Introduction

The Work in Fishing Convention 2007 and the Recommendation concerning Work in the Fishing Sector 2007 adopted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) prescribes new labour standards for the `fishing sector`. It is to be implemented through laws, regulations and other measures such as collective agreements, court decisions, etc. The Convention is framed in relation to `commercial fishing` and prescribes work conditions to be formulated and maintained between the `fishing vessel owner` and the `fisher`. It also requires member nations to provide social security measures for the fishers. Here, commercial fishing means all fishing operations, including on rivers, lakes and canals, but with the exception of subsistence fishing and recreational fishing. The `fisher` means every person employed or engaged in any capacity or carrying out an occupation on board any fishing vessel.

The main objective of this Convention is “to ensure that fishers have decent conditions of work on board fishing vessels with regard to minimum requirements for work on board; conditions of service; accommodation and food; occupational safety and health protection; medical care and social security.”

The Scope of The Work in Fishing Convention in India

The standards laid down by the Convention are applicable to both marine and inland fishing, except for subsistence and recreational fishers. Although `subsistence fishing` is not defined, it can be assumed that those fishing in traditional craft for their livelihood, without the help of any mechanical means of propulsion, and fishing trips lasting a few hours of a day would fall under subsistence fishing.

The Convention, therefore, may not benefit the vast number of marine and inland fishers in our country, involved in fishing near the shores in seas, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, etc., because most of them are subsistence fishers working in non-mechanised country craft. Most of them are also self-employed and there are hardly any employer-employee relations involved. Although scattered, there are, probably, more workers in the inland fisheries in our country than in marine fisheries; authentic data on their numbers, however, are not available. The contribution from the inland fisheries of 3.75 million tonnes to the total fish production of the country in 2005-06 is much higher than that of the marine fishers (2.81 million tonnes in 2005-06). Our inland fisheries sector also includes culture (fish farming and aquaculture); there are a large number of workers employed in fish farms. The Convention is applicable only to fishers on board vessels.

Let us also look at whether all the workers in our marine fisheries sector are going to benefit from this Convention as it is. We have more recent government data on the number of workers from the marine fishing communities working in different categories of work related to fishing and allied activities at the national level. According to this data, there were 16.45 lakh workers involved in fishing and fishery allied categories of work in our country in 2005 (see Table 1).

TABLE 1. Occupational Profile of Fish workers in India

Of this workforce, only 8.9 lakhs (54 per cent) workers are active sea-going fishermen, who could be potential beneficiaries of this Convention. This is because the Convention is applicable only to the `fishers` involved in `fishing operations` and not all the workforce in the fisheries sector. Therefore, 46 per cent of the workers involved in allied activities such as marketing, net making and the processing of fish in the marine fisheries sector itself will not benefit from the Convention as they do not come under the category of `work in fishing`. It is also to be remembered that it is in these allied categories that a large number of women are involved.

It is also doubtful whether all the active marine fishers, who form 54 per cent of the total workforce in marine fishery, would benefit from this Convention. The new Convention will potentially benefit only the fishers working on board fishing vessels that are above 24 m in length; however, national governments have the option to determine whether vessels below that length should also be brought under its purview. India needs to promulgate a national legislation that includes smaller vessels, if any of the benefits of this Convention is to accrue to all our fishers. This is mainly because a vast majority of our marine fishers use vessels below 24 m in length. According to the national marine census of 2005 conducted by the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), there are 2.38 lakh marine fishing vessels engaged in fishery (see Table 2); these are mainly classified into three categories: 58,911 (24.67 per cent) mechanised boats, 75,591 (31.66 per cent) motorised craft and 104,270 (43.67per cent) non-motorised craft.

When formulating the required national legislation, many crucial aspects of the nature of our fisheries and the existing organisation of work have to be taken into account. Considering the nature and size of the fishing craft as well as the existing work relationships, the application of the `conditions of work` articles of the Convention will have to be limited, at least in the initial stages, to the first category of the fishing vessels. Article 3 of the Convention actually provides scope for exclusions in its application and also for extending the benefits `progressively` to more categories. The labour in the second category of fishing vessels could be included in the second stage and the others later. If all categories of labour are included from the beginning in the legislation, the implementation of the conditions of work provisions would become impractical and these would remain on paper only. If 4.5 is the average crew size of mechanised vessels, about 2.5 lakh workers should be benefited by the recommendations.

However, social welfare benefits for the labour, as specified in the Convention, could be made applicable from the beginning in all the three categories of vessels. All other labour involved in allied fishing activities could also be brought under its cover.

An employer-employee relationship in fishing vessels, in its true sense, exists in some mechanised vessels, especially the trawl boats. In many of the mechanised vessels, the owners are often non-workers and are basically shore managers. Many are also fleet owners, each one owning two to ten or more boats. This is not true, however, with many of the motorised fishing craft, especially the Gill-net boats, in which the owners are single boat owners and many of them are also part of the working crew. Whereas the Convention specifically states that `fisher` also means persons working on board and paid on the basis of a share of the catch, most of the general requirements specified in the conditions of work such as medical examination, fishers` work agreements, medical care at sea, manning and hours of rest, etc., are not practical and also unnecessary in almost all the motorised fishing crafts operating in our seas. As a beginning, therefore, the provisions related to the conditions of work should be implemented first among the labour on board mechanised vessels only. Motorised craft could be brought under the purview at a later stage when `progressive implementation` is considered.

