of the traditional fishers has almost vanished and a vast majority of them now belong to the category of ‘motorised and powered fishing craft’. While wood is replaced with either plywood or FRP (Fiberglass Reinstated Plastic) for making the craft, the use of community (especially women) made fishing nets is now part of the history and only factory made nylon and mono-filament nets are to be seen even in the remote marine fishing villages now. The use of Global Positioning System to locate the rich fishing grounds is spreading fast among the distant water fishers and mobile phones are being used by near-shore fishers to query about price changes in the market.

This changing scenario has to be viewed in the backdrop of mainly two contexts to develop a perspective on the future course of actions for the secure future of the fishworkers and the sustainability of the resources in question. One is the overall state- sponsored ‘planned fisheries development’ and the other the mobilisation and growth of the fishworkers’ movement.

After independence, our government followed development strategies promoting large-scale ‘active’ fishing technologies from the West, which were more suited to the temperate seas, forgetting that ours is tropical sea. The existing rich heritage of our diverse and benign small-scale fishing technologies were termed as primitive and less efficient by our planners and were bypassed. The new technologies required centralization and expensive infrastructures like harbours. Thus a new sector arose in our fisheries – mechanised trawl and purse-seine boats owned mostly by the non-working merchants. All these took place first with the help of aid and later trade, both international.

During this period of planned development, our total marine fish landings of the country went up - from around 1.5 million tonnes in the 1970s to 2.7 million tonnes by the end of 1990s, according to CMFRI. But, even during this period, a declining trend was already noticed in Kerala, Goa, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the first states to go for trawlerisation and where the density of fishers are rather high. There arose a conflict between the newly emerged mechanised fleet (trawlers) and the traditional fishers in the open sea in these states.

It was these spontaneous conflicts, which led to the mobilisation of traditional fishers in our country. The first militant struggles of the traditional fishing communities began in the eighties in the southern states where the declining catches and marginalization were severely felt. The movement demanded the State to regulate and restrict the operation of mechanized trawlers. Ban on fishing by trawlers during monsoon months and an exclusive coastal fishing zone for the traditional fishers were the main demands. These struggles finally resulted in the introduction of fishing regulation legislations in the territorial waters (up to 22 km from the shore line) and subsequently a ban on fishing by mechanized boats during the monsoon months in the maritime states, one after the other.

The movement also became strengthened over the period in different states, with the slogan protect waters protect life and the Kanyakumari march. It is all history now.

Later, interestingly, both these opposing groups of fishers also joined to rally against the national government, which opened up our seas to foreign fishing vessels.

Now, in the beginning of the new century, we are witnessing stagnation and decline of the total marine fish landings at the national level also. Even though, different official agencies are playing with the data and giving different figures, the fact is that fishers every where, whether in the non-mechanised or motorised or mechanised sector, vouch that their catches are coming down year after year. The initial jubilation of increased catches and export earnings are over and now even government agencies are talking about resource conservation and fisheries management measures.

It is a fact that the mobilisation of the traditional fishing communities and their movement helped to give them a new identity as ‘fishworkers’ to fight for their rights. It also exposed the wrong ‘fisheries development’ policies pursued by the State. They were reacting as a community whose livelihood systems were destroyed and faced with an environment crisis. So this organised struggle was by a community for whom fishing was for daily livelihood and more a way of life against a new set of business entrepreneurs. However, the movement did not have any answers for the traditional fishers on how to survive in the fishery in competition with the mechanized trawlers and purse-seine boats, which could not be wiped out from the scene. Even though values like nurturing the environment and resource sustainability were held high by the community, for sheer survival many traditional fishers also were searching for opportunities and strategies to remain in competition for the dwindling fish stocks. That was how the use of outboard motors with kerosene and petrol as fuel and more efficient and destructive gears like mini trawls and ring seines began to spread among the traditional fishers. The State also began to promote this with liberal loans and subsidies and in fact, the movement and its leadership were confused and did not take a clear position on whether to support or oppose it. Most of the new technologies were often replacement of traditional ones with the miniatures of the same destructive gears they were opposing till then. Even the traditional fishers in states like Gujarat, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, who were not part of the organized struggles against the mechanized trawlers, also went through these changes quickly.

