World Forum of Fisher Peoples

A New Fisheries Policy has Been Drafted for South Africa

2010-09-10T02:16:00.000-07:00

Serge Raemaekers of South Africa has sent a message about Drafted and Gazetted New Fisheries Policy for South Africa.
WFFP leaders also engaged to this work and this is what Serge wrote to us.

A draft policy which was gazetted last week for public comment. Jackie, Naseegh, Merle and Serge have contributed to this policy and it is quite revolutionary in a way. However, it is still have many comments and concerns and will be compiling them in the few weeks for submission. The public comments period is 60 days. During that time, the fisheries authority is embarking on what they call “roadshows” whereby they present the draft to fishing communities along the coast.

Interesting times for South Africa and all eyes are on the fisheries authority as to how exactly they will start implementing this new governance.

Serge Raemaekers, PhD
Inshore/ Small-scale Fisheries Governance
Environmental Evaluation Unit
University of Cape Town
10.09.10

Declaration of South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication (SAAPE) Annual General Meeting (AGM)

2010-09-08T23:31:00.000-07:00

4-6 September 2010
Nagarkot, Nepal
Fighting Unitedly against Poverty, Hunger and Injustice in South Asia
Context
We, the members of SAAPE from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka met at the AGM from 4-6 Sep 2010 to deliberate on the theme- "fighting unitedly against poverty, hunger and injustices in South Asia" .We affirm our committment to `intervening’ on issues of poverty and exclusion contributing for the eradication of poverty and injustice, rejecting the neo-liberal development paradigm and economic strategies and striving for sustainable alternatives that are pro-poor people’.
Poverty in countries of South Asia is accompanied by disparity. The increase in the number of poor is common in all countries. However, this number only indicates the 'absolute poor'. The number would be far higher if other aspects of a dignified quality of life are considered. The problem of poverty, even in a big country like India that boasts of substantial economic growth, is persistent. Some sections seem to even lapse back into poverty. The situation is thus one of perpetuation of poverty.
There is reason to believe that the ruling elite in all our countries is enamoured by “economic growth” as the “be all and end all” of the development process. On the contrary, ground reality strongly indicates that even when the country registers high growth rate, there is huge exclusion and marginalisation. SAAPE feels that the time has come for all of us to work not only with the exploited classes but also with the excluded social groups.
We are profoundly saddened by several recent incidents which has had long lasting implications for the rights of people and their livelihood. The armed conlfict in Sri Lanka came to an end with a large number of people from Vanni being displaced and held in internment camps with restrictions imposed on their mobility and fundamental freedoms.
The current global crisis of climate change is a big challenge facing the South Asian countries which are witnessing increasing natural disasters causing devastating impacts. The recent floods in Pakistan are disrupting the lives of over 20 million people, nearly 12% of the population and this is a reminder of this gruesome reality.

We appreciate the historic judgement given by the supreme court of Bangladesh reviving secular character of the constitution and declaring past military regimes illegal. The court also made it clear that the World Bank does not enjoy any immunity. At the same time we are disappointed by the fact that the government of Bangladesh has succumbed to the pressure of the factory owners by imposing wages at a level much below the demand of the garment workers.
Democratic and human rights continue to be thereatened with the imposition of new regulations and the curtailment of civil society activities. In the rise of people’s resistance their leaders are threatened, and face extrajudicial killings and disappearances.
We are alarmed that the 18th Amendment to the Constitution in Sri Lanka is facilitating immense powers to the Executive virtually creating a Constituional dictatorship thereby threatening democratic parliamentry norms. It is also regretable that GOSL has failed to provide a long lasting political solution for the ethnic problems/national problems based on an effective power sharing model.
The economic crisis has been used to attack trade union struggles and curtail worker’s rights. We condemn the killing of two trade union leaders in Pakistan.
We condemn ethnic cleansing and demand unconditional release of all the political prisoners and repatriation and rehabilitation of the Bhutanese refugees to their homestead with dignity.
As South Asians, we watched with great appreciation the unique manner in which the Constituent Assembly of Nepal was created. We were particularly overjoyed with the introduction of proportionate representation and equal representation for women, and men in the Constituent Assembly, but today we are disappointed that the work of Constituent Assembly has come to a standstill because of the political impasse. We urge all concerned and especially the members of the Constituent Assembly to rise above narrow considerations reach consensus and put in place a Constitution which will be a trend setter for all other countries in South Asia and beyond. We call for an immediate resolution of the political impasse in Nepal for the consolidation of the democratic processes and introduction of effective agrarian reform
Similarly, we stand in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan and Maldives in their struggle to achieve democracy and long lasting solutions for securing human rights and fundamental freedoms
The region continues to be militarised combined with nuclearisation.
We demand accountability from our political leaders. As demonstrated in Pakistan though natural and human induced calamities are a frequent occurrence in South Asia, the common element in all this is our shocking lack of preparedness (in physical, economic, administrative, legal and other aspects), coupled with a lack of long term vision, especially, to help the excluded groups.

We are disappointed with the south asain governments and SAARC as a body for their failure to develop a common regional disaster management policy and a mitigation plan. We urge the immediate adoption of a common plan and the establishment of a Task Force to handle disaters in the future arising from climate change and global warning.
We also demand the repudiation of all debts of Pakistan and provide the necessary resources and funds for relief and rehabilitation of communities affected by the recent floods.
Ad hoc approaches and an absence of a policy framework for relief and rehabilitation and reconstruction is a denial of the legitimate rights of the survivors. On the other hand, in a democratic polity the right to relief with dignity and development are the fundamental right of every disaster victim and it is the responsibility of the state and civil society to ensure that.

This is also a unique opportunity for South Asian countries to express their solidarity in terms of aid and political solidarity with the beleaguered Pakistan, and develop common disaster management mechanism in line with the relevant SAARC Charter.

Women in South Asia
The majority of women in South Asia remain excluded and impoverished. They form the bulk of the displaced in South Asia. The post conflict situations are fraught with increased insecurity, gender based violence and lack of protection which is directly linked to poverty.
We appreciate the efforts made by Afghanistan, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India to facilitate and recognise the greater and effective participation of women in politics and governance challenging the age old prohibitions of patriarchal ideology through legislative enactments and policies. It is regretable that Sri Lanka has not been able to achieve it’s heights in this regard and wish to express our support to all efforts taken by civil society and women’s groups working for urgent reforms in this area.
It is important to stress the need to respond immediately to specific needs of women affected by floods in Pakistan as our gesture of solidarity to empowerment of women in practice.
International and Regional Power Dimensions
We recognise the need to evolve consistent multi-pronged strategies to combat the influence of globalisation, continuing repression and militarisation in the name of war on terror, growing international re-alignments including India-US, and China, shrinking democratic space, marginalisation of human rights, unsustainable development paradigm.
Our Challenges...
Dominant development models and paradigms have failed. It has exhausted all possibilities. We see the accentuation of deprivation at all levels of the people. We see poverty as deprivation of capabilities of people which deny them freedom and human rights and keep them continously in a state of disempowerment social, economic and political.
We are aware that old slogans are not sufficient for organisation and mobilisation. We need to call for all exlcuded women, dalits, indigenous, all minorities ethnic, religious and linguistic based on our contemporary understanding to unite to struggle against poverty, hunger and injustice.
The fight for entitlements such as employment, food, education, health. housing, human security, social security, dignity and the like needs to be carried out through the agency of the exploited masses as well as the excluded social groups. SAAPE will work with excluded groups and associations of the poor to alert governments on their responsibilities and to bring a collective sense of social responsibility within the region for future reduction of poverty and the attendant risks of living in that condition for the millions of the poor in South Asia.

Development Within the Fisheries Community

2010-09-07T04:24:00.001-07:00

In line with the new small-scale policy as proposed by the National Fisheries Task Team it should also focus on the future sustainable development of the larger majority of peoples within the fishing communities and gear towards the greater protection of the marine resources. It stresses the need to promote community rights and participation in the resource management, including development of co-management for protection, conservation and rehabilitation of the fishing resources with the emphasis on area/zonal management. It requires the need to develop a system towards the protection of fishing community rights, equity, and human rights. The whole concept of community development has been clearly misunderstood and badly implemented in the past, all because of the promotion of the privatization of the ocean resources by the Individual Transferable or Non- Transferable Quota System [I.T.Q.]. The whole nucleus has been on macro-economics and not the realization that at the micro-level there are a wide range of social, economic, cultural, food security, benefits that can be obtained especially within the fishing industry.There have been vague statements and unfulfilled advancements on job creation, poverty alleviation, transformation, equity, service delivery, and etc but
14.1…. Governments and Civil Society should transform existing systems of unequal ownership, access to and use of marine and coastal resources into systems based on sustainable and equitable use and access rights, and on poverty eradication.
14.2 …. Governments and Civil Society should guarantee the rights of traditional subsistence and artisanal fishers to access to marine and inland fisheries resources, and provide local fisheries dependent communities priority rights to the resources on which they depend for their livelihood.
15.3 …. Clear and fair procedures for participation must be put into place that ensure the involvement of the true representatives of local communities and major groups in all stages of their development.
15.4 …. The public, private and civil society sectors must collaborate in the design and introduction of education and capacity-building programmes that enhance effective participation in development decision-making.
15.5 …. Local communities must be the primary beneficiaries of these programmes of capacity-building for effective participation.
In the South African context small-scale/Artisanal fishers and their communities face major constraints and threats to any positive social and economic development and these are a major challenge for development;
Firstly wealth, power is not evenly distributed and academic knowledge and business skills are seriously lacking and those present Quota or rights holders are doing everything in their capacity to keep the status quo in place especially those who achieved the rights that they obtained during the apartheid years.
The greatest hurdle to overcome is the rent-seeking, money incentive ideology that now exists within our society. Small-scale fishing and those involved in it was once recognized as the lowest type “skollie” {unsophisticated} work by many of social standing, has through the recent Quota system become a winning lottery ticket for all sorts of people but not for the actual fishers themselves. So ingrained in the minds of the many of the people that the great financial gain derived from receiving “paper” quotas is that the vast majority of non-fishers would rather the Individual Quota system remain and ignore that there are numerous other systems in operation around the world. Then there are those who have received rights and become wealthy who would not be conducive to any transformation and turn a blind eye to equity, poverty alleviation and human rights. Competition from non-fisheries interests for access and use of these resources is increasing and this has to be addressed by a strict criteria.
With the Living Resources Act policy in order to achieve the objectives of equity, transformation and poverty alleviation the policy-makers did not deal with the social, economic and cultural needs of the fishers in a balanced way, with no monitoring to analyzing the serious negative effects of its implementation or formulation. The needs, aspirations and capacities of the small-scale fishing communities were completely ignored with the butcher, baker, candlestick maker and those in powerful positions along with their cronies obtaining most of the rights. In order to rectify this it is absolutely necessary if the development is to be success, to investigate and review all allocations and reallocate on the basis of restitution, transformation and poverty alleviation.
The Individual Transferable/Non Transferable Quota System and its huge fees has resulted in many losing their livelihood , extreme poverty, and a social vacuum where vulnerable poor have simply become fractured and unviable, in fact it has produced a human catastrophe. Food security has been reduced and the most peripheral fishing communities are in a severe state of despair with disorder, poaching and crime an accepted way of life. This has led to them becoming easy to manipulated or buy over with money payments/ loans by the opportunists and con-artists in order for them to achieve their immoral objectives and derail any empowerment of the disadvantaged peoples.
The acceptance of “fishing community stakeholders “that are undemocratic, self appointed leaders, marketers, and groups that are not from the actual activity of the harvesting community has continually led to opportunistic behavior and this will continue to derail and corrupt democracy and honest development.
Conflicts exists into the acceptance and the implementation and development of the small-scale fishing policy between the haves and have-nots and this will lead to direct friction between the two that will eventually lead to violent confrontation, and a way must be found to identify the problem and to resolve it.
In order to overcome these factors it is therefore necessary for the attitudes, skills, knowledge, resources, institutional organization and methodologies of intervention change significantly. Wealth generated by the legal entities as promoted by the new small-scale policy will make a significant contribution to the local economy and employment if the profits made are used for the benefit of the greater communities by the creation of alternative businesses and projects. This will require harmonization and integration of all departments within government including the private sector working within the framework of the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21 of Johannesburg Summit and the Right to Adequate Food [FAO]. It should be noted that the major theme of Agenda 21 is the need to eradicate poverty by giving poor people more access to the resource they need to live sustainably and this is supported by Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Every endeavor should be made to register the legitimate traditional fish harvesters and the responsibility of them electing this “new” leadership overseen and run by government officials within a democratic environment. Prejudice against the poachers should be dismissed and they should be allowed to participate as stakeholders under an amnesty agreement. Zonation should be demarcated specifying the kind of vessel, gear and times that could be used with the full participation of the fishing communities, accepting their arrangements with other area management groups, {how, when and where}. There should be a stronger implementation of fisheries regulations, better surveillance, control and monitoring {M.C.S} with the legal entities/ co-operatives being given power to “help” the authorities in data gathering and to sustain the resource and contain poaching. The responsibility of running the legal entity should in the beginning be done by government appointed officials in order for the fishing community to obtain the necessary skills on a learning curve basis. In an effort to avoid any job losses in the present formal labor constituency and have better data control the “legal entity” shall be required to market their fish through a legal registered existing company, where they obtain a share of the profits above the catching payment of such catches for further use towards diversification of livelihoods and alternative employment. The greatest asset but a challenge is the task of ‘helping the communities to help itself, but the people should be supervised to taking the step to fulfilling both their material and human value needs. Out of this they can gain the human values of self-reliance, self-sufficiency and human dignity and this cannot be achieved by the action of individual rights but by a collective activity. The establishment of a joint co-operative/legal entity will do away with the present type of slave labor [casual] employed by the quota holders and would open the doors for private sector funding for machinery, credit, and government social aid {Basic unemployment, Accident fund,}
Many different projects are embraced by fishing communities around the world such as restaurants, owning of supply stores, tourism, whale watching, shell collecting boat trips, boat building, home fish cuisine shops etc. The diversification of livelihoods and alternative employment constitute important poverty-alleviation and food security strategies in coastal communities. This can involve approaches for reducing the dependence on only fish harvesting through complementary income generating activities.
We need the guidance and support of government, private sector and civil society to overcome the injustices that prevail in our society then and only then can the small-scale policy empower the poor to overcome the hobbled, poverty stricken and decimated life that they lead.

Andrew Johnston.
Artisanal Fishers Association.
6th August 2010

Flood Donation Appeal by Labour Relief Campaign

2010-08-08T02:01:00.000-07:00

Appeal issued on August 7, 2010

More than 12 million people suffering from floods in Pakistan

Please donate to Labour Relief Campaign to help people of Pakistan is facing worst ever floods of its history. Torrential rains have unleashed flash floods in different parts of the country since last three weeks. Water levies broke leaving the people exposed to flood water.

More than 12 million people have suffered due to these floods. More than 650,000 houses have collapsed, mainly in villages.

Thousands of acres of crops have been destroyed due to flood water. Houses, live-stock such as cattle’s and goats, household goods, clothes, shoes and other items have been destroyed. Residents of villages are currently without drinkable water, food, shelter and in need of clothes.

In particular, the situation is dire for children and women and they are in desperate need of food and clothing. Disease is spreading fast in the areas affected due to lack of drinkable water. In particular, flu, fever, diarrhea, cholera have been noted and are spreading.

The government’s response has made matters worse. They failed to act immediately, leaving tens of thousands of people unaided. They came after twenty four hours to the make-shift camps with paltry amount of food bags to distribute. The gap between the food being distributed and the large number of people desperate to eat led to fighting breaking out making matters even worse for these desperate people.

Despite the fact that there is very little coverage in the media, the fact remains that the situation in Baluchistan is just as bad as in Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa and western and southern Punjab. As usual, also, they are not at the top of the government's priority list.

Situation is turning out to be worse with heavy rains started since last night in Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa province.

The Labour Education Foundation, Labour Party of Pakistan, National Trade Union Federation, Women Workers Help Line and Progressive Youth Front have set up Labour Flood Relief Camps in Lahore and so far have collected more than 300,000 rupees. Rs. 110,000 have already been sent to Baluchistan and more than 200,000 are on way to Southern Punjab to help flood victims.

We appeal our friends and organizations in Pakistan and abroad for donations of a monetary kind or in the form of drinking water, clothes (new), shoes, medicine.

For further information please contact:  
Khalid Mahmood
Director
Labour Education Foundation
Ground Floor, 25-A Davis Road,
Lahore, Pakistan.
Email: khalid@lef.org.pk
Tel: 0092 42 6303808, 0092 42 6315162, Fax: 0092 42 6271149
Mobile: 0092 321 9402322

Some 69 pct of Java, Bali mangrove forests damaged

2010-07-30T19:12:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 12:45 WIB | Environment |
Jakarta (ANTARA News)

The People`s Coalition for Fishery Justice has appealed to the government on the need to preserve and improvemangrove forests.

The mangrove preservation is necessary to prevent them from disappearance from the face of the earth because the forests provide ground for fishes, shrimp, and mollusks for spawning and rearing.

According to data of the People`s Coalition for Fishery Justice (Kiara), damage of mangrove forests in the 1997-2008 period reached 68 percent.

Kiara program coordinator Abdul Halim said in Jakarta Wednesday damage of the mangrove ecosystem was caused by industrial anthropogenic waste in coastal areas.

Besides, the other causes include coastal land conversion for industrial purposes, commercial centers and luxury residential areas. The wastes caused damage of the mangrove ecosystem, and consequently making it difficult for fishermen to earn a living, he said.

In the meantime, the Ministry of Marine and Fishery Affairs set itself a target that by 2014, some 1,440 hectares of coastal areas would be preserved preventing them from environmental damage along national coastal areas. And of the 1,440 ha, some 101.7 percent could be preserved each year.

"The target needs to be coupled with the seriousness of the Minister of Marine and Fishery Affairs in carrying out the program," Abdul Halim said.

He added that seriousness in preserving the northern coastal areas of Java and Bali could become a reality if the program did not restore the ecological and social functions of the coastal ecosystem.

It is under these circumstances that it would be very important to involve the fishermen and coastal communities, he said.

For this reason that it is time for the Ministry of Marine and Fishery Affairs for a refreshment in restoring the mangrove forest ecosystem and raise the living standard of fishermen and the community in the coastal regions.(*)

COPYRIGHT © 2010

Source: http://www.antarane ws.com/en/ news/1280295951/ some-69-pct- of-java-bali- mangrove- forests-damaged

M.Riza Damanik
Secretary General of KIARA (Fisheries Justice Coalition)

Maldives will file a case at the UN today for 148,000 square kilometers off the north and 20,000 square kilometers off the west.

2010-07-28T21:36:00.000-07:00

(Daily Mirror online 28/07/2010)

The Sri Lankan government is investigating to see if the request put forward by the Maldives to the UN seeking an expansion of its continental shelf will overlap the sea area demarcated by Sri Lanka in a similar request to the world body.

Officials from the Legal Division of the Foreign Ministry told Daily Mirror online that a technical team has been appointed by the Sri Lankan government to study the area to verify if both demarcated areas overlap each other and if found to be true will resort to dialogue with the Maldivian government.

A report on the findings is also expected to be handed over to the Foreign Ministry Secretary soon.

The Maldives will demand 168,000 square kilometers off the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the country as its extended continental shelf, its Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed said.

Maldives will file a case at the UN today for 148,000 square kilometers off the north and 20,000 square kilometers off the west.

â€œBy the grace of God, our 45th Independence Day is a day that we will amend some issues and expand the Maldives area, especially that we would officially file a case at UN to get the extended continental shelf that we should get,â€ the Minister said.

The extended continental shelf claimed by Maldives contradicts with the portion claimed by neighboring Sri Lanka last year. Dr Shaheed, however, expressed hope that the disputes â€œover a small areaâ€ would be resolved through dialogue.

â€œI believe that we will find a solution through negotiations soon, as Maldives and Sri Lanka have always maintained close relations,â€ he said.

Sri Lanka formally presented its claim for sovereignty over an extended continental shelf around the island under international law to the UN last year.

The claim, if successful, would give Sri Lanka control over potential hydrocarbon and mineral deposits on the seabed.

CAMARÓN DE CENTROAMERICA YA NO PAGARÁ ARANCEL DE INTRODUCCIÓN A UNIÓN EUROPEA

2010-06-08T20:40:00.001-07:00

Por Jorge Varela Márquez (Junio 2010)
La noticia de que el camarón de Centroamérica (CA) ya no pagará el arancel de introducción a la
Unión Europea ha llenado de regocijo a los productores de este crustáceo en CA, y a preocupado
a los defensores de los ecosistemas marino costeros .
Lo anterior ocurre a pesar de que recientemente, Organizaciones de Bases Comunitarias
agrupadas en la REDMANGLAR de Latinoamérica y la “Red de Asia en contra del Camarón
Cultivado, asociados con ONG’s de la Unión Europea (UE) y Estados Unidos, han realizado una
gira por tres países de Europa (Abril 28-Mayo 4, 2010), buscando, entre otros objetivos, definir
una estrategia para que la (UE) reduzca el consumo de camarón cultivado en los países de la zona
tropical y parte de la subtropical del Planeta, esperando así disminuir los impactos ambientales,
sociales y económicos que produce este tipo de acuacultura contra la Biodiversidad, las
comunidades locales y el ambiente en general.
REUNION DE ONG’s, IMPORTADORES Y VENDEDORES DE CAMARON EN AMSTERDAM
La delegación de la REDMANGLAR , además ha aprovechado para informar que en los primeros
meses del 2010, durante la época seca, los camaroneros se han ampliado impunemente sobre
Áreas Protegidas y Sitio Ramsar # 1000, en Honduras, destruyendo con la complicidad del
gobierno centenares de acres de humedales costeros.
Una de las delegaciones presentes en la gira, ha solicitado al “Partido Verde” francés, gestionar
ante la UE, el aumento al arancel de las importaciones del camarón procedente del Sur, para
subir el precio del producto al consumidor europeo, de tal modo que éste se aproxime a pagar el
costo real del camarón, como un instrumento para disminuir su consumo.
La industria camaronera hondureña por su parte, anuncia al final de una reunión entre el nuevo
gobernante Pepe Lobo, y la UE, que el camarón de Honduras entrará a Europa sin pagar arancel.
(España, 19 de Mayo),
Esto significa: Que los europeos continúan sin pagar el verdadero precio del camarón y pueden
incrementar su consumo al comprar un producto mucho más barato. Las empresas camaroneras
reciben este aliciente como un estímulo; aumentarán sus ingresos y continuarán expandiéndose
impunemente como hasta ahora, sobre los humedales costeros, no sólo de Honduras sino de toda
Centroamérica, pues venderán su producto como si fuera producido en una Europa, donde parece
no importar los perjuicios que se causa en el clima mundial, en la biodiversidad y en la economía
de los paupérrimos pueblos del sur.
Los resultados pueden ser distintos si la UE condiciona tal estimulo al castigo a la impunidad de
los delitos ambientales y sociales; al respeto a las Leyes nacionales, Convenios internacionales,
Áreas Protegidas; a la Moratoria real de la expansión camaronera sobre humedales; al
cumplimiento de los códigos de conducta de la industria…etc., pero se cree que esas condiciones
quedan para la Declaratoria de poéticas Resoluciones en las Convenciones internacionales o para
alentar el negocio de las Certificaciones o “sellos verdes” al camarón. (traducido al Francés por:…)
09.06.10

CENTRAL AMERICAN SHRIMP WILL NO LONGER PAY TARIFFS TO ENTER THE EUROPEAN UNION

2010-06-08T20:36:00.000-07:00

By Jorge Varela (June 2010)
The news that Central American shrimp will no longer pay import tariffs into the European Union has filled with glee the producers of this crustacean in Central America, and has worried the defenders of the marine and coastal ecosystems.
This happened despite a recent tour in three European countries (April 28- May 4, 2010) by grassroot organizations grouped under the REDMANGLAR of Latin American and the Asian Network Against Cultivated Shrimp in conjunction with European Union (EU) and U.S. NGOs in an effort to, among other objectives, define a strategy for the EU to reduce the consumption of shrimp cultivated in the tropical and subtropical areas of the planet. This way, they hope to reduce the environmental, social, and economic impacts that this type of aquaculture produces against biodiversity and the environment in general.
MEETING OF NGOs, IMPORTERS AND SELLERS OF SHRIMP IN AMSTERDAM
The REDMANGLAR delegation, took this opportunity to denounce that in the first months of 2010, during the dry season, shrimp farmers expanded their holdings with impunity on Mangrove Protected Areas and Ramsar Site #1000 in Honduras. They destroyed, with the complicity of the Honduran government, hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands.
One of the delegations participating in the tour asked the French Green Party to petition before the EU an increase in the import tax of shrimp originating in the South to increase the price of the product to the European consumer. This increase will force Europeans to more closely pay the true cost of shrimp and will serve to decrease its consumption.
At the same time, the Honduran shrimp industry announced a meeting between the new head of state Pepe Lobo and the UE with the outcome that Honduran shrimp will enter Europe free of tariffs (Spain, 19 May). This means that Europeans will continue to consume shrimp without paying its true cost and may even increase their consumption since they buy it so cheaply. The shrimp industry receives this incentive as a stimulus. They will increase their profits and continue to expand with impunity, as they have done until now, over coastal wetlands not only in Honduras but in all of Central America because they will be able sell their product as if it was produced in Europe. It does not seem to matter to Europeans the damage caused to the Earth’s climate, biodiversity, and the economy of the wretched people from the South.
The results could be different if the EU conditions such incentives to the punishment of environmental and social crimes, to the respect of Honduran laws, international agreements, and protected areas, to a real moratorium on the expansion of shrimp over wetlands, to the enforcement of the shrimp industry’s own code of conduct, etc., but we believe those conditions are left for declarations of poetic resolutions in international conferences or to promote the business of “Green Certifications” for shrimp.
Traslated by: AlexisAguilar
09.06.10

THE MARINE FISHERIES CONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT AND TRADITIONAL FISHERFOLK WELFARE BILL OF INDIA-2010

2010-06-03T10:11:00.002-07:00

By Richerd Raja

CHAPTER I - PREAMBLE

1.1 This Bill aims at “Aquarian reforms” that assure the livelihood rights of “Fishermen Castes” as recognized by Central and State Gazette notifications, and also other people who catch fish in order to meet their live-hood means.

