The Missing Fishermen

The traditional (artisanal) fishing communities of Maharashtra state includes Dhivar, Bhoi, and Kahar, belonging to the nomadic tribes group (NT) and Mahadev Koli, belonging to the scheduled tribes (ST). An estimated 0.99 million, however, it was assume that this figure is incomplete and does not represent the traditional (artisanal) fishing communities dependent on the riverine and other inland freshwater fisheries of the state. There is no official figure available on the population of the traditional (artisanal) fishing communities of the state. However, civil societies working closely with them pegs their population at 20 million. However, disaggregated data of the traditional (artisanal) fishing communities is either not collected or unavailable with the state fisheries department. This is a result of the absence of a dedicated department or ministry in the state to take care of the socio-economic development and welfare of the fisher folk.

The focus of the state fisheries department is predominantly on increasing the fish production but not welfare of the fisher folk. It is not surprising that the traditional riverine and inland freshwater fishing communities are altogether absent from the census of India and livestock census. The census of India refuses to acknowledge them as a unique and separate community and it does not have a mechanism for classification of riverine and inland freshwater fishing communities precisely. With climate change looming large, disaggregated data on the traditional (artisanal) fishing communities affected from the vagaries of climate change and environmental degradation, river and inland freshwater pollution is neither collected nor available with neither the state fisheries department nor the agriculture department (Purohit, 2016).

Further, other indigenous and traditionally non-fishing communities like the Gond and Bhill, belonging to the ST, and Madia, Kolam, and Katkari belonging to the primitive and vulnerable tribal group (PVTG), are also actively engaged in the riverine and other inland freshwater fishery. Unfortunately, non-traditional fishing communities have been deprived of accessing the benefits of the state supported socio-economic development schemes and programmes meant for fishers. This is due to bias in articulation of eligibility of the beneficiary communities.

Big is NOT Always Better - the Potential of Small Inland Freshwater Bodies

Production figures of 23 reservoirs of the state shows an average estimated yield of 11.11 kg ha-1and minor / small indigenous freshwater fish species (SIFFS) fishes form a substantial size of the catch in most of the reservoirs and river systems. In reservoirs of Pawana, Pus, Saikheda, Panset and Shivsagar, minor carps contribute to 75 to 95 percent of the total catch. The study also shows that small reservoirs have the highest average yield (28.68 kg ha-1), followed by the medium (14.44 kg ha-1) and large (10.21 kg ha-1). The study indicates lapses in the management of fish production mechanisms adopted by the state fisheries department and reinforces the notion that big is not always better (Sugunan, 1995).

Festering Problems and Gaping Issues

The traditional (artisanal) inland freshwater fisheries had been plagued with many problems and issues. A few gaping problems of this sector are as follows:

Ø The Maharashtra Fisheries Act (1961) applies to inland, riverine and marine fisheries, however, it does not have anything specific to offer to riverine fisheries and welfare of the traditional fisher folk. It is only concerned about edible fisheries and mostly applicable to marine and reservoir fisheries. The act does not have any provision for recognition of rights of the traditional fishing communities and other communities depending on fisheries. It does not specify water levels that should be maintained downstream dams, conservation of indigenous fish diversity and protection of aquatic habitats etc.

Ø Except for the Draft National Fishery Policy, there is no fishery policy existing for Maharashtra state.

Ø Data pertaining to the number of fisher folk dependent on fresh water fisheries in the state; data on diversity, distribution, populations and abundance of the indigenous fresh water fish species and their yield had been totally missing in the state. The state fisheries department is only concerned about controlling and leasing out lakes, dams, and reservoirs and least bothered about protection and conservation of the indigenous fresh water fish species and sustainable development of the riverine and other inland freshwater aquatic habitats.

Ø The traditional (artisanal) fishing communities predominantly dependent on riverine and other inland freshwater bodies have not been classified in the lists of the government. There is an absence of disaggregated data of such fisher folk even in the census of India. The lack of such vital information makes it extremely difficult to design and provide financial assistance to such communities.

Ø Every state has a fisheries department, however, its primary focus strictly remains on increasing the fish-production but not welfare of the fisher folk.

Ø There is no differentiation between aquaculture and traditional fisheries, which is a manifestation of the lack of interest, knowledge and perpetual ignorance prevailing among the mainstream society and respective state departments.

Ø The application of “green revolution” principles - which focuses only on increase of yield per hectare has done almost irreversible damage to aquatic habitats, indigenous fish diversity, and livelihoods of the traditional fisheries across the country.

Ø Aggressive promotion of IMCs by the state fisheries department, branding of IFFS as weed species and ignoring the diversity and potential of indigenous freshwater fish species (IFFS) has resulted in decimation and local extinction of many IFFS.

Ø Faulty and blind application of closed and controlled system principles of aquaculture to open waters, ignoring the dynamics of natural systems and completely neglecting the traditional knowledge systems and practices is costing the aquatic habitats, fish diversity, fish production and traditional livelihoods.

Ø Many new indigenous fish species are discovered everyday by individual researchers and universities but the state fisheries department hardly ever pays interest or attention in this aspect.

Ø There had been a drastic decline in both diversity and numbers of the indigenous freshwater fish species in the post-dam scenario. The design of large scale dams not only destroys the natural aquatic habitats but also completely prevents free movement of fishes and other aquatic life up and down the stream, resulting in many unforeseen ecological consequences.

Ø Agriculture and not inland fisheries gets the priority on water use. Evidently, neither any consensus is sought from the traditional inland freshwater fishermen nor any compensation provided to them for their losses due to construction of multi-purpose irrigation projects and dams.

Ø There are no focus or commitment of the state over recognition of customary fishing rights of the traditional fishers – however, nistar rights are defined as the right to use water for irrigation, water for livestock, washing clothes but not as rights related to livelihoods.

Ø There are more than 26 traditional uses of a waterbody – except irrigation, all the other uses are non-consumptive in nature – collection of aquatic tubers, flowers and leaves, traditional rituals and games, fishes, cultural and spiritual practices, watching wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, etc. The pond reaches out to every person of the society through these non-consumptive uses – in other words, optimum utilization of the waterbody and benefits are reaped by everyone. Unfortunately, these 26 uses of a waterbody have not found a place in the policy and practices of the state fisheries and agriculture departments.

Please check the enclosed Policy Brief for further information. Thank you!

Best

Kanna