Community Based Fisheries Management in Bangladesh
Ichamati River
Click here to download the complete report
The Ichamati River is located between Santhia and Ber Upazillas of the District of Pabna. The FFP intervened here through stocking and creating a sanctuary. Grameen Matshya Foundation (GMF) is the implementing NGO and there are 60 project villages consisting of 8,535 households. The project waterbody (PWB) is 42 kilometres long. It was a natural river until, in 1992, it was turned into an irrigation canal within an FCDI project. This separated it from the higher order river system and from its connection to the floodplains; water levels in the river are now determined by the demand for irrigation in the neighbouring croplands. Fish species diversity has declined and many of fishing gears and techniques previously used - such as katha - are no longer appropriate.
Historically, the entire river was divided into seven parts and these were leased out to six Fishers' cooperatives. In the four years before FFP, a state sponsored Poverty Alleviation Project (PAP) was implemented here. It created fishers' groups that stocked six of these parts with the objective of alleviating poverty amongst the poor landless fishers living in adjacent villages. Beneficiaries were mainly Hindus, who had been members of the Fishers' cooperatives, though some Muslim fishers were also included. Stocking involved the release of fingerlings worth of Tk. 100,000 every year from 1996 to 2000. A closed season immediately after stocking followed.
FFP replicated many of the elements of this management system (group formation, fund-raising, stocking, closed season and so on), though there were changes in the names of the organisations - territorial use rights are now with Fisheries Sub-committees (FSCs); and there was a further increase in the number of Muslim fishers gaining access to the PWB. As new fisher groups were included in the FSCs, the pre-FFP fisher groups had to accommodate them by sharing their territorial rights. About ten new FSCs emerged and the number of fishing gears that operated in the PWB increased by nine.
Some parts of the PWB did not go through any noticeable change in property rights while private aquaculture was fully under way in Part VII and partially in Part VI. We therefore identified three types of rights in the PWB. First, there are parts of the PWB where the Hindu fishers had to accommodate new FSC members and we studied four FSCs from this part; Nondonpur, Vato Khan Mahmudpur, Pargopalpur, and Dhopadoho from Part V. Second, where the rights were held by the same type of agents and we studied the FSC of Boro Sonatola of Part III. Third, we studied the impact of private aquaculture in Part VII. This classification helped us to identify the FSCs that were affected by the FFP intervention. Entry was restricted and FFP generated benefits were confined to the members of the FSCs. Stocking was done in the entire water body but during harvesting the FSCs set fences in their respective parts. This helped the FSCs to internalise the benefits of their territorial rights.
Those who previously held rights over Part V (Nondonpur and Pargopalpur) had to accommodate those who acquired this right through their involvement in the FFP (Vato Khan Mahmudpur and Dhopadoho). The Nondonpur and Pargopalpur FSCs experienced reduction in catch that was roughly compensated by catch from other water bodies to which they had access. The loss in fishing time and catch from the PWB was negligible. None had to drop meals or to take new livelihoods. They mostly had to compromise slightly on the quality of food consumed and spending less in social and religious festivals. The female members showed their concern about weakening of their rights over the project water body. Dhopadoho and Vato Khan Mahmudpur had no experience in fishing with ber jal and gained much from their involvement in the project. The members of the FSC belong to the poorer section of the village population. They fished in this part of the water body with minor fishing gears by paying toll to the Hindu fishers. They no longer had to pay toll and gained from stocking. The impact varied depending on the extent of livelihoods gain. Welfare gains range from accumulation of assets to improving the quality of food consumed. The female members of these households were happy with the project.
The Hindu fishers of Boro Sonatola were able to retain their territorial rights. They, like many other professional Hindu fishers, changed their livelihoods pattern substantially. As a coping strategy they both fish elsewhere and undertake non-fishing activities. Some of them have taken up fish trading full time while others have taken it part time on a seasonal basis. They gained mainly from the fish harvesting months which coincided with peak fishing time in the floodplains. The gains from FFP was clear, they reduced fishing time in the floodplains and participated in fish harvesting. They reported that their income gain was negligible and did not significantly change their livelihoods. Their main threat is coming from a group of Muslim fishers who want to join the FSC.
Private aquaculture was undertaken by some Muslim fishers in Part VII during the PAP. Six FSCs could establish their rights over this part of the PWB but they refrained from stocking in the first two years of the FFP. After the second harvesting, unlike other years, they did not take out their fences. Rather they privately stocked exotic species of fish in their respective sections. They outperformed the FFP stocking and made big returns from their investment. They made the investments from borrowing from the NGOs and selling of other assets. They gained from higher income but most of the FSCs could not distribute profits because harvesting was not complete. Those who got share from the profits saved it for future investments in the PWB, others leased in land or ponds for aquaculture. Only a few households come from well off part of the village social hierarchy. Some are involved in farming in own land while others farm on leased land. A large number of them work as agricultural labourers and some are involved in small business. The feature common to most of them is that they were all involved in aquaculture before the FFP.
The FFP institutions played an important role in the management of the project water body. The SUFO played a very pro-active role. He was the lead figure during the PAP. The DFO also helped to solve some administrative bottlenecks. The Joint Secretary of the MPFL also provided support and visited the project site. The Local Administration also played a positive role. These involvements of the state agents boosted up the morale of the members of the FSC.
The FMC and the FSCs were highly effective. The FSCs meets regularly, as does the FMC. The FMC mainly handled the leasing and stocking costs and the harvesting dates. These were decided in FMC meetings that were well attended by the representatives of the FSCs who later passed on FMC decisions to their members. The FSCs monitored their section of the PWB. Total cost of leasing and stocking was equally shared by the parts of the water body and the FSC in each part contributed equally towards meeting the costs of their parts. This resulted in a hierarchical development of a community based fisheries management system. Some decisions were taken in the centre while others were taken at the local level in the meetings of the FSCs. The NGO played a key role in organising and co-ordinating these meetings. They trained up the FSC office bearers on book keeping and how to maintain accounts with banks. This enhanced the human and social capital of the FSC members.