1.2 Enacted by the Parliament, under article 297 and entry 32 of the list of the 7th Schedule of Constitution of India, this Bill intends to reserve and delimit specific areas of the seas for use by traditional fishermen who use non-mechanized boats and preserving their way of life that is closely intertwined with that of the ocean and seas.
well as restricting use of

1.3 The Bill aims at banning the use of mechanized fishing boats within 100 Kilometers of Indian shore line. Indiscriminate use of mechanized vessels and factory ships whose intensive “catch methods” use have depleted the fisheries and other living resources of India’s territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone.

1.4 Conservation and holistic management of India’s Ocean resources would be the hallmark of the present Bill. The Bill shall put systems in place like restricting the use of intensive fishing gears, mechanized vessels, etc. Also operation of provisions of this Bill shall minimize “economic discard” . (Note; means fish which are the target of fishery but which are not retained because they are of undesirable size , sex or quality or for other economic reasons.) This would result in the recovery of the flora and fauna of Indian seas and ensure continuity of under sea life forms for posterity and for future generations instead of the present trend of indiscriminate destruction of the under sea environment aimed at India’s oceans becoming under water desert.

1.4 This Bill shall lay down the number of specified vessels to be operated in specified areas, to regulate or prohibit use of ecologically harmful fishing gear in specified areas of the ocean in order to protect the stocks.

1.3 The Bill recognizes the intricate balance between plant and animal life that thrives in the Ocean, and aims to implement measures that will conserve India’s marine resources both within her border as well as off the EEZ, and their management for sustainable exploitation for the benefit of the citizens of India.

1.4 This Bill shall provide for conservation and sustainable use of fisheries and other resources in the maritime zones of India, conservation of fishing, fishing activities and fisheries in the maritime zones of India, regulation of all vessels engaged in direct or indirect exploitation of fishery resources in the maritime zones of India.

1.6 This Bill also recognises ;

(i) fishermen communities have been left behind in economic activities and remain backward socially and economically. For the emancipation of these people , all fishermen castes recognized by Government of India in various “Constututional Amendmends” and “Gazette Notifications” shall henceforth be recognized as “Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes” and special status given as per provisions in this Act.

(ii) fisher folk have been carrying out fishing activity through non mechanized , traditional means over the entire coastal areas for past thousands of years;

(iii) livelihood and security of the traditional fisher folk becomes paramount while undertaking conservation and management of ocean resources;

(iv) the rights of the fisher folk who have a vital role to play in the very survival of the fishing areas, and in maintaining the sustainability of the ecosystem;

In the light of the above, a Bill shall be enacted by the Parliament in the sixty second year of the Republic of India.

CHAPTER II

2.0 PRELIMINARY

2.1 Short Title and Commencement

(i) This Bill may be called The Marine Fisheries Conservation, Management and Traditional Fisher Folk Welfare Bill, 2010.

(ii) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification, in the Official Gazette appoint.

(iii) PROVIDED that different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision.

2.2 Definitions

(i) “Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes” are fishermen castes as recognized in “The Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order” and “The Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order”.

(ii) “Exclusive Economic Zone” (EEZ) means the exclusive economic zone of India as defined under section 7 of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones of India Act, 1976.

(iii) “fish” means any aquatic animal, whether piscine or not, and includes shell-fish, crustacean, Chelonia, turtle (Chelonian), aquatic mammal (the young, fry, eggs and spawn thereof), holothurians, coelenterates, sea weed, coral (Porifera) and any other aquatic life;

(iv) “Ocean Resources” means all marine life, planktons, mangroves, salt marshes, sea grass meadows and all marine plants and animals.

(i) “fisheries” means all activities related to fishing or the exploitation, conservation and management of marine living resources.

(vi) “Anandromous species” means specific species of fish which spawn in the fresh waters of Indian coastal states like the estuaries in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala etc,, and later migrate to the ocean.

(vii) “ Continental Shelf ” means the sea bed and sub-soil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast, but outside the area of the territorial sea, of the State of India to a depth of 200 metres or beyond that limit. The term also includes “Inner Continental Shelf”, “Mid Continental Shelf” and “Outer Continental Shelf”.

(viii) “ fisheries management plan ” includes any plan, guidelines, policy, order, etc., as notified by the Central Government from time to time, with a view to ensuring sustainable exploitation, development, management and conservation of fisheries, maintenance of law and order in the maritime zones of India and monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing and fishing activity.

(ix) “Conservation and Management” means all the Rules, Regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures intended to (A) Rebuild, restore or maintain, and which are useful in rebuilding and restoring or maintaining any fishery resources and marine environment ; and which are (B) designated to assure that – (i) a supply of food and other products may be obtained on a continuing basis; (ii) Irreversible or long term adverse effects on fishery resources and marine environment are avoided and ; (iii) there shall be multiplicity of options available with respect to future uses of these resources.

(xii) “fishing” or “fishing activity” includes (i) searching for or tracking or trailing or pursuing fish; (ii) attempting to search for or track or trail fish; (iii) catching or taking or killing of fish by any method; (iv) engaging in any other activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the locating, or tracking or trailing or pursuing or catching or taking or killing of fish; (v) any operations at sea (including high seas) directly in support of or linked to or in preparation of any activity described in this definition or for processing of or preservation of any fish; (vi) any purchase of any fish undertaken at sea (including high seas); and (vii) the processing, carrying, preserving, receiving, transporting or transshipping of fish;

(xiii) “economic discard” means fish which are the target of fishery but which are not retained because they are of undesirable size , sex or quality or for other economic reasons.

(xiv) “essential fish habitat” means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning , breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.

(xv) “Fishing Communities” include all the castes recognized as “Fishing Castes” (inclusive of those castes categorized as Schedule Caste / Schedule Tribes, Backward Class and Most Backward Class) by Government of India and respective State Governments in India’s coastal States in mainland of India as well as the individual or composite group or groups of islands including Andaman & Nicobar and Lakswadeep Islands.

(xvi) “fishing vessel” means any sailing vessel, whether or not fitted with mechanical means of propulsion, which is capable of undertaking fishing. The term ’fishing vessel’ includes `foreign fishing vessel’ and `Indian fishing vessel’.

(xvii) “foreign fishing vessel” means any fishing vessel other than an Indian fishing vessel;

(xviii) “high seas” means the waters that are outside the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone of India, and which do not fall within the exclusive economic zone of any other country.

(xix) ”Indian fishing vessel” means
(i) Fishing vessels registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958or under any other applicable Central Act or any State Act, and which are:
(a) owned wholly by the Government of India or by the Government of any State; or by a corporation established by a Central Act or a Provisional or State Act, or
(b) owned wholly by persons to each of whom any of the following descriptions apply:
(A) a citizen of India; or
(B) a company which is wholly owned by Indian citizen with not less than 51% participation from one among the fishing castes.
(C) a duly registered Firm wherein every partner whereof is a citizen of India and belonging to fishing caste ; or
(D) a registered fisheries cooperative society every member whereof is a citizen of India as well as a member of fishing caste as mentioned at various paragraphs of this Bill ;

Explanation: – For the purpose of this clause “registered cooperative society” means a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912, or any other law relating to cooperative societies or the time being in force in any State.

(i) Any boat or craft of any type other than those specified under sub-clause (ii) which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify to be an Indian fishing vessel.

(xx) This Act specifically abolishes Foreign Joint Ventures / fully foreign owned ventures in Indian fishing industry with foreign citizens, corporations, society or any other foreign entities.

(xxi) “innocent passage” means passage through the maritime zones of India by foreign fishing vessels and other foreign vessels, that is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security as determined by the Central Government from time to time;

(xxii) “maritime zones of India” means the territorial waters, contiguous zone, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone and other maritime zones determined in accordance with the Territorial Waters.
(xxiii) “master” in relation to a vessel, means any person having command or charge of the vessel;

(xxiv) “owner” in relation to a vessel means any person, including any association of persons, whether incorporated or not, by whom the vessel or a share in the vessels is owned;

(xxv) “permit” means a permission granted under this Act;

(xxvi) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;

(xxvii) “processing” in relation to fishing, includes cleaning, cutting and removal of spines, fins, shells, viscera (guts and other internal soft parts), beheading, filleting, peeling, icing, freezing, canning, salting, smoking, cooking, pickling, drying and otherwise preparing or preserving fish by any other method;

(xxviii) “specified ports” means such ports as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for the purpose of this Act and which would be the only ports where a foreign fishing vessel can dock;

(xxix) “territorial waters of India” means the territorial waters of India in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones of India Act, 1976;

(xxx) “vessel” includes any ship, vessel, fishing vessel, sailing vessel, chase boats, pilot boats, or any vessel of any other description that is capable of fishing or processing or transporting fish, fuel or other supplies from or to a fishing vessel or is otherwise capable of providing logistical or any other support to fishing vessels.

2.3 “Assumptions” and “Purpose” of the Bill

(i) eliminating in a phased manner , the new class of “absentee owners” who have already cornered the bulk of the fish resources and restoring the same back to the fishing communities

(ii) Eliminating gradually Indian corporations and investors who are interested in profits from the sea or foreign companies that may be potentially interested in the ever depleting fishing resources of India.

(iii) With 80% of resources cornered by 20% of the fleet, a long term balancing of this lop sided phenomena, this Bill aims at eliminating this imbalance and restoring to non-mechanized traditional fishing fleet their rightful ownership of the ocean resources that was traditionally held by them.

(iv) The marine resources off the Indian coast including fish and other organisms that dwell in the continental shelf constitute India’s valuable and renewable natural resources. The fishery resources contribute towards food supply, economy and health of the nation.

(v) Several stocks of fishes off India’s coast have declined to a point where their very survival is threatened. Increased fishing pressure by mechanized vessels, trawlers and huge factory vessels in waters within Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as well as off India’s EEZ is putting at risk the fishery stocks by substantially reducing them so that their survival is threatened. Due to this indiscriminate fishing and the inadequate regulatory and conservation regime, India’s fishery resources are rapidly depleting with a resultant impact on poor coastal communities.

(vi) Massive fishing vessels and foreign fish fleets that clandestinely operate within Indian waters, as well as the waters off Indian EEZ, have contributed enormously to the depletion of India’s ocean resources and have also damaged domestic fishing activities of small fishermen who operate out of coastal villages.

(vii) Fisheries resources are finite and only renewable with proper management. There is an urgent need to place them under a national programme of conservation, management, and revival that would aim to prevent over fishing, and to rebuild over fished stocks, to ensure conservation, to facilitate long term protection of essential fish habitats and to realize the full potential of the Nation’s fishery resources.

(viii) Initiate national programmes for the sustainable development of fisheries that remain under utilized or not utilized by the Indian fishing industry, including bottom fishing in India’s EEZ in order to assure the Indian citizens the benefits from employment generation that might occur out of such Government programmes, food supply and revenue that could be generated thereby.

(ix) Fisheries Management Councils to be set up in every coastal State to integrate ecosystem considerations in fisheries management and to work in tandem with Environment Protection Agencies at State and Central level.

CHAPTER III

3.0 INHERENT RIGHTS OF TRADITIONAL FISHERMEN COMMUNITIES AND THEIR OWNERSHIP STATUS

3.1 The Marine Fisheries Conservation, Management Bill, 2010, FURTHER recognizes the following ;

(a) the inalienable part that the fishing communities played for thousands and thousands of years by intricately blending their lives with the seas and oceans.

(b) The sustainable way they harvested the fishery and marine resources using naturally available tools like nets made of natural fiber like hemp, cotton etc.. thereby inflicting minimum “collateral damage” to life forms while fishing for desired species.

(c) the indigenous, non- intrusive fishing methods, for living in perfect harmony with the Ocean life and for having preserved its balance from time immemorial, since the advent of civilization.

(d) that fisheries management has socio-economic goals as well as biological conservation roles and the well being of the fishing communities including (i) protection of livelihoods, (ii) rights and well being of fisher - women involved in post harvest and marketing (iii) health and nutrition of the fish eating population, and (iv) trade/market related issues and (v) conservation of Ocean environment.

(e) the need to harmonise and unify the various mechanisms and instruments relevant for fisheries management that lie today under different ministries of the Central Govt or State Governments.

3.2 In line with Governments’ policies aligned with the recognition of Forest and Hill Tribal’s inalienable rights over the forests that they lived for centuries, this Bill recognizes all “fishermen Castes and Tribes” as listed in official gazette notifications, residing in India’s coastal states and its Islands as “Aboriginal Tribes”; AND the seas and Oceans off the Indian coast as their “Traditional Homeland”.

3.3 Any activities in this homeland should be through broad consensus achieved from these “Aboriginal Peoples”. Introduction of any modern technologies in fisheries activities should be only with the approval of these fishing tribes and after conducting detailed impact assessment studies.

3.4 Any kind of Commercial benefits that accrue out of activities in coastal areas; fishing or otherwise should be divided among fishing communities.

3.3 This Bill empowers “Fishing Tribes” to be the sole stakeholders in regulating fishing activities in India’s territorial waters as well as the first 100 nautical miles of the EEZ in line with traditional customs practiced for generations by these people. Management of fisheries shall henceforth be entirely be done in consultation with these fishing communities, with Government; both Union Government and State Governments serving only as technical advisors.

3.4 Under powers empowered under clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India, the Government of India shall enact a separate Constitution amendment Bill to declare the following fishermen castes as “ Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes” with rights specified at 3.3

3.4.1. ANDRA PRADESH

Angikula kshatriya, Bestha, besthar, Gangaputra, Gangavar, Goondla, Jalari, Koracha, Nayyala, Pattapa, Pali, Vadavalija, Vaddi, Jalkshatriya, Vanyekula Kshatriya(Yannekapu,Vanne Reddi,Palli Kapau,Palli Reddi )

3.4.2 GOA

Nayaka,

3.4.3 GUJRAT

Bhoi, Dhinwar BhoiGadhar Bhoi KhadiBhoi,Khase Bhoi, Zinga Bhoi Pardeshi Bhoi, Raj Bhoi, Dhiwar, DheemarDhimar, Dhivar,Dhevra,Gond, Raj Gond,Koli, Mahadev Koli, Malhar Koli, Donger Koli, Kolcha, Kolga, Tokre Koli, Kirat,Keer, Kewat, Kevat, Kahar, Dhuria Kahar Gondia Kahar,Khairwar, Mallah, Malhar,Machhendra, Machhawa, Nishad, Tindel, Palewar

3.4.4 KERALA

Dhevara (Arya, Vala, Mukkuva, Mukaya, Bhoi,Mulaya, AravathiMale Araya), Meenugara Manigara, Mogera

3.4.5 KARNATAKA

Ambiga, Mukkuvena,Bestha, Besthar Mukkuvare,Bunde Besthar Mukayar, Bharika, Barikar, Marakula, Bhoyi,bhovi,Bovi, Mogera, Bheesmakula, Melanta, Gangaputra, Meddera, Gangakula, Machida,, Gange Makkalu Machimar, Gaurimatha Machala, Gangarassur Machava, Goni Kara, Gond, Raj Gond, Mudiraja, Gangamathu, Nayka, Harikanthra Naykara, Jalagera Nayaka, Kabber, Kabbera, Neeraganti, Korach, Nalekera, Koli, Parivara,Parevar, Kahr, Sunagara, Kabbaliga, Sephaliga, Kharvi, Soothkula, Meenugara, Manigara, Thoreya, Mogaveera, Vanyekula Kshatriya(vannekapu, Vannereddi,Palli Reddi ), Siviyar, Siviar

3.4.6 MAHARASTRA

Bhoi, Dhinwar Bhoi Gadhar Bhoi KhadiBhoi, Khase Bhoi, Zinga Bhoi, Pardeshi Bhoi, Raj Bhoi., Dhiwar, Dheemar,Dhimar, Dhivar, Daivar,Koli Dhor, Mahadev Koli, Malhar Koli, Donger Koli, Koleha Kolcha, Kolga, Tokre Koli, Kahar, Dhuria Kahar,Godia Kahar,GondKahar,Kirat, Keer, Kewat, Kevat,Kharwar, Khairwar ,Machhendra, Machhawa,Manzi, Gond, Raj Gond, ., Tindel, Palewar, Manzi, Malhar,Nishad

3.4.6 ORISSA

Dewar, Dhewar, Dhivar, Bhoi. Bhovi, Gond, Gondo, Jalia, Jaliya, Jhalo- Malo, Mala, Zala, Kaibartta, Kaibarta Jalia,Keuta, Kewata, Keute, Kevt, Namdas, Namsudra,Kharwar, Khairwar Khirwar, Tiyar, Tiar, Tior, Koli, Malhar.PUNJAB, Dhewar, Jhimar Jhinwar, Jhiwar, Jhir, Jheer, Kahar, Mallah

3.4.7 TAMILNADU

Bharatar, Bosthar, Narikanthra, Kharvi, Kebber, Kabbera, Meenugara, Manigara, Mukkavar, Mukkuvar Mukayar, Parivara, Paravar, Meenevar ( Partharaja, ulam, Pattanavar, Sembadavar), Siviyar, Siviar

3.4.1.9 WEST BENGAL

Bind, Baidi, Chaia, Chain, Berchain,Duley, Dewar, Dhewar, Dhiver, Gond, Gondo, Gurrhi, Gonti, Jhalo- Malo, Malo, Kaibarta, Jaliya Kaibarta, Kotal, Keuta, Keweta, Keuta, Kevt, Kewet, Keyot, Keot, Kadma, KolaKharwar,Khirwar, Khairwar, Mallah, Meta, Namdas, Namsudra, Patni, Tiyar, Tiar, Tior, Sardia.

3.5 Rights of Fisher folk

3.5.1 For the purposes of this Bill , the following rights, which secure to the individual or community or both, shall be the rights of those fisher folk who dwell on the coastlands, namely:--

(a) Right to hold and live in the coastal areas under the individual or common occupation for habitation or for fishing for livelihood by a member or members of such family;

(b) Right of ownership and access to areas;

(c) Other community rights of uses or entitlements such as fish and other products of water bodies, and traditional seasonal resource access of nomadic or pastoralist communities;

(d) Rights of settlement and conversion of all villages, old habitation, un-surveyed villages and other villages in coastal areas, whether recorded, notified or not into revenue villages;

(e) Right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community resource which they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use;

(f) Rights which are recognised under any State law or laws of any Autonomous District Council or Autonomous Regional Council or which are accepted as rights of these fisher folk under any traditional or customary law of the concerned fisher folk of any State/UT;

(g) Right of access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity;

(h) Any other traditional right customarily enjoyed by the traditional fisher folk;

(i) Right to in situ rehabilitation including alternative land in cases where the traditional fisher folk have been illegally evicted or displaced from coastal land of any description without receiving their legal entitlement to rehabilitation prior to enaction of this Bill..

(j) Notwithstanding anything contained above, the respective State Governments or Union Territories may provide for establishment of the following facilities managed by the Government, namely:--(i) schools; (ii) dispensary or hospital; (iii) anganwadis; (iv) electric and telecommunication lines; (v) tanks and other minor water bodies; (vi) drinking water supply and water pipelines; (vii) fish auction halls; (viii) fish curing halls; (ix) net mending yards; (x) disaster warning centres; (xi) boat repair and boat building facilities; (xii) crematoria and burial grounds for fisher folk; (xiii) non-conventional source of energy; (xiv) skill up-gradation or vocational training centres; (xv) roads; and (xvi) community centres:

3.5.2 Expenditure towards all the above social / economic commitment would accrue from activities under paragraph 12.2 as well as grants from Government of India / State Governments.

3.5.3 Strengthening of Functions of State/UT Fisheries Department: The State Government shall actively move to strengthen the various Fisheries Departments/Agencies functioning in various states/UTs. The functions of these Fisheries shall be expanded to, inter alia, include:

(i) Establishment of markets for the purchase at fair prices of the catch obtained by fisher folk using traditional means as defined under this Bill;

(ii) Encourage the development of fisheries cooperatives for the purchase of the catch procured through traditional means;

(iii) Specify rates for the purchase of the catch from the fisher folk from time to time;

(iv) Establishment of Ice-plants/Cold-Storage facilities for preservation of catch to the fisher folk;

(v) Provisions for cold chain for transport purposes to markets outside the vicinity of the place of catch to the fisher folk;

(vi) Establishment of other relevant technological inputs such as fish processing units and cleaning facilities etc

(vii) Provision of technical and financial assistance in the form of loans to buy traditional boats and gears and other facilities necessary for fish processing and marketing;

(viii) Provision to provide training and knowledge transfer for enhancing fishing capabilities, processing and marketing;

(ix) Any other functions that may be prescribed by the State Governments from time to time

(x) Provision of effective micro finance to fisherwomen in their fish marketing activities.

CHAPTER - IV
4.0 AUTHORITIES AND PROCEDURE FOR VESTING OF RIGHTS

4.1 Authorities to vest rights in traditional fisher folk and others and procedure thereof

(a) Panchayat Act shall be amended in such a way that all Panchayat that dot the sea shore line shall have 75% representation from “Aboriginal Fishermen Tribes”.

(b) Such Panchayat shall be declared as “Fisher folk Panchayat” and these elections shall be overseen by Election Commission of India.

(c) These Panchayat shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community rights or both that may be given to the traditional fisher folk within the local limits of its jurisdiction under this Bill, and for preparing a map delineating the area along with a list of attendant rights accruing to the fisher folk of that area under its jurisdiction in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government; and the Panchayat shall then pass a resolution to that effect and thereafter forward a copy of the same to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.

(d) Every District shall set up a District Level Monitoring Committee (DLMC) comprising of 12 members. Six members of DLMC shall be elected by the Collegium of “ Elected Panchayat Presidents ” . The remaining 6 members to be appointed by the State Government. The tenure of members of DLMG shall be for a period of 5 years.

(e) The tenure of “Chairmanship of DLMC” would be for 1 year period and would be on rotation basis from amongst the 6 elected Panchayat Presidents who will be members of DLMC.

(f) Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Panchayat may refer a petition to the DLMC and the DLMC shall consider and dispose of such petition: Provided that every such petition shall be referred within sixty days from the date of passing of the resolution by the Panchayat. Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case

(c) A State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC) shall be constituted through election process with 12 members out of which 6 members would be elected from amongst DLMC. The other 6 members would be appointed by the State Government. The majority ruling by DLMC will be final and binding on all issues concerning coastal communities in any State.

(d) Any person aggrieved by the decision of DLMC may refer a petition to the SLMC within sixty days from the date of decision of the Executive Committee and shall consider and dispose of such petition: Provided that no petition shall be referred directly before the SLMC against the resolution of the Panchayat unless the same has been preferred before and considered by DLMC: Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case

(e) The decision of SLMC on the record of rights of fisher folk shall be final and binding

4.2 Roles and Functions of “Fisher Folk Panchayat”

The Principal functions of these “Fisher folk Panchayat” shall, inter alia, include

(a) Registration and Regulation of the number of traditional fishing boats in a particular area delineated by them;

(b) Establishment of dwelling units for all registered traditional fisher folk;

(c) Ensure the preservation and protection of surrounding ecosystems including but not limited to mangroves, coral reefs, sea grass beds, sea weeds etc.

(d) Prevention of Pollution and Land degradation in surrounding areas

(e) Ensure prevention of over fishing in coastal areas by

(i) designating certain periods as fishing holidays and;

(ii) drafting and implementing mesh size regulations for use by fisher folk both traditional and those using mechanised means.

(iii) Obtaining periodic information from local meteorological department/Disaster Management Authority of variations in weather patterns or such Activity that may qualify as natural disasters and alert the fisher folk of the same in a reasonable amount of time;

`(iv) Providing all manner of assistance for rescue, relief and rehabilitation of victims of natural disasters in the area of jurisdiction;

(i) Any other function that the State Government in consultation with the Central Government may prescribe from time to time.

(ii) Collection of revenue a from activities under clause 3.4,

4.3 Establishment of “ Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean Resources Conservation” (MFORC)

4.3.1 This Bill mandates the establishment of “Union Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean Resources” with the following mandate (i) Conservation and Management of fisheries and Ocean Resources (ii) trade policies that drive fisheries development, (iii) Registration of all fishing boats using the Merchant Shipping Act, (iv) Administration of Wildlife Protection Act, especially those dealing with Marine and Ocean Resources as well as coastal zones off 200 kilometers from coastline including all water bodies and Rivers (v) Coastal Impact Assessment and Environmental clearances for all industries within 200 kilometers from shore line (vi) and each State Government can manage the fishery policies. )

4.3.2 Department of Ocean Development shall be the “Precursor Department” in MFORC. Other Government Ministries such as (i) Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) (ii) Ministry of Agriculture (iii) Ministry of Shipping (iii) Ministry of Women and Child Development (iv) Ministry of Welfare and Social Justice shall transfer all such subjects and matters concerning coastal development, coastal management, CRZ, environmental clearances, social welfare concerning fisher folk etc to MFORC.

CHAPTER V
5.0 PENALTIES

5.1 The State/UT Fisheries Department with appropriate consultation and approval (s) from SLMC will take stringent action to prevent and punish, inter alia, the following actions:

(a) Destruction of Ecosystem by practices that are harmful to the surrounding ecosystem;

(b) Indiscriminate pollution and dumping of solid waste into the coastal waters defined under the Bill;

(c) Destruction of fishing habitats by over-fishing or by dredging or by reclamation or by construction of such structures which affect the fishing and spawning areas;

(d) Destruction of the dwelling units or any part of the coastal village area for those developmental activities which are not sanctioned or permitted by the concerned agencies

5.2 The State Government in consultation with SLMC shall prescribe and levy penalties for all the above acts from time to time which shall be in addition to punishment for the same as prescribed under different statutes and legislations

CHAPTER VI
6.0 POWER TO MAKE RULES

6.1 The State Government in consultation and necessary approvals from SLMC, may, by notification, and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Bill
.
6.2 In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--

(a) Procedural details for implementation of the functions as specified in this Bill.

(b) The procedure for listing and compiling rights and verifying them and preparing a map delineating the area of jurisdiction under each Panchayat for exercise of rights and the manner of preferring a petition to DLMC;

(c) The level of officers and the various relevant departments of the State Government to be appointed as members of DLMC and SLMC.

(d) Any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.

CHAPTER - VII.

7.1 RIGHTS OVER “ TRADITIONAL WATERS ” IN SEAS OFF INDIAN COAST

7.1.1 The Government of India recognizes that fishermen tribes lived in India’s coastal villages from time immemorial and through this Bill , assigns them rights over the first 100 miles of India’s Exclusive Economic Zone to fish with their traditional non-mechanized fishing vessels like “catamaran”, “vallam” etc..

7.1.2 This Bill further bans all kind of mechanized fishing boats from operating (i) In territorial waters (12 miles from coast), Contiguous Zone (extending 24 miles from coastline) and (iii) 100 Miles of EEZ.

