Community Based Fisheries Management in Bangladesh
Tangaon River
Click here to download the complete report
The Tangaon River is located in the Pirganj Upazilla of the district of Thakurgaon, in the north of Bangladesh. The characteristics of this river are close to those of a hilly river. The FFP intervened here through creation of three sanctuaries. There are five project villages but for operational convenience they were subdivided into eight units. According to the frame survey data there are 399 households in the project area. This differed significantly from our estimate of 936. The frame survey data is not at all reliable.
The fishing practice in the PWB is quite simple and the fishers few.. More than 90% of the fishers are cast net fishers. Before the FFP most of the fishing was done in the kathas. Katha fishing was restricted inside the deeper parts of the PWB during the leasing system (1985-1995). There are three such deeper parts or dohos in the PWB. The PMSS or the Pirganj Matshyajibi Shamobay Shomity (a fishers' co-operative society from Pirganj) leased in the PWB and sub-leased the dohos to a group of households who came from the same lineage group. They are the influential households having large tracts of land - the rural elites. They had a strong control over the dohos until the water body was brought under the FFP. During the leasing period the PMSS controlled effort outside of the dohos and the professional member fishers had access to the non-doho part of the PWB. The open access system (1996-2000) initiated a regime of anarchy. While the dohos were still under the control of the same lineage group, outside it a large number of kathas were placed mainly for subsistence fishing. Though economic returns remained positive, catches in the kathas declined, with those inside the dohos being substantially reduced when compared with the period of the leasing system. The professional fishers could then fish only in a smaller area in the dry season because of the large number of kathas that were placed here and there all across the PWB.
It is under these circumstances the water body came under the FFP. By turning the dohos into sanctuaries and removing the kathas elsewhere, the project boosted both biomass and biodiversity and reclaimed the space outside the dohos for use by professional fishers, with corresponding increases in their catch. This was validated by an in depth survey of tuni and fika fishers from two project villages, the subsistence fishers as well as from the information provided by the fish traders in the Pirganj market. Our study of the fish market showed that the percentage of catch supplied to the market from the PWB increased from a mere 5% before the project to 15% after the project.
The fishers were very poor before the FFP and suffered frequently from food deficits. This is now a thing of the past. Higher catch led to higher income. While most of the households were improving their poverty status by coming close to the poverty line over a longer period, the fishers' households crossed the poverty hurdle in only two years and from a very precarious poverty situation. The incremental income was spent on consumption (including durable consumer goods such as bi-cycles), land mortgages and improving living conditions. The female member of the households stopped working for wages in the farms and spent more time looking after the households and children. The livelihoods outcome of the FFP in the Tangaon River has definitely been positive.
So, how were these positive outcomes achieved? Some of the conditions of the PWB were favourable for a switch to community management: there were few fishers; the river and the fishing practices were not complex; and the decline in production brought about by the open access period provided some impetus to look for alternatives to the status quo. But, the success of the FFP is largely due to the flexible way the project institutions deployed both persuasion and the legitimate force of the state to handle conflicts and conflicting claims coming from. katha setters.
The greatest threat came from the socially influential katha setters inside the dohos, who were the main losers. They were kept away directly and indirectly by the project institutions. The civil and police administration along with DOF and the implementing NGO removed the kathas. The katha owners responded by slowly penetrating into project institutions (particularly the VDCs) in an attempt to reclaim their former rights within the dohos.
In resisting this, the project showed considerable flexibility in its willingness to take advantage of the existence of a large number of fishers from outside the project villages who were already organised within a co-operative (PMSS) and accustomed to fishing within the PWB. As noted above, to gain fishing access for its members, PMSS had, during the leasing period (up till 1995), been allied with the same influential katha owning lineages; but new circumstances encouraged new allegiances. As FFP involved no lease fee and greatly improved opportunities for fishers, PMSS was willing to provide a support base for the project and took an active role in the management of the PWB, compensating for the lack of VDCs.
The FMC and the implementing NGO consulted with the members of the PMSS on issues related to the management of the PWB almost on a day to day basis. The sanctuaries are created and maintained by the fishers with almost no financial contribution from the project.
While the success of the FFP in the Tangaon river is so far real but there are challenges ahead. The lineage group who lost rights over the doho is still active. The PMSS would prefer to get back its leasing rights too. These forces are mainly kept under control by the implementing NGO with active support from the DOF and the civil administration of the state. The FMC, though active, relies more on these actors, particularly the NGO. To make sure that the success achieved through FFP intervention here is not lost the managers of the FFP should look at ways to strengthening the FMC.