Even among the trawl boats, payment by salary or a monthly wage is made only in Gujarat, and to an extent in Vizag among the larger vessels used for deep sea fishing. In most other fishing centres, a catch sharing system is in place, in which sales proceeds are shared between the owners and the crew. Very often, the share for the entire crew is less than 40 per cent. In Gujarat, where the salary system exists among the trawl boats, the skipper, or tandel, often gets around Rs 10,000 per working month whereas the salary of other crew members varies between Rs 3,000 and 6,000 depending on the type of work performed. They are also provided food (ration).

The presence of migrant labour, including inter-state migrants, is also a common phenomenon in the trawl fishing sector throughout the country. In Gujarat, large numbers of the crew in the trawl boats are migrant labour from Andhra Pradesh. In Kerala, a good number are from south Tamil Nadu (Kanyakumari) and are generally called fishermen from Kolachel. In the larger trawlers based in Vizag, the migrant labourers are mostly from Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The migrant crew, however, often does not figure in the `fishermen` data of the respective states. Although a `Fisherman Identity Card` is issued by the Fisheries Department, in Gujarat, the names of these migrant workers figure only in the Creek passes, mandatory for going out to sea, issued by the Customs Department. These migrant fishermen do not belong to associations, and receive salaries only for the working months. During the `fishing holidays` that extend to around four months in Gujarat, the fishers do not get any allowances.

Despite legislation being enacted to protect the interests of labour, the benefits of these will accrue to them only when the workers get organised, make joint efforts and bargain collectively. Unfortunately, workers in mechanised boats are the least organised sections of labour in the fisheries sector. Comparatively, the fishing boat owners are more organised and have associations in most fishing centres. The small fishers working in traditional and motorised craft are also organised to an extent in some states. But there are hardly any unions for the working crew of the mechanised boats anywhere, including Kerala, where almost all sections of workers are unionised. One major reason for this is that a good number of them are migrants. Also, with fishing voyages of longer durations, their physical absence on shore makes it more difficult to organise them.

The Convention should be seen as an opportunity for labour organisations such as NFF and even the new national-level fishworkers` union floated by CITU and others to organise fishers on board the mechanised vessels. It will not be an easy task, as there could be resistance from the boat owners, who are already organised, to accept and meet the requirements in favour of the labour in their vessels. Existing organisations must take up this challenge at the national level.

Social Security (Welfare) Measures

Social security for labour is generally expected to cover two major aspects. One is welfare and the other is improvement in the conditions of work. As The Work in Fishing Convention 2007 covers both these aspects, it ought to have far-reaching effects on the working and living conditions of the fishers, especially in countries such as India. It is progressive and, if implemented, should potentially benefit the workers involved in fishing in a comprehensive manner.

The ILO Convention on Work in Fishing also provides for social security measures for fishers in Articles 34 to 39. However, these Articles are not specific about what social welfare benefits the fishers are to be provided with and who will have to contribute to it. The Articles only make general statements such as “member (meaning here the government) shall ensure that fishers… and their dependents… are entitled to benefits from social security protection under conditions no less favourable than those applicable to other workers, including employed and self-employed persons...” It also says, “...shall take measures to provide for fishers with protection… for work related sickness, injury or death” and also “...appropriate medical care and corresponding compensation”.

The Convention is not clear or specific about ensuring responsibility for the system to be evolved, to put into practice the social security benefits, especially for the fishers engaged in fishing within the national territories. It states that “for work related sickness, injury or death”, protection may be ensured through a system by putting the “liability on the fishing vessel owners” or through “compulsory insurance or other schemes”.

A national legislation on this is imperative if the fishers or even other workers and dependents are to realise the social welfare benefits as envisaged in the Convention. The legislation should take the form of a scheme or fund, which should specify the stakeholders liable to make contributions to it and an administrative mechanism to implement it. The Kerala State Fishermen`s Welfare Fund Board (also called the Matsyaboard) could be used as a model to evolve such legislation as well as be the implementing agency at the national level. The Matsyaboard in Kerala covers most of the social security benefits prescribed by the ILO Convention 102 on Minimum Standards for Social Security and includes insurance, sickness, maternity and old-age benefits.

Although it has no provisions concerning conditions of work, the Kerala Matsyaboard legislation is definitely more progressive in terms of providing social security (welfare) measures for the fish workers than the recently adopted ILO Convention on fish workers. First of all, it includes both men who do the fishing and women involved in marketing fish in the scope of its definition of `fish workers eligible for benefits`. Though initially the Kerala Matsyaboard did not include workers in allied activities such as peeling and processing and men engaged in fish vending as beneficiaries, they have been brought under its scope.

The most important feature of the Kerala Matsyaboard legislation is that it has made contribution to the Welfare Fund by the traders in the fisheries sector (including the seafood exporters) mandatory. Initially, this evoked opposition from the seafood exporters who succeeded in a legal battle at the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court to be exempted from contributing to the Welfare Fund. To overcome this, the Kerala government recently promulgated another legislation which imposes a cess on them as contribution to the labour Welfare Fund. This approach of making a contribution by traders obligatory along with the employers (here the fishing vessel owners) to meet the welfare needs of the small producers and workers is highly laudable in the growing context of globalisation.

Interestingly, the new ILO Convention of Fishing starts with “recognizing… globalization which has a profound impact on the fishing sector”. Traders at all levels, in the globalisation era, are evading their social responsibility of meeting the welfare needs of labourers. Unfortunately, the ILO has followed the traditional path of making only the employer liable to take up the responsibility of meeting the social security of labourers. When the large majority of the fishers are small fishermen and mostly self-employed, an effective social security scheme for them will thrive only if the traders (who make the most profit here) are also roped into the ambit of contributories to the welfare of the labour. This is where the ILO has failed, and where the Kerala Matsyaboard legislation is more progressive.