7.1.3 The Government shall henceforth associate “Fishermen Aborigin Tribal” representatives in decision making for all economic activities within India’s EEZ that shall impact marine life and the Ocean ecosystem, with which these communities have lived in harmony for thousands of years.

7.1.4 This Bill ensures a total Ban on issue of new permits for mechanized fishing boats, trawlers and factory ships as well as abolition of all foreign Joint Ventures (JVs) in fishing activities within India’s EEZ.

7.2 RESERVATION FOR “FISHERMEN ABORIGINAL TRIBES” in EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT JOBS AND SPECIAL RESERVATION IN PRIVATE INDUSTRIES LOCATED WITHIN 200 KILOMETERS OF COASTLINE AND OFFSHORE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

7.2.1 Reservations in Government Employment

Government of India make necessary amendments to the Constitution to recognize “Fishermen Tribes” as “Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes” and reserve 5% of jobs in Government of India and State Governments for these tribes.

7.2.2 Reservations in Indian Navy

Government of India shall make necessary amendments to Indian Defence Act to reserve 20% of jobs in Indian Navy for “Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes”.

7.2.3 Reservations in Merchant Shipping

Government of India shall make necessary amendments to Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 to reserve 20% of the vacancies in Indian flagged Merchant Ships for “Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes”.

7.2.4 Reservation in Government of India Educational Institutions.

Government of India shall issue necessary notifications to reserve 5 % reservation in all Government funded educational institutions for “Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes”.

7.2.4 Reservation in Private Sector Jobs in Industries located within 200 Kms of Coast line

GOI shall issue necessary notification for reservation of 5% of jobs in industries that have a minimum turnover of Rs 15 crores annually and located within 200 kms of coast line.

7.2.5 Reservations in Offshore Oil Companies

Oil companies both Government owned as well as those in Private Sector that operate offshore oil / Gas Rigs, pipelines or any associated economic activity shall reserve 10% jobs.

CHAPTER – VIII

8.0 REGULATION OF FISHING IN INDIAN TERRITORIALWATERS AND EXCLUSIVE ECNOMIC ZONE (EEZ)

8.1 Management of Fishing Activities

8.1.1 .Government of India recognizes the fact that mechanized boats and vessels have wreaked destruction on fishing stocks. This Bill is aimed at improving the basis of the decision-making process through sound and transparent scientific advice and increased participation of stakeholders. Coherence with other policies of the Government of India, such as environmental and development policies with accountability and effectiveness.

8.1.2 This Bill shall ensure sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources as well as taking precautionary approach to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems. This approach will contribute to efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture industry, providing a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities and taking into account the interests of consumers.

8.1.3 This Bill shall introduce a long-term approach to fisheries management, involving the establishment of multi-annual recovery plans for stocks outside safe biological limits and of multi-annual management plans for other stocks. It is aimed to progressively implement an eco-system-based approach to fisheries management. As part of this approach, the following measures shall take effect immediately on passing of this Bill in the Parliament :

8.2 TOTAL BAN ON FOREIGN VESSELS AND FOREIGN JOINT VENTURES

8.2.1 A total ban is imposed on fishing by foreign vessels as well as vessels owned by individuals, corporation, company or any other entity on a Joint Venture basis with Indian entitities as per provisions under Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishery by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981 and any other Notifications, Gazettes etc issued by competent authorities of Government of India.

8.2.2 Those foreign vessels as well as Indian vessels operating under a Joint Venture shall be permitted operate up to the validity date of such license OR 18 (eighteen) months from the date of official notification of this act, whichever is earlier.

8.3 TRADITIONAL NON MECHANISED CATAMARAN

8.3.4 Traditional Non–Mechanized Catamaran and non-mechanized sailing boats meant for fishing, shall have exclusive rights to fish in India’s territorial waters as well as the first 100 nautical miles of India’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

8.3.5 This Act imposes a total ban on fishing by mechanized vessels of “All Categories” within India’s territorial waters (12 Kms from shore line) as well as within the first 100 miles of India’s EEZ.

8.3.6 Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is hereby mandated to fix Global Positioning System (GPS) / GSM – Satellite communication Module in every traditional Non-Mechanized Catamaran.

8.3.7 MoEF shall bear the cost towards fixing of these modules from revenues generated from environment tax as highlighted at paragraph 12.2 of this Bill.

8.3.8 Having enjoyed unhindered access for thousands and thousands of years , over the Ocean overlooking Indian subcontinent and its Islands by India’s traditional fishermen, this Bill empowers these fishermen to operate in a unhindered way, their Non-Mechanized fishing catamaran, to operate all over Indian territorial waters, India’s EEZ and beyond to conduct fishing activities in their traditional fishing “Grounds”.

8.4 MECHANISED FISHING VESSELS WITHIN 8 METERS LENGTH

8.4.1 Licenses issued for this category of vessels shall automatically lapse on expiry date or 2 years from enacting of this Bill, which ever is earlier.

8.4.2 New licenses would be issued by respective State Government’s upon consultation with DLMCs.

8.4.3 In order to avoid over exploitation by “Commercial Interests” of the fishery resources, this Bill mandates that in future, permits issued for mechanized fishing vessels of this category should be issued to members of “Fishermen Tribes” only and not for rank outsiders who enter this trade with the sole purpose of “commercial exploitation” of depleting fishing resources. This process shall ensure sustainable fishing and the rush to make profits by “over exploitation” of fishery resources by marina products exporting companies.

8.4.4 The Government shall ensure that in the next five years time, from enacting this Bill in the Parliament, “Outside Ownership” of these Mechanised fishing boats are phased out and transferred / reissued to members of “Fisher Folk Aboriginal Tribes”.

8.4.5 All mechanized fishing vessels of this category shall mandatorily fix Global Positioning System (GPS) certified by ISRO, in addition to radio communication modules .

8.4.6 MFORC shall set up monitoring Units in coordination with Indian Coast Guard to plot the activities of these vessels to prevent them from transgressing into waters reserved for traditional non-mechanized catamaran boats, within the 12 nautical miles of territorial waters as well as the 100 nautical miles of the EEZ.

8.4.7 First three violations shall attract a fine of Rs 10,000, 20,000 and 50,000 respectively. Any further violation by the vessel shall result in cancellation of license and banning of all operating personnel from fishing for a period of five years, including impounding and confiscation of the fishing vessel.

8.4.8 Every order granting or rejecting an application for the grant of a permit shall be in writing.

8.4.9 A permit granted under this Bill :

(a) shall be in such form as may be prescribed;

(b) shall be valid for such areas, for such period, for such method of fishing and for such purposes as may be specified therein, and in rules made in this regard;

(c) may be renewed from time to time; and

(d) shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed under rules made under this Bill , such other additional conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the permits, and any fisheries management plan or plans.

8.4.11 A permit granted under this Bill shall at all times be placed onboard of the fishing vessel and shall be produced by the master of the vessel upon boarding and during the search of the vessel under this Bill ;

8.4.12 A permit granted under this Bill shall be non-transferable and cannot be assigned to any third party or third party interest created in respect thereof, except with the prior written permission of the Central Government which may be provided under rules prescribed in this regard;

8.4.13 A person holding a permit under this section shall ensure that every person employed or otherwise engaged by him complies, in the course of such employment or engagement with the provisions of this Bill or any rule or order or any fisheries management plan made there under and the conditions of such permit.

8.4.14. The Central Government may withhold the issuance of permits, and/or alter the conditions of a permit issued, having regard to matters relating to protection of national security of India, maintenance of law and order in the maritime zones of India or any other matter relating to public interest.

8.4.15 The Central Government may, through notification in this regard, exempt a Government entity, or corporation or any class of vessel(s) from the requirement of a permit.

8.4.16 State Governments in consultation with “fishermen Tribes” who operate this category of mechanized vessels shall fix 5 months in a year for fishing operations, the rest of the month should be “off season” for operation of mechanized boats for allowing the “fish stocks” to recover for the rest of the year.

8.4.17 This Bill also bans pair trawling of vessels within Indian EEZ on order to protect over exploitation of the fishing resources and destruction of juvenile fishes in large scale.

8.4.18 Similarly all fishing activity is banned in India’s EEZ during November of every year in order to allow fish to breed.

8.4.19 All mechanized boats that operate in EEZ should return every day by 12 noon, if they do not return a ban of 7 days shall be imposed for the first violation, 1 month for second and 3 months for 3rd violation. Any violations beyond the 3rd one shall resulf in revoking the Fishing Permit for the boat.

8.5 MECHANISED FISHING BETWEEN 8 AND 15 METERS IN LENGTH

8.5.1 This Bill imposes a summary ban on all kind of fishing vessels beyond a length of 15 meters, within India’s territorial waters, EEZ.

8.5.2 This category would be permitted to fish only outside India’s EEZ. However they have to comply with conventions and Agreements signed by the Government of India as a result of UN General Assembly Resolutions.

8.5.2 Revenue Authorities in coastal districts ( OR any other entity as designated by Government of India) and all Indian Islands are authorized to issue Smart Card Ownership Permits to all such fishing vessels beyond 8 Meters length but within 15 meters.

8.5.3 These mechanized fishing boats, shall be permitted to fish beyond India’s Exclusive Economic Zone, i.e. beyond 200 miles of the Indian coast line.

8.5.4 All mechanized fishing vessels of this category shall mandatorily fix Global Positioning System (GPS) duly approved by ISRO. Such GPS units should also bear a signature on the ownership status of the respective vessels. In addition these vessels shall have all communication and navigation equipment as prescribed by Ministry of Shipping, Government of India.

8.5.5 MoEF shall set up monitoring Units in coordination with Indian Coast Guard to plot the activities of these vessels to prevent them from transgressing into waters reserved for traditional non-mechanized catamaran boats.

8.5.6 First three violations shall attract a fine of Rs 50,000, Rs 100,000 and Rs 250,000 respectively. Any further violation by the vessel shall result in cancellation of license, including impounding and confiscation of the fishing vessel.

8.5.7 Every application undershall be made in such form and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.

8.5.8 Every order granting or rejecting an application for the granting of a permit shall be in writing.

8.5.9 A permit granted under this Bill :

(a) shall be in such form as may be prescribed;

(b) shall be valid for such areas, for such period, for such method of fishing and for such purposes as may be specified therein, and in rules made in this regard;

(c) may be renewed from time to time; and

(d) shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed under rules made under this Bill , such other additional conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the permits, and any fisheries management plan ;

8.5.10 A permit granted under this Bill shall at all times be placed onboard of the fishing vessel and shall be produced by the master of the vessel upon boarding and during the search of the vessel as per this Bill;

(i) A permit granted under this Bill shall be non-transferable and cannot be assigned to any third party or third party interest created in respect thereof, except with the prior written permission of the Central Government which may be provided under rules prescribed in this regard;

(ii) A person holding a permit under this section shall ensure that every person employed or otherwise engaged by him complies, in the course of such employment or engagement with the provisions of this Bill or any rule or order or any fisheries management plan made there under and the conditions of such permit.

(iii) The Central Government may withhold the issuance of permits, and/or alter the conditions of a permit issued under this Bill having regard to matters relating to protection of national security of India, maintenance of law and order in the maritime zones of India or any other matter relating to public interest.

(iv) The Central Government may, through notification in this regard, exempt a Government entity, or corporation or any class of vessel(s) from the requirement of a permit.

8.6 Cancellation or Suspension of a Permit

(i) The Central Government may cancel or suspend a permit granted under this Bill if there is reasonable cause to believe that

(a) there has been a violation of any of the provisions of this Bill , or

(b) there has occurred a contravention of the provisions of any permit or any conditions or restrictions specified in any, permit, or of any rules made under this Bill , or of any fisheries management plan, or

(c) that the permit or any renewal thereof has been issued on false or erroneous information.

(ii) Before any permit is cancelled, or suspended under sub-section (1) the holder of the permit shall be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why the permit should not be cancelled or suspended, as the case may be. PROVIDED that this sub-section shall not apply where the Central Government is satisfied that, for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give to the holder of the permit an opportunity for showing cause.

(iii) Every person whose permit has been canceled or suspended under shall immediately after such suspension or cancellation, stop fishing or undertaking the relevant fishing activity in respect of which the permit had been given and shall not resume such fishing or fishing activity, as the case may be, until such order has been revoked in writing.

(iv) The Central Government may also cancel a permit issued under this Bill, having regard to matters relating to protection of national security of India, maintenance of law and order in the maritime zones of India or any other matter relating to public interest.

(v) Every holder of a permit which is suspended or cancelled shall, immediately after such suspension or cancellation, surrender such permit as the case may be, to the Central Government.

8.7 Entry of Vessel without Permit

Every vessel that enters any of the maritime zones of India without a valid permit granted under this Bill , shall ensure that its fishing gear and equipment is, at all times and for such period of time as it is in such maritime zone, kept stowed in the prescribed manner.

8.8 Regulation of Scientific Research

Central Government may, through a permission issued in writing, permit a vessel to be used for fishing within any maritime zone of India for the purposes of carrying out any scientific research or investigation or for any experimental fishing in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.

CHAPTER IX

MANAGEMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES
AND RIGHTS OF COASTAL FISHING COMMUNITIES

9.0 MANAGEMENT OF FISHERY RESOURCES PRINCIPLES FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION

(i) This Bill mandates, National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) to set up “Branch Stations” in every Coastal State as well as in Port Blair, Kavaratt and any other coastal areas / islands as deemed fit from time to time.

(ii) Within 18 months from enactment of this Bill , NIO shall come out with “Capacity Mapping” of fishing resources in the first 100 miles of EEZ which is being exclusively reserved for Non-Mechanized traditional fishing vessels.

(iii) Whereas traditional non-mechanized fishing boats shall not have any “qota system” or “Permits” for fishing, this Bill introduces a “quota system” for mechanized boats and ships of all categories.

(iv) Within 36 months from the date of this Bill, resource allocation for mechanized boats, trawlers and factory ships would be determined and fresh permits would be issued with “permissible quotas”. Such allocation would be done with concurrence of “Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes”.

(iv) “Eco-system Approach” as developed by the FAO along with “precautionary” principles would be the guiding principle that NIO would follow on the matter of resource allocation.

9.1 Application of the “ Principle of Subsidiarity”

(i) This Bill recognizes the “Principle of Subsidiarity” ie.. nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. This principle, when applied to the fishing fleet, means that resources that can be caught by smaller and less powerful units should not be caught by the larger or more powerful units. It means that larger and more powerful fishing boats and gears should be permitted only if the less powerful units cannot harvest the resources up to permissible limits.

(ii) In compliance with the above principle, this Bill mandates ;

(a) Elimination of all kinds of mechanized boats, trawlers and factory ships in the first 100 miles of EEZ.

(b) A total freeze in issuing of fresh “Permits” for mechanized fishing vessels of all categories.

(c) Progressive reduction in the trawl fleet and the consequent increase in the access of resources to the small motorized fleet of 8 meters and less in the last 100 Miles of Indian EEZ.

(d) Complete ban on large industrial vessels of 25 tonnes – 60 HP capacity and above within 3 years from passing of this Bill in the Parliament or the lapse of existing permits for such vessels, whichever is earlier.

(e) Decommissioning of large vessels to go concomitant to issue of permits for “owner operated” indigenous “Thoothoor Boats” for long lines and gillnets fishing within the entire stretch of EEZ .

9.2 Regulation of “Factory Ships”, Trawlers and Vessels of 25 tonnes or 60 HP Capacity

(i) This Bill recognizes the fact that the entire mechanized fleet requires tough and rigorous regulation and the following shall take effect immediately on passing of this Bill in the Parliament ;

(ii) Ministry of Fishing to appoint “Chief Fishing Inspector” (CFI) with judicial powers for each of the coastal states and in Port Blair and Kavaratti.

(iii) Every 50 sq km of EEZ beyond 100 Miles (the first 100 miles reserved for non-mechanized fishing vessels) shall have a “Fishing Inspector”.

(iv) A patrol-cum-attack boat shall be assigned to each “Fishing Inspector” (FI) and the boat under overall command of an Officer from the “Coast Guard” or “Indian Navy”.

(v) The FI shall report directly to the CFI for violations in (a) number of vessels operating within the zone (b) compliance for size, HP, type and quantum of gear, limited areas of operation, limited period of operation, maintenance of log books, etc.,

(vi) Non motorized catamarans shall be self regulated by “fishing Ombudsman” to be appointed by each fishing village. Such “fishing Ombudsman” shall work in close coordination with CFI to ensure sustainable fishing within these craft as well especially those related to deployment of destructive gears.

9.3 . Owner-Operator Principle and limiting boat ownership

(i) This Bill recognizes the principle of “owner – operator “ the same way “land to the tiller” policy that guided Government of India’s agrarian policies aimed at elimination of absentee land-lords.

(ii) Henceforth “fisheries” shall not be considered as an investor oriented sector, but one that would be “owner-operated” and Government shall assist “fishermen aborigine tribes” financial assistance in gradually making the fishing fleet “owner operated”.

(iii) “Permits” for fishing shall henceforth be given to members of “Fishermen Aborigine Tribes” and a separate fund shall be created by Government of India to finance purchase of mechanized fishing boats by these people.

(iv) This Bill proposes elimination of “multiple ownership” within 3 years from the date of issue of official notification of this Act by the Government.

(v) This Bill imposes a total ban on “Multiple ownership” of mechanized fishing vessel, subject to the condition that a person will not be allowed to own more than one boat.

(vi) The aim of this Bill is also to progressively decrease the fleet strength to make fishing sustainable with a long term goal to make available fishing resources for the people of India.

9.4 Reservation of “Ownership Permits” for “Fishermen Aborigine Tribes”

Recognition of the historical right of the traditional marine “Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes” of India, henceforth “Fishing Permits” shall be issued exclusively to members of the tribes as mentioned in this Bill.

9.5 Women folk in down stream trading of fish

(i) This Bill recognizes the role played by fisherwomen in post-harvest activities and fish-vending.

(ii) Management plans and resource allocation policies of the Government shall henceforth be geared towards addressing issues related to the fisherwomen and the role played by them in the entire fishing industry value chain. The Bill proposes the following measures :

(a) NABARD and other Public Sector banks to extend “Micro-Financing” facilities aimed at the fisher women belonging to “Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes”

(b) MPEDA to be the nodal agency to coordinate welfare measures for fisherwomen.

(c ) MPEDA Act to be amended to include 50% reservations in marine processing units for “fishermen Aboriginal tribe” women.

(d) Ministry of Welfare to introduce centrally available welfare schemes for Tribal women to fisher women as well.

9.6 Sharing of resources with neighbours—reciprocal access to neighbouring countries:

9.6.1 An Inter-Governmental Fisheries Council to be set up with members from Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and other related agencies of Government of India to ensure international cooperation in fisheries management of India’s fisheries resources. This Inter-Governmental Council shall address illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and other fishing practices by foreign vessels operating outside India’s EEZ. The Council shall also support and encourage the implementation and enforcement of international fishery agreements for conservation and management of highly migratory species, and to encourage the negotiation and implementation of additional such agreements if necessary.

9.6.2 The Government of India takes cognizance of 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS), that requires nation States to take conservation measures to protect the living resources of the high seas, (articles 116, 117, 118, 119, 120), to co-operate and enter into negotiations with "States whose nationals exploit identical living resources, or different living resources in the same area," (article 118); "to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors," (article 119); and to conserve and manage marine mammals in the high seas (article 120).

9.6.3 The Government of India also recognizes that UNCLOS subjects the freedom of fish on the high seas to "treaty obligations" (article 116 (a)) and "the rights and duties as well as the interests of coastal States" as provided for in provisions dealing with straddling stocks (article 63(2)), highly migratory species (article 64), marine mammals (article 65), anadromous stocks (article 66) and catadromous species (article 67). In order to claim a right to fish on the high seas a State must fulfill the conditions specified.

9.6.4 This Act also takes into account “The Langkawi Declaration” adopted by Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) meeting in October 1989, which committed member States to discourage and restrict non-sustainable fisheries and to seek to ban on “Tangle Net” and “Pelagic Driftnet” fishing.

CHAPTER - X.

10.0 ACTION TO STRENGTHEN INTERNATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATIONS.

10.1 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF FISH STOCKS

The Government of India, shall take actions to improve the effectiveness of international fishery management organizations in conserving and managing fish stocks in EEZ and in international waters off India . These actions shall include—

(i) urging international fishery management organizations to which the India is a member—

(a) to incorporate multilateral market-related measures against member or non-member governments whose vessels engage in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing;

(b) to seek adoption of lists that identify fishing vessels and vessel owners engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing that can be shared among all members and other international fishery management organizations;

(c) to seek international adoption of a centralized vessel monitoring system in order to monitor and document capacity in fleets of all nations involved in fishing in areas under an international fishery management organization’s jurisdiction;

(d) to increase use of observers and technologies needed to monitor compliance with conservation and management measures established by the organization, including vessel monitoring systems and automatic identification systems; and

(e) to seek adoption of stronger port state controls in all nations, particularly those nations in whose ports vessels engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing land or transship fish;

(ii) urging international fishery management organizations to which India is a member, as well as all members of those organizations, to adopt and expand the use of market related measures to combat illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing, including

(a) import prohibitions, landing restrictions, or other market-based measures needed to enforce compliance with international fishery management organization measures, such as quotas and catch limits;

(b) import restrictions or other market-based measures to prevent the trade or importation of fish caught by vessels identified multilaterally as engaging in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing; and

(c) catch documentation and certification schemes to improve tracking and identification of catch of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing, including advance transmission of catch documents to ports of entry; and

(iii) urging other nations at bilateral, regional, and international levels, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora and the World Trade Organization to take all steps necessary, consistent with international law, to adopt measures and policies that will prevent fish or other living marine resources harvested by vessels engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing from being traded or imported into their nation or territories.

10.2 ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED, OR UNREGULATED FISHING.

10.2.1 IDENTIFICATION.—The Government of India shall identify, and report to relevant international organizations including WTO, a nation, if fishing vessels of that nation are engaged, or have been engaged at any point during the preceding 2 years, in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing—

(i) the relevant international fishery management organization has failed to implement effective measures to end the illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing activity by vessels of that nation or the nation is not a party to, or does not maintain cooperating status with, such organization; or

(ii) where no international fishery management organization exists with a mandate to regulate the fishing activity in question.

10.2.2 NOTIFICATION.— Similarly Government of India shall prepare a detailed report on the violation and forward this repot to relevant International Fishing bodies illegal use of Driftnets by Trawlers and factory ships and also notify that nation of such identification, through Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.

10.2.3 CONSULTATION.—No later than 60 days after submitting a reports of such violation by fishing vessel the following measures shall be initiated forthwith ;

(i) notify nations listed in the report of the requirements of this section;

(ii) initiate consultations for the purpose of encouraging such nations to take the appropriate corrective action with respect to the offending activities of their fishing vessels identified in the report; and

(iii) notify any relevant international fishery management organization of the actions taken by India under this section.

10.2.4 CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE

(i) CERTIFICATION.—The Government of India shall establish a procedure, consistent with the provisions of international treaties, for determining if an identified nation has taken appropriate corrective action with respect to the offending activities of its fishing vessels identified in the report submitted by India. The certification procedure shall provide for notice and an opportunity for comment by any such nation. Within 90 days from submission of relevant report, Ministry of External Affairs shall convey to all Regional Ocean and Fishery Resources Management Boards (ROFRMB) the following;

(A) whether the government of each nation identified under various subsection(s) has provided documentary evidence that it has taken corrective action with respect to the offending activities of its fishing vessels identified in the report; or

(B) whether the relevant international fishery management organization has implemented measures that are effective in ending the illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing activity by vessels of that nation.

(ii) ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE.—The Government of India may establish a procedure for certification, on a shipment-by-shipment, shipper-by-shipper, or other basis of fish or fish products from a vessel of a harvesting nation not certified under paragraph

(1) if the Government of India determines that—

(A) the vessel has not engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing under an international fishery management agreement to which the India is a party; or

(B) the vessel is not identified by an international fishery management organization as participating in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing Activities.

(iii) EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION

(a) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of this Act shall apply to any nation identified under relevant subsection that has not been certified by the Government of India under this subsection, or for which the Government of India has issued a negative certification under this subsection; but shall not apply to any nation identified under this subsection for which the Government of India has issued a positive certification under this subsection.

(b) EXCEPTIONS

(i) to the extent that such provisions would apply to sport fishing equipment or to fish or fish products not managed under the applicable international fishery agreement; or

(ii) if there is no applicable international fishery agreement, to the extent that such provisions would apply to fish or fish products caught by vessels not engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing.

10.3 ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED, OR UNREGULATED FISHING DEFINED.—

10.3.1 IN GENERAL.—In this Bill the term ‘illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing’ has the meaning establish.

(i) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO DEFINE TERM WITHIN LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES.— Within 3 months after the date of enactment of this Bill, the Government of India shall publish a definition of the term ‘illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing’ for purposes of this Bill .

(ii) GUIDELINES.—The Government of India shall include in the definition, at a minimum—

(A) fishing activities that violate conservation and management measures required under an international fishery management agreement to which the India is a party, including catch limits or quotas, capacity restrictions, and by catch reduction requirements;

(B) over-fishing of fish stocks shared by India, for which there are no applicable international conservation or management measures or in areas with no applicable international fishery management organization or agreement, that has adverse impacts on such stocks; and

(C) fishing activity that has an adverse impact on seamounts, hydrothermal vents, and cold water corals located beyond national jurisdiction, for which there are no applicable conservation or management measures or in areas with no applicable international fishery management organization or agreement.

10.3.2 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Government of India for fiscal years 2010 through 2015 such sums as are necessary to carry out this section.

10.4 EQUIVALENT CONSERVATION MEASURES

10.4.1 IDENTIFICATION.—The Government of India shall identify, and list in the report , a nation if—

(i) fishing vessels of that nation are engaged, or have been engaged during the preceding calendar year in fishing activities or practices;

(A) in waters beyond any national jurisdiction that result in by catch of a protected living marine resource; or

(B) beyond the exclusive economic zone of the India that result in by catch of a protected living marine resource shared by the India;

(ii) the relevant international organization for the conservation and protection of such resources or the relevant international or regional fishery organization has failed to implement effective measures to end or reduce such bycatch, or the nation is not a party to, or does not maintain cooperating status with, such organization; and

(iii) the nation has not adopted a regulatory program governing such fishing practices designed to end or reduce such by catch that is comparable to that of the India, taking into account different conditions.