There is also now great mobility among the fishworkers. A large chunk of the workforce in the mechanised trawlers based at Gujarat is from the erstwhile traditional fishing communities of Srikakulam district in Andhra Pradesh. At the same time, a good number of workers in the deep-sea trawlers based in Visakhapatnam are from traditional fishing communities in Kanyakumari district in Tamil Nadu.

It is difficult to describe many of the fishing crafts and gear used by the present traditional fishers as small and traditional any more. A classic example is the growing number of ‘inboard engine canoes’ in Kerala. It is not at all proper to call them as canoes, as the size and investment of these new generation crafts are more than that of the mechanized trawling boats. They are mechanised boats and even use motors to haul nets and require harbours for safe anchoring.

With all these adoption of new technologies and large-scale migration of fishworkers, the differences between the traditional and the mechanized sectors have narrowed very much. At the same time, the conflicts between the traditional and mechanized as witnessed earlier, is also becoming part of history now.

Though the traditional sector managed to restore their share in the total fish landings through motorisation, the price they have to pay is very heavy. While their capital investments increased many fold, the net returns are not proportionate to it. Though coupled with many other reasons like pollution, the competition and increased efficiency and overcapacity among the fishers have made the near-shore waters barren, forcing them also to fish more in deeper waters. All this has made fishing more costly and thus the disparities amongst the fishers have further increased.

Most of the mechanised boats in the country are now doing multi-day operations in deep seas. Their net returns are also not good enough to continue in fishing. They are competing more with the poaching vessels from other countries than the local traditional crafts.



The Challenges

In this changing situation, it is very important for the fishworkers’ movement to seriously search for strategies and measures for their secure future. It is high time the fishworkers’ movement shifted its focus from the conventional approach of pressuring the State for generosity but a new combined tactic of efforts to build up alternatives and fight for rights. In building up the alternatives, the focus should be on fisheries management and it is more and more clear that the State is not going to take initiative unless the fishers themselves come up with viable plans and self imposed regulations.

The movement also has to work towards regaining the property rights of fishing communities on the fish resources, which they virtually lost during the planned development period. During this period, the traditional community property rights over the fish resources got changed to open access and free for all. The situation made the State to have more rights and it actually allowed others to invest and enter the fishery, thus eroding the community rights regime. Now, regaining the community rights would mean making the State to endorse exclusive fishing rights (the right to own any fishing equipment) to actual fishers through aquarian reforms. This is not an easy task. The strategy should be to reestablish the community property regime, at least in the territorial waters. The emerging political trends like decentralization, local governance, participatory democracy and people’s plan etc actually gives greater opportunities for such alternative regime to become a reality.

The movement must also take the initiative for adopting effective self-regulations by all fishers. The ‘code of conduct for responsible fisheries’ prepared by the FAO can be used as a guideline for evolving measures which are suitable to our situation and it has to be a participatory process. When a uniform seasonal fishing ban during the monsoon period was proposed for all the maritime States on the West coast it was well received by all fishers (both motorised and mechanised) everywhere except in Kerala. Last year, when all other states enforced the monsoon fishing ban for mechanized and motorized fishing, Kerala was not able to enforce it on motorized units, due to opposition from the movement of traditional fishers. It is the same movement, which asked for the first time in our country, a trawling ban during monsoon period. Interestingly, the trawler owners in Kerala generally do support the ban and their demand for inclusion of at least the large ‘in-board engine canoes’ under the purview of ban was quite reasonable. The Kerala movement failed in making use of an opportunity to introduce self-regulations among the traditional fishers whose character has changed much. Apparently, the leadership was not pragmatic and sensitive to the realities, and was afraid of loosing its clout with the new powerful fishers within the traditional community. But if such a policy is pursued, in the long run it will be counter-productive with the fishery collapsing and might become irrecoverable. Interestingly, even in a state like Gujarat, all motorised fishers support the fishing ban, as they were able to perceive the long-term benefits of such a fisheries management measure.

The movement and its leadership have to realize that a well-managed coastal ecosystem is the foundation for a healthy and economically sound fishing community. A fishing community that takes the initiative to rejuvenate and nurture the coastal fauna and flora and practice sustainable management will only have a bright future and they only would be able to continue as food providers for millions.