10.4.2 CONSULTATION AND NEGOTIATION.—The Government of India, shall—

(i) notify, as soon as possible, other nations whose vessels engage in fishing activities or practices described in subsection (a), about the provisions of this section and this Bill;

(ii) initiate discussions as soon as possible with all foreign governments which are engaged in, or which have persons or companies engaged in, fishing activities or practices described in subsection (a), for the purpose of entering into bilateral and multilateral treaties with such countries to protect such species;

(iii) seek agreements calling for international restrictions on fishing activities or practices described in sub-section (a) through the United Nations, the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Committee on Fisheries, and appropriate international fishery management bodies; and

(iv) initiate the amendment of any existing international treaty for the protection and conservation of such species to which the India is a party in order to make such treaty consistent with the purposes and policies of this section.

10.4.3 CONSERVATION CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE.—

(i) DETERMINATION.—The Government of India shall establish a procedure consistent with the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, India Code, for determining whether the government of a harvesting nation identified under this Bill

(a) has provided documentary evidence of the adoption of a regulatory program governing the conservation of the protected living marine resource that is comparable to that of India, taking into account different conditions, and which, in the case of pelagic long line fishing, includes mandatory use of circle hooks, careful handling and release equipment, and training and observer programs; and

(b) has established a management plan containing requirements that will assist in gathering species-specific data to support international stock assessments and conservation enforcement efforts for protected living marine resources.

(ii) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT.—The procedure established by the Government of India, shall include notice and opportunity for comment by any such nation.

(iii) CERTIFICATION.—The Government of India shall certify to the Parliament within six months from enactment of this Bill , and biennially thereafter whether each such nation has provided the documentary evidence described in above and established a management plan.

(iv) ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE.—The Government of India shall establish a procedure for certification, on a shipment-by-shipment, shipper-by-shipper, or other basis of fish or fish products from a vessel of a harvesting nation not certified under this Bill if the Government of India determines that such imports were harvested by practices that do not result in by catch of a protected marine species, or were harvested by practices that—

(A) are comparable to those of India, taking into account different conditions, and which, in the case of pelagic long line fishing, includes mandatory use of circle hooks, careful handling and release equipment, and training and observer programs; and

(B) include the gathering of species specific data that can be used to support international and regional stock assessments and conservation efforts for protected living marine resources.

(C) INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE.—To the greatest extent possible consistent with existing authority and the availability of funds, the Government of India shall—

(i) provide appropriate assistance to nations identified by the Government of India under this Bill and international organizations of which those nations are members to assist those nations in qualifying for certification.

(ii) undertake, where appropriate, cooperative research activities on species statistics and improved harvesting techniques, with those nations or organizations;

(iii) encourage and facilitate the transfer of appropriate technology to those nations or organizations to assist those nations in qualifying for certification under this Bill and

(iv) provide assistance to those nations or organizations in designing and implementing appropriate fish harvesting plans.

10.4.4 PROTECTED LIVING MARINE RESOURCE DEFINED.—In this section the term ‘protected living marine resource’—

(I) means non-target fish, sea turtles, or marine mammals that are protected under India law or international agreement, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Shark Finning Prohibition Bill, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna; but

(II) does not include species, except sharks, managed under the Atlantic Tunas Convention , or any international fishery management agreement.

10.4.5 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—These are authorized to be appropriated to the Government of India for fiscal years 2010 through 2015 such sums as are necessary to carry out this section.

10.5 INTERNATIONAL MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE.

10.5.1 IN GENERAL.—The Government of India may undertake activities to promote improved monitoring and compliance for high seas fisheries, or fisheries governed by international fishery management agreements, and to implement the requirements of this title.

10.5.2 SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES.—In carrying out as per this Bill, the Government of India may—
(i) share information on harvesting and processing capacity and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing on the high seas, in areas covered by international fishery management agreements, and by vessels of other nations within the India exclusive economic zone, with relevant law enforcement organizations of foreign nations and relevant international organizations;

(ii) further develop real time information sharing capabilities, particularly on harvesting and processing capacity and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing;

(iii) participate in global and regional efforts to build an international network for monitoring, control, and surveillance of high seas fishing and fishing under regional or global agreements;

(iv) support efforts to create an international registry or database of fishing vessels, including by building on or enhancing registries developed by international fishery management organizations;

(v) enhance enforcement capabilities through the application of commercial or governmental remote sensing technology to locate or identify vessels engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing on the high seas, including encroachments into the exclusive economic zone by fishing vessels of other nations;

(vi) provide technical or other assistance to developing countries to improve their monitoring, control, and surveillance capabilities; and

(vii) support coordinated international efforts to ensure that all large-scale fishing vessels operating on the high seas are required by their flag State to be fitted with vessel monitoring systems no later than December 31, 2011, or earlier if so decided by the relevant flag State or any relevant international fishery management organization.

10.6 NATIONAL FISHERY PROGRAM FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

10.6.1 IN GENERAL.—Any fishery management plan prepared, and any regulation promulgated to implement any such plan, pursuant to this title shall be consistent with the following national standards for fishery conservation and management:

(i) Conservation and management measures shall prevent over fishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the India fishing industry.

(ii) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.

(iii) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit through out its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.

(iv) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various India fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.

(v) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose.

(vi) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.

(vii) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication.

(viii) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this Bill (including the prevention of over-fishing and rebuilding of over fished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data, the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.

(ix) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize by catch and (B) to the extent by catch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such by catch.

(x) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea.

10.6.2 GUIDELINES.—The Government of India shall establish advisory guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), based on the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery management plans.

CHAPTER – XI

11 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND FISHERY RESOURCES

11.1 CONSERVATION INTEGRAL TO MARINE ECOLOGY

11.1.1 .The Government of India recognizes that fisheries resources could no longer sustain in a rapid and often uncontrolled exploitation and development trajectory as exemplified by the growth of mechanized fishing in Indian coastal waters. There is an urgent need for new approaches to fisheries management embracing conservation and environmental considerations.

11.1.2 The Government is aware of the situation that has been aggravated by unregulated fisheries on the high seas, in some cases involving straddling of highly migratory fish species, which occur within and outside EEZs, are becoming a matter of increasing concerns.

11.1.3 The Government recognizes the fact that Gill nets that were made of nylon, replaced cotton and hemp nets used traditionally by the fishermen tribes of India from time immemorial. These policies were put into place to aid deep-sea fishing. However, boats with nylon nets ended up fishing in territorial waters, since deep-sea fishing was more expensive and riskier. This kind of development resulted in two extreme sectors: the modernized trawler boats, and the traditional fishermen, using catamarans and vallams.

11.1.4 The Government also recognizes the fact that mechanized trawlers which scrape the seabed and bring up juvenile fish and fish eggs while simultaneously destroying natural formations, which facilitate fish breeding, use active gears and have higher capacity to catch fish and thereby threatening the depletion of fisheries stocks that is the livelihood of traditional fishermen.

11.1.5 With their traditional knowledge of the sea and its environment, artisanal fishermen tribes harvest the marine resources in a moderate scale. The craft and gear deployed are the most appropriate to suit the environment and these were developed by the fishermen tribes themselves over centuries of experience and skill. The catamarans, small canoes, big canoes, vallams and different gears were all results of traditional innovations to meet the dynamics of tropical waters, multi-species, fish behaviour and seasonal changes.

11.1.6 Industrial fishing on a large scale, involving foreign vessels in Indian waters since 1970s, has resulted in the established a massive Deep Sea Fleet based out of port cities like Visakhapatnam, Chennai, Cochin etc. on the east and west coast. Starting with six vessels in 1970s, the strength of this fleet has gone up to thousands as of now. These vessels are owned mostly by foreign companies in the form of Joint Ventures with Indian entities.

11.1.7 India’s fisheries slowly started declining since 1970s with the resultant low productivity of the Indian EEZ beyond 50 m depth, coupled with lack of scientific knowledge of its marine resources and behavioral pattern of the fish stock in different seasons, has induced the industrial vessels meant for deep-sea fishing to poach in the inshore waters.

11.1.8 The Government of India also recognizes the fact that :

(i) All over the Indian coastline this encroachment of foreign vessels into the fishing area meant for traditional and small mechanized craft has generated conflict situations and heavy losses to the traditional fish workers in terms of depleting fish catch and destruction of fishing craft and gear.

(ii) There is no all India policy for fishery management - the Centre handles deep sea and the states deal with coastal fishing.

(iii) State Governments have tried to conserve fish population by resorting to command and control methods- dictating periods and time of fishing, imposing bans, specifying size of nets and kind of gear. The following examples give an idea about the command and control methods that have been previously and currently toyed with:

• Setting apart inshore waters up to a depth of 20 m for the exclusive use of the traditional fishermen.
• Ban on the use of certain methods of fishing. For instance, in 1993, the Supreme Court banned the process of bottom trawling in the monsoon seasons.
• In Goa, in 2000, all licenses of trawlers registered with the fisheries department of Goa were suspended. However, this could not be sustained on along term basis.
• A 45-day ban on the east coast of India is in place.
• Banning of midnight trawling in certain parts of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.

11.1.9 This Bill also takes into account the following initiatives that straddle the livelihood issues of traditional Indian fishermen tribes ;

(i) The Majumdar Committee (1976) Report that studied the situation regarding conflicts between traditional and modern workers and proposed the Marine Fishing Regulation Act to be passed by Parliament, and suggested a seasonal ban on trawlers.

(ii) New Deep Sea Fishing Policy (1991) The policy involved three schemes - leasing out of foreign fishing vessels to operate in the Indian EEZ, engaging foreign fishing vessels for test fishing and forming joint ventures between foreign companies and Indian companies on 49:51 equity basis in deep sea fishing, processing and marketing. Government of India started giving licenses to joint venture, lease and test fishing vessels. This policy decision led millions of artisanal fishworkers to utter poverty and destruction of social stability amongst fishermen tribal communities.

(iii) The Murari Committee (1995) recommended inclusion of a moratorium on renewal, extension or new licenses to joint venture/ charter/ lease/ test fishing vessels and cancellation of existing licenses, upgradation of the skills of the fishing community to enable them to exploit deep sea resources, a monsoon ban on trawling, fishing regulations in the entire EEZ, and separate areas for the exploitation of vessels below 20m length, and those above.

11.1.10 Some State Government Policies

(A) The Tamil Nadu Marine Fisheries Act, 1983 formulated to regulate fishing activities, protect interest of different sections, conserve fish and resolve law and order at sea. The Acts call for the reservation of three nautical miles to traditional fishermen, beyond that mechanized boats to carry operations, prescribes that mechanized fishing boats to leave only after 5 am and come back not later than 9 pm and regulates gear and mesh size.

(B) Kerala passed the Marine Fishing Regulation Act in 1980 based on the recommendations of the Majumdar Committee and banned trawlers during the monsoon period June-August in 1981. But the implementation of the law has been lax. Even the recommendations of the Babu Paul Commission, including the seasonal ban on trawling up to ten kilometers were not implemented.

(C) The Talwar Committee, appointed to enquire into the matter pertaining to conflict between the two sectors- traditional and mechanized, asked for a reduction of number of existing 5000 trawlers in Kerala to 1145.

(D) Several other states, which banned trawling for different periods, causing problems regarding encroachment from other states, then came together to implement a uniform ban along the west coast during the monsoon months.

11.2 INTEGERATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT (ICZM)

11.2.1 OBJECTIVES OF ICZM

(A) This Act recognizes the fact that Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is an integral part of management and conservation of India’s deep sea ocean resources. That

(i) ICZM is a dynamic, multidisciplinary and iterative process to promote sustainable management of coastal zones.
(ii) ICZM covers the full cycle of information collection, planning (in its broadest sense), decision making, management and monitoring of implementation.
(iii) ICZM uses the informed participation and cooperation of all stakeholders to assess the societal goals in a given coastal area, and to take Actions towards meeting these objectives.
(iv) ICZM seeks, over the long-term, to balance environmental, economic, social, cultural and recreational objectives, all within the limits set by natural dynamics.
(v) 'Integrated' in ICZM refers to the integration of objectives and also to the integration of the many instruments needed to meet these objectives.
(vi) ICZM means integration of all relevant policy areas, sectors, and levels of administration. It means integration of the terrestrial and marine components of the target territory, in both time and space.
(vii) ICZM to be a key element for the sustainable development of these zones and the role of fishing tribes who populate these ICZM is recognized and their role in bringing stability to these zones exemplified by their practices over 1000s of years is recognized by this Act.

(B) The Act recognizes the important role played by coastal communities in maintaining the ecological equilibrium of coastal areas and hence forth all ICZM Committees both at State Government as well as Union Government level shall have 3 representatives from local fishing communities who would participate in deliberations on approvals for setting up industries within their “Traditional Homeland”

(C) Any Industry that is located in the “Traditional Homeland” of coastal fishing communities should include the fishermen from that area as a stake holder and allocate 5% of the equity of such industry to the local fishermen community.

11.3 OCEAN ACIDIFICATION BY INDUSTRIES LOCATED IN COASTAL ZONES

11.3.1 This act shall regulate all Activities of industries located within 10 kilometers of Indian coast line in order to ensure that (i) liquid effluents emitted by such industries are not indiscriminately emptied into the sea nor (ii) the air emissions in coastal skyline induces acid rains in the oceans that would impact the ocean’s ecosystem.

11.3.2 The Government has taken notice of the fact that oceans and seas off Indian coast are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 55 million years, threatening disaster for marine life, including the fishery resources that forms the livelihood of fishermen tribes who inhabit the coastal areas of the country.

11.3.4 The Government recognizes that industrial activities in coastal mega cities has resulted in :

• Animals and Plants in the sea that have calcium carbonate skeletons or shells are sensitive to small changes in acidity and many of these sensitive species are directly or indirectly of great cultural, economic, or biological importance as primary producers, reef builders etc., and their destruction by the industries located in coastal zones can inflict irreparable damage to the coastal ecosystem and the fishing communities who depend on them.

• Valuable ecosystems will be further damaged if CO2 levels continue to rise by the activities of industries in coastal areas shall lead to cold water corals being exposed to corrosive waters and their eventual extinction along with 1000s of species of fish and other marine life that is dependent on coral life.

11.3.3 This Act mandates that 3 members of the local fishermen tribe is included in the Pollution Control Boards and Environment Clearance Boards of Union Ministry of Environment and forest as well as State level Environment Clearance Boards, for any industry that falls within their fishing village.

CHAPTER – XII

12 COASTAL & MARINE ENVIRONMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT TAX

12.1 This Bill empowers the Government of India to levy Coastal and Marine Environment Maintenance and Development Tax (CMEMDAT) Environment Tax on Industries located offshore as well as onshore within 200 Kms from coast line.

12.2 Environment Tax: The following environment tax structure is applicable for all industries located either offshore on India’s EEZ or within 200 Kms onshore, from the coastline:

(i) Offshore Oil & Gas Installations: All activities, either prospecting or production of offshore Oil and Gas shall attract an annual tax of 2% on the annual revenue.

(ii) Marine Food Processing Units : 5% of annual revenue

(iii) Oil Refineries : 5% of annual revenue.

(iv) Chemical, fertilizer and related units : 5 % of annual revenue.

(v) Other Industrial Units : 3 % of annual revenue.

(vi) Commercial Establishments : 2% of annual revenue.

(vii) Residential Units & Apartment complexes : 10% of the annual property tax.

(viii) Two wheelers, 3 wheelers, cars, buses, trucks and other transport vehicles : 5% of the annual vehicle tax.

(ix) Sea Ports: 15% of the annual revenue

(x) Mechanized Fishing Vessels of 100 Gross Tonnes and fitted with engines of 200 HP and above : 5 % of annual revenue

(xi) Mechanized Fishing Vessels of 25 Gross Tonnes and fitted with engines of 60 HP and above 7 meters in length : 5 % of annual revenue.

(xii) Mechanized Fishing Vessels less than 7 meters in length : 5 % of annual revenue.

12.3 SETTING UP OF DISTRICT LEVEL AND STATE LEVEL MARINE AND FISHERY RESOURCES MANAGEMENT BOARDS

12.3.1 This Act empowers the Government of India to set up :

(i) State Level Ocean and Fishery Resources Management Boards (SLO-FRMB) at every State and in Port Blair (for Eastern Island groups) and Kavarati (for Western Island Groups)

(ii) District Level Ocean and Fishery Resources Management Boards (DLO-FRMB) at every State including the Islands of Andaman-Nicobar and Lakshwadeep.

12.3.2 Objectives of SLO-FRMB and DLO-FRMB is to exercise sound judgment in the stewardship of fishery resources through the preparation, monitoring, and revision of such plans that will enable the States, the fishing industry, consumer and environmental organizations, and other interested persons to participate in, and advise on, the establishment and administration of such plans, and which take into account the social and economic needs of the concerned States;

10.3.3 All Chairperson of District Level Monitoring Committee (DLMC) shall be members of SLO-FRMB. In addition the Government shall appoint 15 member Board and the following personnel shall be members of the Board:

• Government of India ( Fisheries ) of the State Government
• Government of India (Environment) of the State Government
• Government of India (Welfare) of State Government
• Regional Commander of Indian Navy
• Regional Commander of Coast Guard
• Chairman of Regional Pollution Control Board
• Regional Director, MPEDA
• Regional Director, NABARD.
• Director of State Research Station of National Institute of Oceanography (NIO).
• 6 eminent persons in the field of Marine Environment Management.

12.3.4 Environment Tax collected as per clause 12.2 above, would be administered by ROFRMB and the receivables would be utilized for the following purposes :

(i) General social up-lift of “Fishermen Aboriginal Tribes”
(ii) Extension of loan facilities for members of “Fishermen Tribes” for empowering them in Governments programme to make them “owner operators” of mechanized fishing vessels.
(iii) Place 25% of the revenue generated at the disposal of NABARD for extending of “Microfinance” for fisher women.
(iv) Conduct environmental impact studies on fishery and marine life.
(v) Provision of sanitation facilities for coastal villages.
(vi) Monitoring of effluents dumped by industries located on the edges of the sea and take necessary mitigation action in cases of violation.

12.4 CONSERVATON OF DEEP SEA FISHING AND MARINE RESOURCES

12.4.1 RPFRMB to take Action immediately to protect Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) from the destructive impact of intensive fishing methods by mechanized vessels like bottom fisheries on the high seas.

12.4.2 Every coastal District shall have a District level RPFRMB that shall be chaired by an elected representative of Fishermen Aborigine Tribe, who shall be elected for a tenure of 5 years from amongst fishermen tribes in the District.

12.4.3 RPFRMB, in coordination with Central Government Organizations like NIO shall conduct impact assessments, closing areas of the high seas to bottom fishing where VMEs are known or likely to occur unless fisheries in these areas can be managed to prevent significant adverse impacts, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks.

12.4.4 The RPFRMB are empowered by this Bill to recommend to the Union Government violations by flag bearing ship prohibit their vessels from engaging in bottom fishing on the high seas as mandated

12.5 STATUTORY LIMITS IN FISHING BY MECHANISED BOATS, TRAWLERS AND FACTORY SHIPS.

12.5.1 Fish stocks, including straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, off Indian coasts have been overfished by large scale use of mechanized vessels, trawlers and huge factory ships. These vessels are sparsely regulated and this has let to extremely harmful and unsustainable fisheries .

12.5.2 RFMO’s are empowered to set statutory limits on mechanized vessels that operate beyond the first 100 miles of EEZ (the first 100 miles being reserved for Fishing Aborigine Tribes.

12.6 MANAGEMENT PLANS

12.6.1 Management Plans are meant to provide the overall framework in which fishing operations and the management will take place. These may include, inter alia, the following;

• The restrictions to be placed on the numbers of each kind of fishing units
• Controls on fishing operations like zonation, seasonal bans, gear specifications including mesh size, horse power controls, etc.
• Provisions governing the crew, safety, etc.
• Ban on capture of any species or the declaration of a Marine Protected Area under the Wildlife Protected Act.

12.6.2 Management Plans provide the framework for fisheries management and are the source for all regulations and orders. Where the Management Plans call for specific regulations, these can be notified by the appropriate authority/officer.

12.6.3 Management plans shall be dynamic and subject to amendments, periodic reviews and total redrafting as per need.

12.7 Ministry of Fisheries to establish Management Plans

12.7.1 This Act mandates the Union Ministry of Fisheries (MoF) to draft a “National Management Plan” within 6 months from enactment of this Act, that would sets out the broad boundaries within which fishing will take place in the maritime zones of India. It will include national goals, limits to fishing capacity, schemes to reduce capacity and effort, broad guidelines on proper management of the fishery, etc. The national plan will provide the framework within which all fishing in Indian waters will be managed, whether in the state waters or national waters.

12.7.2 MoF shall also prepare

(i) “Management Plan for National Waters (EEZ) as a separate document that will set the parameters for the use of the national waters for fishing.

(ii) Regional management plans that go into more details and are in tune with the particular eco-systems and fishing systems in the respective regions. Here the conventional division of the Indian seas into NW, SW, SE and NE may be quite suitable for developing regional plans.

(iii) The regional plans may also include separate plans for the EEZ area that falls within the region within the parameters set by the overall EEZ plan that is part of the national management plan. Inter-state issues will be addressed by regional management plans.

(iv) State management plans that are detailed with regard to fishing operations within the territorial waters adjacent to each state and fit within the larger framework of the regional and national plans

(v) Special management plans that may relate to management of particular stock/species/group of species/fleet. These may be prepared at regional levels where relevant or may require grouping of states relevant to the management problem being addressed. These groupings may cut across regions, if needed. The special management plans could be time bound and need based

12.8 Classification and management of the fishing fleet

A. From the point of view of jurisdiction and effective management, in a situation where the sea is divided administratively between each State and between the State and Centre, we propose the following classification of the fishing fleet.

(i) State fleet—Category 1: All boats that fish only within state waters. This category will include most non-motorized fishing boats, if not all. It will also include motorized fishing boats that use small gillnets or seines to target small pelagics. For example, the large ring seine boats of Kerala will clearly fall in this category. This category will also involve the small mechanized trawlers (say up to 36’) that fish in the near-shore waters. The state will be fully responsible for managing this category of boats subject to the provisions of the state management plans approved by the National Authority.

(ii) State fleet—Category II: This will include all boats that fish within state waters but also fish in the national waters (seasonally or otherwise). This may include some of the motorized boats that fish beyond the state waters using large mesh drift nets or longlines. This will include all the larger trawlers, especially the multi-day boats that go up to the edge of the shelf, at least seasonally. It can also include the “deep sea” fleet operated by the Thoothoor fishermen hailing from Kanyakumari District of Tamil Nadu. These boats fish more in the “national waters” than “state waters”, but cannot be denied fishing rights within the state waters. Management of this category, including the issue of permits, will be made by the State Government in consonance with the State/Regional/National management plans. However, for this category of boats, the State Government should report all relevant information to the Central Government or the agency appointed by the Central Government.

(iii) National fleet: Larger vessels introduced exclusively for fishing in the National waters may be considered as the National fleet. The management of this fleet (including the issue of permits) will be done by the Central Government through a suitable agency or agencies , in consonance with the national and regional management plans approved by the National Authority.

(iv) Priority over resources in the national waters : Applying the principle of subsidiarity enunciated in the NFF position paper, the first priority over fish resources in the national waters will go to the state fleet (category II) and the national fleet will get only the second priority. This will be reflected in the management plan for the national waters.

CHAPTER - XIII

13 POWERS OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE

13.1. Authorized Officers and their powers

(1) Any officers of the Coast Guard constituted under the Coast Guard Act, 1978, or such other officer of Government as may be authorized by the Central Government may, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the requirements of this Act have been complied with, either with or without a warrant.

(a) stop or board a fishing vessel in any maritime zone of India and search such vessel for fish and for equipment used or capable of being used for fishing or any fishing activity;

(b) require the master of such vessel to produce (i) any registration certificate, permit, log book or other document relating to the vessel and examine or take copies of such registration certificate, permit, log book or document; (ii) any catch, net, fishing gear or other equipment on board such vessel or belonging to the vessel and examine such catch, net gear or equipment;

(c ) make such enquiries as may be necessary to ascertain compliance with any of the provisions of the Act.

(2) Where the officer referred to in sub-section (1) (hereinafter referred to be `Authorized Officer’) has reasons to believe that any fishing vessel has been, is being, or is about to be, used for committing an offence under this Act, or undertake any illegal Activity in contravention of applicable laws of India, he may, with or without a warrant;

(a) seize and detain such vessel, including any fishing gear, fish, equipment, stores or cargo found on board such vessel or belonging to the vessel, and seize and detain any fishing gear abandoned by the vessel;

(b) require the master of such vessel seized or detained under sub-clause (a) to bring such vessel to a port specified by such officer;

(c) arrest any person who, such officer has reason to believe, has committed such as an offence.

(3) In taking any action under sub-section (2), the Authorized Officer may use such force as may be reasonably necessary.

(4) Where any vessel or other things are seized, or any person has been arrested, under sub-section (2):

(a) The vessel or other things so seized shall, as soon as possible, be produced before a Magistrate competent to try an offence under this Act. The Magistrate shall make such order in writing as he may deem fit for the retention of custody of such vessel or things seized with the Central Government or any authority determined by the Magistrate in this regard, pending the completion of any proceedings for the prosecution of any offence under this Act or for its use by such authority during such retention or custody on such terms and conditions as the magistrate may deemed fit to impose.

PROVIDED that the Magistrate may on an application made by the owner or master of such vessel in the prescribed form, order the release of the vessel or things so seized on the owner or master furnishing security in the form of cash or a irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee for an amount not less than fifty per cent (50%) of the value of the vessel or things so seized;

PROVIDED further that where any fish so seized is subject to deterioration, the Magistrate may authorize appropriate disposal of such fish including through sale of such fish and deposit of the proceeds of such sale in court.

(b) The arrested person, shall, be soon as possible, be informed of the grounds for such arrest and he shall, without unnecessary delay, be produced before such Magistrate, and

(c) The Central Government shall be promptly informed in writing of such seizure or arrest and the details thereof.

(5) Where, in pursuance of the commission, of any offence under this Act, any vessel is pursued beyond the limits of the exclusive economic zone 16 of India, the powers conferred on an authorized officer by this section may be exercised beyond such limits in the circumstances and to the extent recognized by international law and State practice.

CHAPTER XIV

14 OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

Part A: Offences by Indian Fishing Vessels

14.1. Penalty for Contravention of this Act

(1) Where any Mechanized Indian fishing vessel is used in contravention of the provisions of this Act , the owner and master of such vessel shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or with a fine which is the higher of either rupees [nine] hundred thousand or the value of such vessel, or with both imprisonment and fine.

Part B: Offences by Foreign Fishing Vessels

14.2 . Penalty for Contravention of Section 3

(1) Where any foreign fishing vessel is used in contravention of the provisions of this Act , the owner and master of such vessel shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or with a fine which is the higher of either rupees two million (Rs. 182,000,000) or the value of such vessel, or with both imprisonment and fine.

(2) Any person employed or engaged and present in the vessel referred to in sub-section (1) of this section 14, shall be subject to a fine not exceeding rupees fifty thousand (Rs. 50,000).

PROVIDED that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any such punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

14.3. Penalty for contravention of this Bill, When there is a contravention of the provisions of this Bill, the owner and master of such vessel shall be punishable with fine not exceeding rupees two million (Rs. 2,000,000).

Part C: Provisions Applicable for Offences both by Indian Fishing Vessels and Foreign Fishing Vessels

14.4 . Penalty for contravention

Where any vessel is found in any maritime zone of India in contravention of the provisions of this Bill, the owner and master of such vessel shall be punishable with imprisonment for a period of [six] months, or fine that is the higher of either rupees five million (Rs. 5,000,000) or the value of the vessel, or with both imprisonment and fine.

14.5. Confiscation

(1) Where any person is convicted of an offence under this Bill the vessel used in or in connection with the commission of the said offence, together with its fishing gear equipment, stores and cargo and any fish on board such ship or the proceeds of the sale of any fish shall also be liable to confiscation.

(2) The vessel or other things confiscated under sub-section (1) shall vest in the Central Government.

14.6. Penalty for obstruction of authorized officers. If any person:

(a) intentionally obstructs any authorized officer in the exercise of any powers conferred under this Act, or

(b) fails to afford reasonable facilities to the authorized officer or his assistants to board the vessel or to provide for adequate security to such officer and assistants at the time of entry into the vessel or when they are on board such vessel; or

(c) fails to stop the vessel or produce the permit, log book or other document or any fish, net, fishing gear or other equipment on board such vessel, when required to do so by the authorized officer, or

(d) fails to provide reasonable assistance to the authorized officer for any other matter; he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine not exceeding rupees one million (Rs. 1,000,000) for each such offence or with both.

14.7. Court to Pass Certain Orders

(1) Where any person is convicted of an offence under this Bill, the Court before which such proceedings are being conducted may, in addition to awarding any punishment, order that any costs incurred in connection with the retention or custody of the vessel during the pendency of any proceedings for the prosecution of an offence under this Act, as reduced by the amount if any realized out of the use of the vessel by the authority with whom such vessel was retained or kept in custody, shall be payable by the person convicted.

(2) The Court may also order that any fines or costs as ordered under the provisions this Act may be recovered through sale of the vessel or any equipment, stores or cargo found on board such vessel or belonging to the vessel.

14.8. Offence by companies

(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

PROVIDED that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any such punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, Government of India or other officer, such person shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section,

(a) “company” means a body corporate and includes a firm or other association of persons; and

(b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.

CHAPTER XV

15 MISCELLANEOUS

15.1. General Power to appoint Agencies to Discharge Functions

(1) The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, designate one or more central government or state government agencies or officials or create a new government agency to discharge any one or more of its powers and functions under this Act.

(2) The Central Government may also delegate any agency notified under sub-clause (1) to make regulations on specific aspects as may be specified by the Central Government for the effective implementation of certain aspects of this Act.

15.2 . Offences to be Cognizable Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable.

15.3. Cognizance and Trial of Offences

(1) No Court shall taken cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by an authorized officer.

(2) No Court inferior of that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act.

15.4. Magistrate’s Power to impose enhanced penalties notwithstanding anything contained in section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it shall be lawful for any Metropolitan Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf to pass any sentence authorized by this Act.

15.5 . Place of Trial

Any person committing an offence under this Act or any rule made there under may be tried for the offence in such place as the Central Government may by general or special order, published in the official Gazette, direct in this behalf.

15.6 . Presumptions

(1) Where any offence is alleged to have been committed under the provisions of this Act, the place of commission of such offence shall be presumed on the basis of the certified copy of the relevant entry in the log book or other official record of the vessel or aircraft which was used in connection with the detection of the offence.

(2) Where any vessel is found within any maritime zone of India and the fishing gear of such vessel is not stowed in the prescribed manner, or fish is found on board such vessel, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said vessel was used for fishing within that zone.

15.7 . Appeals

Appeals from a decision of the Central Government or any agency appointed by the Central Government to exercise the powers of the Central Government under this Act may be made to the relevant High Court which has jurisdiction over such matters.

15.8 . Protection of Action Taken in Good Faith

(1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of the provisions of this Act.

(2) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Government for any damage caused or likely to be caused for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of the provision of this Act.

15.9 . International Cooperation

The Central Government may, subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, allow a vessel belonging to another country, to enter the maritime zones of India for the purpose of:

(a) Innocent Passage; or
(b) Any other purpose as determined as relevant by the Central Government.

15.10 . Cooperation between Centre and State Governments

(1) The Central Government shall ensure coordination with the State Governments of the various coastal states of India in relation to the effective implementation of the Act, especially in so far as such implementation has impact on the territorial waters of India.

(2) The State Governments of the various coastal states of India shall extend full co-operation and assistance at all times when the Central Government makes a request for such assistance to ensure effective implementation of the Act.

15.11. Power to make Rules

(1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Central Government may make rules with regard to all or any of the following matters:

(a)Stipulating the eligibility criteria for vessels grant of an approval for fishing or fishing activity within the various maritime zones of India;

(b)Stipulating standards and specifications for fishing vessels undertaking fishing in the maritime zones of India, their equipment, safety standards;

(c) Stipulating standards and requirement regarding training of crew, minimum qualification of certain crew members undertaking specific activities, and nationality requirements, if any, for the crew members;

(d) Prescribing the procedure for grant of permit to fishing vessels to undertake fishing or any fishing activity within any maritime zone of India including but not limited to the form of application, the application fee, the documents to be provided along with the application;

(e)Prescribing the form, duration and other restrictions and terms and conditions subject to which a permit for fishing or any fishing activity may be granted;

(f) Prescribing a code of conduct for fishing operations and any fishing activities (including post-harvest operations);

(g) Forms in which: (a) an application for a permit may be made and the fees that shall accompany such application; and (b) an application for renewal of a permit may be made and the fees that shall accompany such application;

(h) The matters which may be taken into account in the granting of permits, and validity period of permit;

(i) The terms and conditions subject to which the Central Government may allow for transfer or assignment of a permit.

(j) The form of permits for including the conditions and restrictions subject to which permits may be granted;

(k) Identification of specified ports for docking by foreign fishing vessels;

(l) The manner in which the fishing gear of fishing vessel shall be kept stowed to designated areas;

(m) The form for reporting daily position of the vessel;

(n) The manner in which a fishing vessel shall transfer catches or receive supplies at mid sea;

(o) The types of equipment for vessel monitoring and sea safety that should be carried by a vessel.

(p) The terms and conditions under which a vessel may be permitted to be used for fishing within any maritime zone of India for the purpose of carrying out any scientific research or investigation or for any experimental fishing under section 7;

(q) The form in which an application may be made for releasing the vessel or other things seized under this Bill

(r) The form in which voyage and catch details are to be submitted to the designated authority;

(s) Prescribe practices and procedures for responsible conduct of fishing operations to ensure proper management of living resources leading to sustainability;

(t) Stipulate the procedure, limitations and other terms and conditions subject to which any approval granted may be renewed;

(u) Providing for process for suspension or early termination or surrender of any permit granted for fishing or fishing activities under this Act;

(v) Prescribe and regulate fishermen welfare measures;

(w) Promotion and implementation of infrastructure development for fisheries and fishing activities;

(x) Procedure, form for application for innocent passage or any other passage pursuant to international cooperation as specified under this Bill and terms and conditions for grant of such approval;

(y) Stipulating the process of monitoring and review of the approvals granted (including but not limited to reporting of daily position of vessel, submission of report and data at the end of each voyage); and

(z) Generally providing for any other matter which in its opinion is expedient for proper control over the fishing and any fishing activity within the maritime zones of India and for ensuring law and order within the maritime zones of India.

(3) Every rule made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty (30) days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.

15.12 . Consequential Amendment to the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976. The proviso to sub-section (5) of section 7 of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 shall be omitted.

15.13 . Removal of Difficulties

i. If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to it to be necessary for removing the difficulty.

ii. Every order made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament.

15.14 . Repeal of Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act. The Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981, is hereby repealed.

NOTES

• Clauses 10.1,10.2,10.3,10.4,10.5 and 10.6 adopted from USA’s “Magnuson Act 2007” and required redrafting.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES GOVERNANCE - A THIRD WORLD UNDERSTANDING By John Kurien

2010-06-03T10:02:00.002-07:00

Economic and Political Weekly August 19, 2000 3061
In recent years the term ‘governance’
has come into increased currency. The
Commission on Global Governance
defined governance simply as “the sum of
the many ways individuals and institutions,
public and private, manage their
common affairs.” The World Humanity
Action Trust (WHAT) defines governance
as “the systematic framework of social,
economic, legal and political structures
within which humanity chooses and/or
accepts to manage its affairs”. Until a few
decades ago “the sum of the many ways”
and the “systematic framework” were
largely defined within the formal structures
and capacity of nation states. It was
therefore bounded within the concept of
national sovereignty, the idea that the
government of a state recognises no external
authority and that its rule is supreme
within its national boundaries.
The situation has changed today. While
nation states remain powerful, the authority
and power of intergovernmental
organisations, international non-government
organisations and the global market
have increased enormously. This has contributed
to the development of a much
more complex situation with regard to the
range as well as the level of choices open
to humanity to manage its affairs. Governance
can be without government. Governance
can take place at different levels, both
above and below the confines of nation
states. These levels can interact and create
reciprocal influences that come to have
strong bearings on the social, economic,
legal and political choices before people
in society. This is a dynamic process. It
is also specific to a particular context.
In this brief paper, we attempt to give
a picture of the changing scenario of
governance in Icelandic fishery, viewed
from the perspective of a third world
observer. By commencing with a detailed
history, we make an effort to highlight how
individuals and social groups exercised
choices and initiated actions that widened
the interest in fishery. It moved from being
an occupational choice for the livelihood
of farm labourers in isolated coastal communities
to become a rallying ‘nationalist’
concern for the people of Iceland as a
whole. This has naturally created changing
realms of governance. They have both
influenced, and been affected by, legally
binding international agreements and the
growth of the international market. The
compulsions of the present have been
conditioned by the past and hold questions
for the future.
Iceland, that little island nation, which
hangs from the Arctic Circle, has earned
a place for itself in the realm of global
fisheries. Here is a poor European nation
which was settled for the last 1100 years
that became wealthy not by colonial exploits
or industrial transformation, but
rather through the vigorous and nationalistic
pursuit of developing its fisheries.
Today, fisheries are responsible for some
75 per cent of Iceland’s total revenues
from goods exported (around 5 per cent
of the world’s total fishing exports) and
yield 55 per cent of all national foreign
currency earnings. In 1995, Iceland exported
marine products valued at ISK 90
billion (USD 1.3 billion) from a total catch
of over one million tonnes. Annual catches
in recent years have averaged around 1.5
million tonnes, but the volume depends
very much on catches of pelagic species,
especially capelin, which have fluctuated
widely from one year to the next. In terms
of catch volume, Iceland ranks 14th among
the world’s leading fishing nations. Some
15,000 people in Iceland – 11 per cent of
the total national workforce – work directly
in fishing or fish processing, if this
employment sector is defined in the traditional
manner. In fact, this is a very low
proportion compared with the importance
of the sector for the entire Icelandic
economy.
Early History
The process of fisheries development
can be said to have begun about 700 years
ago in the early 14th century when
Hanseatic merchants based in Bergen began
to import dried cod fish from Iceland. This
linkage in itself was not accidental. The
first Viking settlers to Iceland came from
this part of western Norway. This trade
attracted the English merchants who,
shortly after 1400, began sailing to Iceland
in search of dry cod. Later they financed
English fishing interests to catch cod off
the coasts of Iceland and also bought it
from the local Icelandic fishermen.
The Danish crown, which ruled Iceland
at that time, frowned upon this contact.
However, Denmark lacked the necessary
naval power to block the English trade. In
fact, clashes between England and Denmark
during mid-15th century can be traced
to the killing of a Danish governor who
tried to stop both English trade with Iceland
and English fishing in Iceland’s coastal
waters. These tensions continued until the
early 16th century after which English
interests in Iceland waned with the discovery
of rich fishing grounds off the North
American coast of Newfoundland.
The French and Germans took the space
vacated by the English only to be ousted
in the early 17th century (1602) by the
Danish crown which monopolised all
Icelandic Fisheries Governance
A Third World Understanding
Today Icelandic fisheries are the most productive in the world. The country’s historic
efforts at gaining sovereignty over its fishery resources and the governance structures it has
instituted highlights the need to move from an open access regime, with possession rights
only, to a regime of explicitly recognised property rights. Recent attempts at conservation
of fishery resources through privatisation has led to dominance of foreign firms
threatening the country’s fishery sovereignty.
JOHN KURIEN
3062 Economic and Political Weekly August 19, 2000
foreign trade by royal decree. This trade
monopoly remained for nearly 250 years
(until 1855) and could be enforced due to
the absolute monarchy enforced over
Iceland by the Danish king.
The coastal fishery in Iceland developed
significantly during the 17th and 18th
centuries. The main occupation of most of
the inhabitants was farming. But the
labourers who worked in the southern and
western regions were permitted to go fishing
in the late winter and spring when landbased
activity was at a low ebb. However,
the labourers were required to stay in the
domestic service of a farmer, and the
establishment of permanent households in
fishing stations was restricted. Thus the
landowners, in collaboration with church
functionaries and officials, monopolised
the fishing. These restrictions preempted
it from developing into an independent
industry.
This situation continued into the mid-
18th century (1784) when famine, as a
result of damage to pastures and animals
caused by a major volcanic eruption, killed
one-fifth of the population. The situation
was so bad that the Danish king even
considered the possibility of the evacuation
of the whole island. This natural
calamity, coupled with the exploits of an
adventuresome Dane who tried to capture
power in Iceland in the early 19th century,
made for a gradual weakening of the
colonial hold over Iceland. The power of
the richer farmers who employed several
farmhands declined considerably. This
gave rise to an increase of ‘unattached’
landless people. Poverty increased and
people were faced with the choice of leaving
agriculture or leaving Iceland. During this
period (1870 to 1914) over 15,000 people
migrated to Canada.
Capitalist Development
The Danish trade monopolies were rapidly
relaxed in the late 19th century and
local accumulation became possible. An
Icelandic merchant class gradually emerged
and played a significant role in investing
in the fisheries. Icelandic salted cod began
to develop new markets abroad as a result
of its quality. This was based on a method
originally developed by the Basque people.
Soon the all-important Spanish market,
which was dominated by the Norwegians,
was totally in the hands of Iceland. The
pope also helped the Lutheran Icelanders
in their fish exports. This he did inadvertently
by making salted fish the main item
on the menu during the many days that
meat was not to be consumed by Catholics
in Europe.
For the landless peasants, who remained
in Iceland, fishing gradually became an
important alternative. This gave rise to the
gradual creation of independent fishing
settlements along the coast. The petty
entrepreneur, the fishing peasant, the
skipper-owner and the merchant company
were examples of the different forms of
production that gradually emerged over
the next century. All this happened during
the struggle for Icelandic independence. It
would not be an exaggeration to say that
the gradual emergence of capitalist development
in fishery aided in the political
transformation of Iceland. The introduction
of the decked fishing vessels in the
end of the 19th century made it possible
to catch fish farther offshore than could
be done on open fishing boats. The official
declaration of a fishing limit with an
exclusive zone of three nautical miles in
1901 gave legal sanction to this process
of expansion.
Iceland got home rule in 1904. The
technological progress in fishing after that
was considerable. Motors were installed
in many of the open fishing boats and a
number of steam-driven trawlers were
acquired. Initially the large merchants
owned a substantial part of the fleet. The
productivity of fishing increased greatly,
and agriculture became relatively less
attractive as a source of subsistence to the
peasantry. All restrictions on the freedom
to move to the fishing villages were either
abolished or quietly forgotten and fishing
became a full-time occupation. The infrastructure
such as harbours, wharves and
processing facilities were set up in the
fjords by the merchants. They hired
labourers from the new coastal settlements
to work on their boats and at the processing
facilities. This provided jobs for several
hundreds during the winter months. Gradually
the number of small skipper-owners
and petty entrepreneurs increased. The
merchants who provided credit so that the
processing facilities would receive adequate
supplies of fish facilitated this.
The skipper-owners and the petty entrepreneurs
utilised their family resources of
capital and labour. As capital was scarce,
and labour availability depended on both
the sex compositions of the household and
its stage in the family development cycle,
not all skipper-owners or petty entrepreneurs
were successful. Those who had
sons of the appropriate ages could expand
their activities and gradually enlarge their
enterprise and even form a company with
family members as shareholders. Family
and private firms in the harvesting and
processing of fish became a common
organisational arrangement alongside the
peasant fishing economy. It would seem
that the control exercised by these large
family firms on the fish economy of
Iceland was considerable.
In 1911 the Fisheries Association of
Iceland was formed. This seems very much
in keeping with the country’s democratic
tradition as well as the tradition of keeping
good records. It was an organisation with
representational membership from all the
interest groups and regions of the country.
It established the tradition of calling an
annual meeting called a ‘Fiskithing’ (fisheries
congress) which became a forum to
discuss matters of concern to the fisheries.
It played a lead role in training and education
of people employed with the fisheries
and later helped in founding the
Icelandic Fisheries Laboratories and the
Marine Research Institute. The multi-stakeholder
and multi-regional character of the
Fisheries Association of Iceland gave the
industry a fair degree of openness of
operation and provided the basis for a good
form of participation by the ‘interested
public’ in the governance of the fishery.
The radical transformation of the occupational
structure and the development of
the capitalist forms of work organisation
led to the advent of both a labour movement
and a cooperative movement. This
needs to be situated against the background
of the boom in fish exports during the first
world war. In 1916 a national organisation
of trade unions was established though it
was legalised only in 1938. The merchant
owners of fishing companies had to conform
to the formal demands of labour
unions both of crew on the boats and the
workers in the processing plants.
Women came to play an important role
in the fishery. In the production process
they were involved in the making and
mending of nets and baiting of hooks.
Their role was also indispensable in the
other preparations needed to get a fishing
trip going. In the processing operations
their role was more direct and crucial, first
in the salting and drying and later in the
freezing plants. The invisible component
of women’s work – running the household
and raising the children – was also particularly
high and taxing in the homes of
fishermen who were away at sea for long
on the larger boats. Women’s franchise
Economic and Political Weekly August 19, 2000 3063
rights and the early right to attend schools
of higher education provided opportunities
to move out of the conventional
roles and jobs. It also helped to foster a
nascent women’s movement in which
many from coastal communities were involved.
Unlike in many other developed
maritime countries, the organised involvement
of women in fishery is another of
the unique features of Iceland’s fish
economy. Both at the workplace and the
home, women seem to have benefited from
the rising productivity of the sector in this
time period.
The growth of labour rights, the expansion
of capitalist enterprise and the success
of fishery further fuelled the struggle for
independence. In December 1918 Iceland
became a state under the Danish crown.
Either party to the agreement could terminate
the treaty after 25 years if negotiations
about its renewal proved fruitless. Following
this, a new system of political parties
based on class divisions emerged and class
antagonism grew. The great depression
increased class tensions and the outbreak
of the Spanish civil war in 1936 closed the
important Spanish market for Icelandic
salt fish. This created a period of high
unemployment in fishery. The fishery
capitalists formed the union of Icelandic
fish producers (SIF) to gain better control
over the processing and marketing of salt
fish products. Iceland also acquired its first
coast guard vessel in 1920 since it was
highly dissatisfied with the way the Danish
navy administered the then three-mile
fishing zone, especially in the case of British
trawlers, which often fished as close to
land as they could reach.
When the second world war broke out,
the German occupation of Denmark and
the British occupation of Iceland put a cap
on the union between Iceland and the
Danish crown. Before the war, foreigners
were responsible for two-thirds of the
demersal fish catch in Icelandic waters.
The demand for Icelandic fish skyrocketed
during the war. Catches made by Icelandic
vessels increased since foreign vessels were
busy in pursuit of things other than fish.
The US took over the defence of Iceland
and stationed a force of 60,000 in a country,
which at that time had a population
of 120,000. This brought employment and
prosperity to the economy and coastal
fishery benefited greatly. In 1944 the
Icelanders decided to terminate the treaty
with Denmark and the Icelandic Republic
was formed on June 17, 1944 at Thingvellir,
the original seat of the Althing. Severing
ties with Denmark also meant taking full
charge of their fishing policies.
Independence
Independence came at the time of the
second world war. The post-war period
saw the rapid expansion of the trawler
fleet. Fish freezing became a highly technical
industry and the mainstay of Icelandic
fishery exports to Europe. There was
a phase of overexpansion, full employment,
and high inflation. The lack of a
strong political leadership marked the postwar
period. Political coalitions were the
norm in the Althing (parliament). Broadly,
they could be characterised as the ‘nationalistic’
group composed of the left-wing
parties and the ‘pro-western’ group composed
of the agrarian and the social democratic
parties. Their politics came to
flashpoints on two recurrent issues of postwar
politics: defence (on the question of
joining NATO) and fishing limits (on the
question of extending the limits of the
territorial fishing zone).
The overwhelming dependence of the
country on fisheries for its livelihood and
economic development highlighted the
need to take more proactive steps to protect
fishing grounds and ensure effective
governance over them. Following the
Truman proclamation of 1945, several Latin
American countries such as Mexico,
Argentina and Chile began claiming
national sovereignty over water covering
the continental shelf. Iceland followed
closely by enacting a law in April 1958
concerning the scientific conservation of
continental shelf fisheries. The first article
of the law reads as follows:
The ministry of fisheries shall issue regulations
establishing explicitly bounded
conservation zones within limits of the
continental shelf of Iceland, wherein all
fisheries shall be subject to Icelandic rules
and control: provided that the conservation
measures now in effect shall in no way
be reduced. The ministry shall further issue
the necessary regulations for the protection
of fishing grounds within said zones...
The regulations shall be revised in the light
of scientific research.
In May 1958, following the failure of
UNCLOS I to reach an agreement on the
extension of the fishing zone beyond the
territorial sea of 3 nautical miles, Iceland
unilaterally extended its fishing zone to 12
nautical miles in September 1958. It then
gave notice to the British trawlers still
fishing up to four miles off Iceland to
withdraw. When they did not, Icelandic
gunboats arrested two of the trawlers. In
response a British frigate and destroyer
dashed in to recapture them. This led to
the beginning of the famous ‘cod wars’.
The British Navy repeatedly sent their
gunboats to the Icelandic fishing grounds
to protect British trawlers. The Icelandic
coast guard was puny compared to the
might of the British navy. Yet they prevailed
because of their approach, in later
encounters, of perfecting the art of cutting
the trawl ropes of the British trawlers rather
than confronting their navy vessels. This
strategy paid off. British trawlers gradually
withdrew thereby increasing the stocks
under Iceland’s exclusive control.
The success of this approach resulted in
Iceland joining company with many developing
Asian countries during UNCLOS II
in 1960. Together they argued for the
concept of ‘preferential rights’ in matters
of fisheries jurisdiction in special cases of
‘overwhelming dependence’ of the coastal
state upon fisheries resources in the adjacent
sea for its livelihood and economic
development. The relevant portion of the
Icelandic proposal stated that:
Where a people is overwhelmingly dependent
upon its coastal fisheries for its livelihood
or economic development and it
becomes necessary to limit the total catch
of a stock or stocks of fish in areas adjacent
to the coastal fisheries zone, the
coastal state shall have preferential rights
under such limitations to the extent rendered
necessary by its dependence upon
the fishery.
UNCLOS II failed to reach any agreement
on extended territorial zones. This
led Iceland to further extend its fishing
zone to 50 nautical miles in 1972, and
finally to 200 nautical miles in 1976 while
UNCLOS III negotiations were still on.
This they did by amending their 1958 law
concerning the scientific conservation of
continental shelf fisheries.
Governance
The role of government in Iceland’s
fisheries can be summarised as (1) setting
the rules concerning fishing, and (2) providing
the sector with an optimal operating
environment. The ministry of fisheries is
responsible for the governance of fisheries
in Iceland and the implementation of legislation,
and issue regulation to this effect.
Its duties are general administration, longterm
planning and relations with other
fisheries institutions at the international
level. The ministry is assisted in these tasks
by three bodies: the directorate of fisher3064
Economic and Political Weekly August 19, 2000
ies, the marine research institute and the
icelandic fisheries laboratories. In 1998
the ministry of fisheries had a staff of 17
and a budget of US $ 3 million.
There are other ministries and agencies
that assist in the process of governance.
The ministry of justice administers the
Icelandic coast guard. The ministry of
communications administers the directorate
of shipping and the port and lighthouse
authority. The ministry of foreign
affairs administers the matters relating to
trade and exports as well as international
agreements.
The directorate of fisheries undertakes
the day-to-day administration of the fisheries.
It is responsible for applying legislation
on fisheries management, including
supervision of processing and handling of
fish products. It collects and publishes data
and other fisheries statistics. It authorises
fishing by issuing fishing permits to vessels.
It also issues the quotas to these
vessels and supervises the transfer of quotas
and controls the reporting of data on the
landings of vessels and monitors the
weighing-in of catches. To be able to
coordinate this for the whole country the
directorate works in collaboration with the
harbour authorities and the association of
local authorities.
The directorate provides on-board and
port supervision of vessels to inspect catch
composition, equipment used and fish
handling methods. The Icelandic coast
guard and the directorates of customs and
shipping collaborate to fulfil this mission.
The directorate issues licences to processing
plants and ensures that they keep to
the quality and hygiene standards. This is
undertaken by commissioning inspection
bodies. They in turn conduct on-board and
land-based inspection in accordance to
norms developed. The directorate approves
these inspection bodies and supervises their
operations. It also inspects processors on
an intermittent basis to verify that official
requirements are being complied with. In
1998 the directorate had a regular staff of
59 and operated on a budget of US $ 5
million of which half is covered by
licencing and other fees.
There is one important point that we
must keep in mind. The campaign for
control of territorial waters was both the
campaign of the Icelanders for priority in
exploiting the natural resources surrounding
their country, and at the same time a
campaign to achieve responsible exploitation
of the fish stocks at the level of the
individual fishing unit. Icelanders had
argued that competition among fishermen
from different nations pursuing different
goals with respect to the quantity and
quality of fish brought ashore could lead
to inefficient use of the resource. Foreigners
would be concerned about balancing
the cost and revenue for each given trip,
whereas natives would take future catches
into account in deciding what to fish and
when to do it. The mood in Iceland had
been – get rid of foreigners so that we can
manage the resource in a responsible
manner.
With the progressive extension of the
exclusive fishing zone (to 12, 50 and then
200 miles) the fishery resource therein
became the state property of Iceland.
However, coastal fishery was for all practical
purposes an open access realm for the
people of Iceland within the larger rubric
of state property. Anyone could invest in
a boat, obtain a licence and go fishing from
anywhere in the island.
This resulted in increasingly excessive
fishing capital and effort compared to the
reproductive capacity of the fish stocks.
It is estimated that between 1945 and 1983,
fisheries capital increased by well over
1,200 per cent and real catches by 300 per
cent. This long-term decline in the economic
performance of Icelandic fisheries
did not go unnoticed by the fisheries
authorities. It also probably got reflected
at the local level by increasing losses at
the level of the fishing units. The move
towards creating a consensus for change
in the property rights structure and the
nature of governance of fisheries at the
local level required a process of consensus
building at the popular level. No change
in this could be made by administrative
fiat. As it involved major wealth distribution
implications, there had to be a political
consensus on these matters. Given the
centrality of fisheries in the economy and
the democratic culture of Iceland, this was
a daunting task.
ITQs
The initial efforts to introduce mechanisms
of governance at the local level were
to apply effort limitations that focused on
limiting the number of vessels and fishing
days. This did not yield the desired results.
The situation of individuals assuming
management and self-governance responsibility
without a well-defined structure of
rights seemed to be at the root of the failure
of these efforts. To overcome this, Iceland
broke new ground in the area of fisheries
management and governance by allocating
property rights to the resources at the level
of the individual units. This can be viewed
as transference of the rights achieved by
the nation to the individual stakeholders
who had a direct interest in fishery.
These property rights took the form of
individual transferable quotas (ITQs). ITQs
are property rights to the fishery resources
that are transferable and divisible at the
discretion of the individuals, but subject
to some overall norms. The assumption
implicit in this approach is that individual
rights to property will aggregate to yield
enlightened governance of that property
by the individuals to whom the rights are
allocated.
The build-up to the decision for this
change was multi-pronged and took over
a decade. In 1975 the marine research
institute issued a report on the status of
the Icelandic cod stocks. The report, nicknamed
‘The Black Report’ pronounced
that the Icelandic cod stocks would soon
collapse if fishing was continued at the
same level of effort. Several weeks later
a working committee of the governmental
science and research council published
another report titled ‘Development of
Marine Fisheries’. This was later nicknamed
‘The Blue Report’. It merely restated
the existence of the “problem of the
commons” in marine fisheries even if all
the fishermen were of the same nationality.
This report concluded that the fishery
management methods in use at the time
were aimed at guarding the interests of
occupationally or geographically defined
groups in Iceland, but had no roots in the
biological sciences or economics. The
belief that extending national jurisdiction
would automatically lead to sustainable
fishing was therefore beginning to be
questioned. This created considerable
public opinion about the crisis in the fishery
– both its biological and economic
aspects. It was not only the scientists and
policy-makers who addressed the issues,
parliamentarians and community leaders
were involved in the process.
The Fiskithing deliberated over this
contentious issue for over a year and
finally in their annual congress in December
1983 they decided to support the
government’s moves to introduce an ITQ
system on a temporary basis for one year.
The government in power at that time (a
right wing coalition) moved cautiously.
Before the year was over the parliament
passed an amendment to the fisheries act
of 1976 giving the minister of fisheries
Economic and Political Weekly August 19, 2000 3065
discretionary power to put a vessel quota
system in place. In the upper house of the
parliament, the amendment received only
the minimum majority necessary of 11 of
20 MPs in support. To ensure sufficient
support for the system a very important
provision was added. Vessels below 10
GRT were allowed to opt out of the catch
quota and abide by earlier effort restrictions
instead. This dual system of local
level fishery governance continued between
1984 and 1987. In January 1988 the parliament
enacted a general-vessel quota legislation
to cover all demersal fisheries and
made the effort option less attractive. In
1990 a more comprehensive legislation,
the fisheries management act, was passed.
Only vessels below 6 GRT were exempt
from the ITQ system. All vessels had to
be licensed and a moratorium was put on
issuing new licences. The ITQ system was
extended indefinitely.
The system operates in the following
manner: Every fishing vessel with a commercial
fishing permit is allocated a permanent
‘quota share’ mainly on the basis
of its catches from 1981-83. This quota
share is a percentage of the total allowable
catch (TAC) of all regulated species. The
allotted catch of each vessel therefore
changes from year to year depending on
the TAC for the species in question. The
success of the ITQ system depends
crucially on the information governance
capability of the system. Every fish landing
has to be recorded and instantly collated
to ensure that quotas are not busted.
The municipalities operate the weightstations
and they collect fees from the
vessels to cover operating costs. The information
is then put on the web page of
the directorate and in print on a monthly
basis. Catch status can be ascertained over
the phone.
Annual quotas may be sold for an individual
fishing year, but such transactions
are subject to certain limitations to prevent
sudden disruption. From 1998 onwards,
such transactions have to be transacted
only through a ‘Kvotabanki’ (quota bank).
Recent years have witnessed a rapid growth
in the sales of both permanent quota shares
and annual quotas and the quotas themselves
have attained a very big premium
in the market. From the starting position
in 1983, the ITQs have got concentrated in
the hands of a few fishing units. This process
of concentration can be viewed from
two perspectives. It can be seen as either
increasing the efficiency and stability of
the sector or as the growing marginalisation
of those whose strength in the market is
limited or non-existent. The current debate
in Iceland on the merits and demerits of
ITQs are drawn along these lines.
Questions for the Future
Who are the ultimate owners of the fishery
resource? The issue of the privatisation of
the access to the resource has become a
contentious issue in Iceland itself. The
small boat owner’s association that represents
an important segment of the fishery
from a political perspective, if nothing
else, has questioned this approach. Their
main contention is that ITQs have not led
to resource conservation. They point out
that the TACs for the important species
like cod have in fact reached their all time
low levels in the 1990s – almost a decade
after privatisation of fishing rights.
Even in the industry there is some divergence
of views on this matter. This is
particularly so in the face of trends like
greater on-board processing resulting in
loss of land-based jobs. There is also the
threat of communities losing jobs as a
result of the sale of ITQs by the firms or
individuals holding them to buyers from
other regions.
The matter has also been debated in the
supreme court of Iceland on the basis of
a case filed by an ‘ordinary citizen’ of the
country. The supreme court examined the
case by considering two constitutional
articles (Art 65 and 75) which give equal
rights for all citizens and freedom to choose
employment respectively. It also considered
Article 1 of the fisheries management
law, which makes clear that the fish resources
within the EEZ are public property.
Taking these three aspects together
the court ruled that the allocation of fishing
quotas to operative vessels according to
catch history (in 1984) was a reasonable
reaction to the resource situation at that
time. However, it ruled that converting this
to permanent rights, thus giving great,
permanent privileges to the owners of
operative vessels in 1984 cannot be justified
by any public interest and was therefore
unconstitutional. The judgment raised
the issue of who is the ultimate owner of
the fishery resources of Iceland – the public
or the ITQ holder?
Will national governance be undermined?
The most recent issue is the implication
of the foreign ownership of the
big fishery firms that hold a considerable
share of the total quota holdings. There is
considerable anxiety about the growing
concentration of the ITQs in the hands of
these few companies. The social justice
and distributional implications apart, there
is a moot question of the loss of national
control over resources. Many of the large
private companies are going public. This
action is helping them to argue that the
effective control of the companies is in the
hand of the many hundreds of shareholders
that are ordinary Icelanders. However, the
fact of the matter is that this accounts only
for a minor part of the shares. The original
owners and their subsidiary companies
still closely hold the majority shares.
Moreover, the overall quota holdings of
the 10 largest private firms increased from
25 per cent in 1991-92 to 38 per cent in
1998-99. In the context of the growing
globalisation of the fishing industry of
Iceland there is a legitimate concern that
these companies will increasingly be internationally
controlled. This can, in the long
run, give rise to a serious contradiction in
the governance and rights structures. While
the resources of the EEZ will belong to
the Icelandic republic and be governed by
national laws, the effective property rights
to the resource at the local level of the
fishing company can be very much in the
hands of foreign capital. Will national
governance be undermined from below?
Are ITQs appropriate for developing
countries? From our review of the history
we notice that Iceland had taken a lead role
in the UNCLOS to argue for the rights of
national governance of coastal waters,
particularly in cases where countries have
a greater level of dependence on fishery
for livelihood and food. This was a position
that was wholeheartedly supported by
the developing countries. Today we see
that there is a new enthusiasm on the part
of Iceland, particularly its fishery economists,
to propagate the use of private
property rights to the fishery as the sine
qua non for fisheries management to be
effective. The appropriateness of this
approach for developing countries needs
to be assessed cautiously.
In this context it is necessary to state the
assumptions behind the ITQ system and
examine if these are appropriate to the
context of developing countries. Firstly
there is the theoretical assumption that it
costs nothing to enforce the ITQ system
or at the least that the benefits will far
outweigh the costs. It is presumed that
fishery managers will be able to allot quotas
and decide the yearly TAC without interference
from the different interest groups
in the fishery – the boat owners, the pro3066
Economic and Political Weekly August 19, 2000
cessing plant owners, the local communities,
the environmentalists and other stakeholders.
Secondly, it is usually assumed
that individuals and fishing firms do not
try to cheat and harvest more than the
allotted quota. Thirdly, fishing firms are
explicitly supposed to be atomistic profitmaximisers
without any political leverage
to gain subsidisation of key inputs. It is
doubtful if these assumptions are valid
even in Iceland today and therefore
question the true efficiency of the ITQ
system in the context of real political
economy. How then is it valid for developing
countries?
Concluding Thoughts
Iceland is a unique country. As the tourist
literature announces, it is ‘Europe’s Best
Kept Secret’. The opportunity to learn about
this country, its people and its economy
are not everyday happenings. Fisheries
constitute the most important sector of the
economy and fish a central part of the diet
and culture. Iceland’s historic efforts at
gaining sovereignty over its fishery resources
have been a great source of inspiration
to developing nations in instituting
national governance structures which
played an important role in influencing the
course of the UNCLOS I, II and III discussions.
Today Iceland’s fisheries are the
most productive in the world at approximately
280 tonnes per fisherman per annum
compared to between 2 and 5 tonnes for
most developing countries. This huge
difference reflects the greater people-dominance
of the fisheries sectors of the latter
rather than the resource plenitude of the
former. The Icelandic fishery sector experience
at governance highlights the need
to move from an open access regime (with
possession rights only) to a regime of
explicitly recognised property rights.
However, property rights can take numerous
forms and the Icelandic experience of
local-level governance using private property
rights with instruments such as ITQs
may not provide a model for the third
world to follow. Subject to this caveat, the
Icelandic system of governance highlights
the potentials for making fishery the
‘engine of growth of the economy’ of a
very small nation with large fishery resources.
The ‘governance success’ of
privatisation also throws up larger issues.
The role of the ‘people of a nation’ as
stakeholders in the stewardship of
natural resources is the most important.
In the context of globalisation, and the
growing international integration of national
economies into a global system, true
national sovereignty over natural resources
can be in jeopardy. There is a need to
explicitly recognise the implications of
these factors.
[A visit to Iceland to have a first hand appreciation
of Icelandic fisheries would not have been possible
without the generous and gracious support extended
to me by the World Humanity Action Trust,
(WHAT), UK. This brief analysis and thoughts
about the governance issues in Icelandic fisheries
are based on my discussions between August 17
and 23, 1999 with numerous persons who have
a firsthand understanding of the history and state
of affairs. I would like to thank Rognvaldur
Hannesson for taking me around Iceland showing
me nature in its variety of forms – hot and cold
– and glimpses into the culture and history of the
people. This was a truly unique once-in-a-lifetime
experience. I must also place on record my sincere
gratitude to Thorolfur Matthiasson, Birgir
Runolfsson, Arthur Bogason, Orn Palsson, Jon
Thordarson, Kristjan Thorarinsson, Petur
Bjarnason, Egill Jonasson, and Gisli Palsson for
sharing with me their thoughts and writings, which
I have used liberally in this brief note. My thanks
also to Rognvaldur Hannesson and Grimur
Valdimarsson for comments on a first draft. It is
quite likely that there are errors and omissions,
the responsibility for that rests solely on my
shoulders.]
References
Bjarnason P (1999): ‘The Fisheries Association
of Iceland’ (manuscript).
Bjorgulfsdottir M (1999): ‘Scrumtious Saltfish as
a Source of Life’, Atlantica, July-August 1999,
Reykjavik.
Bogason A (1998): ‘Crossing Boundaries’
(manuscript), paper presented at Vancouver,
June.
Extavour WC (1979): ‘The Exclusive Economic
Zone: A Study of the Evolution and Progressive
Development of the International Law of the
Sea’, IUHEI, Geneva.
Fiskifelag Islands (1998): Utvegur 1997.
Hagstofa Islands (1998): Landshagir, Statistical
Yearbook of Iceland 1998, Reykjavik.
Kurien J (1998): Property Rights, Resource
Management and Governance: Crafting
an Institutional Framework for Global
Marine Fisheries, CDS/SIFFS Publications,
Trivandrum.
Matthiason T (1997): ‘Consequences of Local
Government Involvement in the Icelandic
ITQ Market’, Marine Resource Economics,
pp 107-126.
– (nd):‘The Icelandic Debate on Fishery
Management and Resource Rent Distribution’
(manuscript).
Ministry of Fisheries (1998): Close to the Sea,
Reykjavik.
National Academy of Sciences (1999): ‘The
Icelandic Individual Transferable Quota
Program’, in Sharing the Fish: Towards a
National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas,
Washington DC.
Nordal J and Kristinsson V (1996): ‘Fishing
Industry’ in Iceland, The Republic, Central
Bank of Iceland Publication, Reykjavik.
Runolfsson B (1999): ‘ ITQs in Icelandic Fisheries:
A Rights Based Approach to Fisheries
Management’, paper presented in Workshop on
Use Rights in European Fisheries, May, Brest.
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1994):
(15th Ed) Macropaedia, Vol 20, Iceland,
pp 760-767, Chicago.
EPW
REVIEW OF LABOUR
May 27, 2000
Business-Labour-State Relations in New Chilean
Democracy —Patrick S Barrett
Miracle Worker or Womanmachine? Tracking (Trans)national
Realities in Bangladeshi Factories —Dina M Siddiqi
Increasing Inequality in United States: Trends, Problems,
and Prospects —Leslie McCall
Personal Responsibility amomg Puerto Rican Teenage Mothers
in New York City —Coridad Souza
For copies write to:
Circulation Manager
Economic and Political Weekly
Hitkari House, 284, Shahid Bhagatsingh Road,
Mumbai 400 001

ICELANDIC FISHERIES GOVERNANCE - A THIRD WORLD UNDERSTANDING By John Kurien

2010-06-03T10:02:00.001-07:00

ICELANDIC FISHERIES GOVERNANCE - A THIRD WORLD UNDERSTANDING By John Kurien

2010-06-03T10:02:00.000-07:00

Activists rally to support fishermen fighting for ancestral graveyard at Karachchi, Pakistan

2010-05-28T00:12:00.000-07:00

By Express May 28, 2010
http://tribune.com.pk/story/16746/activists-rally-to-support-fishermen-fighting-for-ancestral-graveyard/
Condemn army action against protesting fishermen.Share Printer Friendly
Email Comments KARACHI:
Human rights activists, trade unionists and advocacy groups have pledged their support for the fishing community in the city and their fight to save their graveyard.
Activists called upon the president, prime minister, army chief, chief justice and the Sindh chief minister to investigate the action taken by the police on army orders against the people of the coastal community.
Members of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), Pakistan Institute for Labour Education and Research (Piler), Pakistan Trade Union Federation, Labour Party Pakistan, People’s Labour Bureau and Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) organised a joint press conference at the Karachi Press Club on Thursday.
They alleged condemned the encroachment on the old community graveyard, located near Chashma Goth, Bin Qasim Town, by the army men from Malir Cantonment.
Members of the HRCP and trade unions called it a violation of human rights and urged the government to intervene and save the graveyard. PFF’s Muhammad Ali Shah added that the people of the community were living under pressure following the clashes on May 20 when the police resorted to aerial firing and baton charge on the protesting women and children.
The community never imagined that one day they will face such a horrible fate, when their graveyard would be encroachment on and the army and police would beat their sons and daughters, he said.
Karamat Ali of Piler said that fake cases are registered against the fishermen and their leaders just to pressure them into withdrawing their claim on the graveyard. The encroachment on the graveyard and the 300 acres near the coastal area is illegal, he said.
According to the organisers of the press conference, on October 16, 2009, when the community reached the graveyard for a funeral, military personnel took out their guns and told them to refrain from bringing their dead ones in the future. The army stopped them again from entering the graveyard on February 5 and when they repeated this on March 18, the community took the body outside the press club to protest.
Residents tried to seek the help of Pakistan People’s Party legislators, who were elected from their area, namely Sindh Minister for Jails Haji Muzaffar Shujra and MNA Sher Muhammad Baloch but they were of no help.
There are 2,300 graves in the cemetery and many have been damaged. This graveyard was used by almost 100,000 people of eight villages, including Chashma Goth, Ali Akbar Goth, Ali Brohi Goth, Ali Mohammed Khaskheli Goth, Ilyas Jat Goth, Syed Para and Baloch Para.
The PFF chairperson Muhammad Ali Shah, Qasim Khaskheli, Abubakr and other social activists held meetings with army officials to settle the dispute. The army officials claimed that they have lease documents of the 300 acres for an army training centre in the coastal areas.
The village representatives asked the army officials to show those documents so they can see how the revenue department leased out the graveyard land to the army. The army officials have yet to justify their claims.
Last week, on May 20, the army decided to build a boundary wall around this land. Their plan was, however, spoiled when the residents came to protest. The protest later turned violent as the police mistreated them.

PAKISTAN FISHERFOLK FORUM [PFF]
Sachal Hall, Jamait Market, Ibahim Hyderi,
Bin Qasim Town, Karachi, Pakistan
Tel: +92-213-5092862-5090543-5090925
Fax: 0213-5090940
E-mail: pakistanfisherfolk@hotmail.com
pakistanfisherfolk@yahoo.com
fisherfolkpk@yahoo.com
Website: www.pff.org.pk

World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP) comments and objections on the Pre-Draft CRZ Notification 2010 of India

2010-05-27T09:20:00.001-07:00

We welcome the consultative process initiated by the Ministry on the content of the proposed CRZ 2010, through issuance of a pre-draft notification, and particularly the fact that the Ministry has translated it into all coastal languages.
After going through the content of the pre-draft, however, we feel that it is contrary to the demands of fishworker groups and other civil society groups working on coastal issues, following the issuance of the draft CMZ Notification in 2008. These demands were also clearly articulated in the consultations authorized by the MoEF, organized by the CEE, over the past one year.
In our opinion the present pre-draft is ineffective both in:
(a) Strengthening the coastal regulation regime for long-term protection of coastal ecosystems
(b) Ensuring better recognition of the rights of fishing communities to their habitats
We have undertaken a detailed analysis of the pre-draft Notification to arrive at this conclusion. We, therefore, reject the pre-draft notification in totality. These are the important elements of our critique:
Weakening rather than strengthening coastal protection

The overall effect of the proposals contained in the pre-draft notification is to weaken coastal protection rather than strengthen it. These are the ways this is achieved.

1. Legitimising all previous dilutions of CRZ and adding to the pressure on coastal eco-systems

One of the foundations of the CRZ regime is the principle that only activities that require water front and foreshore facilities should be permitted. However, since 1991, this principle has been diluted with a number of amendments. The CRZ-2010 seems to have become an opportunity to provide additional exemptions and make some more activities permissible. Some of the important additions over the years that do not conform to the principle are mentioned herein below.

(i) Projects of the Department of Atomic Energy (read nuclear power plants): The concept note starts with the acknowledgement that 25% of India’s population lives within 50 kms of the coast. It is unimaginable that the Govt can permit any nuclear power plants within the 50 km zone where there is such a high population density and the consequences of any failures will be catastrophic. However, the CRZ allows nuclear power plants within the 500 m zone and even in CRZ-I areas. Such callous disregard for human safety and environment is being legitimised by CRZ-2010.
(ii) Non polluting industries in the field of Information Technology and other service industries in the CRZ of SEZs: This is clearly a ridiculous insertion which has no logic attached to it. It is applicable even to CRZ-I areas. Is pollution the only reason for restriction of activities and construction in the CRZ? Pollution is merely one tiny objection to setting up of SEZs as there are various other issues involved including the fact that SEZ does not come with the purview of the existing laws and are governed by something entirely different. Under the garb of SEZ, mega housing projects and heavy industrialisation in coastal stretches is a very strong possibility and hence there should be no scope absolutely for any SEZ within the CRZ area.
(iii) Generation of power by non-conventional energy sources in non CRZ-I areas: A blanket exemption that is difficult to accept. Why should these have to come up within the narrow 500 m coastal zone? Unless it is a wave energy or tidal energy plant and unless it is in a large mangrove area like the Sundarbans where local communities do not have access to the grid electricity?
(iv) Storage of petroleum products, fertilizers and chemicals in non CRZ-I areas: There are obviously logistical issues in storage of goods like these that get transported via sea, but the justification to store such toxic stuff in the 500 m coastal zone has never been provided.
(v) Greenfield airport in New Mumbai: The most brazen insertion in the CRZ till date is the permission for a “Greenfield airport” in Navi Mumbai and that too in mangrove area (CRZ-I). Of course, the MoEF has made this conditional to a study. Still, this highlights the dangers of not going by the cardinal principle of water front or foreshore requirement. More powerful Ministries are able to push in their agenda ignoring the needs of the coastal protection.
(vi) Exemptions to tourism projects: Tourism has been one of the more contentious issues with permission given to tourism over time to operate within the 200-500 m zone on the coast in CRZ-II and III. Despite serious objections, tourist resorts are only subject to the restriction that they are limited to “designated areas”. This is just a fig leaf as there seems to be no restriction on designating areas by concerned authorities.
(vii) Housing projects—colonizing the coast?: In the name of harmonising the provisions of the EIA notification and the CRZ, from out of the blue, come provisions for housing projects in the CRZ, with the SCZMAs having the power to grant clearances for projects up to a built up area of 20,000 sq.m and the MoEF for projects above that. Why should housing projects be allowed in the CRZ? How can such large projects be permitted within the narrow 500 m zone? For whom are these housing projects meant? Will the height limit of 9 m for dwelling of fishermen and for tourist resorts also apply to these housing projects? A provision for housing projects within the CRZ will lead to a total takeover of coastal space and the resultant displacement of fishing communities.
(viii) Regulating coastal protection measures—a silver lining: It must be acknowledged that one good regulation that makes an entry is that of regulating coastal protection measures and structures that alter the coastline. This will hopefully put an end to the racket of “sea-walls” and the growth or groynes and breakwaters constructed without any rigorous study. However, it is worth noting that the MoEF has not yet thought of provisions to rehabilitate damaged coastlines.

2. Failing to recognise and act on the fact that “permissible activities”, if not limited, can destroy the coast.

The Swaminathan Committee recognised the “cumulative impacts” that ports can have and recommended a moratorium on ports till a study is conducted. Before we discuss how the MoEF and the CRZ-2010 handles the issue of ports, it is important to recognise that cumulative impacts are there for all activities, not just ports. This has been largely ignored by CRZ 2010. It still operates on the basis of individual project clearances without fixing any limit for each type of activity or for all activities as a whole. The cumulative impacts of a few activities and how the CRZ 2010 handles these activities, are worth mentioning.

(i) Port development—shifting cultivation?: The way CRZ 2010 handles the issue of the anarchic growth of ports is surprising. Instead of following up on the idea of cumulative impact assessment and fixing limits to port development, CRZ 2010 comes up with the idea that ports can be permitted in low erosion coastlines, regulated in medium erosion coastlines and avoided in high erosion coastlines. There are a number of problems with this formulation. For one, it assumes that erosion is the only issue with ports. There are many other environmental impacts due to ports. There are also serious issues of displacement of fishing communities and negative impact on their livelihoods. Even, if we take erosion as an issue, it is important to recognise that ports and other coastal structures (including, ironically, measures taken for coastal protection) themselves contribute significantly to coastal erosion. Some of the coasts that are currently considered “high eroding” are in that state mostly due to unscientific interventions made on the coast rather than by nature itself. It is therefore ridiculous to say that ports should be allowed in “low eroding” coasts. It sounds similar to shifting cultivation in agriculture, when farmers move to new fertile lands after exhausting the fertility of old lands. Only, fallow lands—left idle for sufficient time—will regain fertility, while eroded coasts will not became stable if they are left alone.
(ii) Power plants (nuclear and thermal): With our economy becoming power hungry to maintain growth rates, power projects are being proposed in large numbers. Unfortunately, both thermal and nuclear plants are sought to be put up along the coast in large numbers. While the availability of large amount of cooling water from the sea is an attraction to both thermal and nuclear plants, the import of coal from South East Asia is an added advantage to thermal plants. The sudden increase in proposals along the coast is scary. Nagapattinam, Kutch, Sindhudurg, East Godavari, etc., are going to have a chain of thermal power projects coming up in the near future. Even if the foreshore facilities needed for power plants are a permissible activity and the plant itself is presumably outside CRZ, the enormous harm such a large number of coastal power plants and the jetties they need cannot be ignored. The large quantities of water that will be drawn on a daily basis and the heated water that will be released back to the sea all over the coast can potentially finish off coastal fishing, unless severe limits are prescribed to establishment of such units along the coast.
(iii) Tourism: When the tourist industry sought amendments to CRZ in the early 1990s, it justified concessions on the ground that only an insignificant 20 km of coastline would be needed for resorts along India’s long coastline. However, the rapid development of the tourism sector now indicates that even the entire coastline of India may not be enough for the ambitions of the tourism departments and entrepreneurs willing to invest in tourist facilities. The current stipulation of “designated areas” is weak and needs to be clearly quantified in some way to avoid a total takeover of the coast, especially in states where tourism is booming.
(iv) Desalination: This is an activity pumping in large amounts of sea water and pumping back water with low salt content. It can also cause harm to fishing, if not properly regulated and restricted.
(v) Industries: Industries of all kinds, individually or through SEZs are coming up all along the coast and even if some of them are only seeking water front or foreshore facilities in the CRZ area, they also exert a cumulative impact and not much is known about this.

Thus CRZ-2010 does not address the problem of cumulative impacts of permissible activities and given the increased demand to undertake these activities, will end up weakening coastal protection by this omission.

3. Reclassification as route for opening up more areas for “development”?

The biggest danger lurking in the CRZ-2010 is that it is a new notification and not an amendment to CRZ-91. More importantly, it involves changes in the CRZ zoning through the deletion of islands and the inclusion of aquatic areas (plus the additional area that may come in wherever the hazard line is beyond 500 m). This has given the opportunity to do a completely new classification of the coast. Instead of merely revising old CZMPs to include aquatic areas, the notification talks about fresh CZMPs to be drawn up for the entire coast. No explanation is provided in the concept note or pre-draft notification for this.

While HTL mapping across the entire coast is a welcome exercise, drawing up an entirely new CZMP will mean that there is a possibility that some of the CRZ-I areas can be re-classified as CRZ-II or III and many CRZ-III areas can be converted into CRZ-II areas. In the current CRZ regime, conversion of areas from one category to anther is not easy. It needs to go up to NCZMA for approval and approval depends on the status of that area in 1991. For instance, for conversion of CRZ-III to II, it needs to be shown that the area was already substantially built up in 1991 itself. Another example would be a mangrove area, classified as CRZ-I, but subsequently de-forested illegally. In the current regime, this cannot be reclassified as CRZ-II or III as the 1991 position would hold good. If CRZ-2010 provisions are applied, this land could very well be re-classified as CRZ-II or III. Thus the idea of new CZMPs opens the door for reclassifying areas and increased industrialisation and urbanisation of the coast.

Till now, the CZMPs prepared in 1996 on the basis of 1991 benchmarks, are the basis for deciding on whether certain activities can be permitted in a particular area or not. The 15 year-old CZMPs have become a hurdle for many ambitious projects on the coast. In some states like Gujarat this has been resolved by the CZMPs just disappearing or not being accessible to the public. The reclassification solves these problems faced by the violators! More interestingly, reclassification is being made into a virtue by providing for periodic re-classification—every five years. If CMZ attempted a wholesale opening up of the coast, CRZ-2010 will kill it in instalments.

4. Hazard line—A haphazard provision

The hazard line, a part and parcel of the discredited CMZ regime, makes a side-door entry, if not a back-door entry, into CRZ-2010. The concept note makes the masterly statement “hazard mapping mechanism to be revised” and then talks about the hazard line to be drawn up based on certain parameters with a view to provide safeguards to infrastructure and habitations of local communities. There is very little clarity on how the hazard line will work and how it will do what is supposed to do. Appendix-I to the pre-draft notification has just a sub title called “Hazard mapping” with no contents.

The pre-draft notification provisions relating to the hazard lines are terse and incomprehensible. While it is clear that in areas where the hazard line falls landward of the 500 m zone, the CRZ area will include that extra area. What is not clear is what sort of regulatory regime will apply in this case. If it is CRZ-I, will this area also become CRZ-I? If it is CRZ-II or III, what regulations will apply to this extra piece of land? In the instance where the hazard line falls seaward of the 500 m line, we get the impression that the area between the hazard line and the 500 m line will be de-regulated and only normal town and country planning rules will apply. If this reading is correct, this goes completely against the understanding of dropping CMZ and using the 500 m line as a constant for the purpose of regulation.

Given that the Ministry has publicly announced that it has World Bank funding for drawing up the Hazard line, it appears as if the Ministry is introducing the line into the CRZ to justify or legitimise its commitments to the World Bank without providing a proper justification for the line and a clear and acceptable explanation as to how it would be used. WFFP strongly rejects the inclusion of the hazard line in the CRZ.

The same game to legitimise some of the decisions of the Ministry is visible the way the National Institute for Sustainable Coastal Zone Management is deliberately woven into the text of the notification. If the Ministry has the authority to set up such an institute, why should it try to manufacture public consent for it by mentioning it without any particular reason in the notification?

5. CRZ-IV—water, water, everywhere, no regulation in sight!

The inclusion of aquatic areas in the CMZ was rejected by the NFF. However, when it was proposed to be included in the CRZ regime by the Swaminathan Committee, we agreed. This was based on the belief that the aquatic areas will receive protection from various interventions that are gradually destroying the aquatic eco-system. The health of the marine, estuarine and backwater eco-systems are very important for fishing communities.

However, CRZ 2010 is totally disappointing in the way it has handled the aquatic zone. The section on CRZ-IV, which now represents the aquatic areas, has virtually no new regulation that can be attributed to the inclusion of aquatic areas. The only regulation mentioned is that no untreated sewage, effluents or solid waste shall be let off or dumped. This is not a new provision and was already part of the old CRZ without the aquatic areas being included.

The only other provision in the CRZ-IV section is the non-regulation of fishing activities. This is a misleading provision as what the Ministry means is that fishing activities will not be regulated under CRZ but under other legal instruments like the State Marine Fishing Regulation Acts, Wildlife Protection Act, etc.

Provisions that deal with corals, sea-grass beds and breeding grounds for fish were already part of CRZ-I and hence have no particular relevance in justifying the CRZ-IV.

However, it should be noted that a general provision found in the general list of prohibited activities deals with reclamation. This means that reclamation of the aquatic areas is prohibited and this is welcome.

If the inclusion of aquatic areas in the CRZ should make any sense, then there should be some regulations to justify it. Some of the important activities that need regulation include petroleum drilling and oil & natural gas production. While there is a need for petroleum products for the development of the nation (as well as for fishing itself), it is treated as a holy cow and all the environmental damage done by the petroleum sector is ignored and fishermen are already suffering with most of the sea areas being leased out to petroleum companies. Likewise, oil spillage and pollution by ships at sea is affecting marine life. If there are other laws to regulate all this, then why create CRZ-IV?

6. Special dispensations: a hotchpotch with no discernable common logic or thread

The section dealing with special dispensations is unconvincing and opens the door for many such dispensations. It must be mentioned that that special dispensations were not recommended by the Swaminathan Committee, except for the cautious recommendation that the Ministry must carefully weigh its options for dealing with the issue of renovation of flats in Mumbai. The consultations also did not throw up any strong demand for special dispensations. Hence this is a dubious insertion that has the potential to wreck the CRZ. What is to prevent other states or cities from asking for similar dispensations and will the coalition Governments at the centre be able to resist them?

(i) CRZ-V or special dispensation?: The concept note says that Mumbai, Goa and Kerala will all come under CRZ-V. However, reading the pre-draft notification gives the impression that we are not talking of CRZ-V but a special dispensation in each of these geographical locations while retaining the current CRZ classification.
(ii) Mumbai—weak and contradictory logic: The notification mentions that Mumbai needs to be given special dispensation on account of: (i) degradation of mangroves, (ii) discharge of untreated effluents and solid wastes and (iii) need to provide decent houses to the poor section of the people. By this logic every coastal city in India should be given a special dispensation!
(iii) Only for Mumbai?: The long list of provisions made for Mumbai is mainly made of items that seem to be relevant all over India, not just Mumbai. For instance, (a) mangrove mapping and protection, (b) protection of areas of archaeological importance and heritage sites including island forts, (c) prohibition of location of disposal of conventional solid waste (is there any unconventional solid waste?), (d) measures to protect structures and habitations on the seaward side of the hazard line and (e) no dredging or mining in CRZ I area. A lot of unnecessary clauses to create an impression that the poor Mumbai is being given some concessions but a lot of additional burden at the same time!
(iv) Protecting Maharashtra Govt from contempt of court?: One of the weird formulations of the special dispensation provisions for Mumbai is the exhortation by the notification to Maharashtra Govt to implement court orders regarding mangrove mapping and protection of mangroves. Is the Maharashtra Govt in need a MoEF notification to know that it should implement court orders? Is it to protect the Maharashtra Govt from contempt of court?
(v) Roads on stilts: An interesting provision is to allow the construction of roads on stilts over mangroves in Mumbai. This appears to be an attempt to reconcile Bombay’s need for roads with the need to protect the remaining mangroves. What needs to be asked is whether construction of roads on stilts, with only negligible impact on mangroves, a real possibility? Or is it just a fiction to allay the fears of those who wish to protect mangroves? Another question: is this is meant only for Mumbai? This provision has already found its way into the exemptions given under the general section on prohibited activities within CRZ. By implication, this provision will apply across the entire coast.
(vi) Protecting builder lobbies and slum lords?: The real intention of the special dispensation to Mumbai is revealed in the set of provisions that deal with concessions for constructions by builders within the CRZ area. Though the concept note talks only about 136 slums within the CRZ areas of Greater Mumbai and Navi Mumbai, the special dispensation provided by the notification is much wider in scope. It includes (a) provision of “re-development” of “specific buildings”, and (b) slum rehabilitation schemes for slum dwellers. This needs a bit more of analysis.
(vii) Redevelopment of specific buildings: It is true that the Swaminathan Committee has recognised the problem of redevelopment of old buildings in Mumbai, but it has not actually recommended any concessions. It has only asked the Govt to carefully consider whether concessions can be given to specific buildings in specific areas. Has the Govt made any study of the specific buildings and specific areas? Has it looked into the implications of giving this concession? Has it looked into the possibility of public finance to avoid the problem of increasing the FAR/FSI in CRZ areas for redevelopment of these “specific buildings” as suggested by the Swaminathan Committee? Unless it provides adequate information to justify this concession, is it not creating the wrong impression that it is acting on the Swaminathan Committee recommendations?
(viii) Slum rehabilitation—an end to the koliwadas?: The proposal to undertake slum rehabilitation has not been recommended by the Swaminathan Committee. In fact the Committee has quoted at length objections from the fishing community regarding such a move. Has the Ministry conducted any study to check whether the fishing community fears are justified? Is this provision meant for any specific slums or is this a provision for ever? What does “local regulations” mean for slum development in terms of FAR and FSI? Slums within CRZ are deliberate creations of slum lords who are linked to builders and who in turn are well networked with powerful politicians. This concession will lead to handing over of the high value Bombay coast to builders and end in the further marginalisation of the fishing communities and the destruction of the original settlements of Mumbai—the Koliwadas.
(ix) Townships in the CRZ?: The special provisions to Mumbai also mention that construction and township projects above 20,000 sq.m will need MoEF clearance while smaller projects can be cleared by local authorities. Why this provision? Does this mean that in addition to the “specific buildings” and “slum clearance” projects, there will be other housing projects within the CRZ in Mumbai?
(x) Kerala—special dispensation for backwater islands or the entire coast?: Both the concept note and the notification create an impression that Kerala is being given special concessions in the case of “backwater islands”. However, this does not seem to be case and the entire Kerala coast is getting a special dispensation. One concession to Kerala is to allow construction of dwelling units of “local communities” beyond 50 m with the permission of Panchayats. In the case of the “backwater islands”, the CRZ is being reduced from 500 m to 50 m. The concession to all local communities to build in the 50-200 m zone is to invite problems for the fishing communities who are precariously placed on the coast and competing with various interests for coastal space. Anyone in Kerala who buys land on the coast will automatically become part of the local community and get Panchayat permission for construction. The entire Kerala coast will virtually become a CMZ-II with a completely built up area.
(xi) Goa: The special dispensation for Goa is simple—reconstruction and repairs of all local community dwellings in Goa are allowed within the CRZ area. This is however padded by a number of redundant provisions. Here, like in Kerala, the objection is that fishing communities who need to be on the coast are clubbed with the rest under the generic term “local communities”.
(xii) Goa—Khazan lands to be protected or “managed”?: While the idea of bringing Khazan lands in Goa under the regime to protect their use for paddy cultivation, the idea of preparing “management” plans sounds fishy. Khazan lands needs to protected for the environment service they provide in protecting the ground water from becoming saline.
(xiii) Biospheres, ecologically important areas or CVCAs?: The concept note explains that bio-sphere areas that have a sizeable population have special problems and a special dispensation needs to be given to them. However, the notification itself does not talk about biospheres but about a new category called “ecologically important areas”. This seems to be a new term distinct from eco-sensitive areas that have been listed in the CRZ-I. Further, it goes to say that these ecologically important areas will be declared as Critically Vulnerable Coastal Areas! Are biospheres being renamed CVCAs for being ecologically important?
(xiv) What is common to the CVCAs?: The list of locations is somewhat difficult to interpret from the point of view of commonality. If one goes by the concept note, the intention is to provide some relief to people trapped in biospheres that are CRZ-I areas. However, with the exception of Sundarbans, it is not clear that any of the other areas listed have people struggling due to CRZ norms, more than people in other parts of the coast. Perhaps, Coringa in E.Godavari has similarities to Sundarbans on account of a mangrove estuarine system that covers over 200 sq.km. In the rest of the areas listed, the issue seems to be more of industries, ports, SEZs and other infrastructure projects that are destroying the biosphere. The Gulf of Kutch marine national park, the first of its kind in India is being destroyed by ports and petroleum pipe lines.
(xv) Who will benefit from CVCAs and management plans?: If integrated management plans need to be made for CVCAs, what exactly are the implications? Has the Ministry studied the specific problems in each of the areas listed? Will the CRZ regulations be held in abeyance and everything will depend on the plans, as was visualised in CMZ and now in the IPZ? If so, it will only be the industries that benefit and not local communities
(xvi) What about other laws?: The biospheres, national parks, sanctuaries, etc. are all constituted under other laws. Will the CRZ notification prevail in case of conflicts?

The entire special dispensation regime proposed in CRZ-2010 smacks of weak analysis/rationale, mixing up of issues, confused objectives, obfuscation of real motives, and completely arbitrary solutions. It is better to dispense with the special dispensations and deal with problems that need to be solved with appropriate rules that will stand rigorous interrogation.

6. Abandoning the islands

The CRZ for island territories is being dispensed with and replaced with IPZ. The NFF has already objected to the IPZ notification as it dispenses with coastal regulation and replaces it with “management”. It is important to mention this while discussing CRZ-2010. NFF strongly objects to the island territories being taken out of the CRZ regime.

7. CRZ Implementation—new provisions, but…..

An effort has been made in CRZ-2010 to improve the implementation of the CRZ. These include the following provisions: (i) streamlining procedure for grant of clearances, (ii) provisions for transparency with regard to applications, clearances, compliance reports, violations, etc, (iii) empowering the SCZMAs and NCZMA with powers under the EPA to take action against violators of CRZ, (iv) a time bound plan by States and UTs to deal with pollution of coastal areas and waters with adequate budget and (v) asking SCZMAs to identify all violations within three months and to take action within six months.

However, serious doubts persist about the ability of the Ministry to enforce many of these provisions, even if one grants that it is serious about enforcement. These are the concerns:

(i) Practicality of deadlines and proposed action: State Govts and local bodies are very much part of violations including the dumping of untreated sewage. Does MoEF have the clout to bring them to book? Is it possible to get states to actually clean up the effluents within a period of two years as mentioned? Did not the CRZ-91 also say something similar and fail miserably? Is it humanly possible to identify all violations within 3 months? What sort of action can one expect—mere notices or actual demolitions, fines, etc.?
(ii) Composition of SCZMAs and NCZMAs: The SCZMAs and the NCZMA are packed with bureaucrats and persons obliged to Govt in many ways. Very few of them even know the ground realities and have no options but to go by what is provided through official channels. Very rarely are there voices of dissent and they are quickly silenced due to lack of support. The composition of these bodies need to strengthened with stronger grass roots representatives and fishing community leaders committed to environment and livelihood protection. More civil society voices should be part of these set-ups.
(iii) Functioning of SCZMAs and NCZMA: The Ministry must get a proper study done on the functioning of these bodies and the reasons for their failures and to develop a package of measures to rectify them. Without that all quick-fixes will not work.
(iv) Ignoring special status of fishing villages and gaunthans: One of the dangers of the exercise to book violations will be that technically many of the dwelling units in fishing villages and gaunthans may also be in violation of CRZ, if strictly applied. Unless the exemption to them is clearly specified, local authorities will deliberately target them as a means to sabotage the entire process of booking violations.

CRZ-2010—Failing the Fishing Community

The second rationale for changes to CRZ-91 was the understanding the needs of the fishing communities are not taken care of adequately and there is a need to ensure that this happened. Looking at the provisions of CRZ-2010, one can only say that it has failed on this count also.

The CRZ-2010 provides the following specific provisions for fishing communities: (i) permission to double the number of dwellings in the 200-500 m zone of CRZ-III with 2010 as the cut-off year, and (ii) a list of facilities/activities related to fishing that are permitted in the 0-200 m of CRZ-III.

Ignoring rights, providing limited concessions

The CRZ-2010 is still in the business of providing some concessions to fishing communities rather than acknowledge their rights. This despite the fact that the Ministry has already accepted that the rights of fishing communities to coastal areas needs to be recognized, as also recommended in Final Frontier. In this context the CRZ should at least do what is within the Ministry’s purview vis-à-vis rights. NFF has clearly sought provisions in CRZ authorising fishing hamlet sabhas to take decisions on dwelling units and livelihood facilities subject to certain constraints or limits. Instead, CRZ-2010 has consigned fishing communities to a 200-500 m zone ghetto in CRZ-III.

The activities permitted in the 0-200 m zone of CRZ-III areas is not complete, but NFF sees no point in negotiating the list at the moment as it is based on the attitude of providing concessions, not rights.

Eliminating fishermen from CRZ-I and II

Going by the provisions of CRZ-I and II, fishermen have no real place in them. In CRZ-I in the name of ecology, fishermen have no rights while environmentally risky activities are allowed under the logic that they need water front or foreshore facilities. In CRZ-II, the fishermen are treated on par with all other occupants of the coast. This would automatically lead to their gradual elimination by as the rich buy out the poor fishermen lands or make use of their lack of formal title deeds. Unless the MoEF recognises that the fishing community needs the water front and foreshore facilities and have historic rights in this regard, the CRZ provisions will always fall short of doing justice to fishing communities.

Increasing opportunities for others on the coast and squeezing fishermen out

What the CMZ proposed to do, the CRZ-2010 does more gently and in stages. The increasing demand for use of coast by different “permitted” and “exempted” activities will lead to increased pressure on coastal lands and resources. Violations add to the pressure. With CRZ-2010 showing no signs of trying to limit growth of activities on the coast or look at cumulative impacts, the fishing community will face both physical displacement and livelihood losses.

Special dispensations—adverse to fishing communities

The special dispensations given in Mumbai, Goa and Kerala are in general adverse to fishermen as they promote the claims of others who are competing with fishing communities for coastal space and resources. Using euphemisms like “local communities”, the non-fishing community interests are being promoted and the fishing community, by virtue of its social, economic and political marginalisation will be the biggest loser in areas of “special dispensation”. It was the fishing communities which needed a special dispensation in CRZ-2010, not the others.

Does CRZ-2010 get a pass mark?

The CRZ-2010 pre-draft notification fails to satisfy the two criteria used by NFF to judge it: (i) increased coastal protection and (ii) protecting the rights and interests of the fishing communities.

The CRZ-2010 fails to deliver on its mandate basically because many of its provisions actually come from outside the two legitimate sources it needed to depend upon: (i) Final Frontier and (ii) the consultations organised by CEE.

While NFF is not in full agreement with all the recommendations of the Final Frontier, its broad approach is sound. Likewise, the consultations brought out a diversity of views and there was no scope of building a consensus or assessing the actual support that many views had. However, there were many views that had clearly support across the coast and the Ministry has clearly ignored them. One clear example is that there was a universal stand across the coast to go back to the original 1991 notification as base document. The list of views that came across clearly and were ignored by the Ministry is a long one.

Hence NFF rejects the CRZ-2010 pre-draft notification in its current form.

WHAT THE WFFP SEEKS

The WFFP is willing to accept changes to CRZ as long as the formulation satisfies the following conditions

• Re-establishing the primacy of water front and foreshore requirements as principle for permitting activities on the coast; strict adherence to the principle
• Recognising that activities that require water front and foreshore facilities cannot be allowed without setting limits. MoEF must undertake a comprehensive study of the coast and the cumulative impacts (both environmental and social) of various activities, and fix limits that will allow the coast to exist as a healthy eco-system providing sustainable benefits to many
• Recognise the right of the coastal fishing communities to the coastal zone (not just a small part of it) and give them the responsibility to plan and use the coastal space in a sustainable manner; protect fishing villages from encroachments by industries, SEZs, power plants, ports, etc.
• Drop the proposal to include aquatic areas unless there is a will to develop a comprehensive system of regulation to protect the marine and brackish-water eco-system, taking on the some of the holy cows of modern India like oil exploration and production.
• Drop the hazard line as there is no clear understanding how it will be used and the fishing communities are unwilling to accept it
• Realise that the fishing communities represent the single biggest constituency for coastal protection in India and is the best ally for the MoEF, if it genuinely seeks coastal protection; involve fishing community and its organisations in monitoring and provide proper representation in all bodies dealing with coastal regulations; strengthen presence of environmentalists and livelihood experts in such bodies
• Strengthen EPA provisions for deterrent punishments that will include fines in proportion to the ecological destruction caused and include imprisonment of violators
• The notification is only a stop gap arrangement accepted by WFFP till the time the Ministry comes out with a legislation to regulate the coastal zones.

Thomas Kocherry
Special Invitee
27-05-2010

Oceans' fish could disappear in 40 years: UN

2010-05-24T21:24:00.000-07:00

By Sebastian Smith (AFP)
NEW YORK — The world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless fishing fleets are slashed and stocks allowed to recover, UN experts warned Monday.
"If the various estimates we have received... come true, then we are in the situation where 40 years down the line we, effectively, are out of fish," Pavan Sukhdev, head of the UN Environment Program's green economy initiative, told journalists in New York.
A Green Economy report due later this year by UNEP and outside experts argues this disaster can be avoided if subsidies to fishing fleets are slashed and fish are given protected zones -- ultimately resulting in a thriving industry.
The report, which was opened to preview Monday, also assesses how surging global demand in other key areas including energy and fresh water can be met while preventing ecological destruction around the planet.
UNEP director Achim Steiner said the world was "drawing down to the very capital" on which it relies.
However, "our institutions, our governments are perfectly capable of changing course, as we have seen with the extraordinary uptake of interest. Around, I think it is almost 30 countries now have engaged with us directly, and there are many others revising the policies on the green economy," he said.
Environmental experts are mindful of the failure this March to push through a worldwide ban on trade in bluefin tuna, one of the many species said to be headed for extinction.
Powerful lobbying from Japan and other tuna-consuming countries defeated the proposal at the CITES conference on endangered species in Doha.
But UNEP's warning Monday was that tuna only symbolizes a much vaster catastrophe, threatening economic, as well as environmental upheaval.
One billion people, mostly from poorer countries, rely on fish as their main animal protein source, according to the UN.
The Green Economy report estimates there are 35 million people fishing around the world on 20 million boats. About 170 million jobs depend directly or indirectly on the sector, bringing the total web of people financially linked to 520 million.
According to the UN, 30 percent of fish stocks have already collapsed, meaning they yield less than 10 percent of their former potential, while virtually all fisheries risk running out of commercially viable catches by 2050.
Currently only a quarter of fish stocks -- mostly the cheaper, less desirable species -- are considered to be in healthy numbers.
The main scourge, the UNEP report says, are government subsidies encouraging ever bigger fishing fleets chasing ever fewer fish, with little attempt made to allow the fish populations to recover.
The annual 27 billion dollars in government subsidies to fishing, mostly in rich countries, is "perverse," Sukhdev said, since the entire value of fish caught is only 85 billion dollars.
As a result, fishing fleet capacity is "50 to 60 percent" higher than it should be, Sukhdev said.
Creating marine preservation areas to allow female fish to grow to full size, thereby hugely increasing their fertility, is one vital solution, the report says.
Another is restructuring the fishing fleets to favor smaller boats that -- once fish stocks recover -- would be able to land bigger catches.
"What is scarce here is fish," Sukhdev said, "not the stock of fishing capacity."
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
Related articles
World's fish stocks may vanish in 40 years
Sydney Morning Herald - 3 days ago
Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years: UN (AFP)
New York News Today - 3 days ago
Turning The Tide On Falling Fish Stocks - UNEP-Led Green Economy Charts ...
Voxy - 4 days ago

Chashma Goth fishermen condemn police action

2010-05-23T22:02:00.001-07:00

Sunday, May 23, 2010
By PFF correspondent

Karachi

Hundreds of fishermen in Karachi coastal areas, different towns in Thatta and Badin districts and fresh waters of Sindh staged protest rallies to condemn the military operation and brutality of police against law abiding fishermen of Chashma Goth and neighbourhood, said a Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) spokesman.

The community people addressed the rallies to condemn the brutal action in which six poor women and children were injured by police force, while the people also came out to protest against the building of wall around the old graveyard.

Hundreds of fishermen, PFF activists and civil society leaders staged rallies in Sehwan, Dadu, Sanghar, Thatta, Badin, Jatti, Kashmore, Qambar, Sukkur, Kandhkot and other areas in protest. The protestors called the operation a brutal action which should be condemned widely and urged the government to take notice of this and stop occupation of graveyard. The community activists said that their lives and livelihoods were already at stake due to various problems and now government agencies are grabbing the land, playgrounds and graveyards.

They also condemned the FIR against the poor villagers and arrest of few people from the victim community. They demanded to lodge FIR against the real culprits, who were involved in cruel actions.

Meanwhile, the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum leaders announced to observe complete shutter down strike in the entire coastal areas and other fresh water bodies, Sanghar, Dadu, Sehwan, Qambar and Kashmore to condemn military action against the poor fishermen.

PFF Chairperson Mohammed Ali Shah filed a petition in the Sindh High Court (SHC) against the illegal action to grab the old graveyard, which the community people of eight villages have been using since the time of their forefathers.

Earlier, the Military officials held meetings with the community people and realising the plea allowed them to visit their graveyard. But recently, when the army tried to build wall around the land, the community took stand and opposed the action. In result, under the tutelage of army personnel, police resorted to baton charge and firing on the community

Police Occupied Graveyard at Pakistan

2010-05-22T03:12:00.000-07:00

Police firing and batten charge on the fishermen community mob, injuring six women and children near Chashma Village, Bin Qasim Town on Thursday infuriated further the people, who were protesting against the occupation on the land of old graveyard. Residents of eight coastal villages, including Chashma Goth use the land for burying their loved ones through their forefathers. For the last few years the government’s agency (Military) occupied the graveyard, forbidden the people to refrain from burying their people there. Despite complaints the government authorities left the people at the mercy of certain agency personnel and the police, the statement added.
It is the only graveyard for the eight villages, comprising 100,000 people. On Thursday, a large number of the villagers, including women gathered to oppose the wall the agency tried to cover up the 300 acre area enraged the people by force. In result at least six women were injured by police. The police later registered FIR against the 42 protesting community activists, including Mohammed Ali Shah, chairperson of the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF), instead of the people occupying the land. PFF statement said Mohammed Ali Shah, being community representative went to the spot for moral support to the neglected community, whose graveyards are not safe and being occupied.
When villagers tried to lodge FIR against the influential agency, the police refused and threatened people to leave the area. The fishermen of neighbouring localities after this action are feared and decided to take the issue at higher authorities to get the graveyard land back. The community people are designing petition against the police action and grabbing precious land, which they will file in the court and also sent the same to international human rights groups.
The PFF statement further said the police have arrested eight activists and conducting raids to hunt others to create fear and anxiety in Rehri and surrounding villages. PFF condemned the indicting name of Mohammed Ali Shah in the FIR and said it may cause uncertainty among the already deprived poor fishermen.
Police and military personnel besieged 15 neighbouring villages to arrest more people and harass them to withdraw their stands of taking the land.
The PFF has demanded the government to save the graveyard and ensure security to their properties and natural resources. PFF also appealed to civil society organizations, human rights groups and political activists to come forward for the community help.
Earlier, the Military officials held meetings with the community people and realizing the plea allowed them to visit frequently their graveyard. But recently, when the army tried to build wall around the land, the community took stand and opposed the action. In result, under the tutelage of army personnel, police resorted to batten charge and firing.
Protest against occupation of graveyard land: Five hurt as police baton-charge villagers
By Amar Guriro

KARACHI: At least five people including two women and a child were injured on Friday when police baton-charged hundreds of residents of coastal villages protesting against the occupation of a historical graveyard in Chasma Goth by Pakistan Army Malir Cantonment personnel.

The protesting villagers had gathered to demolish the recently constructed boundary wall around the graveyard by the army personnel. However, a large number of Ibrahim Hyderi policemen reached the spot and baton-charged the protesters.

Later, the police registered an FIR no 164/2010 against 42 villagers of Chasma Goth, Goth Ilyas Jat, Ali Brohi Goth and other small fishermen settlements. Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) Chairman Mohammed Ali Shah was nominated as the main accused in the FIR.

The villagers told this scribe that the graveyard held immense importance for them as 100,000 people living in fishermen settlements have been burying their deceased loved ones there for the last several decades, but now army personnel had occupied it.

“They [Pakistan Army personnel] have occupied the graveyard, and are not allowing villagers to bury their departed ones in it,” said PFF office-bearer Sami Memon. “We tried to register a case against those who occupied the graveyard, but instead, the police refused to do so,” Memon added.
Home | Karachi
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\22\story_22-5-2010_pg12_2

Chhattisgarh Peace March-India

2010-05-21T01:46:00.000-07:00

Started at Raipur on May 5, ended at Dantewada on May 8.

Some of the of the following participants, Gandhians, scientists, jurists, journalists, writers, social activists, who believe in peace and non-violence and who are known in the country for their integrity, participated in the peace march in violent-torn Chhattisgarh. They were joined by other concerned citizens and local people in this peace mission.
There was one public meeting in Raipur, there were three press conferences, met the CRPF jawans, Adivasi Victims of Violence. We were blocked by the supporters of the Government who are active with Green Hunt.
In a civil war prone are it was a peace message not to have violence but settle matter through a Dialogue.
Attached are the News paper cuttings a few of them.
The following were some of the participants.
Some distinguished members of the march were- Narayan Desai (Chancellor of Gujarat Vidyapeeth), Prof. Yash Pal (Chancellor of JNU, Ex chairman UGC), Thomas Kocherry (Ex President World Forum of Fishar People, Kerala), Swami Agnivesh (Arya Samaj leader and President Bandhua Mukti Morcha), Radha Bhatt (President of Gandhi Peace Foundation), Amarnath Bhai (Ex President of Sarva Seva Sangh), Prof. Navdeep Mathur (IIM Ahmadabad, Gujarat) Prof. Ramjee Singh (Ex. M.P. and Vice-chancellor), Rajiv Lochan Shah (Editor of Nainital Samachar), Shyam Bahadur Namra (Author and Social Activist), Dr. V.N. Sharma (Secretary of Akhil Bhartyia Right to Education, Ranchi), Prof. Banwari Lal Sharma (convener of Azadi Bachao Andolan, Allahabad), Dr. Surendra Gadaikar (Nuclear Scientist, Gujarat) U.K. Sharda (Editor, Ludhiyana), V.B. Chandrashakhar (Sarvodya activist A.P.) Vivekanand Mathne (Sarva Seva Sangh, Amravati), Janaklal Thakur (Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha), Neeraj Jain (Lokayat, Pune), Shail Bahan (Gandhian, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh), Kailash Srivastava (Gandhi Bhawan, Bhopal), Dr. Mithilesh Dangi (Azadi Bachao Andolan, Jharkhand), Prof. S.D. Bharati (Social Activist, Raipur), Jayant Verma (Editor Jan, Jabalpur), Yashvir Arya (Azadi Bachao Andolan, Haryana), Prof. Shriballabh (Soslist Front, Allahabad, U.P.), Manoj Tyagi (Azadi Bachao Andolan, Allahabad), Sister Reshmi (Social Activist, Ghaziabad), Devashish Prasoon (Research Scholar, Wardha), Keyur Bhushan (Ex. M.P. Raipur), Dr. Laakhan Singh (Nadi Ghati Morcha, Raipur).

Dr. Banwarilal Sharma was the Organiser of the March. Congratulations to him on his tiring efforts to make the March a reality.

Thomas kocherry

Draft Small Scale Fisheries Policy for South Africa

2010-05-20T20:30:00.000-07:00

REPORT
Department Agriculture Forestry & Fisheries.
Small-Scale Fisheries Workshop Ritz Hotel 7th -8th May Sea Point
Agenda---- Draft Small Scale Fisheries Policy.

After years of where we have become the victims of suffering through an uncaring fishing policy of marginalization and non-recognition that resulted in our human rights and values have been trampled upon it was gratifying to be presented with a draft policy that leans towards rectifying these injustices. The workshop was basically had four sticky points to decide.
!. Individual Rights vs. Communal Rights.
After a Power Point presentation by myself and lots of emotional debate, Communal Rights was by consensus accepted as the only option. This must be seen as an important victory in our struggle for recognition and freedom. The declared good intentions to enforce the principles of our deliberations from the make-happeners [policy-makers] were admirable to note. Whether this is a guarantee or mere camouflage as it was on previous occasions has to be seen in the context that market forces and money and those who control it can easily erode democracy. Those who want to introduce sustainable development for the poorer communities now need to think hard about on how to end the decimation of equity, the corrupt practices and the exploitation of the farm and fish workers, all which now fall under the auspice of the new Agriculture and Fisheries Department. Those “marketeers” or opportunists who so much wanted to retain the status quo of the Individual Quota System should really educate themselves on International Law, trends, human values and on the gospel of our struggle against apartheid. The belief that wealth accumulation by an individual can rectify the ills of our society is absurd especially with advancement that “the poor will become less poor only if the rich become much richer”. The small-scale fishing communities and farmers can only truly acquire freedom if their traditional rights are replaced with effective rights where they are allowed to harvest the resources for a livelihood, food security is ensured, integrated participatory management replaces “unrepresented” patronizing management and communal development precedes possessive individualism. What was clear from the debate beside that shared principles that was not readily accepted is that the institution of a co-operative [legal entities] was poorly understood or deliberately misunderstood. It is an actuality that these community structures are now accepted as vital to achieving the Millennium Development goals of alleviating poverty and for sustainable growth.
E.g. In Europe there is 235,000 co-operative enterprises with 5.4 million employees and 140 million members in 33 countries.
The promotion of the values of; equality, solidarity, democracy plus the ethics of honesty, openness and shared social responsibility can be an asset to the State. They have emerged as democratic social and economic movements that have led to much confidence in these value led business bodies. It produces larger wage payments than in the first economy, allows for access to credit and financial institutions and puts fair trade practices into perspective thus having improved the living standards of many in the country were it exists. They act as a safety net against volatile monetary markets, protects the vulnerable from exploitation by unscrupulous “marketeers” and provide a huge supply of food to the local market, a major factor in contributing to food security. Self-reliance and self ownership gives a sense of dignity within the members and contributes tremendously to further economic development amongst the broader people within that community.
2. I WANT TO BE RICH.
Those who have tasted the poison of quota wealth displayed a resentment to the vision of the Artisanal Fishers Association of “we don’t want to be rich we just want access” [our second banner]. What it actually means to us is;
“GIVE US NEITHER RICHES NOR POVERTY, BUT ENOUGH FOR OUR SUSTENANCE,
We challenge the merit of this argument on how can the wisdom of getting rich be promoted if those who have been privileged can suddenly understand the meaning of poverty. The levels of poverty within the fishing communities can be gauged from absolute to micro and here we have to distinguish between the two and fully understand what our vision {A.F.A.] actually means. A person that cannot provide for his family’s basic needs; where the mother scavenging scraps of food from dirt bins, a women who sells her body, a father who commits a criminal act [rob, steal], children who resort to begging on the street in order to put food on the table is in absolute poverty [deprivation]. These are the vulnerable people who are in a constant survival mode that bear physical abuse through economic oppression, inequality and the I.T.Q. system, who have nothing and where getting out of the environment of hunger is there only desire. Then there are those few who have received a fishing quota who now want to pursue richness and desire more and wish to chase for more attachments to materialistic gains who no longer know the meaning of enough. They falsely claim the status of micro poverty who see inequality as poverty and not the other way around and believe that “I’m alright Jack and to hell with anybody else”, and believe wealth will reduce poverty, this can destroy our dream of self-sufficiency along with our culture of help-mekaar [helping each other] - this wonderful tradition of a co-operative spirit, is sabotaged by their lack of accepting the fact that they will also become an exploiter and a destroyer. Ignoring human values and social responsibility, this selfish behavior compels them into an activity for more beyond sufficiency and instead of the quest for contentment, they begin to desire to be “better” by having the biggest and best within the “designer” cult of global consumerism, This is what I meant when I ended my presentation with the saying;
“I am content with what I have,
Little be it or much,
And contentment shall I crave
Because thou givers much.”

A langgaaner {merchant] should be acknowledged as such and should be allowed to maneuver in his own environment but the economic promotion of putting fishers and merchants in the same basket has led to the fisher folk being exploited and becoming slave labor to unscrupulous opportunists.
“Those who have all the money have no morals,
Those who all the morals have no money”
When small-scale farmers and fishers can harvest their own food through having unimpeded access to the land and ocean then and only then can they be truly free. Meager hand-outs or limited availability of access to the land and oceans deliberately inflicts on the fishers and farmers conditions calculated to bring about their physical destruction and community impoverishment.
3. WHERE IS THE FISH FOR THE ALLOCATION TO SMALL-SCALE FISHERS?
It must come from the four “R’s” - RESTITUTION – RESTRUCTURING – REVIEWING – and REALLOCATING.
The allocations seen by many as unfair and corrupt have been given to some privileged professional groups of the new elites consisting of public servants, lawyers, politicians and other non bona-fide fish harvesters and this must be reviewed and reallocated. One family has a quota worth several millions of Rands [$] while many traditional fishing families have nothing and has to irk a living out of begging and other casual work. The rich and connected were able to afford to apply for the expensive allocation form and get rights while the poverty-stricken regular fisher was left out to dry. The Quota system was not put in place on the basis of the promise of all shall share in the wealth of the country or restoring the rights of the deprived fisher folk but designed to reward advantaged few.
If the marine scientists were to put away their computers and battery of mathematical dictatorial models and understand that fish populations are not static but chaotic and is governed by environmental changes and weather conditions brought about by El Nino and la Nino they will surely have a rethink on the inshore Total Allowable Catch statistics. [Please note that I am not mentioning Global Warming]. If the aloofness and arrogance of the scientists and the prejudice between two groups were to be put aside and traditional knowledge is taken into account then this marriage will make for a wonderful fish management tool for improved allocations.
Sustainability of our resource can not be achieved unless we first establish a stable just society that focuses on building equal opportunity of access that benefits the present disenfranchised fishing communities where they take joint responsibility of protecting the environment and marine life.
4. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PRESENT QUOTA HOLDERS?
They have the option of being integrated into the new small-scale policy vision, principles and implementation plan in some legitimate way or working outside of the dedicated area. It is obvious that the two systems cannot work together in order to obtain the objectives for meaningful community development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fishing communities wish to be recognized not marginalized, to lead a life of dignity to taste the fruits of democracy, we wish to be bestowed the right to pursue our traditional livelihoods.
Andrew W. Johnston. Artisanal Fishers Association. [chairperson.]-South Africa

Mangalore: Buses exclusively for fisherwomen

2010-05-17T03:48:00.000-07:00

http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=180470

Mangalore May 16: The Karnataka Fisheries Development Corporation
(KFDC) has decided to launch Matsyavahini, an exclusive bus service
for fisherwomen in the coastal districts of Dakshina Kannada, Udupi
and Uttara Kannada, to facilitate them to transport their baskets of
fish in comfort to the markets and also to the ports to fetch fish.

Speaking to reporters here on Saturday, KFDC Chairman Ramachandra
Baikampady said fisherwomen who depend on rickshaws and local buses to
carry the fish to village markets, will now be able to use the
specially-designed buses, which will have seating arrangements on one
side and a place to keep baskets to store their fish in, on the other.

Normally, fisherwomen catch the first bus to State Bank region in
Mangalore and then go to the wharf by walking. However, this bus will
take them directly to the wharf. Minimum charges will be collected
from women, Baikampady said. Two buses will serve the fisherwomen of
Karwar, Tadadi, Honnavar, Bhatkal, Gangolli Ankola, Gangolli and
Mangalore while Malpe which has more fisherwomen will have three buses.

Definite route

Each bus will run on a definite route, covering all the major
villages. In Dakshina Kannada district, the bus will run from Ullal to
Wharf and Sasihithlu to Wharf (Old Port). The bus will start between 4
am and 4.30 am. There will be two trips, ie., one in the early morning
and another in the afternoon. He said this is an attempt to provide
social justice to these fisherwomen.

The Chief Minister is likely to formally inaugurate the service of
two buses in the second week of June, said Baikampady. But the
service will actually take off in August as the fishing season comes
to an end in June, he added.

The corporation hopes the buses will come to the rescue of the
hundreds of fisherwomen who have a difficult time convincing the local
bus services to allow them to carry their fish baskets on board
everyday from the fishing port to the markets.

International Collective in Support of Fishworkers(ICSF)
27 College Road
Chennai 600 006
India

Felicitation to Fisher Leader of Kerala, India

2010-05-15T04:58:00.000-07:00

My dear Friends,
Joyachan Antony Died of Accident 20 years ago during fishing. He was the first Secretary of Anchuthengu boat workers union, he was the second president of the Kerala Swathathra Malsya Thozhilali Federation (KSMTF). He was a champion of fish workers fighting and agitating for the rights of traditional fisher people.
He is challenging us to do the same today.
thomas kocherry

Fishing and Fisherfolk on the India-Pakistan Nautical Border

2010-05-11T04:52:00.000-07:00

Report of the Round Table on the issue of
Fishing and Fisherfolk on the India-Pakistan Nautical Border

19th April 2010
India International Centre
New Delhi

Co-organized – Boat Owner’s Association, Porbunder; Focus on the Global South, National Fishworkers Forum, Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Peace Mumbai, Pakistan Institute for Labour Education & Research (PILER),

The fish worker activists from both India and Pakistan along with members of India-Pakistan Joint Judicial Committee on Prisoners and members of other civil society organizations met in New Delhi on April 19, 2010. They, during a day long meeting, discussed the issue of arrested Indian and Pakistani fishermen in detail. They decided to work together towards getting innocent and poor fishermen released. Kuldip Nayar introduced the subject and spoke on the current status of India-Pakistan Relations.

The following issues were discussed and decided upon -

1. Justice (Retd.) Nasir Aslam Zahid gave details about the 580 Indian fishermen who are languishing in the Pakistani prisons and around 460 of these imprisoned fishermen have completed their sentences.

2. Similarly, about 247 Pakistani prisoners including Fishermen have been granted Consular access to High Commission for Pakistan in New Delhi and to whose travel documents have also been issued by the High Commission. A large number of these Pakistani prisoners have completed their sentences or are minors. The group decided that all such Pakistani prisoners should be released without any further delay.

Recently, in the case of 17 Pakistani prisoners who had completed their sentence, the Indian Supreme Court bench of Justices Markandey Katju and R. M. Lodha in a recent judgment observed “How can the government keep them in detention in violation of the fundamental rights of a person for years together without resorting to the procedure of law?” “The right to life and liberty was not dependent on another country’s action.”

On the basis of this judgement, it was decided in the meeting that all those who have competed their sentences should be released with immediate effect. Failing which, a petition will be filed in the Supreme Court of India as a contempt of Court. Justice ®Rajinder Sachar has agreed to file the same on behalf of People’s Union for Civil Liberties.

Also it was decided in the meeting that a petition will be filed in the Apex Court of Pakistan demanding the release of all those Indian prisoners who have completed their sentences. Former Attorney General and Law Minister Iqbal Haider has taken the responsibility for the same.

3. Clear and unambiguous orders to the concerned departments of the two countries may also be issued to ensure compliance with the unanimous recommendations of the official India-Pakistan Judicial Committee on Prisoners.

4. The recommendations of the India-Pakistan Joint Judicial Committee on Prisoners, which inter alia recommended release of all Indian and Pakistani fishermen in custody, should be implemented immediately and the next meeting of the official committee should be held as soon as possible. Since August 2008 this official committee is inactive and it was decided to request the two Governments to activate this committee so that the committee comprising 8 retired High Court and Supreme Court Judges (4 from each country) can restart its working and make regular visits to the jails of the two countries and help in early release of prisoners. The committee was set up January 2007 by the Foreign Ministers of both the countries to recommend steps for humane treatment and expeditious release of their nationals from the respective prisons.

5. The proceedings of the round table also decided that Consular Access must be given within the stipulated (90 days) time as required by the Agreement on Consular Access (May 2008).

6. It was reported in the meeting by the Boat Owners Association that 444 Indian trawlers seized by the Pakistani authorities are lying in and around Karachi. A delegation of Boat Owners of Gujarat visited Pakistan in 2008 and found many trawlers are in good conditions and can be reused. Each trawler costs around 20-25 lakh rupees. We also demand that these trawlers, too, should be released immediately.

In the day long deliberations amongst this gathering it was also discussed -
• This problem of fisherfolk prisoners started only in 1989 and before that there was no issue.
• The common fisherfolk of both the countries still have no problem with each other and would happily allow communities to fish in each other’s nautical borders.
• It was also suggested that as a solution 25 nautical miles of the area should designated as a free zone, to be used by the fisherfolk of either country.
• It was suggested that all boats and trawlers should have GPS in order to track their direction and the border.
• It is necessary to resolve the Sir Creek issue.
• It was decided that in order to strengthen this movement it is important that there is a people-to-people contact between Indian and Pakistani fisherfolk.
• The issue needs to be more publicised in both the government and the media and also at the level of common people and civil society.
Some of the people who participated in the meeting were Kuldip Nayar, Justice ® Nasir Aslam Zahid, Iqbal Haider, Justice ® Rajinder Sachar, Karamat Ali, Jatin Desai, Bharat Modi, Jivan Jungi, Advocate M K Paul, Matanhy Saldanha, Varsha Rajan Berry, Gopal Tandel, Premabhai S Prabhaker, Budhiabhai Tandel, Dilip Sharaoji, Ashwin Jungi, Ravi Hemadri, Michael Koeberlein etc.

EU-India FTA impact on India's samll scale fisheries

2010-04-15T10:23:00.000-07:00

There will be a Free Trade Agreement on Fisheries between India and EU near future. Some experiences of such agreements beteen Senegal and EU was also had serious consequences on Senegal artisanal fisheries.
According to Susana Barria of Intercultural Resources Institute of New Delhi, this is very untransparent and some sort of hidden program even to the elected members of the Indian Parliament.
So,the Susana's letter had drawn the attention of NFF leaders and the concerned people on the FTA. We all need to pay attention and take action on this collective way.
Here is the letter sent to Thomas Kocherry.

Herman Kumara,
15.04.10

Dear NFF friends,

As you aware, Indian Commerce Ministry is currently engaged in an economic liberalisation strategy which includes signing multiple FTA with various countries or economic blocks, like the ASEAN-India FTA. This includes the negotiations for an FTAs with the European Union. So far the Government of India has taken no initiative to genuinely consult with farmers’ organizations, trade unions, people movements and civil society organizations. All the documents under discussions are kept secret. Even the Indian parliament and the state governments are not informed about the content of the negotiations, depite the fact that they incldue state subjects, like Fisheries.
The Indian government wants to conclude the EU-India Free Trade Agreement by October of this year. The 8th Round will be held in Brussels, the week of April 26, 2010. It may well be the last big “Round” of negotiations and the remaining time may be left to technocrats to bargain and trade away lives, livelihoods, land and resources through the various provisions of the final free trade deal.
We would like to send a strong message to the Prime Minister and the leadership of all key Indian Parties as we intensify our campaign to stop the EU India FTA. This includes reaching out to political parties, parlamentarians, and also send letters from major mouvements and unions on specific sectors concerns. A letter will be sent from farmers' groups, trade unions, and it wuold be important that a letter is also sent from NFF, as the implications of such a FTA with the EU would be deep for the Indian small-sclae fisworkers lives and livelihoods.
Matanhyji, Rambhauji, we would like to request that such a letter should go from NFF to the government.
If this is a good way to go about it, Rohan and I can prepare a first draft and send it by day after or so. Thomas, could we take your inputs in drafting this letter?
Kind regards,
Susana

--
Susana Barria

Intercultural Resources
33-D, 3rd Floor, DDA-SFS Flats
Vijay Mandal Enclave
New Delhi -110016

Phone and Fax: 91-11-2656 0133
website: www.icrindia.org
Mobile: +91-99588 12915 (Delhi)

Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Member of WFFP in collaboration of Struggles against Land Grabbing in Pakistan

2010-04-14T02:11:00.000-07:00

PFF is an active member of WFFP which engage on the rights of small scale fisherfolk in Pakistan has collaborated with PILER and many other organizations work on Land issue in Pakistan.

Here is the report we received from SAAPE network, which is one of the active regional alliance for eradication of poverty in the region.

Herman Kumara,
14.04.10

Land Reforms and Distribution of Agricultural Land Among Landless Peasants Demanded

by shuja shuja

PRESS RELEASE

Land Reforms and Distribution of Agricultural Land Among Landless
Peasants Demanded

KARACHI, Apr 09, 2010: Activists
of trade unions, labour organizations and non-governmental organizations on
Friday demanded to introduce land reforms and distribution of agricultural land
among landless peasants to eradicate bondage and food insecurity from Pakistan.
They identified big landholdings by feudal and landlessness a major cause of
poverty and food insecurity in the country.

They were speaking at the first
day of the two-day Consultation on ā?~Linkages between Land Rights, Food Security
and Bondageā?T organized by the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and
Research (PILER) at the PILER Centre, Karachi. Chairman Pakistan Fisherfolk
Forum (PFF) Mohammad Ali Shah, Senior Economist Dr Shahida Wizarat, labour
rights leader Mannu Bheel, Pakistan Food Security Coalition Representative Jabbar
Bhatti, Executive Director PILER Karamat Ali, Joint Director of PILER Zulfiqar
Shah, Dr. Ghulam Haider Malookani of Green Rural Development Organization,
Ramazan Memon of Bhandar Hari Sangant and others spoke at the day-long session.

Speaking on the occasion, PILER
Executive Director Karamat Ali said people of this country are suffering at the
hands of poverty and food insecurity due to lack of a public distribution
system. He recalled that ration system was effectively providing essential food
items to all the citizens at affordable prices, but the government abolished
this system. ā?oThis system is still being effectively practiced in India,ā?¯ he
said adding that instead Pakistan government has introduced a faulty system of
providing essential items through Utility Stores, which has failed to benefit a
major section of the population.

Mr. Ali said that though the
colonial system has been condemned, there were many good features of the governance
that the colonial rulers introduced, which were abolished after the
independence. ā?oDuring the British rule, whoever was cultivating the agricultural
land was the owner of the land. Zamindars or feudal were only collecting a
portion on behalf of the government. However, following independence,
successive governments in Pakistan did not provide land to the poor people. Feudal
became stronger, expanding their control over a majority of agricultural land.ā?¯

Chairman Pakistan Fisherfolk
Forum (PFF) Mohammad Ali Shah said that without political struggle we cannot
achieve food security. ā?oUneven and unjustified distribution of resources are
creating food insecurity.ā?¯ He said that it is the duty of the state to
facilitate the provision of food to its citizens. ā?oWe have to move from food
security to food sovereignty,ā?¯ he added.

He observed that feudalism
continues to act as an obstacle to development of the country. ā?oWithout the
abolition of this system, we cannot achieve food security.ā?¯ Shah emphasized
that land reforms are the key to poverty eradication. ā?oIf land reforms are
implemented in a systematic and judicious manner, every citizen will have enough
land to overcome poverty.ā?¯ Shah also stressed that a formal movement along the
lines of a political movement, to pursue land reforms is critical to achieving
the objective of a just and even distribution of land.

Senior Economist Dr. Shahida
Wizarat presented a study in progress on food security in Pakistan. She
observed that rising inflation that is eroding real wages, water shortage, weak
planning and institutional set up linked to the production and marketing of
agricultural products, and pressure from international financial institutions
for unconstructive intervention in agricultural sector has resulted in serious
challenges in food security and access to food for the poor. She said that the
government is planning to provide uncultivable land to big corporations, which would
further deprive the poor peasants from their landholdings.

The other participants of the
consultation meeting, who are mainly working for bonded labour pointed out that
most of the rights-based organizations are focusing on the release of bonded
peasants. However, little efforts is being made for their rehabilitation or
welfare.

The two day long consultation on Linkages
between Land Rights, Food Security and Bondage shall continue till April 10,
2010.